November 10, 2014 

Lourdes Q. Maurice, 

Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

800 Independence Avenue 

Washington, DC 20591 

Comments on Docket Number FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures 

1. Filed electronically on the Federal Register Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2014-0510-0002 

2. Electronic copy emailed to: 

Ms. Lynne Pickard 

Senior Advisor for Environmental Policy 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

3. Printed copy mailed to: 

Docket Operations M-30 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, 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. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Steven J. Israel, member, U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Tony Avella, member, New York State Senate 

The Honorable Edward Braunstein, member, New York State Assembly 

Queens Quiet Skies writes in opposition to use of the 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 of the Notice: 

"This notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the Net Noise Reduction Method 

and possible variations of it to further inform the FAA's consideration of interpretive guidance to 

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 Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX 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 University of New York. Ms. McEneaney was the founder and former President of 

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 of Queens. She is a charter member of the New York City Aviation Roundtable. 

Mr. Robert Whitehair, of Douglaston, New York, is Vice-President of Queens Quiet Skies, is a 

licensed Private Pilot, former Airport Manager of the 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 by the American Association of Airport 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 noise from airplane operations at both LaGuardia and JFK Airports. 

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 report were additional findings and conclusions. 1 

Comments on the August 19, 2014 Notice were first due September 18, 2014, with an extension 

to October 20, 2014. However, due to the lack of availability of certain Environmental 

Assessment documents that were used in the preparation of RTCA/FAA supporting documents, 

it became evident in mid-October, that thorough responses were not possible within the original 

1 RTCA/NAC "Recommendations For Implementing the Categorical Exclusion in Section 213 (c)(2) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012." Report prepared by The CATEX 2 Task Group, of the RTCA/NAC, 2012 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FM-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 2 of17 
time frame. But with the assistance of Ms. Lynne Pickard of the 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 documents and submit our response. 

These documents include: 

1. "Chicago Midway International Airport Flight Procedural Changes, Environmental 

Assessment."2 An electronic link was provided to us. 

2. The second relevant document is: "Chicago Midway International Airport Air Traffic 

Procedural Changes Environmental Assessment- Final Appendices."3 An 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."4 for which 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 copy of this fourth set of documents. 

SUMMARY OF OUR RESPONSE 

Despite the easy availability of many, more robust methods to measure the impact of noise from 

individual flights, The "Net Noise Reduction Method" proposed by the FAA in the Federal 

Register Notice will inappropriately accelerate implementation of new, 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 higher airplane noise readings and greater annoying 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? How can the FAA do this 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 document is available online here: 

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Midway/AboutUs/AirportNoise/General%20 

Noise%201nfo/130523 MOW FinaiReport withGraphics.pdf 3 The document is available online here: 

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Midway/AboutUs/AirportNoise/General%20 

Noise%201nfo/130524 MOW FinaiAppendices.pdf 

4 The document is available here: 

http://www. flych icago. com/SiteCollection Documents/Midway/ AboutU s/ Ai rportNoise/General %20 

Noise%201nfo/MDW%20FONSI-ROD%20Final 130626.pdf 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 3 of17 
organizations around the United States, including Queens Quiet Skies and others, that are 

willing to help? 

Despite the FAA asking for and receiving a report from the RTCA NextGen Advisory 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 ask that before new flight procedures are implemented, there must be full 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 of the past such as TNNIS RNAV over Queens, we ask that you support our efforts to 

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 that there be a 

visible view of current noise levels, and most importantly that there be a public, open 

participation process that carefully considers the impacts of increased noise. 

There are indeed existing methodologies that will overcome the significant shortcomings of the 

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. 

ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 

A series of questions were presented in the Notice, the following is our response, question by 

question: 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 4 of17 
Question 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. 

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 per flight 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 of noise impacts from individual flights. 

2. As currently structured, it fails to address the noise impact from changes to those flights. 

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 by the 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 per flight. 

DNL is an amalgamation or aggregation of the 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 that annualized, statistically typical 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 limit their legal liability, and as a means of determining eligibility 

for FAA noise mitigation. It is not capable in its current form of being used for measuring the 

impacts of individual flights or changes to individual flights. 

5 RTCA/NAC Op. Cit. 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 5 of 17 
Beginning 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 quantifying those general areas where noise is a problem.6 

The objectives of the national policies then enacted by HUD and EPA was to: 

1) Define, and limit, the legal and financial liability of governmental agencies, railroad 

owners, airport owners, 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 do this for residential properties around airports and 

other nuisance uses. 

4) Create a template for determining which mitigation measures would apply and the extent 

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 1960s and 1970s and continues today. At the time 

of development of DNL, the authors settled on the infamous "Schultz Curve." Created by 

Theodore J. Schultz, an engineer working 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 of certain levels from various sources. Schultz correlated these noise annoyance levels to 

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, neither the DNL metric, nor the Schultz curve addresses the impacts from 

individual flights, individual flights over new territory, and concentration of flights. 

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 noisy transportation 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 of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance", Journal of Acoustic Society of America, August, 1978 

7 Report dated 1997, from the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavioral and 

Social Scientists, The National Research Council, "Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on 

Noise". 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 6 of 17 
National Research Council. This was a group of highly 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 of expediting new flight procedures by disregarding noise impacts. 

CHABA recommended that each environmental study of individual projects (a new flight is a 

project under the definition found in the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) should be 

publically vetted, 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 

likely to be highly annoyed by noise at various DNL levels, be the level45, 55, 65 or higher, dB. 

The higher the noise level, the higher the 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 number purported to represent the net impact of noise on 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 how annoying the new flight 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 of the 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, 

individual flight 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 how annoying the new flight changes would be. 

The Notice does not clearly or properly frame the Net Noise Reduction Method being proposed. 

Why did the FAA come up with a new variable in the Method, the weighted population method, 

which was not part of the RTCA/NAC recommendation? 

What was the mathematical formula in the population weighted method? It appears to be merely 

a number count, not truly a weighted number as claimed. 

Are the three examples cited by the 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? 

8 Schomer, Paul D, "On Normalizing DNL to Provide Better Correlation with Response," Sound and Vibration 

magazine, December, 2002. 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 7 of17 
There are other fundamental flaws in the Method because it relies on a simplistic view of a very 

minor number of Chicago Midway International Airport Flight Departure and Arrival Procedures 

and Seattle "Greener Skies" Flight Arrival Procedures. At Midway, as described in the Part 150 

FONSI/ROD, a total of 11 new flight 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 across the country in the next 20 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 number of 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 noise footprint, even though for many in the Seattle area, noise annoyance 

conditions will worsen. 11 Had the FAAIRTCA effort looked at noise annoyance through the lens 

of the recommendations contained in our answers to Question 4, below, there would have been 

a much different conclusion. 

We have checked the professional literature and spoken with noise experts. All evidence points 

to the same conclusion about the existing DNL process: Assuming the same number of flights, 

the same type of aircraft in the same space, there will be very little DNL variation within that 

airspace, even though the intensity of noise and noise annoyance has increased. 

At the heart of the efforts of New York City residents, and citizens across the country, is the iron 

clad principle that airplane noise will not be shifted from one community to 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 noise generated in one New York community to another 

In our many presentations to citizens' groups in the past two years, we became painfully aware 

that citizens in one part of a 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 RNAV was 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 address this issue. 

9 Op. cit., page 6 

10 Op. Cit., page 2 

11 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." 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 8 of 17 
We are also very deeply concerned that the RTCAINAC CATEX 2 Task 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 a way to avoid its own NEPA guidelines. 

The CATEX 2 Task Force said: 

''The CatEx 2 Task Group also reviewed the recently completed Midway International Airport Air 

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 

efficiency at MDW. RNAV/RNP capable aircraft would use the 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 for whom 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 

that there would be 892 people with noise levels greater than 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 

under the Proposed Action, meeting the FAA's existing criteria for significant impact under FAA 

Order 1050.1 E."12 

12 Op. Cit., Page 14 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 9 of17 
QUESTION 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 compared to the noise decrease. 

Answer: In addition to encouraging noise shifting from one community to another. the Net Noise 

Reduction Method fails miserably to 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 consider the impact of new noise, higher frequency of noise 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 New York City. 

The TNNIS RNAV procedure mandates that aircraft pass over two "way points" in the New York 

City area. Directly under the way points and directly under the mandatory flight tracks to these 

mandatory way points, are residents being bombarded by literally hundreds of flights 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 of flights from TNNIS RNAV. Noise has clearly been concentrated over one 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 become for those impacted by concentration of flights. 

There also seems to be an underlying unspoken assumption that some areas such as New York 

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 new TNNIS RNAV flight procedures, are normally very 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 a wide area in New York City, and while noise was often unacceptable, at 

least noise was dispersed, and aircraft took off with lower power settings. 

Along came TNNIS RNAV, based on an old infrequently used flight procedure- The Flushing 

'Climb- that was irregularly used only during the U.S. Tennis Open Tournament in Flushing and 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 10 of17 
Forest Hills. This flight procedure concentrated flights over a very narrow lane in the sky, often 

with more than 500 noisy takeoffs per day, where previously there had been none. 

For each of the three older procedures - Coney, Whitestone, and Maspeth, aircraft took off with 

lower power settings and with slower speed, gradually climbing. Under TNNIS RNAV, all this 

changed to concentrated, flights, not only being over new residential areas, but also being lower 

than the previous flights. 

We are not completely clear how new flight procedures are written, but we believe that it is done 

with little to no involvement from the public, with what is we believe too much involvement from 

the aviation industry. 

We have reviewed the publically available records of how new flight procedures were 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, 

then finalizes the procedures. Only then are environmental considerations made. 

We found 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 only an afterthought: 

"In 2009, Alaska Air Group (AAG, the holding company for Alaska 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 eventually end in the airspace controlled by Seattle Tower as aircraft descend from cruising 

altitude all the way to landing on one of Seattle's six runway ends." 

Environmental concerns were clearly an afterthought, and sticking the word "Greener" on a 

process does not make the process environmentally sound. 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 11 of17 
QUESTION 3: 

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

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

unacceptable for the FAA to first conclude that there are only three variables, and then limit the 

discussion. Further, the NextGen Advisory Committee provided a formula 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, as well as the five methods shown below, if the FAA would choose to use them. 

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 only the DNL dB criteria in the Net Noise Reduction 

Method would lead one to believe that the impact was not significant, HOWEVER, as many 

thousands of our neighbors can attest, the impact was very significant. 

We propose that only after the FAA has done the following: 

1. Carefully considered how to reduce noise from every possible flight procedure in the 

New York City area; 

2. Overhauled every portion of the airspace by raising arrival and departure altitudes in the 

New York TRACON controlled airspace, making takeoffs steeper for noise abatement as 

is done in other U.S. airports; 

3. Has taken advantage of over-water and over-green-space landings and takeoffs; 

4. Opened the offshore Special Use Airspace to more flights, and 

5. Developed an expedited plan to replace a noisy aging aircraft fleet; while weighing the 

noise advantages and disadvantages of each. 

Then and only then can alternative noise reduction methodologies be considered. Now is not 

the time for the Net Noise Reduction Method. 

There are several noise metrics that can be used individually or in combination to define noise 

annoyance from increased noise exposure, and which should be used to supplement the DNL 

metric. They include: 

1. Level Weighted Population Method (LWP) which calculates the weighted annoyance of 

people living within the 65, 70, and 75 noise contours AND calculates this annoyance on 

a flight by flight, case by case basis, not the one size fits all proposed by the FAA/RTCA. 

2. Time Above (TA), which is the amount of time that a noise event exceeds a maximum 

decibel level (Lmax) threshold; 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 12 of17 
3. Number of Events (N-Level), which is the number of noise events above a maximum 

decibel threshold during a specified period of time. 

4. Sound Exposure Level (SEL), which is a measure of duration and magnitude of a single 

noise event in A-weighted decibels; 

5. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), which is the average noise level over a specified time 

period, such as school hours; 

As others have already pointed out, if flights were moved from an urban area to a forested 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 of flights, even if the number of people with great 

noise annoyance increased. This is unacceptable, and such possible conditions must be 

eliminated by: 

1. Adopting one or more of the possible CHABA, or Schomer methods. 

2. By adopting one or more of the seven other methods listed above. 

3. By forming a panel of citizen representatives, the RTCA, the FAA to vet these methods 

in lieu of the Net Noise Reduction Method. 

Stating that ''The FAA could not find a technically sound way to make sure the noise 

determination required by the statute based on an analysis of noise methodologies" should have 

read: "The FAA chose not to go beyond DNL". We strongly encourage the FAA to find other, 

acceptable methodologies for dealing with the noise from individual flights. 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 13 of17 
QUESTION 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 alternative approach that would require 

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

used. 

Answer: Again. the FAA has keenly pre-disposed an answer to 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/FAA addition of "average." But, Congress Called for "Per Flight" Noise Analysis 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 per flight" basis is unacceptable. 

Although we would like to take at face value the statement on Page 6 of the Notice: " ... Under 

these circumstances, the Section 2(c)(2) CATEX would be expected to be used infrequently. It 

could expedite review of a PBN-only project. .. " Unfortunately, taking the statement at face value 

is not possible. 

The Notice states on the first page: " ... the agency is directed by existing law to 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 per flight 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% of flights in and out of New York area airports already rely on PBN and/or GPS 

procedures. We are deeply concerned that if the proposed change in CATEX regulation moves 

forward, the FAA can simply, without proper environmental review, change any one of the more 

than 175 different flight procedure possibilities that affect LaGuardia and JFK airports. 

Many of the members of Queens Quiet Skies and many of the individuals who attend the New 

York City Roundtable meetings have told us of their 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 only to 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 

opportunity for extensive environmental review, and has not been subject to piecemeal, drastic 

changes in flight patterns. 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 14 of17 
While 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 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 15 of17 
QUESTION 5: 

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

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

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

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

Answer: An answer to this question becomes clearer when the intent is restated: Can a CATEX 

be issued if the benefits. in the sole opinion of the 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 

impacts will become even less transparent than 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 rest with only a few individuals with no ties to the community. 

In the Notice, the FAA gives to itself the power to determine if the CATEX process is to be used 

"If the 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 FAA will then under any circumstance be able to inappropriately expedite 

noisy flight procedures. 

Of all 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 new flight procedure calls for it. 

Again, there seems to be an underlying assumption that some areas such as New York City are 

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 very quiet, with ambient noise levels below 40 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 of the 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 

of people affected. Eliminating environmental review is unacceptable. 

We believe that the use of CATEXes for PBN procedures including "RNAV" and "RNP" as these 

are defined by the Notice, are nowhere close to be being sufficient environmental review. 

Across the Country the FAA is using the much more comprehensive Environmental Assessment 

(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 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 16 of17 
served by completed EAs, and we question why the FAA apparently intends to start picking off 

individual flight 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 ... " Why go to all this trouble if CATEX is supposedly to be used infrequently? 

Currently, 21 of the 73 published flight procedures in the New York City area are already RNAV 

or RNP, and by adopting the Net Noise Reduction Method, the FAA would be able to 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 of the United States. Lack of such full review is 

unacceptable. 

From the Chicago Midway Procedural Changes report comes this statement that shows the 

intensity of new flights and the trouble this will create for the rest of the 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 of PBN procedures must be considered. The Net Noise Reduction Method is 

the Method that should NOT be used, to any extent. 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and ask that you open the 

process to much extensive review and citizen involvement before proceeding further. 

Sincerely, 

c~· ~-L_ Janet McEneaney, Presid~ 

Queens 

Ja_~~~ 

Quiet Skies. 

D.? 

~ 

. . 

/Ffobert ~r~0 Whitehair, Vice President 

· Queens Quiet Skies 

bobwhitehair@gmail.com 

PO Box 604888 

Bayside, NY 11363 

347-642-2862 

Queens Quiet Skies Response: Docket# FAA-2014-0510 -Implementation of CATEX Procedures Page 17 of17