U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–567 PDF 2007

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

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

BOB FILNER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

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

Page

VI

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

vii


38567.001
viii


38567.002
ix


38567.003
x


38567.004
xi


38567.005
xii


38567.006
xiii


38567.007
xiv


38567.008
(1)

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 

2

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. 

3

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 airVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
4

ports—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 adjaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
5

cent 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 

6

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 

7

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. 

8

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 

9

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 revoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
10

tionary 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 proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

gram, 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. 

12

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 

13

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. 

14

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 runups, 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 

15

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, 

16

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. 

17

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 

18

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. 

19

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 SoundControlled 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. 

20

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 

21

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, FAAsponsored 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 

22

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 

23

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:]

24


38567.009
25

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 

26

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 underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
27

standing 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 

28

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 inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:17 Feb 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38567 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
29

crease 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.]

30


38567.010
31


38567.011
32


38567.012
33


38567.013
34


38567.014
35


38567.015
36


38567.016
37


38567.017
38


38567.018
39


38567.019
40


38567.020
41


38567.021
42


38567.022
43


38567.023
44


38567.024
45


38567.025
46


38567.026
47


38567.027
48


38567.028
49


38567.029
50


38567.030
51


38567.031
52


38567.032
53


38567.033
54


38567.034
55


38567.035
56


38567.036
57


38567.037
58


38567.038
59


38567.039
60


38567.040
61


38567.041
62


38567.042
63


38567.043
64


38567.044
65


38567.045
66


38567.046
67


38567.047
68


38567.048
69


38567.049
70


38567.050
71


38567.051
72


38567.052
73


38567.053
74


38567.054
75


38567.055
76


38567.056
77


38567.057
78


38567.058
79


38567.059
80


38567.060
81


38567.061
82


38567.062
83


38567.063
84


38567.064
85


38567.065
86


38567.066
87


38567.067
88


38567.068
89


38567.069
90


38567.070
91


38567.071
92


38567.072
93


38567.073
94


38567.074
95


38567.075
96


38567.076
97


38567.077
98


38567.078
99


38567.079
100


38567.080
101


38567.081
102


38567.082
103


38567.083
104


38567.084
105


38567.085
106


38567.086
107


38567.087
108


38567.088
109


38567.089
110


38567.090
111


38567.091
112


38567.092
113


38567.093
114


38567.094
115


38567.095
116


38567.096
117


38567.097
118


38567.098
119


38567.099
120


38567.100
121


38567.101
122


38567.102
123


38567.103
124


38567.104
125


38567.105
126


38567.106
127


38567.107
128


38567.108
129


38567.109
130


38567.110
131


38567.111
132


38567.112
133


38567.113
134


38567.114
135


38567.115
136


38567.116
137


38567.117
138


38567.118
139


38567.119
140


38567.120
141


38567.121
142


38567.122
143


38567.123
144


38567.124
145


38567.125
146


38567.126
147


38567.127
148


38567.128
149


38567.129
150


38567.130
151


38567.131
152


38567.132
153


38567.133
154


38567.134
155


38567.135
156


38567.136
157


38567.137
158


38567.138
159


38567.139
160


38567.140
161


38567.141
162


38567.142
163


38567.143
164


38567.144
165


38567.145
166


38567.146
167


38567.147
168


38567.148
169


38567.149
170


38567.150
171


38567.151
172


38567.152
173


38567.153
174


38567.154
175


38567.155
176


38567.156
177


38567.157
178


38567.158
179


38567.159
180


38567.160
181


38567.161
182


38567.162
183


38567.163
184

Æ


38567.164