[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: NOISE
=======================================================================
(110-83)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 24, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-567 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas
Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio)
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Burleson, Carl E., Director, Office of Environment and Energy,
Federal Aviation Administration................................ 8
Crowley, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York.................................................... 2
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 8
Epstein, Dr. Alan, Vice President, Environment and Technology,
Pratt and Whitney, United Technologies Corporation............. 8
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.............................................. 4
McElroy, Deborah C., Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
Airports Council International-North America................... 8
McGrann, Dennis M., Executive Director, N.O.I.S.E., National
Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment.......... 8
Mulder, Hon. Arlene J., Mayor of Arlington Heights and
Chairperson, O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission............. 8
Tragale, Ralph, Manager, Government and Community Relations, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey........................... 8
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 30
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 31
Crowley, Hon. Joseph, of New York................................ 37
Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 40
Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 42
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, of New York.............................. 44
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 48
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 54
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin.............................. 60
Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., of Georgia........................... 64
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Burleson, Carl E................................................. 66
Dillingham, Gerald L............................................. 83
Epstein, Alan H.................................................. 125
McElroy, Deborah................................................. 129
McGrann, Dennis.................................................. 141
Mulder, Hon. Arlene J............................................ 148
Tragale, Ralph F................................................. 156
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Burleson, Carl E., Director, Office of Environment and Energy,
Federal Aviation Administration:
Response to question from Rep. Hall............................ 24
Responses to questions from Rep. Petri......................... 80
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to questions
from Rep. Petri................................................ 121
McElroy, Deborah C., Senior Vice President, Government Affairs,
Airports Council International-North America, responses to
questions from Rep. Petri...................................... 139
Mulder, Hon. Arlene J., Mayor of Arlington Heights and
Chairperson, O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, letter to
Rep. Petri..................................................... 154
Tragale, Ralph, Manager, Government and Community Relations, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, responses to questions
from Rep. Crowley.............................................. 160
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Cargo Airline Association, Stephen A. Alterman, President,
written statement.............................................. 163
City of College Park, Georgia, Charles E. Phillips, Sr., Mayor,
Pro Tem, written statement..................................... 167
Sierra Club, Dickson J. Hingson, Ph.D.:
Letter to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, United States Senate, in response to the
Oversight Hearing on the Department of Transportation on
October 18, 2007 (dated Obtober 21, 2007).................... 172
Letter to the Federal Aviation Administration in response to
Draft 2000 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy (dated October 21,
2000)........................................................ 178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.008
HEARING ON AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: NOISE
----------
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. I think
Members and others may be held up outside; there is a little
demonstration going on down the hall. But I am sure Members
will come in as soon as they can.
The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will ask all
Members, staff, and everyone to turn off electronic devices or
put them on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
Aviation and the Environment: Noise. I have a statement which I
will submit for the record so that we can go to our two
colleagues on the first panel.
I welcome everyone here today on the issue of airport noise
issues. The purpose of the hearing is to learn more about noise
issues near our airports and what communities have done and
what they are doing to address the problem.
Over 750 million people traveled by air in 2006; one
billion people are expected to travel by air in the year 2015.
As airports struggle to increase capacity to meet demands,
they must reach a balance between the need to expand with the
quality of life of the people who live near and around our
airports.
I have, as I said, a full statement that I will submit for
the record so we can expedite matters and go directly to our
first panel of witnesses. But, before I do, and before I
recognize Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member, for his opening
statement or any comments, I ask unanimous consent to allow two
weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to
permit the submission of additional statements and materials by
Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also ask
consent to submit my full statement for the record.
Let me only say this is obviously an important hearing that
concerns many of our constituents, especially those who are
affected by changes in the level of noise because of changing
flight patterns and so on.
Overall, it is my own experience, and I think the
experience of this Committee, that the broad picture is that
the situation has gotten somewhat better. Sound levels are
going down. We will be hearing from Pratt and Whitney about the
improvements that are being made. But that being said, it
doesn't solve the problem for someone who confronts an increase
in noise because of changing flight patterns, and I look
forward to hearing from our colleagues about the concerns of
their constituents in that regard.
Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments
and would recognize our first panel of witnesses, two
colleagues from the New York delegation. We will ask our
colleagues to offer their testimony, and traditionally we have
not asked Members who are testifying before this Subcommittee
to wait around and answer questions. We realize that you have
busy schedules, as we do. In fact, I just left a markup to be
here, and I have to go back to that markup in a few minutes.
But, at this time, the Chair would recognize the Honorable
Joseph Crowley, who is a Member of Congress, of course, from
the New York Seventh District, and Carolyn McCarthy, who is a
Member of Congress from New York's Fourth District.
At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Crowley for his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for conducting this hearing.
In my district, airport noise is a daily burden shouldered
by my constituents, and I appreciate your attentiveness to this
important issue.
As you know, I represent Queens and the Bronx, New York,
and we are home to LaGuardia Airport, one of the Nation's
busiest airports, and the busiest and most congested airspace
in the United States.
If you looked at a map of the area, you would probably
focus on the fact that LaGuardia Airport is surrounded by
Flushing Bay on one side and the Grand Central Parkway on the
other. It is, however, also in the middle of several densely
populated communities, including Woodside, Astoria, East
Elmhurst, Jackson Heights in Queens, and many parts of the
Bronx as well.
While the airport is a central part of our community--
helping support New York's economy by shuttling visitors and
busy people in and out of the region--its presence does
negatively impact on the day-to-day life for tens of thousands
of my constituents.
In particular, the air pollution resulting from road
traffic and airplanes at LaGuardia is a severe problem, as is
the noise pollution caused by the airport and its related
facilities.
That is why, working with the Environmental Protection
Agency and New York University, I commissioned a study to
determine the effects of airport and airport-related noise on
my constituents.
The results of this report concluded that some residents
living near LaGuardia were exposed to noise levels nearly four
times greater, with some levels exceeding the 65 decibel
threshold set by the Federal Aviation Administration, than
those experienced by residents not living within close
proximity to the airport
Twenty-four hour time histories also found that residents
living within the footprint of LaGuardia were exposed to noise
levels in excess of the levels New York City code stipulates
for sleeping areas from the house of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.,
and more than 55 percent of the people living within the flight
path were reportedly bothered by aircraft noise.
Similarly, homes surrounding JFK Airport were subjected to
comparable levels of noise as those around LaGuardia, and I
would expect they would be comparable to any homes and
communities surrounding our Nation's major airports.
These findings are particularly noteworthy because noise is
not just an annoyance or inconvenience. It is hazardous to
one's health and well-being, and it diminishes an individual's
quality of life.
The World Health Organization found that airport noise has
been linked to cardiovascular disease. And the Federal
Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, in September 200
report, concluded, and I quote: ``Research on the effects of
aircraft noise on children's learning suggests that aircraft
noise can interfere with learning in the following areas:
reading, motivation, language and speak acquisition, and
memory. The strongest findings to date are in the area of
reading, where more than 20 studies have shown that children in
noise impact zones are negatively impacted and affected by
aircraft.''
The FAA has recognized the need to mitigate airport noise
and has created a volunteer process whereby airport authorities
may undertake a Part 150 study to determine the extent of
airport noise on a community and then, as a follow-up,
establish a plan for remediation of that noise, which could
include residential soundproofing.
Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that airport noise
can severely impact the health and well-being of individuals,
particularly our children, the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey has never undertaken or even attempted to conduct a
Part 150 study or noise mitigation effort for the homes in the
neighborhoods surrounding LaGuardia or its other airports: JFK,
Newark, Teterboro, or Stewart Airports.
In fact, in the Vision 100 Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, this Committee directed, at my request,
that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey begin a Part
150 study and residential soundproofing. The Committee's
bipartisan language I won't read, but will submit for the
record in my testimony.
Unfortunately, the Port authority ignored the explicit
direction of this Committee and still has not taken any action
to soundproof residences in my area, which is why I am here
today.
It is my hope this public forum and the further engagement
of this Committee will encourage the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey to finally pursue the necessary course of
action.
As this Committee knows, only 17 of the top 50 busiest
airports have not submitted a Part 150 study, and three of
these 17 airports--LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark--are operated by
one entity, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
In fact, other large airports have successfully conducted
Part 150 studies and soundproofed homes. Of particular note is
Los Angeles International Airport. LAX completed its study and
is soundproofing the homes in its footprint.
It has been a major success story, with the major concern
being the length of time to fully implement and mitigate all
the homes for noise.
If LAX can undertake this project, why can't the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey?
I have worked diligently with this Committee's leadership,
both under former Chairman Don Young and now under our Chairman
Costello and full Chair Oberstar, on the issue of airport
noise. I have appreciated your past efforts and support.
I hope you will agree that the time has come for
soundproofing and other noise mitigation efforts to get
underway at the homes surrounding LaGuardia Airport and the
other four airports under the Port Authority's control.
And if today's hearing does not compel the Port Authority
to act, I am going to ask that the FAA Reauthorization plans,
which is working its way through the chambers--including the
Ways and Means Committee on which I sit--include language
strengthening the laws regarding soundproofing of homes and
places of worship, and mandating soundproofing and other forms
of noise abatement for people living in the footprints of our
Nation's largest and busiest airports.
Airport and airport-related noise is a real issue of
concern to my constituents, both those living around an airport
like my constituents or those in the flight path like my
colleague, Mrs. McCarthy's.
I sincerely appreciate and thank Chairman Oberstar and you,
Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri, for holding this
hearing, for inviting me to testify, and for inviting the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey to testify. I look forward
to continuing to work with you on this matter. I thank you
again.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Crowley, for your
thoughtful testimony and for your leadership on this issue.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the Fourth
District from New York, Congresswoman McCarthy.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman
Costello, Ranking Member Petri for holding this hearing today
and allowing me the opportunity to testify before the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation. A
lot of my testimony goes along the same lines as my colleague,
Mr. Crowley. We share the same problems. I hope this hearing
will allow us to explore the effects that airplane noise has on
communities near busy airports, and I hope that we can continue
to work together in order to find solutions that will reduce
airplane noise.
I represent the Fourth Congressional District of New York.
My district is located in Nassau County, a densely populated
area adjacent to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Due to
the close proximity to JFK, many communities in my district are
severely affected by noise from airplanes landing and taking
off from JFK, including the Village of Floral Park.
I receive hundreds of calls, letters, and e-mails regarding
airplane noise. This issue affects thousands of my constituents
on a daily basis. The Village of Floral Park and the Town-
Village Aircraft Safety and Noise Abatement Committee, which
represents several communities in my district, have led the
effort to reduce airplane noise. This is who I represent in my
testimony today.
The communities surrounding JFK have always experienced
airplane noise from planes flying in and out of JFK. The
residents were fully aware of this when they purchased their
homes in the area. However, due to several factors, there has
been a gradual increase in the volume of air traffic and
airplane noise since 2000. The result is that it is
significantly more difficult to maintain a decent quality of
life in these communities.
But the concerns extend beyond quality of life. Airplane
noise not only affects the quality of life of residents, but
can also have dangerous effects on their health. The extended
exposure to the loud DNL levels not only affects the hearing of
adults and children, but has also been linked to increased
blood pressure.
Airplane noise has also been found to have an effect on
children's education, as my colleague, Joe Crowley, has said.
Children who are exposed to prolonged periods of airplane noise
learn to read at a slower pace than those not exposed to the
noise. These factors come into play every day for the residents
of Floral Park and the surrounding communities. We know that
the DNL levels are high, but there has not been a study to
determine how serious the health risks are for residents.
Despite these quality of life and health concerns, airplane
noise and traffic increase in 2000 at JFK, Congress passed
legislation in 2000 to phase out slot restrictions at JFK. The
full impact of this legislation occurred on January 1st, 2007,
when the restrictions on the hourly departures and arrivals
were completely eliminated. In the first four months of this
year, the volume of air traffic has increased by 26.4 percent.
As a result, the FAA authorized JFK to utilize three of its
four runways for longer periods than was historically
permitted, thus limiting the number and length of the breaks
between airplane noise flying over the affected communities.
The elimination of the limits on departures or arrivals
from JFK has forced the airport and New York TRACON to deviate
from the letter of agreement, which has a significant impact on
the areas surrounding JFK. Airplane noise can be heard at all
hours of the day and into the night. Flights over these
communities can continue for more than 16 hours a day, with
airplanes departing and landing as often as 30 to 60 seconds
apart. Residents of these communities have reported up to 115
planes per hour during peak time.
One solution to the increase in traffic and an increase in
airplane noise is to reinstate the limits on departures and
arrivals from JFK. Short of this, we should at least begin
discussing how JFK and airline carriers can come to an
agreement to reduce air traffic. A reduction of air traffic to
and from JFK will reduce airplane noise, as well as delaying
congestion. The idea is also supported by President Bush, who
recently sent a letter to Secretary Peters, asking he to confer
with the members of the aviation industry and regulations to
find a solution to reduce the air traffic congestion and
delays.
A small number of communities bear the enormous burden of
airplane noise from increased air traffic in order to benefit
the larger region, and, as a result, the Federal Government
should offer their assistance. The air traffic going in and out
of JFK brings significant benefits to Long Island and to New
York. The accessibility that JFK and LaGuardia airports provide
to the New York area allows individuals to conveniently conduct
business, visit family, or simply take a vacation. This is good
for New York and this is also good for Long Island. However,
the cost of the increase in traffic at JFK includes flight
delays, congestion, and almost constant airplane noise that
plagues all of our communities.
The Federal Government should increase and expand the
assistance available under the Airport Improvement Program for
soundproofing. The Airport Improvement Program has done a great
job of ensuring students living in these affected areas have a
quieter learning environment by soundproofing schools with
noise levels above 65 DNLs. This funding should be increased
and made available to soundproof additional facilities.
Lastly, JFK was excluded from the FAA's noise mitigation
study under the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace
Redesign. Although the main goal of the Airspace Redesign is to
reduce delays and increase efficiency, reducing airplane noise
should also be a priority. Airplane noise over the affected
areas is directly related to the amount of the air traffic to
and from JFK. Reduction in delays and an increase in efficiency
will only make more slots available for departures and arrivals
at JFK, resulting in an increase in air traffic airplane noise.
If a noise mitigation study had been conducted by the FAA for
JFK, it may have been possible to identify migration measures
to decrease airplane noise. I urge the FAA to conduct a noise
mitigation study on the areas surrounding JFK under the
Airspace Redesign.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to working with the Committee and with my colleague,
Mr. Crowley, to reduce airplane noise over the communities
surrounding JFK and LaGuardia. With that, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and my full testimony has been handed
in.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, and let me mention,
concerning the AIP program and the reauthorization bill, we
have substantially increased the authorization for the AIP
program, as you suggested in your testimony. I believe the
amount is $15.8 billion over the course of the bill. So we are
anxiously awaiting the other side of the Capitol to take action
on their bill so that we can go to conference and, in fact,
produce a bill that provides increased funding to our airports.
The Subcommittee thanks both of you not only for your
testimony here today. As Congressman Crowley pointed out, this
hearing is a result of a request that he and other Members of
the New York delegation made, as well as Mr. Hall on our
Subcommittee, who is on his way over here. So we thank you. We
assure you that the Subcommittee will continue to work with you
and work with the delegation on this important issue. Thank
you.
The Chair would now ask the second panel to come forward,
and as you are moving forward, I will begin with introductions.
The first witness on the second panel is Carl Burleson, who
is the Director of the Office of Environment and Energy for the
FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, the Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Ralph Tragale, who is the Manager of Government and
Community Relations for the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey; Deborah McElroy, the Senior Vice President, Government
Affairs, for the Airports Council International-North America;
the Honorable Arlene Mulder, who is the Mayor of Arlington
Heights and the Chairperson of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility
Commission; Dr. Alan Epstein, the Vice President of Environment
and Technology, Pratt and Whitney, United Technologies
Corporation; and Mr. Dennis McGrann, who is the Executive
Director of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-
Controlled Environment.
With that, before we recognize our witnesses and receive
their testimony, the gentleman from Tennessee, the former
Chairman of this Subcommittee, would like to make a brief
statement
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't
interrupt the proceedings like this, but I have got an
appointment in just a few minutes with former Congressman Bill
Lipinski, and I need to leave here in just a few minutes.
I did want to say just a couple of things. Sometimes we
have trouble admitting that great progress has been made in a
particular area, and perhaps that is because people within the
government working on a particular problem always want more
funding and companies outside of government who are working on
the same problem want more money as well.
But according to our briefing papers, the FAA says that
today jets are 75 percent quieter today than earlier jets. We
are also told that there has been an over 90 percent reduction
in the number of people affected by aircraft noise from 1975 to
2005. A lot of that has come about because of tremendous
interest in this problem and tremendous pressure from Chairman
Oberstar when he chaired this Subcommittee for many years, and
also work by the Full Committee.
We are also told in the briefing papers that, since 1982,
the AIP has provided $5 billion for noise abatement projects
and PFC charges have provided another $2.4 billion for these
projects since 1982. So we have spent an awful lot of money in
this area.
Now, I have noticed in past years that some people who live
close to airports seem to develop superhuman hearing. I
remember one time, when this Subcommittee was touring the
Dallas Airport, we were told that one man had the airport on
his speed dial and had called several thousands of times to
complain about aircraft noise; and, of course, the Dallas
Airport is the second largest airport, geographically, in the
Country, so many other airports really have worse problems in
this area, or had them, than the Dallas Airport.
But whenever we have done scientific testing in the homes
of some of these people who have complained the most, we have
found that the decibel levels just weren't there.
Now, all I am trying to get at is this: There probably are
a few places where we still have a serious problem with noise,
but we have made tremendous progress and we have spent many,
many billions of dollars on this problem in the last few years,
and perhaps it may be time to consider that some of these
billions may be better spent in other ways at most airports in
this Country.
But I thank you for calling this hearing to look into this
and thank you for letting me make these comments at this time.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and at this
time will recognize our first witness for his testimony.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we will ask all of you
to submit your entire statement into the record and we would
ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burleson for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF CARL E. BURLESON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT
AND ENERGY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; DR. GERALD
DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; RALPH TRAGALE, MANAGER,
GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK
AND NEW JERSEY; DEBORAH C. MCELROY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH
AMERICA; THE HONORABLE ARLENE J. MULDER, MAYOR OF ARLINGTON
HEIGHTS AND CHAIRPERSON, O'HARE NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMISSION;
DR. ALAN EPSTEIN, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY,
PRATT AND WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; DENNIS M.
MCGRANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, N.O.I.S.E., NATIONAL ORGANIZATION
TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Burleson. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members
of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you this
morning to address an issue that is central to any discussion
of aviation and the environment: aircraft noise.
This is not a new issue. In 2003, we celebrated the
hundredth anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight and the
opening of the aviation age; 2003 also marked the 92nd
anniversary of the first editorial complaining about aircraft
noise. In AERO magazine in 1911, an editorial on the fitting of
silencers noted ``that the tremendous racket that is present
associated with the aero plane plays a considerable part in
prejudicing the public against these machines.''
The good news is we have overcome enough of the public
prejudice to have 2 billion people fly worldwide each year,
more than the number of people that populated the earth in the
early 20th century. The challenge, of course, is that aircraft
noise remains the most significant environmental issue in the
U.S. system today, as it seeks to add capacity to meet demand
for air travel by our citizens.
We have made major strides in lessening aircraft noise
impacts in the United States over the past few decades. As
Congressman Duncan just noted, in the 30-year period between
1975 and 2005, passenger enplanements grew from a little over
200 million to more than 700 million, while exposure to
significant aircraft noise declined more than 90 percent, from
over 7 million Americans in 1975, to now about a half million.
Quieter aircraft and engine technology made possible by
Federal and industry investments and research, development, and
deployment has produced the bulk, about 90 percent, of this
noise reduction. These technology advances have been
complimented by noise abatement and flight procedures,
compatible land use efforts, and noise compatibility programs.
The FAA has strongly supported noise compatibility programs
at nearly 300 airports in the U.S. with both technical and
financial assistance. Primarily through the process known as
the Part 150 program, the FAA has provided about $5 billion
since 1982 in airport improvement grants and nearly $3 billion
in passenger facility charges since 1990. So that totals $8
billion in financial assistance for airports for noise
projects.
Now, two years ago, in a report to Congress based on input
from a wide section of stakeholders, we laid out a national
vision and strategy for tackling noise, as well as other key
aviation environmental issues. This vision has become the basis
of the environmental approach at the heart of the NextGen plan.
The national vision includes achieving absolute reduction in
the numbers of people exposed to significant aircraft noise
even as aviation grows. It reflects the reality that despite
impressive past achievements, communities and citizens remain
concerned about aircraft noise, and we must continue to take
steps to address these impacts.
To tackle this challenge will require a robust and
multifaceted approach that develops and deploys new
technologies, takes advantage of operational advances, and
includes effective policies and investments. Frankly, the
challenges going forward may prove more difficult as we cope
not just with traffic growth, but the need to find solutions
not just for noise, but simultaneously for air quality and
climate effects. We don't have the luxury of considering just
one aviation environmental impact in isolation.
In the near term, we want to accelerate the ability to
employ operational procedures, such as continuous descent
arrivals or CDA, to lessen aviation's environmental footprint.
CDA is one of these win-win strategies that gets you less
noise, less emissions, and less fuel burn, as well as saving
time. We are pleased by this Committee's support in the
aviation reauthorization bill, of provisions that would help us
enhance deployment of operational flights like CDA, as well as
a provision that would expand AIP eligibility to include
environmental assessment of noise abatement flight procedures
like this.
It is clear we are not going to be able to repeat our past
success in reducing noise without advances in technology.
Proposals in this Committee's aviation reauthorization bill,
such as the consortium to develop lower energy emissions and
noise technology, or CLEEN, and the pilot program for
demonstrating promising technologies, would offer FAA, as well
as other partners, the ability to accelerate the development of
new noise and emissions technologies.
In closing, it is clear that the public remains concerned
about aircraft noise impacts, and this concern represents a key
constraint on the future growth of aviation. We have no single
or simple revolutionary solution at this point. What we do have
is a clear vision of what the Next Generation system needs to
achieve in environmental improvements and a commitment to
advance those improvements in technology, operations, and
policy. Success will require a partnership and shared
responsibility, and the FAA is committed to working with all
stakeholders to manage the National Aviation System in a sound
environmental manner.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. I would
be willing to take questions at the proper time. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony and
now recognizes Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Duncan, Members of the Subcommittee. My testimony this morning
addresses three questions: first, what are the key factors that
affect the level of aviation noise exposure for communities?
Second, what is the status of efforts to address the impacts of
aviation noise? And, finally, what are the major challenges and
next steps for reducing the effects of aviation noise?
Our research has shown that three key factors affect the
level of aviation noise for communities. The first and primary
factor is the operation of jet aircraft engines. It is also the
case that airframes can be a significant source of noise, and
with the current trend in engine noise reduction, the relative
effect of airframe noise could increase.
The second factor is local government decisions that allow
communities to expand near airports. FAA has issued guidance
that discourages residential uses in areas that are exposed to
significant levels of noise. However, some communities face
strong demographic and economic pressures that can lead to
incompatible development. The end result is that some of the
gains in reducing community exposure to noise are being eroded
by incompatible land development.
The third factor is aircraft flight paths, including
changes in those flight paths which are intended to improve
system safety and efficiency or that result from diversions.
Flight path changes can expose some previously unaffected
communities to aircraft noise.
With regard to our second question, numerous efforts are
under way to address the impact of aviation noise. First, a
more stringent noise standard is being implemented as new
aircraft are being designed and manufactured. According to FAA,
the current standard resulted in a 32 percent reduction in the
number of people exposed to significant noise levels. The new
standards, known as Stage 4, will be 10 decibels lower than the
prior standard.
There are, however, some considerations that may affect the
impact of the new standard on reducing noise level. For
example, many of the aircraft in the current fleet already meet
the new standard, and it could be at least a decade before the
entire fleet is Stage 4 compliant. Furthermore, further
increases in air traffic may offset the reductions in noise
levels that result from these quieter aircraft.
A second type of effort is noise mitigation measures. These
are typically carried out by airports and funded primarily
through FAA's Part 150 noise compatibility program. Since its
inception in 1982, nearly 300 airports have participated in the
Part 150 program, and these airports have invested over $8
billion in AIP and PFC funds for noise-related purposes.
Another type of effort is the noise research that is
conducted and sponsored by FAA and NASA. This type of research
has contributed to the development of technologies that have
significantly reduced aviation noise, such as quieter engines
and airframes. But some stakeholders are concerned that
declines in Federal funding may have slowed the pace of
government-initiated and sponsored research and, in turn, this
may delay the next significant technological leap for reducing
aviation noise.
The implementation of NextGen is another effort with
significant possibilities for mitigating both noise and
emissions. For example, systems such as ADSB will allow more
precise control of aircrafts during approach and descent,
thereby enabling the use of procedures such as CDA, which will
reduce communities' exposure to both aviation noise and
emissions.
Finally, some airports are making efforts beyond what is
required to respond to community concerns. These airports are
using such techniques as supplemental metrics to identify the
effects of exposure to aviation noise, mitigation beyond the 65
DNL, and expanded community outreach and education programs.
Turning to our last question on the major challenges and
next steps, Mr. Chairman, we think that, in the future, as in
the past, technological advances through R&D will be the key to
reducing aviation noise. However, given the government's
overall fiscal condition and other national priorities,
additional Federal funding for noise reduction may be difficult
to obtain. It may require some tradeoffs and new initiatives.
The environmental and related provisions in FAA's
reauthorization bill, such as the CLEEN program and the
environmental mitigation pilot program, are the kinds of
initiatives that can directly address this issue.
For the airlines, equipping with NextGen technologies that
will enable operations that could reduce community exposure to
aviation noise will also be challenging. FAA estimates the cost
of equipping the fleet to take full advantage of NextGen will
be about $14 billion. Consideration might be given to ways to
incentivize early equipage and training for pilots.
Of course, there is no silver bullet for aviation noise.
Even with quieter aircraft and more efficient NextGen
procedures, aviation noise is expected to persist around
airports, even if the so-called silent aircraft comes into the
fleet some time in the 2030 time frame. As a very important
next step in addressing the challenge, local and Federal
officials will need to improve their cooperation and efforts to
deter incompatible land use and regulations.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, in the final
analysis, the national airspace is an essential part of the
Nation's critical infrastructure, global economic
competitiveness and national security. Ensuring that this
national system can operate safely and efficiently will require
compromise and cooperation among the various levels of
government and the balancing of legitimate community concerns
and environmental issues with the strategic needs of the
Country. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
You probably all heard the bells ring. We have two recorded
votes on the Floor, but we will proceed to take Mr. Tragale's
testimony before we recess to go over and vote, and then we
will return immediately.
Mr. Tragale.
Mr. Tragale. Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman
Petri, Congressman Duncan, other Members of the Subcommittee,
good morning. My name is Ralph Tragale and I am the Manager of
Government and Community Relations for the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey. I would like to thank you for
organizing this hearing and giving us the opportunity to talk
about how we have handled noise at our airports. While my
comments are brief, they will demonstrate the significant
results, I think, that our noise programs have achieved in the
New York/New Jersey area.
The Port Authority is a bi-State pubic agency that was
created by the two States, with the consent of Congress, and we
operate many of the major transportation facilities in the New
York/New Jersey area, including things like the George
Washington Bridge, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnel, several
bridges that connect Staten Island and New Jersey. We also own
and formerly operated the World Trade Center site in Lower
Manhattan.
More importantly, the agency operates four commercial
airports--John F. Kennedy, Newark Liberty, LaGuardia, Teterboro
Airport--and those airports are responsible for generating $62
billion in annual economic activity. Just last year we
accommodated over 104 million annual air passengers, which is a
huge impact to the economy. Those operations account for
375,000 jobs in the New York/New Jersey area.
In addition, on November 1st, the Port Authority will take
over operation of Stewart International Airport. We are very
excited about that and, at this time, I would like to
personally thank Congressman Hall, even though he is not here,
for his help in helping us acquire the airport, as well as
Congressman Hinchey.
Regarding the issue at hand, the Port Authority first dealt
with noise in 1959. The Port Authority--I don't know if you are
aware--established the first aviation noise policy in the
world. We have a departure noise limit at our airports, 112 PND
(perceived noise decibel), and we feel that is important to
mention because it was that rule, that predated all the noise
standards in the world, that really led aircraft engine
manufacturers to go into a serious research and development
stage to build quiet engine technology. At that time, every
aircraft in the world wanted to come to New York at some time.
It was that important to them that they made the investment to
build quiet engine technology, and I think the Port Authority
led the way in that regard.
Over the next more than 40 years, the Port Authority
developed several major noise mitigation programs. All of those
programs working with local communities to develop zoning
requirements, run-up restrictions, flight abatement procedures,
voluntary curfews and other things, and it was those programs
that led FAA to develop the Part 150 study. So the Part 150
study is a voluntary Federal program and it really has all the
elements of the Port Authority existing noise programs, as I
stated. The only thing that we don't do is the residential
soundproofing. However, I must state that we have a significant
commitment to school soundproofing. To date ,we have 78 schools
in our noise program, and we have committed over $400 million
in funding to soundproof those schools.
To get back to the issue of noise and the people impacted,
in the 1970s there was over 2 million people in the noise
contour of our airports, and right now it is less than 100,000.
So we believe, together with the efforts of the industry, the
airlines, and certainly Congress, we have been able to make a
tremendous effort to reduce noise, and that is a 95 percent
decrease in the number of people impacted by noise.
However, obviously, we won't be satisfied until we have
full noise compatibility between our airports and our
neighbors. That is very important to us and that is why we
worked hard with FAA on their Airspace Redesign and other
procedures to try and address this need.
Obviously, the million dollar question is why don't we have
a Part 150 study, so I will just address that. As I noted
earlier, it is a voluntary Federal program; it is not a
mandated program. And as I also stated, it is developed mostly
after our existing noise abatement programs. So we have all the
elements of it except for the residential piece. We felt that
it was more important to soundproof schools and, as I said, we
have invested $400 million in that. So we stand ready to work
with Congressman Crowley, Congresswoman McCarthy, and other
Members of our delegation, as well as this Subcommittee, to
address any future requirements on us.
At this time, I would just like to say thank you very much.
I would like to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for
their help in this hearing. Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you.
The Chair will announce that the Subcommittee will stand in
recess for about 20 minutes, and we will come immediately back
after the second vote and hear the testimony of the rest of the
panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order and the
Chair now recognizes Ms. McElroy for her testimony.
Ms. McElroy. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Members of the
Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in
this important hearing. My name is Debby McElroy, and I serve
as Executive Vice President, Policy and External Affairs for
Airports Council International-North America. Our member
airports enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and
virtually all of the international airline passenger and cargo
traffic in North America.
Continued robust growth for the aviation industry is
predicted by both government and industry analysts, increasing
attention on the environmental impacts of aircraft and airport
operations. Airport directors well understand this concern and,
for decades, have taken proactive steps to better understand
and mitigate those impacts, especially aviation noise in their
local communities.
Additionally, since much of the major source of aviation-
related noise, aircraft, is outside an individual airport's
control, ACI and its members are working collaboratively to
influence international, Federal, and State and local
organizations, as well as working with manufacturers and
airlines to continue to address this important issue.
While, over the last three decades, aircraft engines have
become quieter, reducing the overall exposure of aircraft
noise, there are still many older noisy aircraft in the U.S.
fleet, and aircraft noise continues to be an issue. Many
airport directors will tell you that, despite their best
efforts, including working with local communities to manage the
push for continued residential development near airports,
airport noise remains at the forefront of their agenda. That is
why we have been disappointed that the International Civil
Aviation Organization negotiations have not yielded more
stringent noise standards for newly certificated aircraft. As
Dr. Dillingham stated earlier, it could be more than a decade
before an appreciable change is realized.
Airport operators continue to focus on reducing the
aviation noise impacting local communities, implementing FAA
directed noise abatement runway use and flight tracks, programs
for ground run-ups, noise management programs, airport
sponsored pilot awareness or fly quiet programs, sound
insulation programs, and local land use actions.
Now, while much has been done, airports are continuing to
enhance the mitigation of noise primarily through the Airport
Noise Compatibility Program, often referred to as Part 150,
which promotes comprehensive airport noise planning and
mitigation. Airport operators decide to undertake a Part 150
study when doing so promises to further reduce aircraft noise
exposure to jurisdictions within the airport's environment. As
part of this voluntary program, FAA has approved both AIP
grants and PFC funding for noise mitigation to assist local
communities. Such assistance, as discussed earlier, includes
soundproofing residences, schools, and hospitals; conducting
land use and zoning studies; as well as designing noise
abatement procedures.
It is important to note that not all airports use the Part
150 process. Several, like the Port Authority, already have
long-established community planning processes that parallel the
150 requirements. Other airports already enjoy a high degree of
community support for their noise mitigation programs and have
determined that a Part 150 study is not required.
Airports across the Country also work with local citizens,
governments, and elected officials to develop procedures and
programs to reduce noise. You will shortly hear from Mayor
Mulder, who will detail the process in place at the O'Hare
Noise Compatibility Commission. San Francisco's Community
Roundtable is another example. The airport's Fly Quiet Program
is a locally-based initiative that promotes a participatory
approach in complying with noise abatement procedures by
grading an airline's performance. As part of the program, San
Francisco staff generates a Fly Quiet Report which provides
airline scores on the noise mitigation procedures. The overall
scores are then made available to the public.
There is also San Jose's Neighborhood-Focused Acoustical
Treatment Program, which identifies residences and other
sensitive living areas. At these locations, sound insulation
improvements are installed at no cost to the proper owner.
ACI-NA applauds the Subcommittee and the full T&I Committee
for its hard work on H.R. 2881. We especially commend you for
your efforts to mitigate noise by phasing out aircraft weighing
less than 75,000 pounds that do not meet Stage 3 requirements
and the establishment of an environmental mitigation pilot
program. Continued research is also critical, as you recognize,
and we appreciate your efforts with the CLEEN Engine and
Airframe Technology program, as well as increasing ACRP
funding, which provides research funds to study programs to
mitigate the impact of noise.
We also appreciate the addition of AIP eligibility for
completion of the environmental review and assessment
activities necessary to implement flight procedures included in
an airport's Part 150 program. We would ask that you consider
expanding this to cover flight procedures not yet included in
the airport's Part 150 program. This provision would allow AIP
funding so that an airport, which believes implementation of
the procedures would significantly benefit the community,
wouldn't have to wait to amend their program. That way, we
could work with the airlines and the FAA to more expeditiously
implement those procedures.
We also would ask that the Part 161 program be re-examined
to provide additional options for airports to solve noise
problems with reasonable non-discriminatory operation
restrictions.
In closing, ACI and its member airports thank you for the
opportunity to share our views, and we look forward to working
with you as you address this important issue.
Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mayor Mulder.
Ms. Mulder. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri and
Members of the Subcommittee, I want to say good morning, or
afternoon at this point. It is certainly a privilege to b with
you and share our story with you.
I am here today representing the O'Hare Noise Compatibility
Commission, which is a consortium of communities and school
districts in the O'Hare area that works on meaningful methods
of reducing the impact of aircraft noise around O'Hare
International Airport.
I also am the Mayor of the Village of Arlington Heights, a
community of nearly 80,000 residents located directly northwest
of O'Hare International Airport, and I personally live under
the most frequently used longest runway.
As a community in close proximity to O'Hare, Arlington
Heights has been concerned about the impact, and its negative
impact, particularly, of aircraft noise for many years. In
1991, citizens began, in earnest, making criticisms and taking
an active role. As a result, we were the first suburb to create
a noise committee and initiated the first sound measuring
study. In that study, we learned a great deal and we researched
other airports.
As a result of that, in 1996, Mayor Daley extended an
invitation to the suburbs around O'Hare, after extensive
fighting between the neighbors of O'Hare and the airport. It
was at that time that the Village of Arlington Heights, along
with others, chose to join this commission.
By way of background, the Compatibility Commission, which I
will refer to as ONCC, was officially formed, as I said, in
1996, and we have to commend Mayor Daley and his vision for
trying to create a mechanism for constructive ways for the
suburbs and school districts to work more effectively with the
Department of Aviation, as well as FAA and the air traffic
controllers. We also meet with the airline pilots and other
stakeholders in the aviation industry in looking for ways to
curb the negative impact.
As a result of Mayor Richard M. Daley's vision and ongoing
commitment--which I must stress is extremely important, I
believe, in a major city like Chicago--that all the members
work together and all of our meetings are open to the public,
and we are very proud of the accomplishments, collaboration,
not confrontation, that we have in our existence of more than a
decade.
We do our work and we choose to do it in a board room, not
a courtroom. The members of ONCC are locally elected officials
and appointed representatives of the suburban communities.
These members are not paid for the service to this Commission,
but they do live and work in the suburbs and are affected by
aircraft noise, and want to answer to their constituents.
The 42 municipal and school district members of the
Commission strive to balance the regional economic engine that
O'Hare is and the quality of life issues that are vital to the
residents living near the airport. ONCC also understands that
reducing aircraft noise cannot be accomplished with the simple
flip of a switch; it is an evolutionary process that results in
subtle day-to-day progress and, over time, produces significant
measurable results.
There are three standing committees. One is the technical
committee where we research processes that you have heard from
Mr. Burleson before, CDA and other means of actually changing
the flight patterns that can reduce noise. The other two are
for schools and residential sound insulation. That is looking
at points of impact, as opposed to the source, which the
technical committee views.
By the end of 2006 program year, the O'Hare Residential
Sound Insulation Program will have insulated more than 6,100
homes at the average cost of $30,000 per home, for a total of
$180 million. The School Sound Insulation Program, the world's
largest, to date has $285 million having been spent on
effectively soundproofing 114 schools.
The Residential and School Sound Insulation Programs are
currently funded through FAA airport improvement program grants
at the total of 80 percent, with the City of Chicago using PFCs
for the additional 20 percent. FAA is now the primary funded of
O'Hare Residential Sound Insulation, as the FAA required the
mitigation as part of the record of decision in the O'Hare
Modernization Program, referred to as the OMP, for the first
time, 5900 single-family homes that would be sound insulated
from 1996 to 2004, the City of Chicago, in that first group,
funded that program entirely using PFCs.
The ONCC is looking at this new program with part of the
OMP as actually having the opportunity to insulate homes before
those residents have the impact of the new opened runways.
O'Hare Compatibility Commission is also looking at how to
mitigate noise by using land planning, and thanks to the very
innovative program put together by the FAA, there are grants
available that communities can use as incentive to look at
rezoning and having more compatible use where air paths will be
utilized.
As the City of Chicago continues its aggressive noise
mitigation efforts at O'Hare and Midway, the ONCC supports the
City of Chicago's efforts to obtain substantial increase in the
AIP Noise Set Aside, as well as the FAA discretionary grants
for Midway and O'Hare sound insulation projects. We commend the
Aviation Committee and the House of Representatives for
significant AIP dollars increase in the new reauthorization
bill.
ONCC also agrees with the position of many airports across
the Country, including Chicago airport system, to give the
airports the ability to increase the passenger facility charge
rate ceiling and provide the airports with the flexibility of
setting that amount.
What all the members of ONCC, including the City of
Chicago, who sits with us and has one vote, as all of us do,
share is the concern for the impact of noise on residents. All
of the members, regardless of their individual positions on the
O'Hare Modernization Program, are dedicated to finding the most
effective ways to reduce aircraft noise.
The ONCC is now working to renew the enthusiasm in this
mandate, given the fact that we can make a difference. The ONCC
strongly commends FAA administration for thoroughly defining
environmental goals in the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. Through NextGen, we realize that the FAA will be able
to substantially address the impacts of air traffic growth by
increasing the national air capacity system while addressing
the quality of life impacts at the same time.
FAA is able to implement the new procedure by merging
aircraft navigation capabilities, which was alluded to prior to
my comments, so I won't repeat them. But the initiatives like
NextGen, ONCC an continue advocating for additional funding for
technological approaches and the research for advanced flight
track procedures like RNAV.
NextGen also addresses another cutting edge approach, and
that is the CDA. ONCC highly commends, again, the FAA for
working towards the implementation of these new technologies.
The Aviation and Environment Report, which I believe all of you
received, is an extensive work that I had the honor to
participate in. This ha certainly come from many, many highly
educated and technical people, and I think FAA has shown new
aggressiveness and innovativeness.
ONCC asks that Congress continue to support FAA and the
groups that promote open dialogue, accessibility to information
and forums such as we have done in O'Hare. I have with me an
article from Minneapolis where lawsuits are still hindering the
growth of aviation. It is imperative that we work and sit at
the table together.
I want to thank you today. Sound insulation has been the
most effective way to reach people who have negative impact.
They do come to the table and listen. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Mayor, we thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Epstein.
Mr. Epstein. Mr. Costello and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to address aircraft noise, one of
the most significant challenges facing U.S. commercial
aviation. I am Alan Epstein from Pratt and Whitney, which has
been producing dependable engines for over 80 years. I am here
to speak about Pratt and Whitney's innovative technology, which
will dramatically reduce community noise and emissions.
Fifty years ago, the first commercial engines were designed
with little regard to noise. Since their sound levels were like
being next to speakers at a rock concert, they quickly proved
unacceptable. In the early 1960s we introduced the first turbo
fans, which reduced noise. Today, three engine generations
later, we have reduced the number of people impacted by
aircraft noise by 95 percent. However, our national goal should
be to eliminate aircraft noise as a community concern.
Aircraft design has always involved compromise between low
noise and low cost. Recently, Pratt and Whitney has developed
Geared Turbofan engine technology to rebalance this compromise.
We can now achieve both low cost and very low noise. We are
very excited about our new Geared Turbofan engine for 70 to 200
passenger aircraft. This engine reduces fuel burn and CO2 by
more than 12 percent. It also reduces noise by almost 20
decibels, below Stage 4. This is like the difference between
standing near a running garbage disposal and listening to the
sound of my voice.
Two weeks ago, we announced that the Geared Turbofan will
power the new Mitsubishi Regional Jet, which will enter service
in about six years. This technology can be applied from the
smallest regional jets to the largest wide bodies. To take full
advantage of the Geared Turbofan very low noise, we must also
modernize the Nation's air traffic control system.
The current constraints of the overburdened system do not
allow even exceptionally quiet aircraft to deviate from
existing traffic patterns. For example, an aircraft flying to
the east coast from LAX must fly west to gain altitude over the
ocean to reduce noise before it crosses over the city. An
advanced Geared Turbofan powered airplane would be quiet enough
to take off directly to the east. This would save an average of
12 minutes of flight time, which reduces fuel, cost, and
emissions. But unless we modernize air traffic control,
airlines will not be permitted such freedom.
Recently, much has been written about climate change and
the role that aviation may play. We at Pratt and Whitney
believe that environmental goals such as reduced CO2 can, and
must, be achieved without compromising the low noise the
communities deserve. A Geared Turbofan simultaneously offers
the lowest fuel burn, noise, and cost. An advanced engine of
this type will deliver the low CO2 of giant supersonic
propellers without their inherent noise penalties. In fact,
this so-called open rotor would be a large step backwards in
noise compared to modern airplanes.
Aerospace is this Nation's largest manufacturing export. We
have done so well because of superior products. But advanced
technology is expensive. Our Geared Turbofan incorporates 20
years of research, more than $1 billion of Pratt and Whitney
investment. We built on foundational technologies developed in
partnership with NASA. The U.S. is the world leader in aviation
because of historical research partnership of government,
university, and industry.
Recently, I was at an aviation conference where EU
investment plans were presented. Frankly, I am worried. Just as
other nations have increased their investment, U.S. funding has
dropped sharply. Therefore, we strongly support such
initiatives as the proposed FAA CLEEN program. However, even
with CLEEN, our Nation's investment in basic aviation
technology is only a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago.
We must do more at FAA and NASA.
In summary, it is important to take an integrated approach
to reducing aviation's impact on the environment. Pratt and
Whitney's Geared Turbofan and the modern air traffic control
system will make a real difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Epstein.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGrann.
Mr. McGrann. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
Members of the Committee, my name is Dennis McGrann, and I am
the Executive Director of the National Organization to Insure a
Sound-Controlled Environment. NOISE is an affiliate of the
National League of Cities and, for over 37 years, has served as
America's preeminent community voice on aviation noise issues.
We are compromised of locally elected officials, including city
council members, mayors, county supervisors and commissioners
from communities across the United States adjacent to major
commercial airports.
Our members regularly participate in cooperative
communications with airports and the aviation industry
stakeholders, and we serve on a national level as Chair of the
FAA's PARTNER advisory board, as well as a member of the FAA's
Airport Compatibility Planning Committee and the Environmental
Working Group.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of thousands of Americans in
communities across the United States who live under the flyways
of our major commercial aviation corridors and who deal with
the environmental, health, and safety consequences associated
with aviation noise, I would like to thank you for holding this
hearing today and addressing these critical issues.
I would also be remiss if I did not take time to thank Full
Committee Chairman Oberstar for his years of dedicated service
and attention to the challenges faced by communities and
airport neighbors across the Country, and for addressing the
issues of aviation noise. In 2003, Chairman Oberstar was
awarded the NOISE Lifetime Achievement Award and Environmental
Champion for his outstanding efforts in engaging local
communities in aviation noise and related issues.
Our members are communities that depend on airport
neighbors for jobs, commerce, and our economic vitality. We
recognize that the reality of aviation today requires that the
system needs to increase capacity and that our airport
neighbors need to grow to accommodate this expansion. We are,
however, dedicated to addressing the issues faced by
communities, who chronically with the adverse environmental and
health impacts of excessive aviation noise, and continuously
seek to engage all community and aviation stakeholders in a
constructive dialogue to address these issues.
I would like to call attention today to three key aspects
that we believe are essential in pursuing meaningful route to
effective management of noise issues: communication, research
and development, and ongoing noise mitigation.
First, the benefits of effective communication between
communities and airports are clear. When airports and
communities work together to meet the challenges of aviation
noise, success follows. NOISE supports those efforts and
advocates for communication and cooperation, as opposed to
litigation and confrontation. We work to foster this dialogue
and strive to bring together community leaders, airport
operators, and government officials to establish a framework
for empowerment of localities surrounding airports.
As an example, for 25 years, the San Francisco
International Airport Community Roundtable has fostered a
successful airport/community interaction and involvement.
Eighteen cities, the operator of San Francisco International
Airport, the city and county of San Francisco, and the County
of San Mateo comprise the roundtable, a voluntary public forum
established in 1981 for discussion and implementation of noise
mitigation strategies at San Francisco International Airport.
Another development that will enhance communication is the
PARTNER-sponsored Noisequest web site, designed to educate
communities and airports on effective strategies and available
tools which will help create a constructive dialogue when
addressing noise issues and community concerns.
We also urge continuation of a Vision 100 initiative that
enables community empowerment, that is, the extension of
authorization for Section 160, which authorizes the FAA to fund
grants to States and local government units with the goal of
reducing incompatible land use around large-and medium-sized
airports. This program is a key step towards avoiding
litigation and a useful tool for communities to use independent
of the airport operator.
A second important element to addressing these issues is a
key to future funding of research and development efforts.
There are numerous programs and technologies today being
explored that hold great potential for the future with quieter
skies. One example is PARTNER research and testing in the
development of continuous descent approach (CDA), which allows
for quieter landing procedures. We cannot stress enough the
value of investment in CDA and other technologies, which may
not only aid in the reduction of noise pollution, but decrease
adverse environmental impacts of aviation on our land, air, and
water.
It is essential, while working to achieve better technology
and community involvement, we must not abandon effective noise
mitigation efforts. While we work towards this communication
and technologies, we still must be aware and concerned with
communities that have seen their neighborhood airports expand
around them and who now deal daily with the resultant
environmental consequences. Homes, schools, hospitals and
churches in communities adjacent to major airports are often
subject to the effects of excessive aviation noise. We need to
promote noise mitigation, compatible land use planning,
insulation programs, and other effective strategies in these
communities to reduce noise and achieve NextGen's stated goal
of a real reduction in the environmental impact of the national
aviation system.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for
holding this hearing today, and I pledge that NOISE will
continue to provide a vehicle for interaction between
communities, airports, and national aviation stakeholders.
Thank you.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. McGrann.
The Chair will go to and recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Lampson, under the five minute rule.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I remember, several years ago, at a meeting in Europe, when
the United States businesses were told they couldn't fly their
airplanes in because we were using a hush kit, and they wanted
us to have like what they were doing, engines that were
designed to be quieter, and we had a significant fight over
that but ultimately won, thank goodness. It seems to me that we
ought to be doing whatever we can possibly do to drive the
technology to get our airplanes flying more quietly, but what I
want to know is: Who will get the money? Who will be doing that
research, what agencies or wherever it will go? What kind of
money do we need to be putting into it? And what can we
reasonably expect as a possible solution? What is going to help
drive quieter engines, is it bigger mufflers or what is it? Can
you talk a little bit about that for me, please, anyone?
Mr. Dillingham. I will take a shot at it first, Mr.
Lampson. I think that, as in the past, research and development
is probably going to be the path to the technological leap that
you are talking about. I think that, as in the past, it will be
NASA and FAA, FAA-sponsored research with universities and the
private sector.
One of the problems is that, over the last decade,--I think
one of the panelists mentioned it this morning--is that the
funding for aeronautical research has been declining, and a
point that we mentioned in our statement with regard to NASA is
that NASA has adjusted its research portfolio to focus on
earlier stages of research, and it leaves what we are referring
to as a research gap for things that are going to be available
within the NextGen time frame. NASA would disagree with that,
but based on the numbers that we have seen, we think that that
is really a potential problem or is a problem now.
But on the positive side, as many of the panelists have
mentioned, some of the provisions in the FAA reauthorization
will speak to closing that research gap.
Mr. Lampson. When and if--and hopefully there will be--
money goes to NASA--NASA is already strapped significantly, and
I was hoping that was where you would go with your answer,
seeing how significant a supporter and proponent of what we
have been getting out of our National Aeronautics and Space
Administration--do we give them blanket money or direct it
specifically? And, if so, how specific? Where do we put it? And
what kind of money are we talking about? NASA is $2.8 billion
down in its own budget now because--and I wasn't paying
attention to the time, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry--because of the
loss of the last shuttle and because of the storm in Florida
doing damage. Do you have any advice there? And then I will
quit. My apologies for going over.
Mr. Burleson. Thank you, sir, for the question. I think the
advice I would offer, Congressman, is the proposal that both
the Administration put forward, and which the House has taken
up in its legislation. I think this is really the way forward,
which is to find a balanced approach which puts a correct
emphasis on immediate mitigation through insulation; work on
operational procedures to enhance the ability to reduce
aviation's environmental footprint through those measures; and
then to find a way to balance what is NASA's proper role. NASA
has done exceptional work for this Country in foundational
research, as my colleague from Pratt and Whitney described how
much their engine has been based on longer term research of
NASA; but then also filling this gap, which is, I think, the
CLEEN proposal that we very strongly support. IT offers the
ability to try to work more directly in a consortium with
industry to accelerate the introduction of technology and noise
and emissions that are at a certain stage of maturity, but need
a way to get over this gap to commercialization.
So I think that is really the way forward to having this
balanced approach in several different ways.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much. Anything that any of you
would like to add to that for us, we would love to hear from
you, regardless of what Committee it will be going to. Thank
you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas and
recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have only
a few minutes left because of votes on the Floor, and I reserve
my time at this point.
Mr. Costello. Very good. The Ranking Member reserves his
time and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick.
I would like to thank all of you for coming here today and
thank Mr. Crowley and Ms. McCarthy, my colleagues in absentia,
for further enlightening us on their situations living close to
a major airport.
Mr. Tragale, I have a number of constituents who are, on
the one hand, looking forward to working with you and with the
Port Authority on the expansion and growth of Stewart Airport,
which we know is going to be an important economic contributor
to our district and to the Hudson Valley, but at the same time
are concerned about the noise level increasing as the number of
flights increase. Can you tell me what specific action the Port
Authority expects to take to diminish the effect of increased
noise levels around Stewart?
Mr. Tragale. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. If I
may, you weren't here earlier, but I publicly thanked you for
your efforts in helping us acquire Stewart, so thank you very
much again.
In terms of how we are going to work with the community at
Stewart and in the Orange County community that you represent,
I think one of the things that you have heard from people there
is we already met with more people, even not operating an
airport, than the existing airport operator ever has. So I
think that is a testament to how we are going to go forward
after November 1st.
But also, last week we issued a letter, and your office was
invited as well. We are establishing a citizens advisory panel
at Stewart Airport to ensure that all entities in the community
have a say in how we grow the airport together in a smart,
efficient, and with a good quality of life as a key component
of that. So we will be making all of our decisions in concert
with you and with the other members of the community.
Mr. Hall. I very much appreciate that, and thank you for
that approach.
Mr. Burleson, you mentioned in your testimony that Airspace
Redesign is not without its impacts on some individuals and
communities. Some of the communities in my district are in that
situation, and I was curious if you or if the FAA intends to
take any further action to mitigate the effect of their
increased noise on these people in, specifically, I would say,
the Pound Ridge area of Westchester and the Warwick area of
Orange County, who feel that even before the redesign has been
implemented, they perceive increased noise and see it on paper
increasing further. Is there any way that you plan or do you
plan to work with them to try to mitigate that?
Mr. Burleson. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
think if you look at the record of how the work has been
undertaken in the Airspace Redesign, we clearly recognize that
it is a difficult issue. As you try to modernize airspace,
clearly, while the overall numbers show that there will be
fewer people impacted by moderate noise, that doesn't mean
everyone equally benefits as you make these changes. I think
there have been a number of meetings and the FAA has tried to
address this in a reasonable fashion.
I think in terms of the specific areas that you are
mentioning, I would defer to my air traffic colleagues. I will
take your question to them and will get back to you.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
[Information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.009
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I will submit other questions in
writing and yield back.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Ms. Norton.
Before Ms. Norton is recognized, let me say that we have
votes on the Floor again, and what the Chair intends to do is
have Ms. Norton ask questions. I have two very quick questions,
and then Mr. Petri and I have agreed that we will submit
questions to you in writing, and we will adjourn the hearing
prior to leaving to vote.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, since you have to go to the Floor
and, unfortunately, I do not, because this is a vote on a rule
and not on the Committee as a whole, if you would like to go
first, since I can remain afterwards and ask my questions.
Mr. Costello. Very good.
Mr. Tragale, two quick questions. One is the Port Authority
does not participate in the 150 program. Can you tell us why?
Mr. Tragale. Well, as I stated in my testimony, we feel
that we have all the important components of the 150. The only
component we don't have is residential soundproofing. But we
feel that our significant commitment to the school
soundproofing program, $400 million, certainly shows that we
are committed to reducing the impact of noise.
Mr. Costello. And the second part of the question is why
has the Port Authority chosen not to soundproof the homes
within the area.
Mr. Tragale. Well, I think the easy answer to that is since
the 1970s, when there were 2 million people in the contour, to
today, what is less than 100,000, and over a 95 percent
reduction in noise, people impacted by noise, we feel that we
have more than achieved goals that any airport operator can
point to, and spending money on homes that are no longer being
impacted would seem to be an imprudent use of Federal dollars.
Mr. Costello. Just a comment. Mayor, let me compliment you
and Mayor Daley for the program that was implemented with the
O'Hare modernization. Obviously, it has worked very well, from
your testimony and what we have heard from others, and it, I
think, is a model that can be used for other airports around
the Nation.
The Chair is now going to recognize Ms. Norton. As she
correctly pointed out, she does not have to go to the Floor to
vote, but at some point, some day, I hope she is in fact
required to go to the Floor and vote with us. But I will
recognize Ms. Norton and, before I do, thank all of our
witnesses. After her questioning, the hearing will be
adjourned. We thank you, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri and
I will submit written questions to you. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any day now, we are
going to get the vote bill through the Senate, it is going to
come up again, and I am pleased to be able to vote in this
Committee and to be a Member of this Committee.
I suppose Mr. Burleson is the appropriate party to ask my
question. In a real sense, my question, my information comes
out of the region where I live and the district I represent. It
is certainly germane to, and increasingly so, to areas around
the Country. I would like Mr. Burleson, there is a brief
mention on page 2 of your testimony suggesting a kind of
tradeoff between noise and aviation emissions that comes with
change in aircraft design and operations. I wish you would
elaborate on that. I mean, noise is an environmental menace;
the emissions are an environmental menace. What is the
correlation you speak of? What is the tradeoff implied in your
reference?
Mr. Burleson. Thank you for the question, because I think
this is really a core issue that we are going to have to
grapple with going forward. Certainly, my colleague from Pratt
and Whitney can elaborate some on the nature of engines, but
when you design an engine and are trying to maximize certain
characteristics, the nature of combustion is such that, if you
want to reduce noise, especially in high bypass engines, you
tend to burn at a higher temperature the fuel, which produces
more nitrogen oxide.
So, oftentimes, in the design of an engine, you may have a
tradeoff between am I maximizing noise or am I trying to reduce
nitrogen oxide. And then you would have a different impact in
terms of am I reducing noise in a community or am I more
concerned about how nitrogen oxide contributes to the local air
quality impacts.
Ms. Norton. I would really like to ask you about that
tradeoff. You speak, I guess this is at page 4, about the
reduction in what you call older aircraft. Are you saying that
the newer aircraft emit more harmful carbons than the aircraft
they have replaced?
Mr. Burleson. No, Congresswoman. What I am trying to convey
is, as you design engines, there are actually three design
elements: one with noise, one with local air quality impacts,
and then you also have fuel burn, which contributes to
greenhouse gas emissions. So the good news is actually that
noise and fuel burn tend to go on the same path, at least in
the paths of engine design. Nitrogen oxide has been harder to
reduce. So as aircraft have been produced and as stringent
standards have been raised, this is just an issue that, both in
the design of the aircraft, as well as the operation of the
system, we have to take into account. For example, when you put
in noise abatement procedures, you potentially have a more
circuitous route to an airport, potentially burning more fuel,
and that might, while it reduces noise, might actually produce
more local emissions.
So what we have tried to do or, actually, the path we are
going down is, traditionally, people have looked at these
issues in stovepipes; they have only looked at noise, they have
only looked at local air quality or they have only looked at,
now, greenhouse gas emissions. And what we have said is, and
actually where we are spending money in the FAA, is building a
set of models that helps us understand both that the design of
the aircraft, how are these trade-offs made, as you are
operating the aircraft in the system how are those trade-offs
made. Most importantly, as we are thinking about policies and
standards and market-based approaches or noise abatement and
approaches like this, how do we design a set of approaches and
policies that ensure that knowledge is made known to citizens
and, as we are making national policy, how we deal with these
different impacts.
So, again, I think we are at the point of building those
models and hopefully we are going to be able to provide a
better understanding of what we need to do in each of these
areas and, therefore, reach the targets more effectively and
more cost-effectively.
Ms. Norton. Well, I am not sure we were trying to do all
three at the same time before. I mean, the interest in
emissions may not have been as important as, for example, the
complaints of regions about the kind of noise. And it is hard
for me to believe, given the extraordinary change in engines
and aircraft and aircraft noise, that if one was in fact
focused, given the state of scientific knowledge today, the
kind of work you have already done, that one could not in fact
tackle all at the same time, because the notion of being left
between a rock and a hard place is very disconcerting.
Mr. Epstein. If I can respond to that, Congresswoman.
Ms. Norton. Yes, please.
Mr. Epstein. Conventional thinking has led us to a mature
state of airplanes and engines, and the tradeoff that Mr.
Burleson talked about is a very real one, and some forward-
thinking people in my company, almost two decades ago, said how
do we get out of this. We always have to deliver products that
give the most value to our customer, which is money, so they
want the lowest cost engines and there has always been a
tradeoff between cost and noise, and noise was the poor cousin.
What we realized was that by innovative architecture, in
this case putting the gear in, we could simultaneously give our
customers the lowest cost, which is what they want, and the
communities the lowest noise. As Mr. Burleson said, that is
also the lowest fuel burn and CO2. So this is a discontinuous
change in how we make airplane engines and I think it will have
a big effect.
Ms. Norton. So is your testimony that this innovation you
are talking about, does in fact handle all three of these
issues?
Mr. Epstein. It improves all three at the same time, yes.
We couldn't sell our engines if they didn't provide real value
to our customers, and they are more than happy to get the
additional benefits of low emissions and low noise.
Ms. Norton. Well, of course, the industry is under such
pressure about gas prices. It is hard to believe that that
hasn't been first and foremost. Then, of course, in certain
regions like this we have had change in aircraft which help to
deal with the noise issue, which is a major problem in
Virginia, major problem in the District. Then there have been
ordinary changes involving, perhaps, use of more fuel, such as
the change in vector, the change in direction of the aircraft.
After 9/11 there was an immediate concern in the neighborhoods
because the direction was changed when, for security reasons,
there was a great concern about where planes fly. That has been
since changed, and I think the planes can now fly in ways that
mitigate the noise, because the complaints went away, and I
think after people got used to, after we got used to where the
risk was, we began to deal with it.
But I am very concerned that the industry is really put in
a very, very difficult position with the genuine need to deal
with emissions of various kinds, with the cost of gasoline and
unwillingness of the American people, frankly, to pay for more
gas, to begin to conserve. Therefore, these prices are going to
stay up. I am concerned about choices in research that, if
choices have to be made, it is hard for me to believe that the
choices are not going to be made consistent with where the most
pressure is, and the pressure of fuel costs, particularly for
this industry, is pretty overwhelming.
And then, of course, we have great concern throughout the
world about emissions, and we are trying to deal with that at
the same time. Local communities probably are most vocal about
noise, and here the industry has to deal with all three at the
same time, so does the FAA. I suffer from believing, frankly,
that particularly given the advances that have already been
made through technology and science, I suffer from believing
that we can in fact deal with all of this at the same time and
that the need and the necessity to do so is going to drive it.
And the real question for me is does Congress need to do
anything to drive the unusual challenge of dealing with several
different priorities at the same time.
Yes.
Ms. Mulder. Congresswoman, if I can just, from a community
perspective, again, I know in my testimony I commended FAA
because I believe that in the recent couple of years they have
really become innovative with creating a center of excellence,
and there are several layers of that. To give an example, we
were very excited when United announced to us that they were
going to be phasing out the 727s. I said, oh, you have heard
that we don't like all that noise because those hush kits don't
really work. And he looked at me and said, well, mayor, I wish
I could say that, but it really is because we had to put three
pilots in that plane, and in the replacement we only need two.
So the airlines are pushed to look at cost. The other
incentive is when our engine manufacturers are producing these
more efficient engines, they use and burn less fuel. We have
been talking about flight patterns that actually reduce the
fuel burn as well. Money is in every one of these levels, and I
have always told everyone in the industry you can't take away
the hope of our residents that we are working on this. There is
another thing that is going to help that is out there. And I
think the center of excellences are bringing the different
components of the aviation industry together, and if everyone
does a little bit, the end product--and there are, I think,
three diagrams at the end of my testimony that show the
significant decline in our complaint calls to the airport
increase in the number of insulations of homes and schools, and
those are things that are telling our constituents that people
care and they are working on it, and industry is working with
the Government.
So I think supporting FAA, supporting NASA, continue the
research, we need to keep doing this, because when you look at
other nations, there is significant subsidy for the airline,
Airbus, for example, compared to Boeing, how much money they
get from their governments. Airports get money from governments
much more extensively than here in this Country. And it is such
an important component of our transportation, it is essential,
from a residential standpoint, to know that my Federal
Government, Congress, is supporting FAA's creative and
innovative new direction.
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman Norton, if I could?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. You asked a question about what could
Congress do, especially in terms of this sort of three-pronged
effort. I think the Congress is already doing a lot through the
AIP, the increase in the AIP fund; through some of the
provisions that are currently in the reauthorization that is
being considered. And I think, just to underscore what was just
said, what has given us the most bang for our buck over time
has been research and development, and there is, in fact,
research and development going on in all three of those areas.
What is unfortunate, though, is that the research and
development dollars have been on a steady decline over the last
decade or so, and to the extent that other nations, as
mentioned earlier, are putting more into research and
development, that is something that should be considered, is to
keep the research and development monies flowing.
But I think that the other nations of the world are
approaching this noise and emissions issue the same way we are,
in terms of trying to go at it three ways. So I think it is not
going to be overnight. Noise is always going to be with us.
Emissions are always going to be with us. But there is progress
being made and there is a plan that goes out two decades to
address these issues.
Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I must say
the complexity of the challenges faced lead me to see the great
hope, frankly, in R&D. I don't think you can simply, by
regulation, say to the industry we want more of this, so do it.
Not in this climate, not given this industry and the pressure
it has been under and not given fuel costs. Now you have a
whole new awakening of the American people to the importance of
controlling emissions, to greening, to our responsibility.
I would hope that we would use this new awakening to make
people understand the complexity of it, that you have got to do
several things at the same time or else, forgive me, you won't
have to worry about noise, the glacier shall have melted and
nobody will much be around to see or even hear the noise.
The Chair indicated that he asked all of his questions. I
want to thank you on his behalf and on behalf of the Committee
for very important testimony, which I assure you will be used
by this Subcommittee and taken to the Full Committee to see
what we can do to speed an understanding of what is needed to
meet the complex new challenges.
Thank you very much. This panel is dismissed.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.164