October 18, 2014

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations Elaine Miller 85 Nassau Ave. Malverne, New York 11565

M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590-0001. .**~** - . . .-· '

.

RE: Docket no. FAA-2014-0510 published inthe Federal Register on August 19, 2014. This letter provides ourresponse to a Solicitation ofPublic Comment; 1 related to Implementation ofLegislative Categorical Exclusion for Environmental Review of Performance BasedNavigation Procedures: DocketNo. FAA-2014-0510 ("the docket"). 2

Comments 1. Extent to which the FAA should rely on the NetNoise Reduction Method to determine measurable reductions innoise on a per flight basis. We can find no value in any aspects ofthe Net Reduction Method and do not believe it should be used. Itis a method that is based ontwo false premises: first that thatthe word "average" belongs inthe LCA TEX2 language and second that the number ofpeople experiencing an increase innoise when compared to the number experiencing a reduction ofnoise, somehow indicates that an individual may be experiencing an increase or decrease ofnoise. The method is a way ofhiding focusing effects ofPerformance 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 PBNprocedure. This process, ifimplemented, would be problematic as 

### it would further maghify the impact ofan improper analysis. Ifthe 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 Frompage 14 ofthe docket. 2 References to locations in Docket No. FAA-2014-0510 refer to locations inthe public inspection version ofthe docket which is available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014- 1969l.pdf. 1That is, the FAA should not be allowed qualify a procedure under LCATEX2 unless the analysis ofLCATEX2 is repeated for eachnewprocedu.re. 40 CFR 1508.4 suppm1s this view since it defmes categorical exclusions as: "
...categories ofactions that normally do not individually or cumulatively have significant adverse effects onthe 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 howLCATEX's or convyntional CATEX's will be used is heightened by a comment inthe docket which states that: "In addition, for projects involving only PBN procedures, 95 percent or more already meet the conditions ofexisting FAA CATEXs. Underthese circumstances, the Section 213(c)(2) CATEX would be expectedto be used infrequently" Is the FAA saying thatthey will be using, for example, CATEX's for RNAV procedures tojustify CATEX's for PBN procedures with RNP specifications? As the FAA knows full well, that approach gives misleading results as ithides noise focusing. We are concemed that this may be another way ofusing 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 extentpracticable, avoid overlays ofexisting flight procedures, but ifunavoidable, the Administrator shall clearly identify each required navigationperformance and areanavigationprocedure that is an overlay ofan existing instrument flight procedure and the reason why such an overlay was used." 2. Appropriateness ofdetennining that there is a measurable reduction innoise ifpeople receiving a noise decrease outnumber the people receiving an increase, but the noise decrease is small compared to the noise increase. Itis not appropriate; we can find no con·elation betweenmeasurement ofindividual noise values and the number ofpeople experiencing a noise increase or decrease. We share the concem expressed bythe 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 ofpeople exposed to noise constitutes a net reduction in noise, since the two reductions are not the same. An increase in the number ofpeople exposed to noise does not convey the amount ofthe noise increase, i.e. whether it is a small or a large increase in noise. Similarly, a decrease in the number ofpeople does not convey the amount ofthe noise decrease. Ifpeople receiving a noise decrease outnumberthe people receiving an increase, but the amount ofthe 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 ofindividual noise values and the number ofpeople 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 ofone approach over another is preferred and increases public undetstanding. Ourproposed method is provided in section IV. Itwill be easily understood by the public, canbe accomplished with existing methods and software, and literally satisfies the requirements ofLCATEX2. We do notbelieve population weighting helps since its use would still mask individual impacts. 4. Extentto which a mix ofnoise increases and decreases could support a determination ofmeasurable noise reduction, especially when reductions at lowernoise levels outweigh increases at higher noise levels, and whether an altematiye approach that wouldrequire reductions in allthree noise exposure bands to support the use ofthe CATEX should be used. The fundamental assumption that a mix ofnoise increases and decreases could support a determination ofmeasurable noise reduction as required bythe language ofSec. 213 is flawed and does not help resolve the issues addressed in 2. above. 5. Whether a significant noise impactthreshold test should be used; and ifso, ifit should be used only whenthere is a net increase in people exposed to noise at DNL 65 dB and above, orifit should be used when there is any increase inthe number ofpeople exposed to noise atDNL 65 dB and above-even ifthere is a net population benefit atthat level. A plain language reading ofLCATEX2 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 thatthe comparison should be made at a particular location onthe ground so that impact on individuals canbe evaluated.

3The question ofwhether there is only one sample flight for each procedure, orthe noise is to be averaged over a number offlights (ofthe same proposed procedure), may be an issue. However, there is no requirement or suggestionthat anything more than a simple comparison ofnoise at a location is needed. Itis therefore our opinion thatthere is no need for a significant threshold. The introduction ofthe significant

**thr~shold** is an attempttd resolving a basic flaw inthe method. The flaw is the assumption that that an increase or decrease inthe number of people subjected to a specific noise level can be used as a measure ofan actual change of noise level. Itwas introduced to cover the case where the method fails and there is the desire to capture the number ofpeople that would experience noise above 65 DNL and some semblance ofcompliance withNEP 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