October 18, 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

Elaine Miller 

85 Nassau Ave. 

Malverne, New York 11565 

M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Washington, DC 20590-0001. 

. ~ - . . . -· ' . 

RE: Docket no. FAA-2014-0510 published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2014. 

This letter provides our response to a Solicitation of Public Comment; 1 related to 

Implementation of Legislative Categorical Exclusion for Environmental Review of 

Performance Based Navigation Procedures: Docket No. FAA-2014-0510 ("the docket").2 

Comments 

1. Extent to which the FAA should rely on the Net Noise Reduction Method to 

determine measurable reductions in noise on a per flight basis. 

We can find no value in any aspects of the Net Reduction Method and do not believe it 

should be used. It is a method that is based on two false premises: first that that the word 

"average" belongs in the LCA TEX2 language and second that the number of people 

experiencing an increase in noise when compared to the number experiencing a reduction 

of noise, somehow indicates that an individual may be experiencing an increase or 

decrease of noise. The method is a way of hiding focusing effects of Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN) procedure's and their impact on an individual's environment. 

Further qualifying a PBN procedure under LCATEX2 suggests that the FAA may use an 

existing procedure qualified under LCATEX2 as a rational for issuing a new LCATEX 

for another PBN procedure. This process, if implemented, would be problematic as it 

would further maghify the impact of an improper analysis. 

If the FAA does accept the Net Reduction Method, or any variations so far proposed, 

then we believe that each new procedure for which the FAA desires to use a LCATEX2 

must undergo its own analysis under rules to be established for LCATEX2. 

1 From page 14 of the docket. 2 References to locations in Docket No. FAA-2014-0510 refer to locations in the public inspection version 

ofthe docket which is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-

1969l.pdf. 

1 
That is, the FAA should not be allowed qualify a procedure under LCATEX2 unless the 

analysis of LCATEX2 is repeated for each new procedu.re. 

40 CFR 1508.4 suppm1s this view since it defmes categorical exclusions as: 

" ... categories of actions that normally do not individually or cumulatively 

have significant adverse effects on the human environment and which 

have been found [by the federal agency] to have no such effect." 

The quoted section above clearly requires that any procedure approved under a NEP A 

CATEX must either be identical to a procedure already qualified as a CATEX or has 

undergone its own an environmental review. 

Our concem about how LCATEX' s or convyntional CATEX' s will be used is heightened 

by a comment in the docket which states that: 

"In addition, for projects involving only PBN procedures, 95 percent or more 

already meet the conditions of existing FAA CATEXs. Under these 

circumstances, the Section 213(c)(2) CATEX would be expected to be used 

infrequently" 

Is the FAA saying that they will be using, for example, CATEX's for RNAV 

procedures to justify CATEX's for PBN procedures with RNP specifications? As 

the FAA knows full well, that approach gives misleading results as it hides noise 

focusing. We are concemed that this may be another way of using the overlay 

concept to circumvent legally mandated environmental review. 

We therefore respectfully remind the FAA that HR 658 states at Sec. 213 

(a)(l)(A) that: 

"The Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable, avoid 

overlays of existing flight procedures, but if unavoidable, the 

Administrator shall clearly identify each required navigation performance 

and area navigation procedure that is an overlay of an existing instrument 

flight procedure and the reason why such an overlay was used." 

2. Appropriateness of detennining that there is a measurable reduction in noise if people 

receiving a noise decrease outnumber the people receiving an increase, but the noise 

decrease is small compared to the noise increase. 

It is not appropriate; we can find no con·elation between measurement of individual noise 

values and the number of people experiencing a noise increase or decrease. We share the 

concem expressed by the FAA. 3 

3 See page 10 ofthe docket 

2 
"Another consideration is the extent to which the Net Noise Reduction Method's 

reliance on a net reduction in the number of people exposed to noise constitutes a 

net reduction in noise, since the two reductions are not the same. An increase in 

the number of people exposed to noise does not convey the amount of the noise 

increase, i.e. whether it is a small or a large increase in noise. Similarly, a 

decrease in the number of people does not convey the amount of the noise 

decrease. If people receiving a noise decrease outnumber the people receiving an 

increase, but the amount of the noise decrease is small compared to the noise 

increase, is it appropriate for the FAA to determine that there is a measurable 

reduction in noise?" 

As discussed above, since there is no correlation between measurement of individual 

noise values and the number of people experiencing a noise increase or decrease the 

answer must be no, it is not appropriate 

3. Different approaches to a net noise reduction methodology (i.e., population change, 

noise change, population weighted noise change), and whether the selection of one 

approach over another is preferred and increases public undetstanding. 

Our proposed method is provided in section IV. It will be easily understood by the public, 

can be accomplished with existing methods and software, and literally satisfies the 

requirements of LCATEX2. 

We do not believe population weighting helps since its use would still mask individual 

impacts. 

4. Extent to which a mix of noise increases and decreases could support a determination 

of measurable noise reduction, especially when reductions at lower noise levels outweigh 

increases at higher noise levels, and whether an altematiye approach that wouldrequire 

reductions in all three noise exposure bands to support the use of the CATEX should be 

used. 

The fundamental assumption that a mix of noise increases and decreases could support a 

determination of measurable noise reduction as required by the language of Sec. 213 is 

flawed and does not help resolve the issues addressed in 2. above. 

5. Whether a significant noise impact threshold test should be used; and if so, if it should 

be used only when there is a net increase in people exposed to noise at DNL 65 dB and 

above, or if it should be used when there is any increase in the number of people exposed 

to noise at DNL 65 dB and above-even if there is a net population benefit at that level. 

A plain language reading of LCATEX2 indicates that a comparison should be made of 

noise produced by an existing instrument procedure to that produced by a proposed PBN 

procedure. Common sense and usual practice indicates that the comparison should be 

made at a particular location on the ground so that impact on individuals can be 

evaluated. 

3 
The question of whether there is only one sample flight for each procedure, or the noise is 

to be averaged over a number of flights (of the same proposed procedure), may be an 

issue. However, there is no requirement or suggestion that anything more than a simple 

comparison of noise at a location is needed. It is therefore our opinion that there is no 

need for a significant threshold. 

The introduction of the significant thr~shold is an attempt td resolving a basic flaw in the 

method. The flaw is the assumption that that an increase or decrease in the number of 

people subjected to a specific noise level can be used as a measure of an actual change of 

noise level. It was introduced to cover the case where the method fails and there is the 

desire to capture the number of people that would experience noise above 65 DNL and 

some semblance of compliance with NEP A. 

We thank the FAA for the opportunity to comment on the docket and provide suggestions 

for alternate methodologies to satisfy the literal requirements ofLCATEX2. 

Sincerely, 

Elaine Miller 

4