|
Dear Senator XXXXXXX,
I am writing to request that you do not vote for the FAA Reauthorization
Bill (the Bill) because it includes a terrible loophole created and sold by
Airline industry lobbyists and violates at least the spirit and intent of
the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Act (NEPA). In particular,
I note that the Bill under (c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED REVIEW,
Subparagraph (2) - states: (2) NEXTGEN PROCEDURES.-Any navigation
performance or other performance based navigation procedure developed,
certified, published, or implemented that, in the determination of the
Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption,
carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight basis, as compared to
aircraft operations that follow existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be
presumed to have no significant affect on the quality of the human
environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a categorical
exclusion for the new procedure. (emphasis added)
My primary concern is with the highlighted language "existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace". The issue
with this language is that existing instrument flight rules will set the
baseline. I note that the GAO, in their analysis of the Airspace Redesign
(the Redesign), stated that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Redesign did NOT consider RNAV, as well as other technologies which
were known to be available in the analysis time frame. The FAA response was
essentially that the FAA did not know whether the new technologies would be
available in the projected time frame for implementation of the Redesign.
Based on FAA's own statements and published procedures currently in effect
on Long Island, RNAV and other technologies are already being deployed.
Therefore, any wording that allows the use of today's "existing"
situation as a baseline completely hides the increased noise and pollution
we are already experiencing. The baseline must be one when the NextGen
technologies were NOT already deployed.
Further, the phrase "same airspace" is likewise indefinite and
works against the ordinary citizen. Which airspace are we talking about? Is
it the airspace around the United States,
New York State or around my home? The
aforementioned EIS for the Redesign considered the noise impact on a census
block basis. That approach clearly is more reasonable. The introduction of
the indefinite " same airspace" concept only adds ambiguity for
no purpose, and allows the effects of new flight rules procedures to
disproportionately effect particular areas.
I therefore respectfully suggest that you vote NO on the Bill unless and
until the Categorical Exclusion Language, if it must remain, is modified so
that it does not, in effect, take away the protections that Congress has
already given us. We need language that does not strip our protection
against the environmental impacts of NextGen and similar technologies,
whether already in use or to be put in place in the future.
Sincerely,
|
|
Dear Senator XXXXXXXX,
I am writing to request that you vote against the FAA Reauthorization Bill
(the Bill) because it includes a terrible loophole that will allow the FAA
to avoid environmental reviews of the NextGen program. The loophole was
created and sold by Airline industry lobbyists and violates at least the
spirit and intent of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Act
(NEPA). The bill is up for a vote in the Senate on Monday afternoon,
February 6, 2012.
As you know, portions of the NextGen program are already operating in
conjunction with the Airspace Redesign (“the redesign”) and the
net effect of both programs is causing your constituents great fear and
anger. The redesign entered Phase 2A on October 20, 2011.
According to the GAO report on the Airspace Redesign, the FAA avoided
proper environmental review of that program because the project did not explicitly
state that increased capacity was a project goal. However, according to the
FAA, the NextGen program WILL INCREASE CAPACITY.
The bill includes language (termed a Categorical Exclusion) that permits
the FAA to avoid all environmental reviews if NextGen program management
decides an exclusion is proper. Unfortunately the exclusion language does
not have a realistic baseline because it effectively hides any of the
effects we are already experiencing.
I particular I note that Bill under (c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED REVIEW.
Subparagraph (2) - states:
(2) NEXTGEN PROCEDURES.-Any navigation performance or other performance
based navigation procedure developed, certified, published, or implemented
that, in the determination of the Administrator, would result in measurable
reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a
per flight basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace, shall be
presumed to have no significant affect on the quality of the human
environment and the Administrator shall issue and file a categorical
exclusion for the new procedure. (emphasis added)
My primary concern is the highlighted language “existing
instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace”
Regarding “existing instrument flight rules” We note that
the GAO, in their analysis of the Airspace Redesign (“the
Redesign”), stated that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Redesign did not consider RNAV as well as other technologies which were
know to be available in the analysis time frame. The FAA response was
essentially that the FAA did not know whether the new technologies would be
available in the projected time frame for implementation of the Redesign.
Based on FAA’s own statements and published procedures currently in
effect on Long Island, RNAV and other technologies are already in fact
deployed. Therefore any wording that allows the use of today’s
situation as a baseline completely hides the increased noise and pollution
we are already experiencing. The baseline must be one when the NextGen
technologies were not deployed.
The phrase “same airspace” is likewise indefinite. Which
airspace are we talking about? Is it the airspace around the United States, New York State
or around my home? The aforementioned EIS considered noise in a census
block and I believe that gives a much more reasonable definition.
I therefore respectfully suggest that you vote NO on the Bill unless and
until the Categorical Exclusion Language, if it must remain, is correct and
does not give away the protections that Congress has already given us.
Sincerely,
|
|
1/30/2012
Letter to your Congressman and Senators
RE: Request To Oppose Language Granting Categorical Exclusion For NextGen
Dear:
We would like you to oppose language supported by the aviation industry
that would result in Categorical Exclusion (or exclusion from formal
environmental review) for NextGen and associated routes and procedures.
Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) language has been suggested by at least
GE(1) and the Air Transport Association of America (ATA).(2,3)
If allowed to remain in the FAA Reauthorization Bill currently in the
House, the CatEx language would allow the FAA to bypass all environmental
reviews currently required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Amendments to categorically exclude certain NextGen procedures are
problematic for a number of reasons. First, the NextGen area
navigation (RNAV) and required navigation procedures (RNP) concentrate
aircraft noise and emissions over a narrow flight path. Second, it
could enable the FAA to implement new flight patterns at lower
altitudes without formal environmental review. Third, NextGen
procedures are designed to increase capacity or flight density thereby
increasing aircraft noise and emissions.
As you may know, the FAA excluded modeling RNAV and RNP flight patterns, as
well as other known NextGen Technologies, from the noise modeling for the
NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project.(4) In its July 2008 United
States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on the
Redesign, the GAO commented on FAA modeling assumptions in a section titled,
“FAA Did Not Fully Account for Future Use of New Technology in the
Noise Analysis”. (5) This section states that the FAA
“did not model RNAV in the noise analysis used to compare the
alternatives, which is inconsistent with the operational analysis.
RNAV is designed to allow aircraft to fly a more precise
track… " (6) It also did not undertake any
emissions modeling in the limited environmental studies the FAA did perform
nor did it perform any economic impact studies as required by law.
The FAA is already implementing RNAV and RNP flight patterns in the
metropolitan New Jersey and New York areas yet
the full noise and emissions impact of the Airspace Redesign with NextGen
remain unknown. The FAA is well aware of this issue and may be
stalling until CatEx language becomes law. This will enable the agency to
continue to implement the projects without fully analyzing their individual
and collective impacts.
The FAA avoided studying recommended alternate noise metrics in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Airspace Redesign because project
goals did not mention an increase of airspace or even consider
“induced capacity”. (7) Clearly however the combination of the
Airspace Redesign and NextGen will lead to increased capacity and the
environmental impact of both programs in operation together must be
studied. Dr L. Maurice of the FAA agrees.(8) Furthermore, in a
video on the FAA website describing the Airspace Redesign and NextGen
programs, the moderator explains that NextGen technology will allow aircraft
spacing to decrease from 5 miles to 3 miles. This change alone will allow
more flights to land per hour and cause approximately twice the levels of
noise and pollution.
Even with the limited deployment of the Aircraft Redesign and NextGen
technologies, citizens of the Town of North
Hempstead are suffering. Although we do not yet
know the long term impacts of the lack of sleep and pollution on our
residents and children, the impacts cannot be good! We expect that even
more damage to our health will occur when the FAA launches new routes and
procedures as part of the Airspace Redesign and NextGen.
Communities impacted by the changes already in place are already scared and
angry. This fear and anger will only increase if they realize their
representatives allow this to happen by refusing to act. By inaction you
will allow the FAA to avoid the letter and spirit of our existing laws
through manipulation of our system by aircraft industry lobbyists and their
partners in Congress.
Please do not allow any Categorical Exclusion language to remain in
the Reauthorization Bill.
Sincerely yours,
(1) An example of the language found in a proposed amendment in the
stalled FAA Reauthorization bill specific to NextGen is as follows:
“measurably reduce aircraft emissions and result in an absolute
reduction or no net increase in aircraft noise.” Said another
way, an increase in noise in the New York Metro area could be offset by a
decrease in noise over some other area in the country. This language is supported
by GE, a large manufacturer of aircraft jet engines.
(2) “ATA believes that more RNP/RNAV procedures should be subject to
a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), (e.g. do not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore neither an environmental assessment nor
environmental impact statement are required). We are pleased that
section 213 of H.R. 658 directs the FAA to conduct expedited environmental
reviews to accelerate the implementation of PBN procedures, and that
certified PBN procedures are presumed to be covered by a CATEX, especially
in those instances where environmental improvement can be
demonstrated.” ; A Comprehensive Review of FAA's NextGen Program:
Costs, Benefits, Progress, and Management; October 5, 2011; Internet
link: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/ATA-Testimony-by-SVP,-Safety,-Security-and-Operations-Tom-Hendricks-before-the-Subcommittee-on-Aviation-of-the-House.aspx
(3) ATA is currently known as Airlines for America (A4A)
(4) One may think of the two programs as follows: The airspace redesign
provides new lake off lanes and patterns purportedly to decrease delays at
the New York area airports. The NextGen Technologies, some which are
already being used with certain landing paterns (e.g.RNAV/RNP), seeks to
take those new lanes and patterns and concentrate them to increase
capacity. The new technologies are based on the GPS.
(5) United States Government Accountability Office (GAO),
“FAA’s Airspace Redesign An Analysis of the New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Project,” report to U.S. Congress on the
FAA’s Airspace Redesign project, July 2008, p.41, 42. Report Internet
Link: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08786.pdf
(6) In the GAO report, the FAA’s decision not to model RNAV was based
on “…it did not know whether all aircraft using a particular
route would be equipped with RNAV technology; FAA also did not predict
which flight tracks airlines would choose. Thus, FAA officials said
they did not want to model anything that was not guaranteed to be
implemented”.
(7) id.
(8) http://www.trbav030.org/pdf2010/Maurice_Implications_Enviro_NextGen.pdf
|
|
30 January 2012
Email to: Citizens for Quiet
Skies over North Hempstead
All,
May I please restate our immediate goals:
Contact all your elected officials ( local, state and federal) to do what
they can to make sure that the FAA Reauthorization Bill currently in the
House:
1-- DOES NOT include any Categorical Exclusions(CatEx) that could
potentially allow the FAA to get around the laws that are in place to
protect us;
.
2-- Includes a requirement that NextGen go through environment evaluations
in accordance with the Clean Air Act and NEPA. This is a major point to be
made in comments on NextGen due March 7;
3-- Includes the requirements of Senator Schumer's helicopter noise Bill,
SA71.
Please also remember that we must respond by March 7 to the FAA's request
for comments on the NextGen Program by mail or at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2011-1082-0001 .
If you prefer, you may wait a few days and we will provide at least one
sample letter. Also, I am told that Congressman Ackerman will not submit
comments on the NextGen program to the FAA on our behalf unless an elected
office requests that he does. Please request that your elected officials
ask Congressman Ackerman to do just that (see 2 above).
1 and 2 are most important NOW! The
Reauthorization Bill may be passed at any time.
Thanks in advance,
Len
|
Please watch
an FAA Video overview on the Airspace redesign and NEXTGEN programs.
The link is at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/congress_vids/
and gives the overview and is a very good exercise
in critical listening. Please listen to the whole video and note that: gives
the overview and is a very good exercise in critical listening. Please listen
to the whole video and note that:
gives the overview and is a very good exercise in critical
listening. Please listen to the whole video and note that:
- By
only showing information on the west gate expansion (aka "the
wrap'), the impression is given that other significant changes are not
included in the program.
- The
video becomes more misleading as the moderator is standing under an
aircraft at 18,000. Clearly the message is airspace redesign =West gate
expansion = aircraft at 18,000= no noise impact.
- The
presentation never mentions changes to landing patterns which are a
major cause of our increased noise.
- The
moderator never talks about increased capacity only efficiency.
Acknowledging increased capacity would likely trigger addition
environmental analysis.
- The
Next Gen program will allow aircraft spacing to be reduced from 5 miles
to 3 miles. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to translate that into
increased capacity which means more takeoffs and landings.
- While
I believe the FAA intentionally ignored the NEXTGEN in the Environmental
analysis for the Airspace redesign, the video clearly implies that they
will be in operation together. Their combined impact on the environment
must be studied.
Dr. Maurice of the FAA, in her
presentation at http://www.trbav030.org/pdf2010/Maurice_Implications_Enviro_NextGen.pdf
clearly agrees that the two
programs should be be analyzed as one and recommends that an environmental
analysis be performed on NextGen. We must support her position in our
comments to the FAA by March 7. (closing date for comments to the request for
comment on NEXTGEN as published in the Federal Register)
For some time I have been writing that NEXTGEN will mean
more capacity and hence more flights and noise. I therefore decided to look for
some backup from the FAA for the statements I have been making. I searched
"benefits of NEXTGEN" and found:
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/benefits/
And, if you click "flight operations" on the
left side of the page, you will go to
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/benefits/flight_operations/
where you will find:
All aircraft operators in the National Airspace System
will benefit from two major categories of improvements – efficiency and
capacity, and access. Much of the time, efficiency and capacity go
together. When we reduce the distance needed for the safe separation of
aircraft, reduce delays from weather and other disruptions, and increase
flight-path and procedures options for controllers as they maintain the flow
of traffic, we improve capacity as well. Surface initiatives make important
contributions across the board – they improve situational awareness and
safety, they reduce fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions and they
reduce tarmac delays. And by improving the efficiency of surface operations,
they increase capacity.
Access issues center on runways at major airports,
affecting mainly airlines, and airports and airspace that lack radar
coverage, a problem for general aviation. NextGen will improve efficiency in
operations that involve closely spaced parallel runways and converging and
intersecting runways. Area Navigation and Required Navigation Performance
will improve efficiency and capacity in departures and approaches. For
general aviation, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) will
enable controllers to track properly equipped aircraft in non-radar areas
covered by ADS-B ground stations. General aviation operators equipped for
ADS-B In will receive traffic and weather information directly in the
cockpit, providing them with greater situational awareness. Wide Area
Augmentation System Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance approach
procedures will give properly equipped aircraft Instrument Landing System
(ILS)-like capability at non-ILS airports. (emphasis added) If you have not
already done so, please forward this email to your elected federal and state
officials and ask them to support Environmental Studies to investigate the
impact of Next Gen described in the presentation at the link below below.
All,
·
Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice, Ph.D., P.E., a
scientist at the FAA, recently explained the need for Environmental Studies
to investigate the impact of NextGen. As I have written in the past, Next
Gen, coupled with the aspects of the air space Redesign already in place,
means a further increase in air traffic with its attentandent noise and
polution. The Dr. Lourdes gave a presetation on the subject which is
available at:
http://www.trbav030.org/pdf2010/Maurice_Implications_Enviro_NextGen.pdf
Please read EVERY WORD in the presentation; its only 11 pages! Keep in mind
that phrases like "increased capacity", "concentration of
flight tracks", etc all can be translated into more flights, noise, air
and water pollution, etc.
·
Of MAJOR interest is a notice in the Federal
Register entitled " Proposed Provision of Navigation Services for the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (Next Gen) Transition to
Performance-Based Navigation (PBN)" The first line of the summary
says" The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) seeks comments on a
proposed transition of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) navigation
infrastructure to enable performance-based navigation (PBN) as part of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)." See http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/15/2011-31451/proposed-provision-of-navigation-services-for-the-next-generation-air-transportation-system-nextgen.
·
Clearly we must get the government to get the
environmental studies done before Next Gen is rolled out and probably even
roll back some of the changes that are already bringing NEXT GEN related
impacts to our communities, e.g. RNAV(GPS) approaches starting at 2000 feet
rather than 3000 feet. Comments are due by March 7, 2012 so we must send
emails to every local and state elected official and ask them to support the
need for additional noise and environmental studies related to implementation
of Next Gen. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was published in the
federal register in August 2007. If the environmental study is not done then
we should ask our representatives to kill that portion of the FAA re authorization
bill that funds NEXT GEN. It is in currently in the House Transportation and
Infrastructure committee chaired by representative Mica of FL.
Here it is folks. The airline industry is trying to get
congress to allow the FAA to avoid studying environmental impacts if the
potential impacts are caused by new technologies such as PNB/RNAV. This means
that the FAA can continue to lower the altitudes of aircraft landing at LGA
and KLGA. Getting our representative to fight the ATA and their congressional
supporters on this is a last chance for us. We ignore this at our own peril!!
What follows is an except from the testimony of an ATA official to congress
Oct. 6, 2011: "Streamline the Environmental Review Process. One issue
that has been identified as a bottleneck is the environmental approval
process. By definition, developing a useful flight path requires a change in
the airspace around an airport, and any material change is generally subject
to some level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, even in
those cases where the new flight path will result in environmental
improvements. ATA believes that more RNP/RNAV procedures should be subject to
a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), (i.e., do not have a significant effect on
the environment and therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement are required). We are pleased that section 213
of H.R. 658 directs the FAA to conduct expedited environmental reviews to
accelerate the implementation of PBN procedures, and that certified PBN
procedures are presumed to be covered by a CATEX, especially in those
instances where environmental improvement can be demonstrated." (emphasis
added) PBN = Performance based Navigation, RNAV = RNAV enables aircraft to
fly on ANY desired flight path within the coverage of ground- or spaced-based
navigation aids, within the limits of the capability of the self-contained
systems, or a combination of both capabilities. As such, RNAV aircraft have
better access and flexibility for point-to-point operations. ( from FAA WEB
SITE)
Please forward this email to at least all residents of
Roslyn, East hills, Roslyn Heights,
Albertson and all towns and villages that are under a line from Roslyn to
JFK. I don't yet know the impact of CATEX's on people under the approaches to
LGA.
As you may now know, and has been reported by the GAO, the
FAA did not consider the impact of New technologies like RNav(GPS) (or those
to be provided in Next Gen), when doing the Environmental Studies for the
Airspace redesign. Likewise as suggested by the GAO, not considering these
new technologies was a weakness in the FAA analysis. Moreover I believe that
use of the RNAV (GPS) technologies is the major reason for the dramatic
increases in noise being experiences in North Hempstead
as they allow aircraft to fly at 2000 feet for much of the approaches to
local airports. It has been reported that the FAA, through the FAA re
authorization bill of 2011 is now trying to make sure that the use of these
new technologies can be categorically excluded from any noise studies. You
must contact Congressman Ackerman and Senators Schumer and Gilibrand and ask
that they vote against any language in the bill that provides Categorical
Exclusions that will allow the FAA to avoid doing proper environmental impact
studies that are currently required by law. It is my firm believe that if
fairly done, these studies will show that we are being subjected to unhealthy
noise and other environmental impacts.
All, As you may know, March 12 is a very critical date
because it is the closing date for comments on implementation the FAA Next
Gen program as described in the Federal Register. My personal feeling is that
the FAA, by breaking up the modernization of the US Airspace into two major
phases-- the airspace redesign and Next Gen-- may have unintentionally masked
the overall impact of the two phase working together. Courts have ruled that
unless the goal of an airspace project is clearly directed to an increase in
capacity, detailed environmental studies do not have to be done. According to
the GAO, the airspace redesign goals are not directed to an increase in
capacity Said another way, the environmental studies to date do not fully
consider the deleterious effect of the increase in capacity that will be realized
when Next Gen is implemented and both programs are in operation. At a minimum
we must insist that proper environmental studies be preformed before
implementation of Next Gen and that those studies consider the airspace as it
will exist when both programs are implemented. Therefore we need eyes to read
some of the FAA documents associated with the redesign and NextGen. The goal
is to derive other bullet points to stress in our letters in response to the
Federal Register publication. We don't need lawyers although they could help.
What we need are critical readers!
|