Legislative Actions
June 30 2008- FAA Reauthorization Act funding expires June 30.
June 23 2008 - Transportation & Housing Approporations bill goes to the White House. FAA funding included.
June 18 2008- Hearing in the House on Aviation Congestion. ATADirector pushes the FAA to implementation of the airspace redesign. Shays calls for immediate end to the implementation of the airspace redesign. Schumer, Oberstar, and Hall ask for more ATCs in the towers. Schumer blasts the FAA over fligth caps which would temporarily solve flight delay.
May 6, 2008- The Senate voted NO on the Funding Reauthorization Act (Hr2881-S1300).
The House Bill provides support and funding for the Airspace Redesign and would need to be amended to stop implementation until GAO review and resolution of litigous action. See Below
This amended bill failedcloture montion on Tuesday May 6. you may read this here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r110:FLD001:S53611
We encourage you to read the text of the legislation yourselves. Our Airspace volunteers have pinpointed some alarming passages and have notified lawmakers of concern. You as a citizen, local government or environmental representative should contact your elected officials and discuss the issues outlined and how they could impact you and your constituency. HERE is the FAA's budget request for FAA including airspace redesign:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aba/budgets_brief/media/bib2007.pdf
|
HR 2881
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 CURRENT STATUS: |
|
|
CON
|
PRO
|
| No mention of ensuring adequate staffing levels at the Air traffic Control Towers prior to implementation phase | Phase out of noisy stage 2 aircraft over the next five years; |
| Allows the airlines use of the parks as noise-mitigated routes via the "Air Tour Management program". As environmentalists, we cannot permit Passenger Airlines to govern the airspace over our shared forests, parks, conservancies and preserves without expert review, clearly defined benchmarking and other accountability measures. The text as it written seems to cover the absolute bare minimum of review or community involvement and even introduces caps to prevent review beyond initial reporting. | Pilot program for the development, maturing and certification of continuous lower energy, emissions and noise engine and airframe technology |
| Makes it difficult, if not impossible to properly research, conduct scientific study, discuss and mitigate the actual risks and impacts of airspace changes after the Redesign implementation phase begins. (Internal implementation date begun 2007 ) |
Program to fund six projects at public-use airports to take promising environmental research concepts into the actual airport environment to demonstrate the reduction or mitigation of aviation impacts on noise, air quality or water quality in the airport environment. BUT WITH NO PROVISIONS FOR NOTIFYING SURROUNDING COMMUNIUTIES |
| leaves the nations Parks, forest preserves and tribal lands particularly vulnerable (particularly more so now that the Mitigated Alternative routes of the airspace redesign include use of open land, parks and rural communities). | Air Traffic Controller contact |
| Places the burden of responsibility for Emergency Management to the Airports instead of between the FAA and local governments and does not designate training programs for the increase in risk which may be associated. | |
OurAirspace would like to see HR2881 amended with the The Dodd Lieberman Amendment will stop implementation of the current plan until lawsuits are resolved.
FAA FUNDING REAUTHORIZATION ACT
SEC. 219. AIRSPACE REDESIGN.
|
S 1300
Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 CURRENT STATUS:
|
|
|
CON
|
PRO |
| Tribal land left vulnerable for takeover by airline interests by loophole in the Air Tour Management Program | furthers the Next Gen project which includes some elegant solutions to technological issues |
| Needs Protective measures on benchmarking before implementation begins | |
Other related pending Legislation
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:|
H.R. 3259
HR 3259: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue rules that designate no-fly zones in the vicinity of certain nuclear power plants, and for other purposes. CURRENT STATUS:
|
|
|
CON
|
PRO |
| Makes no funds available to implement this no fly zone | Addresses potential National Security threat to New York City Area by allowing the department of Homeland Security to implement a 'No Fly zone' by highly populated areas. |
| Difficult to logistically implement usefull no fly zone in the congested airspace. view riverkeeper.org for more information | |
|
H.R. 2684
H.R. 2684: FAA Aviation Safety Research Assessment Act of 2007 CURRENT STATUS:
|
|
|
CON
|
PRO |
| Funding level is set to $700,000 which may help to pass the bill yet may not be enough to accomplish all tasks | Addresses potential safety issues at the FAA with funding and timeline |
| encourages intergovernmental feedback and support between NASA, FAA and promotes transparency in government. | |
|
H.R. 2698
H.R. 2698: Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007 CURRENT STATUS:
|
|
|
CON
|
PRO |
| a research initiative to assess the impact of aviation on the climate and to evaluate approaches to mitigate such impact; | |
| 8,349,000 for aviation safety risk analysis vs. $102,000,000 for NextGen system development | |
Our airspace endorses the action items as set forth by the National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment (NOISE)
LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
From NOISE
1. Allow Sec. 189 to Expire and Allow Mitigation Beyond 65 DNL
NOISE urges Congress to allow section 189 of Vision 100 (65 DNL restriction) to expire with the current FAA Authorization. This provision interferes with several carefully negotiated mitigation plans between communities and local airports and also eliminates the prospect of mitigation beyond the 65 DNL for other communities. NOISE believes that a nation-wide mandate is counterproductive and that the specifics of mitigation plans should be determined by local jurisdictions, taking into account the unique circumstances of each community.
2. Full Funding For The Airport Improvement Program
NOISE urges Congress to reject Administration proposals to slash authorized funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and noise mitigation programs in the FAA “NextGen” reauthorization package. NOISE supports authorization of AIP at levels comparable to funding provided through Vision 100, including similar scheduled increases. NOISE opposes reduction of noise mitigation funding in the AIP by diverting funds that would otherwise go to noise mitigation to other priorities. NOISE strenuously opposes any formula for AIP funding that results in a decrease of noise mitigation funding. Additionally, Congress should strengthen points of order and budget protections that would make it difficult for appropriators to fund AIP below the authorized amount.
3. NASA Aeronautics Research Programs
NOISE opposes proposals to slash funding for Aeronautics Research Directorate programs within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which would seriously limit the ability to accomplish their mission. The division is charged by Congress with: “developing, and demonstrating in a relevant environment, technologies to enable ... commercial aircraft [with] performance characteristics [including] noise levels on takeoff and on airport approach and landing that do not exceed ambient noise levels in the absence of flight operations in the vicinity of airports from which such commercial aircraft would normally operate.” The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate is critical to the development of new aircraft technologies and has historically produced important advances and improvements in environmental impacts, performance, efficiency, and safety of engines, airframes, and other aspects of aircraft construction.
4. Make ACRP Permanent
NOISE supports the FAA proposal to make the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) permanent (NextGen sections 601 and 102.) The proposed legislation would add $5 million a year from AIP for environmental research for airport surroundings, including reduction of community exposure to noise, aviation emissions, and other pollution sources. The ACRP has been critical in supporting independent and academic research and development of airport operations recommendations and procedures.
5. Close The Small Aircraft Loophole
NOISE supports legislation to address a loophole in federal aircraft noise requirements and prohibit the operation of all Stage 2 aircraft – regardless of size. The exclusion in current law allows operation of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. NOISE supports legislation introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) to allow operation of stage 2 aircraft for only limited purposes, including: sale outside the United States, scraping the aircraft, or the modifications to stage 3 standards.
6. The “Hushkits” Issue And The Move To Stage 4 Standards
NOISE supports accelerating the replacement of the noisiest Stage 3 aircraft with new Stage 4 rated models, beginning with Stage 2 aircraft equipped with “hushkits” to meet Stage 3 standards. NOISE will continue to support stronger noise standards through participation in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
7. Develop A Low Frequency Noise Standard
NOISE encourages the FAA to develop standards for low frequency noise mitigation and to examine the impact of low frequency noise on a given locality, recognizing that the issue of low frequency noise is increasingly of concern in residential neighborhoods near the nation’s airports.
Community Issues
8. Extension of Section 160 Compatible Land Use Program
NOISE supports the extension of authorization for Vision 100 Section 160 as proposed by the FAA (NextGen section 315.) Section 160 authorized the FAA to make Airport Improvement Program grants to states and units of local government with a goal of reducing incompatible land use around large and medium-sized airports. The program is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. The FAA has requested a three-year extension as the program has experienced low utilization due to start-up problems.
9. Airport Planning Organizations / Community Involvement
NOISE supports the passage of legislation requiring that, as a requirement of eligibility for federal funding of runway expansion or construction, an airport operator must obtain approval of the proposed project from an Airport Planning Organization. The majority membership of this organization must consist of representatives of communities affected by the noise and other environmental consequences generated by air traffic at the airport.
10. Capacity / Environmental Streamlining
As congested airports exercise the ability to expedite the environmental review process for increasing airport capacity, NOISE supports a reasonable, community-sensitive approach that does not sacrifice local input or a sound review of environmental consequences (including noise) of proposed increases in airport capacity.
11. Environmental Justice Study
NOISE requests an environmental justice study that surveys aviation noise near our nation’s airports and considers whether it creates a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable in our society.
12. Community Right-To-Know
NOISE calls on Congress to require that airports produce annual retrospective noise exposure contours, based on actual fleet and runway use, flight path, and other operational information, displaying the locations of aircraft noise exposure contours greater than 55 dB DNL. These reports should compare actual noise exposure levels to predictions included in Part 150 or other studies and should be made easily accessible by the public.
Transportation / Airport Planning
13. Regional Perspective In Airport Development
NOISE urges Congress to require Master Plan or Part 150 studies to consider other airports in the region when examining alternatives for airport construction or expansion. This should include alternatives for load-balancing traffic and passenger levels amongst regional airports.
14. Community Involvement In Airspace And Traffic Redesign
NOISE urges Congress and the FAA to ensure that local communities are included as active and substantive partners when considering the redesign of airspace and airport traffic patterns.
Federal Policy Issues
15. Enhance Mitigation Policies
NOISE supports setting 60 DNL as the minimum for the threshold of community compatibility.
NOISE opposes the categorical exclusion from environmental review of air traffic control procedures that occur above 3,000 feet (FAA Order 1050.1D), and supports raising the 3,000 foot exemption to 10,000 feet.
16. Environmental Assessment Projects
NOISE supports the continued study of noise contour projects, and supports the extension of Environmental Assessment projects out to the 55 DNL contour. Further, Environmental Assessments should be conducted for all changes in nighttime procedures.
17. Full Disclosure
NOISE calls on Congress to require that Part 150 and Master Plan studies should include full disclosure and documentation of lobbying efforts for recommended development alternatives.
Operator Issues
18. Allow Operator Control Over Volume Of Takeoffs/Landings
NOISE supports legislation to give local operators the power to refuse to schedule a volume of flights that are well beyond its capacity.
19. Avoid Federal Circumvention Of Local Concerns
NOISE strongly opposes federal legislation mandating capacity expansion of any individual airport. Such an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government in local transportation decisions is worrisome for many reasons, including calls for expedited environmental reviews and lack of sufficient guarantee that local communities will have a voice in deciding noise mitigation strategies.
20. Development of Environmental Mitigation Demonstration Pilot Programs
NOISE supports the development of Environmental Mitigation Demonstration (EMD) Pilot Programs as proposed by the FAA (NextGen section 604.) EMD projects would demonstrate at public-use airports the practical benefits of promising research to reduce impacts on noise, air or water quality in the airport environment, with significant support from the AIP noise / environmental set-aside. The benefit of the initial six pilot projects would extend beyond the individual airport, as the FAA would identify and disseminate best practice information based on project results.
21. Broaden Scope for AIP Funding Eligibility
NOISE supports making special studies or reviews eligible for AIP funding as proposed by the FAA (NextGen section 603.) The proposal would broaden current authority for the FAA and airport sponsors to enter into voluntary reimbursable agreements that are eligible for AIP assistance, including environmental reviews for airport development, environmental mitigation in an airport EIS, and part 150 approved mitigation programs.
Technology and Operations Issues
22. Commercial Supersonic/Hypersonic Aircraft
As aviation industry and research sectors seek the development of commercial supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, NOISE urges the FAA and Congress to ensure that these aircraft do not have a larger noise impact than other contemporary new production aircraft.
23. “Green Engine” Development
NOISE supports Congressman James Oberstar in his call for an “Apollo-like investment” by the United States and Europe to develop a new jet “green engine” within ten years that is thirty to forty decibels quieter than current jet engine levels.
24. Rotorcraft Noise Studies
NOISE supports study of the effects of non-military helicopter noise on individuals and development of recommendations for noise reductions related to rotorcraft traffic.
25. CLEEN Research Consortium
NOISE supports the FAA proposal for development of the CLEEN Research Consortium (NextGen section 606.) The proposal would establish a world-class consortium, via cooperative agreement with the Center of Excellence, for development, maturing, & certification of lower energy, emissions, noise engine & airframe technology over 10 years. CLEEN would have performance objectives for the reduction of environmental impact including noise, fuel efficiency and alternative fuel use, and emissions.
26. AIP Support for Environmental Review of Flight Procedures
NOISE supports making assessment of flight procedures eligible for AIP funding as proposed by the FAA (NextGen section 605.) The proposal would allow AIP assistance for environmental review of implementation of noise abatement flight procedures approved in airport noise compatibility programs (Part 150). This provision would help to bring new noise abatement flight procedures, including continuous descent approach, on line faster by using the same AIP-eligibility for environmental review as provided to FAA Airports Program. Operational procedures offer the most promise for swift noise reduction, prior to introduction of new technologies.
Unfortuntely, many key players in this debate are not taking a stand against implementation. Some Politicians have silently but actively been supporting implementation of the Airspace Redesign Project while drafting letters and making statements of distain towards the FAA.
Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer and Congressman Hall have publically stated that many communities did not receive adequate study, and they are concerned about project flaws.
Unfortuntaly NONE of these representatives have taken the position to Stop implementation.
Congressman Hall, an aviation subcommittee member is a sponsor on a bill which funds this project. He publically states that he has concerns over the project itself, and he realizes that the study is not adequate. He has voted in favor of an amendment which cut funding for the entire FAA to stop implemenation on the past. This resoundingly and obviously failed. Unfortunatly, he now stands in silent support of the project's implementation.
Senators Schumer and Clinton have been also silently supporting the implementation. They have both written distainful letters to the FAA however, are positioned squarely in favor of implementation. Any moves made thus far, including moves to introduce GAO study are a step in the right direction, but provide no means to halt implementation.
It is important to understand that both Senators Clinton and Shumer have been very active in the aviation industry. they have together helped secure funding for regional airline expansion activities. Senator Schumer has been integral in securing space for airline carriers at La Guardia and Newark. He has lobbied with the airline induistry to move operations from Teterboro to Stewart.
Senator Clinton is endorsed by the Untited Aircraft Workers Association.
Letters in Support of the plan
Key Legislation being violated by the Airspace Redesign Project:
49 United States Code §40103(b)(2). That federal statute reads, in
relevant part:
“The Administrator [of the Federal Aviation Administration] shall prescribe
air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on
safe altitudes) for -- ...(B) protecting individuals and property on the
ground” [Emphasis added].
Watch the floor debates
Debate on Air Traffic Controller Issues
Debate on Air Traffic Controller Issues
Oberstar on Air traffic Controllers Employees Issues
Costello Amendment on Air Traffic Controllers Issues
| Consideration of Air Quality Impacts By Airplane Operations at or Above 3000 feet AGL Published by FAA
Excerpts: A Categorical Exclusion is an action which does not have a “significant effect on the quality of 12 read their published documents here. |
| Letter to Congressmen:
I would first like to preface by saying that the bill does include some wonderful measures. |
LEGISLATION & ADVOCACY
Amendment in Congress
An amendment that would have cut off funding for the project failed. the amendment was introduced by Rep. James Frelinghuysen of New Jersey. It failed by a vote of 360-65.
Listen to Congress discuss the issues
Advisor staff appointed to oversea operations and give guidance on Next Gen Program
How do your representatives vote?
This funding re-authorization bill leaves the nations Parks, forest preserves and Tribal Lands particularly vulnerable as written. It shifts the burden of responsibility for Emergency management to the Airports instead of to the FAA and local governments.
We cannot permit the Airlines to govern the airspace over our shared forests, parks, conservancies and preserves without expert review, clearly defined benchmarking and other defined accountability measures. The Department of Defense has implemented and adhered to stringent environmental rules and guidelines. If military aircraft are not permitted to disturb the ecology of our national parks, then Airline Industries should not take special exception to these rules in order to save a few moments of traveler time.
Currently the bill includes wording which can have a very detrimental effect on tribal lands, park lands and open spaces. It effectively allows the FAA to make sweeping changes with only one day review and no further process allowed. It is clearly crafted to reduce any public comment or interruption.
Our Airspace is gravely concerned with the bill to refinance the FAA project and are addressing key changes which must be made before it is passed.
|
These protections must be written into the
Funding Reauthorization Bill: |
|
| ..after such opportunity for public re- view and consultation, the voluntary agreement may be implemented without further adminis- trative or environmental process beyond that described in this subsection. |
OurAirspace
ourairspace.org
contact@OurAirspace.org
HOME | What to do | Legislation | Scientific Studies | Research | Solutions | Contact | About | News