Airport Noise Report

FAA ACCUSED OF FALSIFYING RECORDS ON CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS

NJ Sen Robert Torricelli (D) and Rep Mike Ferguson (R) have asked the Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation to investigate allegations being made by New Jersey anti-noise groups that the Federal Aviation Administration falsified environmental documents and failed to follow agency environmental guidelines in revising air routes into Newark and LaGuardia International Airports.

The airspace revision at issue is known as the Yardley/Robbinsville "flip-flop," under which the approach patterns of aircraft landing from the south at Newark and LaGuardia were switched, resulting in increased noise levels for some NJ residents.

The "flip-flop" procedure was implemented as part of the broader East Coast Airspace Redesign Project, which has been of concern to New Jersey officials because of its potential to cause noise problems similar to those that arose over a decade ago in an earlier FAA airspace redesign known as the Expanded East Coast Plan.

FAA officials have continually reassured local officials that they will keep them informed about every step of the current airspace revision efforts. But NJ officials contend that was not the case with the "flip-flop."

The FAA announced the "flip-flop" change in approach patterns on Dec 17, 2001, and put it into effect 10 days later. However, the agency did not conduct an environmental assessment of the air route change because it determined that it was categorically excluded from environmental review under FAA guidelines interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Under those guidelines, an air route change under 3,000 feet can be categorically excluded from an environmental assessment if it does not cause a significant increase in noise impact and is not "likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds."

To determine whether a project is likely to be highly controversial, FAA is required to contact elected officials and affected residents. The FAA claims that it did that but New Jersey lawmakers, local officials, and community groups dispute that, asserting that the air route change came as a complete surprise to them.

FOIA Request

To investigate that discrepancy, the New Jersey Center for Environmental Research (NJCER), a sister organization to the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN), hired Gregory Walden of the Washington, DC law firm Patton Boggs, a former chief counsel of the FAA.

It is the report Walden prepared, based on FAA documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, that provided the evidence that Torricelli and Ferguson refer to in their request for a DOT investigation.

In his FOIA request, Walden sought any agency record "relating to any FAA briefing of, meeting with, or other communication, whether written, electronic, or oral, to a Member of Congress or any congressional staff person or to a community leader or local citizens, which the FAA relied on for its response to Questions 21 and 22 of a Preliminary Environmental Review Checklist, which the FAA must sign when it adjusts air traffic patterns.

Question 21 on this checklist asks, "Have persons/officials who might have some need to know about the federal action by reason of their location relative to the action or by their function in the community been notified, consulted, or otherwise informed of this action?"

The FAA responded, "Yes, that Congressional representatives have been briefed regarding the flip-flop and its environmental impacts."

The next question on the checklist asks if local citizens and community leaders are aware of this action and are any opposed to or supporting it.

The FAA responded: "Yes, community leaders have been notified and are supportive of the proposed action. No opposition has been expressed either verbally or in writing to the FAA."

Torricelli and Ferguson told the DOT Inspector General that they believe both of the FAA's answers to these questions "may have been false and that these responses led the FAA to ignore the legitimate concerns of the community."

"The FAA's apparent falsification of an official government document and its disregard for the legitimate concerns of New Jersey's citizens and their elected officials is a matter of grave concern to us," the lawmakers told Mead.

They asked Mead to conduct a formal investigation into the matter and forwarded to him the report prepared by Walden.

Walden Report

Based on the information received from his FOIA request, Walden found a record of only one general briefing to Congress before the FAA's decision on the "flip-flop" was announced in December 2001. That meeting was held on July 21, 2000, nearly a year and a half before the decision was announced and the FAA kept no record of who attended that meeting.

There also is a record of a letter to NJ Rep Rodney Frelinghuysen in November 2000 which mentions the flip-flop "but this is a single letter to only one congressman, a full year before the flip-flop was decided," Walden said in his report. "There is no other record in the FAA of any other contacts to Members of Congress or their staffs until the FAA held a briefing on the afternoon the flip-flop decision was announced in a news release, Dec 17, 2001."

Walden found one other record of a briefing held at LaGuardia in May 2001 but said there are no FAA records as to who was invited to or who attended that briefing.

"So the records show that the FAA provided no information to Congress for an entire year before the flip-flop was decided - during which time Mitre [Corp.] was apparently conducting a noise analysis - as well as for four and one-half months after the FAA answered Question 21 by asserting, 'Congressional representatives in the affected areas have been briefed regarding the proposed flip-flop and its associated benefits and impacts.' "

Walden said that the "record does not support this statement. Even if the July 21, 2000 briefing referenced the Yardley/Robbinsville flip-flop, which is doubtful based on the records provided by the FAA, the FAA could not have briefed congressional representatives regarding the 'associated benefits and impacts' of the flip-flop as Mitre and the FAA were not to determine such benefits and impact until many months later."

Similarly, Walden said that the FAA record regarding its contacts with local officials and community leaders regarding the flip-flop, "is practically non-existent."

"It appears odd that the flip-flop was mentioned once or perhaps two or three times in briefings in New York State but there was no briefing held in New Jersey - whether for New Jersey public officials, community leaders or citizens - the only State in which flight path changes were made."

Jim Peters, a spokesman for the FAA's Eastern Region office, where the determination was made that the flip-flop air route change was categorically excluded from an environmental assessment, said the agency does not comment directly on charges such as those made by NJ officials. However, he said the FAA will cooperate with the DOT Inspector General whatever action he decides to take. He also stressed that the agency conducted computer modeling, which it is not required to do, and found there would have been no significant noise impact from the flip-flop.

Michael Schatzki, president of NJCER, questioned whether what he contends happened with the flip-flop is an isolated incident. "It could be just in the FAA's Eastern Region or it could be happening across the country," he said. A study by the Inspector General may turn up a pattern of conduct by the agency, he speculated, and recommended that other community groups file similar FOIA requests.

New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise P.O. Box 554 Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076

Summary of FAA Scoping Report

Over a four-month period in 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted a scoping process as part of a legally required metro airspace redesign Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Public meetings were held in New Jersey and four surrounding states. NJCAAN supported the following three positions as part of its scoping comment:

• noise abatement must be included as a primary objective of the airspace redesign;
• ocean routing for Newark International Airport departures must be implemented with the airspace redesign; and the
• FAA should analyze noise impact of each alternative flight proposal using several noise metrics in addition to the yearly day-night average noise metric.

New Jersey Breaks Records in Responding to the FAA's Scoping Comment Period

• A total of 449 citizens attended 12 New Jersey meetings and recorded 187 citizen comments.
• New Jersey citizens submitted 48% of all citizen comments collected from this 5-state scoping process.
• New Jersey attendance was 44% of the total attendance in all 5 states.
• New Jersey's public officials submitted numerous comments (74), which represented responses from all levels of government.
• New Jersey elected officials reflected their strong interest in this issue and submitted an overwhelming 69% of the total official comments collected in this 5-state scoping process.

Executive Director's Note: Received signed on McGreevey campaign letterhead

August 29, 2001

Pamela Barsam-Brown,
Executive Director
New Jersey Coalition
Against Aircraft Noise
P.O. Box 554
Scotch Plains, NJ 07076

Dear Ms. Barsam-Brown,

For over a decade, many New Jersey communities have been exposed to intolerably high levels of aircraft noise resulting in a dramatic reduction in their quality of life. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you the steps that I have already taken, and the steps that I plan to take as Governor, to reduce aircraft noise over New Jersey.

As a State Senator and as Mayor of Woodbridge, one of the communities effected by severe aircraft noise, I have long supported efforts to reduce aircraft noise.

• I fully support the FAA's initiative to redesign the New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania airspace and have written FAA Administrator Jane Garvey asking that as part of the FAA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the redesign, noise reduction must be a top priority.
• I urged the FAA to conduct an extensive evaluation of the ocean routing plan as part of the EIS as well. In addition, I called on the FAA to examine noise impacts of each alternative using several noise metrics, not just the established yearly day-night average noise level (YDNL) metric. As Governor, I pledge to you that I will do everything in my power to see to it that the FAA's airspace redesign results in a significant reduction in noise for New Jersey residents.
• I will call on the FAA to implement interim plans to mitigate aircraft noise, since the new airspace redesign will not be implemented until 2005. These interim plans could include measures such as flying planes at higher altitudes and testing of ocean routing - clear of Shore towns - during low traffic hours.
• I will continually monitor the redesign process through a Governor's Counsel.
• I will closely coordinate with the Secretary of Transportation, the FAA Administrator, and our congressional delegation to further the goal of noise relief.
• I will use the full resources of the state to ensure that the current airspace redesign results in significant aircraft noise relief for New Jersey.

June 10, 2002

The Honorable Jane Garvey
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
AOA-1, Room 1009
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591

Dear Administrator Garvey:

Given New Jersey's location between two of the largest Metropolitan Areas, and four of the busiest airports in the United States, aircraft noise is a primary concern for the citizens of New Jersey.

While I fully support the FAA's initiative to redesign the New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania airspace, I am afraid that these efforts are moving ahead without proper consideration being given to meaningful noise reduction for New Jersey citizens. I have grave concerns as to the impacts, current and future, on the quality of life for New Jersey's citizens. This concern is exacerbated by unannounced actions like the recent "flip-flop" of Newark and LaGuardia air traffic that occurred without sufficient notice or the opportunity for New Jersey citizens to appropriately voice their opinion.

As Governor of New Jersey, I wish to reiterate my position, already expressed by my Commissioner of Transportation and a significant number of our Congressional Delegation, that the FAA's ongoing Environmental Impact Statement must include noise reduction as a top priority. Furthermore, the FAA review should include a thorough evaluation of ocean routing possibilities as part of this EIS.

I understand that Commissioner Fox has appointed Mr Ted Matthews, Executive Director of Aeronautics and Freight Systems, as his liaison to the FAA. Please be assured that I support this action and that Mr Pat Brannigan of my office is available if necessary to provide additional assistance.

I look forward to hearing from you and to working with you to create a final airspace system that creates improvements in capacity and efficiency, and one that addresses the quality of life concerns of New Jersey citizens.

Sincerely,

Governor James E. McGreevey

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 19, 2003

FERGUSON: REPORT SAYS FAA
DIDN'T NOTIFY CONGRESS,
COMMUNITY ON 'FLIP-FLOP'

Ferguson, who requested investigation, says FAA 'less than truthful'

WASHINGTON - A year after Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-N.J., demanded an inquiry into airline route changes that increased air noise over residential areas in central New Jersey, a Department of Transportation report released Tuesday said the Federal Aviation Administration failed to notify Congress about the changes and ignored "red flags" that the changes would increase airline noise for hundreds of thousands of residents.

Ferguson and former Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., requested the investigation last June. The lawmakers specifically challenged the FAA's assertion that it had notified Congress and community leaders about the air route changes as well as the agency's claim that the changes would be controversy-free.

The transportation report, by the department's inspector general, Kenneth Mead, said no documents could be found supporting the FAA's claim that it notified New Jersey lawmakers or New Jersey state officials before making the so-called Yardley/Robbinsville Flip-Flop, which adjusted air traffic routes in December 2001 leading to Newark Liberty International and LaGuardia International airports.

Ferguson released the inspector general's report Tuesday.

"The FAA was less than truthful at best or lied and created facts at worst - either is unacceptable," Ferguson said. "At times the noise over central New Jersey has been deafening and countless homes have been shaken to their foundations. New Jersey families planning barbeques this summer might has well cook their hot dogs on the tarmac in Newark - it's likely to be a lot quieter there than in their back yards."

"This kind of recklessness and disregard for the truth also calls into question FAA's ability to effectively implement the comprehensive airspace redesign for airline routes over New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia set for 2005."

Mead's report also found that despite the FAA saying its Flip-Flop would not be controversial, the agency's decision actually increased air noise for more than 388,000 New Jersey residents.

"FAA badly misjudged how controversial the Flip-Flop would become," according to Mead's report. "FAA misjudged the reaction the Flip-Flop would generate with elected officials and citizens of New Jersey.

"FAA did not believe that the public would oppose the Flip-Flop because a study indicated that, of a total of 17 million people affected by aircraft noise in the area, 207,000 would receive less noise and over 388,000 would be exposed to increased noise levels. The fact that over 388,000 would be exposed to more noise should have been a red flag to FAA."

The FAA affirmed in an August 2001 "Preliminary Environmental Review Checklist" that it had informed members of Congress and state officials about the air route change and pledged that the Flip-Flop would not be controversial.

But the inspector general's report found "no documentation to indicate how FAA determined the Flip-Flop would not be controversial."

Before each air-route change, the FAA is required to conduct environmental impact studies unless "no community experienced a significant increase in noise." When route changes are proposed, the affected public, federal, state and local officials are also to be notified.

The inspector general's report found that the FAA ". . . records do not support agency statements . . . that it briefed Members of Congress, community leaders, and affected citizens."

Mead also found that "FAA officials should have recognized the likelihood of controversy regarding the Flip-Flop and placed increased emphasis on communicating the promised change to the citizens and elected officials of New Jersey."

Despite Mead's criticism of how FAA handled the issue, he found that, under the NEPA statute, the agency is not legally required to advise members of Congress and community leaders about air route changes above 3,000 feet, as is the case with the Yardley/Robbinsville Flip-Flop.

May 20,2003

Dear Member of Congress:

We are writing to address a concern that we know is of importance to many of your constituents - the problem of aircraft noise. For too many years, New Jersey residents have seen their health, welfare and quality-of-life suffer from the adverse effects caused by the airplanes that fly overhead. Unfortunately, New Jersey is not unique in this situation. We now have an opportunity to address noise relief concerns within the context of the redesign of the nation's airspace. We ask that you join our offices in trying to make this happen.

For many years, the New Jersey Congressional Delegation has been united in its drive to bring noise relief to the communities that unfortunately lie within the busiest airspace in the nation. We have written letters both individually and jointly to the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, urging them to take meaningful steps to reduce air noise. Unfortunately despite this unified message of support, we have yet to see any substantive steps taken to provide relief to New Jersey residents. It is time to take action.

As part of our efforts to provide noise relief for our constituents, we are now looking beyond New Jersey's borders in order to reach out and work with other states also facing significant air noise problems. The FAA is currently undertaking a redesign of the entire nation's airspace, starting with the New York-New Jersey- Philadelphia area. Two of the stated goals of this redesign are to 1) reduce air traffic and 2) increase safety. We want to ensure that another goal of mis redesign is the significant reduction of aircraft noise. We believe that a multi-state, bipartisan coalition can ensure this goal of the redesign as it begins in the New York-New Jersey area and continues across the country.

We understand that aviation is important to the smooth flow of commerce in the. United States. But commerce is a means to an end -improving the quality of life for all Americans - not an end in and of itself. We must take meaningful steps to reduce aircraft noise and the threat it poses to the quality of life for millions of Americans. We hope that you will join us in this effort. Please contact Bob Helland in Senator Corzine's office at 224-4744 or Rob Zucker in Congressman Rothman's office at 225-5061 if you would like further information.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,

Excerpts taken from 11/04/99 Testimony before the Congressional
Aviation Subcommittee on the Metro Airspace Redesign:

Eastern Region Administrator Feldman
"Administrator Garvey and all of us in Eastern Region are dedicated to working with the Port Authority to find a fair and balanced approach to address the issue of aircraft noise." "One of our stated goals is to enhance the environment to the degree consistent with safety and efficiency, both with noise abatement and improvements in air quality:we intend to fully examine possible revisions to departure patterns at Newark, including an ocean routing concept for day and night traffic, as well as the straight-out departure concept." "Throughout the redesign project (sic. NY/NJ Metropolitan Airspace Redesign), we will look for every opportunity to reduce the affects of unwanted aircraft noise for the citizens of New Jersey and New York. Indeed, as we move forward with our redesign project, we will take intermediate steps, consistent with NEPA, that may develop during the process provided that they will not adversely affect the safe and efficient management of air traffic to Newark, or to the neighboring airports." "At the same time that we began conducting the 260 degree test, in April 1998, Administrator Garvey announced the National Airspace Redesign project. As the Administrator testified before you last month, the National Airspace Redesign will be part of the FAA's efforts to improve air traffic management. The goals of the redesign project are: to maintain and improve system safety; improve the efficiency of the air traffic management and reduce delays; increase system flexibility and predictability; and seek to reduce adverse environmental effects on communities in and around our Nation's airports."

FAA Airspace Manager Frank Hatfield
"...can I aeronautically design a route that would get you from Newark out over the ocean taking into consideration Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Philadelphia flows. I think aeronautically that is possible."

New Jersey Airports General Manager Susan Baer
"While the Port Authority does not advocate the straight-out procedure, we do believe that a window of opportunity is opening to address both aircraft delays and noise." "While FAA's airspace redesign aims to create a safer, more efficient infrastructure for air traffic control, the aircraft noise issue must also be effectively addressed. The Port Authority stands ready to commit its expertise and resources to assist FAA in this monumental effort."

FAA's NY/NJ Pre Scoping Metro Airspace Redesign Project Newsletter

2/28/00 The Port Authority News Aviation

"In addition, the Port Authority successfully lobbied the FAA to address one of the major causes of aircraft noise complaints - by redesigning the corridors used by aircraft above New Jersey and New York. Redesign will reduce flight delays and aircraft noise throughout the region. The Port Authority is continuing to pressure the FAA to speed up the airspace redesign, and to see that the result guarantees relief to residents as quickly as possible."

WORLD TRADE CENTER, NEW YORK, NY: JULY 16, 2001
HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE

FAA Administrator Jane F. Garvey
"The evolution plan really lays out our blueprint for the future. As you have pointed out, the national airspace redesign will restructure the airspace and routes into and out of New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia to increase capacity and provide more efficient routes. But as the members of the delegation have so correctly pointed out, to also allow us to deal with the noise issues."

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Aviation Director William R. DeCota
"By untangling all of the very complex roots that we now have, the arrival and departure streams, and by reordering those, we expect not only that the system will become much more efficient, but more importantly, as you have heard from a number of people who talked about it today, that the communities will feel less noise impact, which is the other key objective of all of the comments I am making to you today."

Anti-noise group wants EPA to monitor remapping of flight routes

Thursday, March 27, 2003

BY AL FRANK
Star-Ledger Staff

A citizens group yesterday asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to keep an eye on the Federal Aviation Administration as it remaps air routes over New Jersey and New York.

Noise pollution "was the strongest and most widespread concern raised by the public" at meetings the FAA held in 2001 to discuss the project, the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic said.

Yet there are already signs the FAA is putting aside measures that could spell relief to New Jersey homeowners in airport flight paths, said Carter Strickland Jr., staff attorney.

As a result, Strickland asked EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to direct the agency to participate in the environmental review of the FAA's $35 million project redesigning air routes crisscrossing New Jersey and used by more than 8,000 aircraft daily.

The EPA has yet to study the request in detail, but the agency said its involvement was likely. "We will be a participant in the process and will review the FAA's environmental impact statement," an EPA official said.

The law clinic made the request on behalf of the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise and the legal group's intervention should bring additional legitimacy to its cause.

"I am certain (the clinic) will prove to be a powerful force in favorably influencing the outcome of the metro redesign," said Pamela Barsam-Brown, executive director.

The mapping project was announced at Newark Liberty International Airport in April 1998 and is supposed to be finished in 2005.

The issue is critical in the New Jersey-New York metropolitan area, where the skies are the world's busiest and where delays were costing airlines more than $1.1 billion a year. That was before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and the economic downturn, but the latest FAA forecast calls for traffic to return to 2000 levels by 2005 or 2006.

The present system of on- and off-ramps to the skyways was designed in the 1960s and provided John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports with better access than Newark, which at the time served 160,000 aircraft and 3 million passengers. That grew to more than 405,000 flights and 29 million passenger last year.

"The FAA failed to include the reduction of aircraft noise as a formal goal in its March 2002 scoping report," Strickland said, giving noise concerns "an unreasonably narrow definition" that "will, in turn, dictate an unduly limited range of alternatives."

FAA spokeswoman Arlene Salac said the agency has been following the EPA's rules in the process. Of the $35 million projected cost, $12 million is being spent on the plan's environmental impact statement due out by the end of the year.

"The purpose and need for the redesign is the safety and efficiency of the air space system, but noise is a major consideration," Salac said.

Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, representing NJCAAN, challenges
EPA to enforce the Noise Control and Quiet Communities Acts.

March 26, 2003

BY FACSMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Hon. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code 3213A
Washington, DC 20460

Re: Environmental Impact of the FAA's New York/New Jersey/ Philadelphia Airspace Redesign Project

Dear Administrator Whitman:

I write on behalf of New Jersey Citizens Against Airport Noise (NJCAAN) to request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participate in the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA's) environmental review of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign Project (Project).

The Project will govern the flight paths of approaching and departing aircraft from some of the busiest and most crowded airports in the nation, including Newark International Airport, JFK International Airport, LaGuardia International Airport and Philadelphia International Airport, as well as regional and general use airports. The FAA has finished its scoping of the Project and is in the process of developing its draft environmental impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.

NJCAAN makes this request because of its concern that the FAA may not be sufficiently weighing the noise effects of approaching and departing aircraft and that it will therefore fail to consider less noisy alternatives such as ocean routing. Noise is an important environmental public health issue for the residents of the densely-populated New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia corridor, including at least one million New Jersey residents who are greatly affected by excessive aircraft noise. When the FAA conveyed twenty-eight public meetings over five states in 2001 to determine the scope of its environmental review of the Project, noise pollution was the strongest and most widespread concern raised by the public. Polls have consistently demonstrated that noise is the number one quality of life complaint, largely from airport/aircraft noise. Indeed, New Jersey's noise problem was so severe after the last major airspace redesign, the Expanded East Coast Plan, that Congress included within the 1990 Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act a requirement that the FAA prepare an environmental impact statement. Pub. L. 101-508, § 9119. That study did not result in any noise relief to New Jersey residents.

New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, the New Jersey Legislature and a majority of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation also urged the FAA to consider noise control as an essential component of the Project.

Despite the great public concern about noise pollution, its statutory obligation to consider such effects and its past public commitments that noise was one of the purposes of the Project, the FAA failed to include the reduction of aircraft noise as a formal goal in its March 2002 scoping report. The unreasonably narrow definition of the Project's goal will, in turn, dictate an unduly limited range of alternatives. In fact, recent FAA documents have made clear that the agency is already rejecting ocean routing and other low-noise alternatives, even though it has just begun working on the draft environmental impact statement. Furthermore, contrary to the requirements and spirit of NEPA, the FAA has already implemented the "Robinsville-Yardley flip flop" aspect of the Project at the expense of other noise-reducing alternatives.

The EPA's participation is necessary to represent the public's interest in noise reduction. While the FAA is primarily concerned with air traffic efficiency and safety, the EPA's mission is to protect against all forms of pollution, including noise pollution. Indeed, EPA has exclusive federal authority to coordinate federal agency programs that relate to noise research and control under the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 4913, as amended by Pub. L. 95-609, § 2. An important aspect of EPA's authority is its mandate to aid the FAA in its regulation of airport noise and to suggest noise measures that are necessary to protect public health and welfare. See 49 U.S.C. § 44715(b)-(d). Under this authority, EPA has provided scientific and technical data and expertise to the FAA as a basis for its regulations.

The EPA should consult with the FAA now to provide much needed insight into the Project's impact on affected communities throughout the region and to assure that all appropriate alternatives are considered in the environmental review process. The need and authority for an active EPA role is embodied in NEPA's mandate that agencies such as the FAA "shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1503.1(a)(1), 1502. In this case, EPA is the appropriate Federal agency to comment on the noise issue because of its statutory noise control authority and its general environmental expertise.

NJCAAN believes that it is in everyone's interest for the mandatory consultation with the EPA to start immediately, before the FAA spends even more time on a flawed environmental review process. We respectfully request that the EPA consult with the FAA regarding the Project's scoping report and alternatives analysis to assure that the Project minimizes noise pollution. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Carter H. Strickland, Jr.

cc (by facsmile):
Administrator Marion C. Blakely, FAA
New Jersey Congressional Delegation
Governor James McGreevey
Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Pamela Barsam-Brown, Executive Director, NJCAAN

Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, representing NJCAAN, submits
comment on the FAA's Draft Flight Plan 2004 - 2008.

August 1, 2003

BY ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL

Marion C. Blakely
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591

Re: FAA's Draft Flight Plan 2004-2008

Dear Administrator Blakely:

I represent New Jersey Citizens Against Airport Noise ("NJCAAN"), a non-profit organization that advocates for reduced noise from airplanes on behalf of its members from 18 counties and 300 towns in New Jersey. Please accept these comments of NJCAAN on the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA's") draft Flight Plan 2004-2008 for your consideration in adopting the final published plan.

General Comments

NJCAAN does not understand the proposed Flight Plan to be a binding regulation or even scientifically-based policy, but rather a set of internal managerial guidelines to be periodically revised in light of changing considerations. In this regard, NJCAAN welcomes the FAA's invitation to comment on the Flight Plan's broadly-worded and general guidelines, while recognizing that they are not intended to supersede other legal authorities that concern noise pollution and apply to the FAA, such as the Quiet Communities Act of 1978. For greater clarity, however, the FAA should explain in greater detail how, if at all, the Flight Plan will affect ongoing efforts such as the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Flight Space Redesign ("NY Metro Area Redesign") and its attendant environmental impact statement. If NJCAAN's understanding is not correct, and the FAA regard the Flight Plan as somehow binding, then agency is obliged to explicitly refer to the statutory and regulatory authority for the Flight Plan and address its interaction and possible conflict with other authorities.

NJCAAN also notes that the Flight Plan's overall strategy of greatly increasing capacity does not reflect the FAA's policy of redesigning airspace to achieve the goal of reduced noise pollution that was announced in the 1990s. New Jersey's airplane noise problem was so severe after the last major airspace redesign, the Expanded East Coast Plan, that Congress included within the 1990 Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act a requirement that the FAA prepare an environmental impact statement for the Expanded East Coast Plan. Pub. L. 101-508, § 9119 (1990). That study did not result in any noise relief to New Jersey residents, but the Expanded East Coast Plan Record of Decision and Environmental Impact Statement did commit the FAA to mitigating aircraft noise in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area through air traffic routes and procedures. Indeed, since the adoption of the Expanded East Coast Plan in 1987, the FAA has promoted the redesign of the airspace as the only avenue that could achieve meaningful and long-tern relief from noise impacts from the plan.

When the NY Metro Area Redesign was announced in the late-1990s senior FAA officials, including then-Administrator Jane Garvey, assured elected officials and New Jersey citizens that the reconfiguration of the airspace would address noise impacts and "maintain a sensitivity" to such impacts. The FAA's Airspace Redesign program manager was also quoted in the press as stating that noise reduction is one of the "primary objectives" of the redesign. The FAA marketed the redesign to Congress and the public as a noise reduction plan to gain public support for funding; in November 1999, for example, New York Regional Administrator Arlene Feldman testified before the House Aviation Subcommittee that the NY Metro Area Redesign would have as one of its goals the reduction of aircraft noise. Administrator Garvey and other FAA officials also stated that the agency would examine ocean routing as an alternative in the airspace redesign. Furthermore, the FAA's July 2000 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy lists as one of its six goals the "[d]esign [of] air traffic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond the legal jurisdiction of the airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus and safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace." 65 Fed. Reg. 43802, 43805 (July 14, 2000). After a series of presentations and public meetings held in connection with the NY Metro Area Redesign, the FAA's March 2002 Scoping Report accurately concluded that aircraft noise pollution is the most common complaint of elected officials and citizens.

NJCAAN fully expects the FAA to honor its many public and private pronouncements regarding its policy of reducing noise through airspace redesign. We are concerned that the March 2002 Scoping Report wrongly omitted noise reduction as a formal objective of the NY Metro Area Redesign, and that the agency's later statements and documents have compounded this error by seeming to disengage the agency from its obligation to address noise through the Redesign. Nevertheless, NJCAAN continues to urge the FAA to comply with its announced policy, correct the missteps in the NY Metro Area Redesign, and fully consider and adopt ocean routing and other noise reduction measures in the redesign and its environmental impact statement. Likewise, the strategic goals announced in the final Flight Plan 2004-2008 should reflect the FAA's policy of reducing noise, not just increasing capacity, through airspace redesign. Indeed, since the FAA has failed to reduce noise, it must commit to doing so before undertaking capacity expansions and other activities that will greatly increase noise pollution.

Greater Capacity: Overview

The Flight Plan as a whole is oriented towards increasing capacity rather than improving the quality of the flight experience or reducing environmental impacts. A typical statement is that one of the FAA's objectives is to "[i]ncrease or improve airspace capacity in the eight major metropolitan areas." (p. 21) To counterbalance the strain on the citizenry in dealing with the many negative externalities of the anticipated additional flights, the Flight Plan should also adopt as one of its objectives "reduce airplane noise impacts in every community surrounding airports at which there is increased capacity."

NJCAAN notes that the overview states that the redesigned airspace will have to "increase safety and security while addressing noise and air quality . . . ." (p. 21) This vague mention of important noise issues fails to indicate any useful criteria for measuring success or even whether the agency believes that noise pollution should increase or decrease. The FAA could very well "address" the significant noise impacts from increased airplane traffic by stating that there will be more noise but that it is unavoidable or counterbalanced by other considerations. Such a position would be unacceptable. Indeed, the FAA has the ability to reduce the noise impacts from current capacity levels (not just increased levels), and should adopt that result as a goal. NJCAAN suggests at a minimum that the quoted language be replaced with "increase safety and security while reducing noise and improving air quality." In addition, the FAA should bolster the general phrase "accomplish [capacity increases] in an environmentally friendly manner" (p. 22) by adding specific examples such as "by reducing noise impacts from current levels."

Greater Capacity: Objective 1

Under this objective, one of the listed initiatives is to set up an "intra-agency team to coordinate standards, procedures and policies to improve airport capacity." (p. 23). NJCAAN commends this approach and believes that it should be extended to ensure that issues other than capacity are reviewed by various agencies. As we advocated in the enclosed letter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be more involved in all FAA airspace redesign efforts because of that agency's technical expertise in noise issues and statutory authority to address noise pollution under the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 4913, as amended by Pub. L. 95-609, § 2, and other authorities, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § 44715(b)-(d). Accordingly, NJCAAN requests that the FAA amend the initiative by adding "and associated airplane noise pollution" to the end.

On the following page, one of the FAA's proposed strategies to achieve Objective 1 is to "[a]ddress environmental issues associated with capacity enhancements." (p. 24). This strategy should be amended to clarify that noise is one of the primary environmental issues associated with capacity increases, as follows: "[a]ddress noise and other environmental issues . . ." Under this strategy heading, the FAA lists a number of initiatives that will not fully address and resolve environmental issues, and they need to be greatly strengthened to adequately address the current levels of noise and other externalities, let alone the anticipated increased levels from capacity expansion. NJCAAN's comments and suggestions on specific proposed initiatives are as follows:

• "Build stakeholder support for funding and technology models to address environmental impacts." Again, this initiative should be amended to clarify that the goal is reducing, not simply addressing, noise pollution. Also, this initiative should be amended to clarify that the public is a significant stakeholder in reducing noise and other environmental impacts. Finally, the FAA should commit to adopting noise pollution measures and goals endorsed by the public. The FAA failed to do so during the initial scoping stage of the ongoing environmental impact review of the NY Metro Area Airspace Redesign. When the FAA conveyed twenty-eight public meetings over five states in 2001 to determine the scope of its environmental review of the Redesign, noise pollution was the strongest and most widespread concern raised by the public. Despite the great public concern about noise pollution, its statutory obligation to consider such effects and its past public commitments that noise was one of the purposes of the Redesign, the FAA failed to include the reduction of aircraft noise as a formal goal in its March 2002 scoping report. The unreasonably narrow definition of the Project's goal may lead the agency to unduly limit its consideration or assessment of alternatives airspace designs, although that result is not foreordained and is certainly not appropriate.
  
  
• "Develop tools to understand the relationship between noise and emissions and different types of emissions." The FAA should expand this initiative to research on the relationship between airplane overflights and on-the-ground noise effects, and should explicitly commit the agency to a literature view and research effort on whether the current DNL 65 dB noise contour maps accurately capture all public health effects from airplane noise, or whether the agency should adopt other metrics, including Equivalent Sound Level, Maximum Sound Level, Time above dBA Threshold, and Sound Exposure Level or Single Event Noise Exposure Level. As currently written, the research will not result in any practical policy tools for redesigning airspace to reduce noise.
  
  
• "Ensure timely review of planning and environmental efforts at all OEP airports examining new runways and airfield reconfigurations." The FAA should clarify that it will not take measures to shortcut mandatory review of noise and other environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq. NJCAAN is concerned that the FAA has shown a willingness both to avoid the NEPA process altogether or to render the NEPA process ineffective. For example, in 2001 the FAA abruptly announced and implemented a major routing change called the Yardley/Robbinsville Flip-Flop, which exchanged Newark and LaGuardia arrival routes, without a separate environmental review or evaluation in the ongoing NY Metro Area Redesign environmental review; the Department of Transportation Inspector General investigated this matter and concluded that the FAA had failed to comply with NEPA and ignored "red flags" that the Flip-Flop would increase aircraft noise for hundreds of thousands of citizens. The FAA has also watered down the effectiveness of the NEPA process; for example, its March 2002 Scoping Report failed to adopt noise reduction as a formal objective, thereby narrowing the true scope of issues to be examined in an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, NJCAAN requests that the FAA amend the initiative to state "Ensure comprehensive and timely review of planning and environmental efforts at all OEP airports examining new runways and airfield reconfigurations and in all airspace redesign projects."
  
  
• "Improve data on the environmental benefits, technological feasibility, and economic reasonableness of technologies and other measures to support sound and cost-effective decision-making." The FAA should look at all available data and then make its decisions, not make decisions and then look for supporting data. As currently written, the initiative gives the impression that the FAA will only develop data on the environmental benefits of agency decisions. The FAA should correct this impression by amending the initiate to look at "environmental effects" rather than only "environmental benefits."
  
  
• "Develop 'best practices' for airport/airline community relations to educate and inform the public about aviation and the environment." While this initiative may have some ancillary benefit to airport operations, the FAA's efforts would be better spent on reducing the environmental effects of airplanes rather than public relations. The FAA should amend the initiative to state that the agency will develop best practices for "the agency, airlines and airports to reduce noise and other negative environmental effects from airplanes."
  
  
• "Implement airspace redesign to increase efficiency with consideration for environmental impacts." As discussed above, the FAA's NY Metro Area Redesign has improperly left out reducing noise as a goal of the redesign. The FAA should strengthen its adherence to its noise policies by amending the initiative to state "Implement airspace redesign to increase efficiency and to reduce environmental impacts, including noise."

Very truly yours,

Carter H. Strickland, Jr.

Enclosure
cc:
New Jersey Congressional Delegation New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey
Marianne Lamont Horinko, Acting Administrator, U.S. EPA
Pamela Barsam-Brown, Executive Director