November 10, 2014 Lourdes Q. Maurice, Executive Director, Office of Environmentand Energy FederalAviationAdministration. 800 IndependenceAvenue Washington, DC 20591 Comments on Docket Number FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures 1. Filed electronically on the Federal Register Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0510-0002
2. Electronic copyemailed to: Ms. Lynne Pickard SeniorAdvisorfor Environmental Policy Federal Aviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue SW Washington, DC 20591 3. Printed copy mailedto: DocketOperations M-30 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Room W12-140 West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590-0001 4. Copies emailed to: The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, member, United States Senate The Honorable Grace Meng, member, U.S. Houseof Representatives The Honorable Steven J. Israel, member, U.S. House ofRepresentatives The HonorableTonyAvella, member, NewYork State Senate The Honorable Edward Braunstein, member, NewYork StateAssembly Queens Quiet Skies writes in opposition to use ofthe RTCA/FAA Net Noise Reduction Method proposal in the Federal Register. That "Notice" is entitled: "Implementation of Legislative Categorical Exclusion for Environmental Review of Performance Based Navigation Procedures" The purpose ofthe Notice: "This notice provides the public an opportunityto comment on the Net Noise Reduction Method and possible variations of it tofurther inform the FAA's consideration of interpretive guidanceto implement Section 213 (c)(2)." And later in the document: "

...the FAA has decided to solicit public comment to further inform the FAA's consideration of interpretative guidance to

Queens QuietSkies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 1 of17 "'"">.**-~ ~.:** .:]implement Section 213(c) (2) using the Net Noise Reduction Method and possible variations on it." We do appreciate this opportunity to provide written comments on the FAA's Federal Register Notice of August 19, 2014. The citizens advocacy group, Queens Quiet Skies, located in Bayside, Queens, New York, respectfully submits these comments in regards to the subject Notice, first published in the Daily Journal of the United States Register under the Docket Number FAA-2014-0510, as made available online via the Federal Register. The officers of Queens Quiet Skies include Ms. Janet McEneaney of Bayside, New York, President. Ms. McEneaney is an attorney who works as an arbitrator and mediator of employment and commercial disputes. She is an adjunct Professor at New York University and the City UniversityofNewYork. Ms. McEneaneywas the founderand former Presidentof the Northwest Bayside Civic Association, and is currently a member of Queens Community Board 11, a municipal organization representing 117,000 people in a low-rise residential area in the borough ofQueens. She is acharter memberofthe NewYork CityAviation Roundtable. Mr. RobertWhitehair, of Douglaston, NewYork, is Vice-President ofQueens Quiet Skies, is a licensed Private Pilot, former Airport Manager ofthe Palm Springs International Airport, Palm Springs, California; current charter member of the New York City Aviation Roundtable; past member of the San Francisco International Airport Roundtable; and was certified as an Accredited Airport Executive bytheAmerican Association ofAirport Executives. Ms. McEneaney, Mr. Whitehair, and other members of Queens Quiet Skies have made presentations, answered hundreds of questions regarding airplane noise, and supported a comprehensive solution to the complex problem of airplane noise in the New York City area. At over 40 public events in the last two years, they have appeared before 2,000 very concerned residents of Queens, The Bronx, and Brooklyn in New York City; and adjacent Nassau County. The analysis, data, and information contained in this response are based not only on the professional experience of Ms. McEneaney and Mr. Whitehair, but are shaped by the deep concern of thousands of very concerned New York City area residents who have negatively impacted by noisefrom airplane operations at both LaGuardia and JFKAirports. The FAA has proposed the use of a "Net Noise Reduction Method" (The Method) for the purposes of comparing noise generated by potentially new Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures typically based on Global Positioning Satellites (GPS), to that noise that had been being generated by supposedly similar instrument based-based procedures currently in effect. We understand that for guidance, the FAA first turned to the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) of the RTCA, the latter being an aviation industry advisory group. In June, 2013, the "CatEx Task Force " of NAC presented to the FAA a report that recommended the Net Noise Reduction Method and also included in the reportwere additional findings and conclusions. 1
Comments on the August 19, 2014 Noticewerefirst due September 18, 2014, with an extension to October 20, 2014. However, due to the lack of availability of certain Environmental Assessment documentsthatwere used in the preparation of RTCA/FAA supporting documents, it became evident in mid-October, thatthorough responses were not possible within the original

1 RTCA/NAC "Recommendations For ImplementingtheCategorical Exclusion in Section 213 (c)(2) ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Actof2012." Report prepared by The CATEX2 Task Group, ofthe RTCA/NAC, 2012

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FM-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 2 of17time frame. But with the assistance of Ms. Lynne Pickard ofthe FAA, we were able to receive and review several important Environmental Assessment documents prepared by the FAA and other governmental agencies. We were given until November 10, 2014 to review the newly available documentsand submitour response. These documents include: 1. "Chicago Midway International Airport Flight Procedural Changes, Environmental Assessment."2An electronic linkwas provided to us. 2. The second relevant document is: "Chicago Midway International Airport Air Traffic Procedural Changes Environmental Assessment- Final Appendices."3An electronic link was also provided. 3. The third relevant document**is~** "Chicago Midway International Airport Air Traffic Procedural Changes Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision."4forwhich we were also provided a link.
4. Final Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD), and Appendices for the "Greener Skies Over Seattle, Proposed Arrival Procedures to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport." Through a third party web site "DropBox" we were also provided with an electronic copyofthisfourth setofdocuments. SUMMARY OF OUR RESPONSE Despitethe easyavailability ofmany, more robust methodsto measurethe impactofnoisefrom individual flights, The "Net Noise Reduction Method" proposed by the FAA in the Federal Register Noticewill inappropriately accelerate implementation ofnew, unacceptably noisy, flight procedures over the residents of New York City. Together with the FAA CATEX process, the Net Noise Reduction Method will further weaken and most likely eliminate public review and comment. The FAA would now claim for itself sole power to clandestinely determine and simultaneously ignore higherairplane noise readings and greaterannoying noise concentration. How can the FAA implement new flights, subjecting currently quiet residential areas, to new, extremely intolerable noise, or further concentrate noise on the ground under existing flight paths? Howcan the FAAdothis without at least making the proposed actions subject to public scrutiny? How can the FAA do this when there are competent, willing, professional

2 The documentis available online here: http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Midway/AboutUs/AirportNoise/General%20 Noise%201nfo/130523 MOW FinaiReport withGraphics.pdf 3 The documentis available online here: http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Midway/AboutUs/AirportNoise/General%20 Noise%201nfo/130524 MOW FinaiAppendices.pdf

4 The documentis available here: http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Midway/ AboutUs/ AirportNoise/General%20 Noise%201nfo/MDW%20FONSI-ROD%20Final 130626.pdf

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 3 of17organizations around the United States, including Queens Quiet Skies and others, that are willing to help? Despitethe FAA askingforand receiving a report from the RTCA NextGenAdvisory Committee Task Force, the FAA chose to ignore the warnings of the Task Force, and the FAA's own definitions that there was in fact a significant impact from flight procedure changes at Chicago Midway International Airport, developing a very weak, very questionable noise weighting system. We respectfully askthat before newflight procedures are implemented, there must befull public disclosure, comparing existing noise baselines or snapshots of individual existing flight procedures, to the increased noise levels from each new flight procedure. To avoid the noise disasters ofthe past such as TNNIS RNAV over Queens, we askthatyou support our effortsto stop the FAA's evisceration of the way noise annoyance and impacts are measured, and the thereby improve the process for public disclosure and comments. It is essential thatthere be a visible view of current noise levels, and most importantly that there be a public, open participation process that carefully considersthe impacts of increased noise. There are indeed existing methodologies that will overcome the significant shortcomings ofthe Net Noise Reduction Method, and we strongly urge you to convene a group of concerned citizens, representatives of the FAA, and the RTCAINAC. We are aware that the FAA is concerned that time is of the essence, we are ready to assist in an attempt to meet that concern. ANSWERSTO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS A series ofquestions were presented in the Notice, the following is our response, question by question:

Queens QuietSkies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures Page 4 of17Question 1: Extent to which the FAA should rely on the Net Noise Reduction Method to determine measurable reductions in noiseonaperflightbasis. Answer: The FAA MUST NOT rely on the Net Noise Reduction Method (The Method) to any extent, because it does not meet the directive of the United States Congress to determine measurable reductions in noise on a perflight basis.
1. The Method is based on Day Night Noise Levels or DNL, an aggregation formula which was never intended from the dates of its original development to be used for consideration ofnoise impactsfrom individualflights.
2. As currentlystructured, itfailsto addressthe noise impactfrom changesto thoseflights.
3. Use of The Method will promote and encourage shifting noise problems from one residential area to another.
4. The Net Noise Reduction Method as proposed by the FAA is NOT the Net Noise Reduction Method proposed bythe RTCA in its June 20123 report. 5
As the FAA and technical experts are aware, the DNL measurement is based on flights from an airport-operator-defined, aggregated, statistically representative, 24 hour day, or "Average Annual Day" which represents only an annualized average daily flight condition. Unless modified, perhaps by one of the many possible methods found in professional literature and suggested later in our response, The Method provides no means of measuring noise on a per flight basis, and cannot be crudely manipulated in a haphazard attempt to measure noise impacts perflight. DNL is an amalgamation or aggregation ofthe noise impacts of MANY flights, and was never intended to measure noise per flight. The formula in DNL provides no method to accomplish measuring noise from individual flights but rather creates a land area noise "footprint" showing the geographical areas impacted by noise from many flights, through use of the Integrated Noise Model (INM). INM data input includes typical number of flights per each flight path, average noise foot prints from typical aircraft engines, typical assumed load factors, typical air temperature, typical terrain elevations, assumed noise measurement, and other assumed factors representing only an aggregation of so-called typical conditions. It creates noise contours on a map. In the 1960s and into the 1970s researchers and governmental regulators tried many methods of defining the distance that annoying noise traveled from the source, including among others, the Composite Noise Rating (CNR), and the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF), finally setting on day-night average sound level (Ldn or DNL) as the noise impact over a defined land area, based on thatannualized, statisticallytypical 24-hour period. As a mathematical formula designed to smooth out the impacts of noise, DNL was originally intended primarily as a Land Use Planning tool, as a strategy that would allow governmental agencies and noise creators to limittheir legal liability, and as a means ofdetermining eligibility for FAA noise mitigation. It is not capable in its current form of being used for measuring the impactsofindividualflights orchanges to individualflights.

5 RTCA/NAC Op. Cit.

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 5of17Beginning in the early 1970s, public agencies began to recognize that much of the noise from everyday living is a nuisance. In 1971 for example, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized that within private homes, and within the public housing that HUD funded, noise pollution could be a problem for those living near highways, airports, railroads, and factories. HUD along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) then began a process for predicting and quantifyingthose general areaswhere noise is a problem.6
The objectives ofthe national policies then enacted by HUD and EPAwas to: 1) Define, and limit, the legal and financial liability of governmental agencies, railroad owners, airportowners, factory owners and other noise nuisance creators. 2) Create a land use planning tool to regulate new construction adjacent to highways, airports, railroads, factories and similar uses. 3) Proactively or retroactively mitigate noise levels within interior living space with 45 dB being the usual statutory norm, and dothis for residential properties around airports and othernuisance uses. 4) Create atemplatefor determining which mitigation measures would apply and theextent to which noise creators
- airport, factory, and railroad owners - would be required to mitigate noise. But exactly where to draw the line between what was considered acceptable noise and not acceptable, was a significant problem in the 1960sand 1970sand continues today. Atthetime of development of DNL, the authors settled on the infamous "Schultz Curve." Created by Theodore 

### J. Schultz, an engineerworking for a Chicago-based noise consulting firm; it is often referred to as the "Schultz" curve. His team conducted extensive personal interview surveys of the level of annoyance experienced by individuals when those individuals were exposed to noise ofcertain levelsfrom various sources. Schultzcorrelated these noise annoyance levelsto DNL levels, creating the so called "dose-response relationship" allowing the DNL creators to settle on DNL 65 dB as the threshold for noise mitigation and liability. However widespread DNL may be in use, neitherthe DNL metric, nor the Schultz curve addresses the impacts from individualflights, individualflights over newterritory, and concentration offlights. There obviously is a problem with the Schultz curve, and its failure to demonstrate the wide variation in how people respond to noise, even in the same space. Many scholars, scientists and aviation experts have attempted to provide more robust adjustments to DNL, in order to deal with special conditions that cause variation in noise perception among residents living around noisytransportation sources such as airport. For example, the "CHABA": study in 19777 prepared by the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences (CHABA) of the

6 "Synthesis ofSocial Surveys on NoiseAnnoyance", JournalofAcoustic SocietyofAmerica, August, 1978

7 Reportdated 1997,from the Committee on Hearing, Bioacousticsand Biomechanics, Assembly ofBehavioral and Social Scientists, The National Research Council, "Guidelinesfor Preparing Environmental ImpactStatements on Noise".

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 6 of17National Research Council. This was a group ofhighly respected experts and consultants with significant experience in noise impacts. It included senior officers from the U.S. Air Force, experts from the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis, construction experts, senior representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and scientists from major universities. It was not merely a hand-picked group of aviation industry cheerleaders, with the goal ofexpediting newflight procedures by disregarding noise impacts. CHABA recommended that each environmental study of individual projects (a new flight is a project underthe definition found in the National Environmental PolicyAct, or NEPA) should be publicallyvetted, and that noise weighting functions should be developed for each project/flight. CHABA recommended such steps as calculating, project by project, the percentage of people likelyto be highlyannoyed by noise atvarious DNL levels, be the level45, 55, 65 or higher, dB. The higherthe noise level, the higherthe weighting function that should be added, according to CHABA. The results for all noise levels would be added together, with the sum becoming a single numberpurportedto representthe net impactofnoiseon the affected population. The point is: the RTCA report did not come close to following the CHABA recommendations. The RTCA report merely counted the number of people that were deleted or added to the contours, without addressing howannoying the newflight changes would be. Others, notably Paul D. Schomer8

, developed recommendations for making corrections to DNL calculations based on actual conditions. These possible corrections include: whether the offending noise is new, the character and number of occurrences ofthe new offending noise, community attitudes, and others. Three case studies of how the community could be better served with appropriate data on noise impacts are offered by Schomer: The "Expanded East Coast Plan" for LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark Airports {late 1990s); construction of the new Denver International Airport; and the change in aircraft types when Naval Air Station Miramar near San Diego, California. became Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar. In all three case studies, possible modifications to the DNL process were proposed to deal with new conditions, individualflight changes, increased usage, increased intensity, etc. The point is: the RTCA report did not come close to following the Schomer recommendations. The RTCA report merely counted the number of people that were deleted or added to the contours, without addressing howannoying the newflight changeswould be. The Notice does notclearly orproperlyframe the Net Noise Reduction Method being proposed. Why did the FAA come up with a new variable in the Method, the weighted population method, whichwas not partofthe RTCA/NAC recommendation? Whatwas the mathematical formula in the population weighted method? Itappears to be merely a numbercount, nottrulyaweighted numberas claimed. Arethe three examples cited bythe NextGen Advisory Committee and the RTCA NAC (Chicago Midway, Sea-Tac, Greener Skies) intended as examples on a project by project basis or are they intended as a gross representation for all projects, thus ending all future environmental review?

8Schomer, Paul D, "On Normalizing DNLto Provide BetterCorrelation with Response," Soundand Vibration magazine, December, 2002.

QueensQuietSkies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures Page 7of17There are otherfundamental flaws in the Method because it relies on a simplisticview ofavery minor number of Chicago Midway International Airport Flight Departure and Arrival Procedures and Seattle "GreenerSkies" FlightArrival Procedures. At Midway, as described in the Part 150 FONSI/ROD, a total of 11 newflight procedures were implemented, departure procedures were modified, and one decommissioned flight procedures was modified and replaced with a new procedure.9 AI the existing flight procedures remained in place; but at the same time an assumption was made in the formula that there would be no increase in the number of flights from and to the airport. How is this possible when all industry sources predict a significant increase in flights acrossthe country in the next20 years? In Seattle, the so-called "Greener Skies" initiative, there were two (2) new Standard Terminal Arrival Route procedures, 21 new RNP and non-RNP to Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures, and an unknown numberof Optimized Profile Descent procedures put in place, as shown in the FONSI/ROD for the Greener Skies lnitiative. 10 Yet in Seattle there were few changes in the DNL noisefootprint, even though for manyin the Seattle area, noise annoyance conditions will worsen. 11 Had the FAAIRTCAeffort looked at noise annoyancethrough the lens ofthe recommendations contained in our answers to Question 4, below, there would have been a much differentconclusion. We have checked the professional literature and spoken with noise experts. All evidence points to the same conclusion aboutthe existing DNL process: Assuming the same number offlights, the same type of aircraft in the same space, there will be very little DNL variation within that airspace, even though the intensityofnoise and noise annoyance has increased. Atthe heart ofthe efforts of NewYork City residents, and citizens acrossthe country, is the iron clad principlethatairplane noisewill not be shifted from one communityto another. However, in the guise of reducing noise for some and thus increasing noise for others, the DNL-based scoring system in The Net Noise Reduction Method will in fact SUPPORT AND PROMOTE shifting of noise from one residential area to another, and is therefore not acceptable. Comparing the noisegenerated in one NewYork communityto another In our many presentations to citizens' groups in the pasttwo years, we became painfully aware that citizens in one part ofa community know when noise annoyance is worse or changes due to flight changes. There is an area of Queens known as "Kew Gardens" which actually experienced noise decreases when TNNIS RNAV was implemented, because the Maspeth, Coney and Whitestone Climbs were reduced in number, although the reduction in flights and decrease in noise turned out to be temporary. Residents of Kew Gardens made it clear that TNNIS RNAV was just fine with them even though "Flushing", another area of Queens, was being bombarded by noise to an extent that created much worse noise annoyance than it solved. Had the FAA considered the impacts of individual flight noise on Kew Gardens and the rest of Queens when TNNIS RNAVwas implemented, this problem could have been avoided. And, to be blunt: use of the RTCAIFAA Net Noise Reduction Method based on DNL, would not been able to addressthis issue.

9Op. cit., page 6

10 Op. Cit., page 2

11 Final EnvironmentalAssessment, Finding ofNo Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD), and Appendicesforthe "Greener Skies OverSeattle, Proposed Arrival Proceduresto Seattle-Tacoma InternationalAirport."

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 8of17We are alsovery deeply concerned thatthe RTCAINAC CATEX 2Task Force, in its June, 2012 report, pointed out that while the Chicago Traffic Procedural Changes Environmental Assessment stated that the Proposed Action did in fact meet the FAA's criteria for significant impact under FAA Order 1050.1E, and despite the CATEX Task Force developing the Net Noise Reduction Method, that the FAA has changed The Method to inappropriately add weighting factors, perhaps as awayto avoid its own NEPAguidelines. The CATEX2Task Force said: ''The CatEx 2Task Group also reviewed the recently completed Midway InternationalAirportAir Traffic Procedural Changes Environmental Assessment. The Proposed Action evaluated in the Midway EA is the implementation of new initial departure headings off MDW to the existing SIDs, and new RNAV arrival procedures (inclusive of RNP), in order to help improve overall efficiencyat MDW. RNAV/RNP capable aircraftwould usethe new RNAV and RNP procedures. Additionally, existing procedures would be retained for non-RNAV/RNP capable aircraft. The Net Noise Reduction Method was applied to the Midway proposal, and resulted in an estimated 1,421,159 people forwhom noise level would be reduced as compared with 989,090 people for whom noise levels would be expected to increase. However, the Midway EA also documented thattherewould be 892 people with noise levels greaterthan DNL 65 dB who would experience a 1.5 dB or more increase in DNL and be exposed to aircraft noise at or above DNL 65 dB underthe Proposed Action, meeting the FAA's existing criteria for significant impact under FAA Order 1050.1E."12

12Op. Cit., Page 14

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 9 of17QUESTION 2: Appropriateness of determining 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 comparedtothe noisedecrease. Answer: In additionto encouraging noise shifting from one communityto another.the Net Noise Reduction Method fails miserablyto recognize increased annoyance caused by increased noise intensity from a higher concentration of flights. Any so-called reduction in noise for some IS IRRELEVANT, when others are highly annoyed. The FAA needs to develop a better method of not encouraging noise shift, and to consider such changes, BEFORE flight procedures are written. It is particularly disappointing that the FAA in the CATEX Federal Register Notice discussion, highlighted its failure to considerthe impactofnew noise, higherfrequency ofnoise events, and high intensity of noise. The FAA has had one very bad example of such new noise, higher frequency, and high intensity of noise- the TNNIS RNAV takeoff procedure, implemented in 2012 in NewYork City. TheTNNIS RNAV procedure mandatesthataircraft pass overtwo "way points" in the NewYork City area. Directly underthe way points and directly underthe mandatoryflighttracks to these mandatory way points, are residents being bombarded by literally hundreds offlights over the same houses, flight after flight after flight. The FAA has provided us a chart that shows flight concentration from TNNIS RNAV compared to the older flight tracks, showing the increased concentration offlights from TNNIS RNAV. Noise has clearly been concentrated overone area. Thousands of people in the New York City were ambushed by unexpected increases in noise when TNNIS RNAV was implemented. The proposal to determine noise reduction based on an overall net decrease in people affected fails to take into account how dramatically worse, conditions have becomeforthose impacted by concentration offlights. There also seems to be an underlying unspoken assumption that some areas such as NewYork City are already quite noisy due to ambient conditions and that new noise annoyance will become part of back ground noise. Despite this common misconception, some residential areas, including those impacted by newTNNIS RNAVflight procedures, are normallyvery quiet, with ambient outdoor noise levels below 40 dB, days on end, when airplanes are not flying overhead. The impact of concentrating noise with more than 500 departures a day into one narrow band beginning at 5:50 AM, often lasting until Midnight, is unacceptable. Without warning when flight procedures are changed, the calm of an otherwise quiet neighborhood is destroyed. The DNL/INM model on which the Net Noise Reduction Method is based, was not designed to show the impacts of such flight changes or destruction of quiet enjoyment of our homes. Prior to 2012, there were three flight procedures in primary use from Runway 13 at LaGuardia Airport

- the "Coney Climb," the "Whitestone Climb" and the "Maspeth Climb." All three dispersed traffic over awide area in NewYork City, and while noise was often unacceptable, at least noisewas dispersed, and aircrafttook offwith lower powersettings. Along came TNNIS RNAV, based on an old infrequently used flight procedure- The Flushing 'Climb- thatwas irregularly used onlyduring the U.S. Tennis Open Tournament in Flushing and

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 10of17Forest Hills. This flight procedure concentrated flights over avery narrow lane in the sky, often with morethan 500 noisytakeoffs perday, where previouslythere had been none. Foreach ofthe three older procedures

- Coney, Whitestone, and Maspeth, aircrafttook offwith lower power settings and with slower speed, gradually climbing. Under TNNIS RNAV, all this changed to concentrated, flights, notonly being over new residential areas, butalso being lower than the previousflights. Weare notcompletely clear how newflight procedures arewritten, butwe believethat it is done with little to no involvementfrom the public, with what is we believe too much involvementfrom the aviation industry. We have reviewed the publically available records ofhow newflight procedureswere written for the Northern California Metroplex studies, and similar Metroplex studies around the United States. We conclude from that information that a group of talented FAA engineers write proposals, sends them for review by airline representatives and others in the aviation business, thenfinalizes the procedures. Onlythen are environmental considerations made. Wefound information in the Seattle Greener Skies initiative documents that leads us to believe that very little public input is taken before implementation, and that perhaps the environmental review is onlyan afterthought: "In 2009, Alaska Air Group (AAG, the holding companyforAlaska Airlines and Horizon Air) and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport staff, in cooperation with the Boeing Company and the FAA initiated development of a plan to investigate new PBN flight procedures for SEA that would utilize these latest navigational technologies and allow aircraft operators to fly optimal descent paths, while reducing their environmental impacts during approaches to land. The "Greener Skies over Seattle" initiative as it was named, or just "Greener Skies", consists of procedural changes that begin in the Seattle ARTCC, continue into Seattle TRACON airspace, and eventuallyend in the airspace controlled by SeattleToweras aircraftdescendfrom cruising altitude all thewayto landing on one ofSeattle's six runway ends." Environmental concerns were clearly an afterthought, and sticking the word "Greener" on a processdoes not makethe process environmentallysound.

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures Page 11 of17QUESTION 3: Different approaches to a noise reduction methodology (i.e., population change, noise change, population weighted noise change) and whether selection ofone approach over another is preferred and increases public understanding. Answer: The question is based on the very poor assumption that ONLY the three listed mathematical variables

- change in size of population affected. change in noise, and weighted population) will be used by the FAA in the consideration of making flight changes. We find it unacceptableforthe FAAto first conclude thatthere are onlythree variables, and then limitthe discussion. Further, the NextGen Advisory Committee provided aformula to the FAA, but why did the FAA decide to modify that formula, without going back to the NAC? And most importantly, tried and true formulas for measuring noise already exist such as Schomer and CHABA, aswell asthe five methods shown below, ifthe FAAwould choose to usethem. Our experience with recent flight changes in New York City, especially the TNNIS RNAV procedure implementation is that thousands and thousands of people were impacted by a significant increase in noise events. Using onlythe DNL dB criteria in the Net Noise Reduction Method would lead one to believe that the impact was not significant, HOWEVER, as many thousands ofour neighbors can attest, the impactwas very significant. We proposethatonlyafterthe FAA has donethefollowing:
1. Carefully considered how to reduce noise from every possible flight procedure in the NewYork Cityarea; 2. Overhauled every portion ofthe airspace by raising arrival and departure altitudes in the NewYorkTRACON controlled airspace, making takeoffs steeperfor noise abatement as is done in other U.S. airports; 3. Has taken advantage ofover-waterand over-green-space landings and takeoffs;
4. Opened the offshore Special UseAirspaceto moreflights, and
5. Developed an expedited plan to replace a noisy aging aircraft fleet; while weighing the noise advantages and disadvantages ofeach. Then and only then can alternative noise reduction methodologies be considered. Now is not thetimeforthe Net Noise Reduction Method. There are several noise metricsthatcan be used individuallyor in combination to define noise annoyancefrom increased noise exposure, and which should be used tosupplementthe DNL metric.They include:
1. Level Weighted Population Method (LWP)which calculates theweighted annoyance of people living within the 65, 70, and 75 noise contoursAND calculatesthis annoyance on aflight byflight, case by case basis, notthe one size fits all proposed bythe FAA/RTCA.
2. TimeAbove (TA), which is the amountoftime that a noise event exceeds a maximum decibel level (Lmax)threshold;

Queens QuietSkies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures Page 12of173. NumberofEvents (N-Level), which is the numberof noise events above a maximum decibel threshold during aspecified period oftime.
4. Sound Exposure Level (SEL), which is a measure ofduration and magnitude ofa single noise event in A-weighted decibels;
5. EquivalentSound Level (Leq), which is the average noise level overaspecifiedtime period, such as school hours; As others have already pointed out, ifflights were moved from an urban area to aforested land area and water, such as Seattle, and the number of people who experienced reduced noise annoyance was therefore decreased, following the RTCNFAA Net Noise Reduction Method would permit noisier, concentrated numbers offlights, even ifthe number of people with great noise annoyance increased. This is unacceptable, and such possible conditions must be eliminated by:
1. Adopting one ormore ofthe possible CHABA, orSchomer methods.
2. By adopting one ormore ofthe seven other methods listed above.
3. By forming a panel ofcitizen representatives, the RTCA, the FAA to vet these methods in lieu ofthe Net Noise Reduction Method. Stating that ''The FAA could not find a technically sound way to make sure the noise determination required bythe statute based on an analysis ofnoise methodologies" should have read: "The FAA chose not to go beyond DNL". We strongly encourage the FAAto find other, acceptable methodologiesfordealing with the noisefrom individual flights.

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-Implementation ofCATEX Procedures Page 13of17QUESTION 4: Extentto which a mixof noise increases and decreases could supportadetermination of measurable noise reduction, especially when reductions at lower noise levels outweigh increases at higher noise levels, and whether an alternative approach thatwould require reductions in all three noise exposure bands to supportthe use ofthe CATEXshould be used. Answer: Again. the FAA has keenly pre-disposed an answerto this question. when it proposed the net reduction method based on DNL. Unfortunately, the FAA has historically depended on DNL calculations. The direction of Congress to measure noise on a per flight basis has been corrupted by the RTCA/FAAaddition of"average." But, Congress Called for "Per Flight" NoiseAnalysis because Congress was clear that it was directing the FAA to measure increased noise on a "per flight" basis. Merely calling a group of un-named congressional staff personnel together and having the RTCA Next Gen Advisory Committee lead that group to conclude that Congress really meant"average perflight" basis is unacceptable. Although we would like to take at face value the statement on Page 6 ofthe Notice: "

...Under these circumstances, the Section 2(c)(2) CATEXwould be expected to be used infrequently. It could expedite review ofa PBN-only project.

.." Unfortunately, taking the statementatface value is not possible. The Notice states on the first page: "

...the agency is directed by existing lawto issue and file a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) for "
...

### any(emphasis added) navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure

..."that would result in "measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise on a perflight basis

..." Therefore, our most troubling concern in the notice is how the FAA now seems to broadly define a performance based navigation procedure (PBN)

- for which ONLY a CATEX need be issued: "PBN procedures are flight procedures that rely on satellite based navigation, i.e. Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP). "

- in other words, flight procedures based on satellite (GPS) technology. All new flight procedures will rely on GPS technology. The FAA obviously intends to use CATEXes for all new flight procedures, and avoid the environmental review process

.. More than 50% offlights in and out of NewYork area airports already rely on PBN and/or GPS procedures. We are deeply concerned that ifthe proposed change in CATEX regulation moves forward, the FAAcan simply, without proper environmental review, change any one ofthe more than 175differentflight procedure possibilities thataffect LaGuardia and JFKairports. Many ofthe members ofQueens Quiet Skies and many ofthe individuals who attend the New York City Roundtable meetings have told us oftheir conversations with FAA staff: according to these conversation the FAA considers ALL flight procedures in New York City to contain PBN/NextGen components. If this is a widespread view within the FAA and if it is true that merely containing one satellite component makes the flight procedure subject onlyto a CATEX, then it is clear that the FAA intends to change every single flight procedure without further environmental review. Please note that the rest of the country has been provided the opportunityfor extensive environmental review, and has not been subject to piecemeal, drastic changes in flight patterns.

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 14 of17While DNL has the advantage of simplicity, it has one serious disadvantage: it implicitly assumes that all people are equally affected by noise, regardless of the noise level they experience or regardless whether the noise is new, or temporal, or unexpected. Clearly, however, the louder and more frequent the noise, the greater the noise problem. As noise increases, more people become concerned about it, and the concerns of each individual become more serious.

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 15of17QUESTION 5: Whether a significant noise impact threshold should be used; and if so, if it should be used onlywhen there is a net increase in people exposed to noise at 65 DNL and above, or if itshould be used when there is any increase in the numberof people exposed noise at DNL65 dB and above-even ifthere is a net population benefitatthat level. Answer: An answerto this question becomes clearerwhen the intent is restated: Can a CATEX be issued ifthe benefits. in the sole opinion ofthe FAA. outweigh the damages? The answer is NO! Use of the Net Noise Reduction Method in CATEXes will eliminate public environmental review of noisy flight changes. A CATEX with its proposed Net Noise Reduction Method is no way near being sufficient environmental review and the process of reviewing environmental impactswill become even lesstransparentthan it already is. If the proposed Net Noise Reduction Method were to be implemented, too much power to unilaterally waive significant environmental review would be given to the FAA. The ability to unilaterally decide to use a CATEX, or not to use a CATEX, to make flight procedure changes will restwith onlyafew individualswith no ties to the community. In the Notice, the FAA givesto itselfthe powerto determine ifthe CATEX process is to be used "Ifthe increase in noise in the DNL 65dB band was DNL 1.5 or greater, the FAA could decide not to use the CATEX." Since this statement is made in the context of expediting PBN procedures, and since PBN procedures would now be broadly defined to include all RNAV and RPN procedures, the FAAwill then under any circumstance be able to inappropriately expedite noisyflight procedures. Ofall the questions in the Notice, this one is the most deeply troubling and concerning to me, because the FAA in the Notice indicates that it "could" elect to use a CATEX and thus conceivably could elect NOT to use a CATEX if in its sole opinion, the expediency of implementing a newflight procedure callsfor it. Again, there seemsto be an underlying assumption thatsome areas such as NewYork Cityare already noisy due to ambient conditions and that more noise will have little net impact. In fact, some residential areas, including those impacted by new TNNIS flight procedures were at one time veryquiet, with ambient noise levels below40 dB. Although the Notice states that "A CATEX is not an exemption or waiver of NEPA review, it is a level of NEPA review", it is clear from the language ofthe Notice that the FAA does in fact intend to eliminate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and EA process through a totally new method of determining increases/decreases in the number of people affected, noise increases (but using only DNL,) and determining weighted increases/decreases in the number ofpeople affected. Eliminating environmental review is unacceptable. We believe thatthe use ofCATEXesfor PBN procedures including "RNAV" and "RNP" asthese are defined by the Notice, are nowhere close to be being sufficient environmental review. Across the Countrythe FAA is using the much more comprehensive EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) process to review whole scale changes in NextGen flight procedures. According to the FAA website https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/, the EA process has reviewed Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) in Northern and Southern California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and other places. These Metroplex studies, providing broad, comprehensive modifications of existing flights, and additions of new PBN flight procedures, have been better

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 16of17served by completed EAs, and we question why the FAA apparently intends to start picking off individualflight procedure changes, through the CATEX process. And finally, we believe that the proposed changes are too broad. "PBN procedures are flight procedures that rely on satellite based navigation, i.e., Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP). Accordingly the FAA finds that the use of this CATEX is limited

..."Whygoto all this trouble ifCATEX is supposedlyto be used infrequently? Currently, 21 ofthe 73 published flightprocedures in the NewYork Cityarea are already RNAV or RNP, and byadoptingthe Net Noise Reduction Method, the FAAwould be ableto unilaterally change the remaining 52 flight procedures, without benefit of a full study and environmental review. By expanding the definition of NextGen and thereby expanding use of CATEXs, it is clear that the FAA intends a piece meal approach to implementing NextGen, without the full environmental review provided to other areas ofthe United States. Lack ofsuch full review is unacceptable. From the Chicago Midway Procedural Changes report comes this statement that shows the intensityofnewflights and thetrouble this will createforthe rest ofthe United States: "While RNAV paths are typically limited to straight lines, they represent an improvement over conventional, ground-based navigation in the sense that they allow an aircraft to fly a direct, straight route (emphasis added) a back-up system for. existing ground-based navigation procedures." The noise impacts ofPBN procedures must be considered. The Net Noise Reduction Method is the Methodthatshould NOTbe used, to anyextent.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and ask that you open the processto much extensive reviewand citizen involvement before proceeding further. Sincerely,

# c~·**~-L_** Janet McEneaney,**Presid~** Queens QuietSkies.

### ~**Ja_~~~** D.?

. .

## ~r~0 /FfobertWhitehair, Vice President

·Queens Quiet Skies

bobwhitehair@gmail.com PO Box604888 Bayside, NY 11363 347-642-2862

Queens QuietSkies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510-ImplementationofCATEX Procedures Page 17of17