[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: NOISE ======================================================================= (110-83) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 24, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-567 WASHINGTON : 2008 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Carolina BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois RICK LARSEN, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri JULIA CARSON, Indiana BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (ii) ? Subcommittee on Aviation JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey NICK LAMPSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JOHN J. HALL, New York, Vice Chair SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of TED POE, Texas Columbia DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington CORRINE BROWN, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California York TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN L. MICA, Florida LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii TESTIMONY Burleson, Carl E., Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration................................ 8 Crowley, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York.................................................... 2 Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 8 Epstein, Dr. Alan, Vice President, Environment and Technology, Pratt and Whitney, United Technologies Corporation............. 8 McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York.............................................. 4 McElroy, Deborah C., Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Airports Council International-North America................... 8 McGrann, Dennis M., Executive Director, N.O.I.S.E., National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment.......... 8 Mulder, Hon. Arlene J., Mayor of Arlington Heights and Chairperson, O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission............. 8 Tragale, Ralph, Manager, Government and Community Relations, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey........................... 8 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 30 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 31 Crowley, Hon. Joseph, of New York................................ 37 Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 40 Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California............................. 42 McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, of New York.............................. 44 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 48 Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 54 Petri, Hon. Thomas E., of Wisconsin.............................. 60 Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., of Georgia........................... 64 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Burleson, Carl E................................................. 66 Dillingham, Gerald L............................................. 83 Epstein, Alan H.................................................. 125 McElroy, Deborah................................................. 129 McGrann, Dennis.................................................. 141 Mulder, Hon. Arlene J............................................ 148 Tragale, Ralph F................................................. 156 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Burleson, Carl E., Director, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration: Response to question from Rep. Hall............................ 24 Responses to questions from Rep. Petri......................... 80 Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to questions from Rep. Petri................................................ 121 McElroy, Deborah C., Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Airports Council International-North America, responses to questions from Rep. Petri...................................... 139 Mulder, Hon. Arlene J., Mayor of Arlington Heights and Chairperson, O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, letter to Rep. Petri..................................................... 154 Tragale, Ralph, Manager, Government and Community Relations, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, responses to questions from Rep. Crowley.............................................. 160 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Cargo Airline Association, Stephen A. Alterman, President, written statement.............................................. 163 City of College Park, Georgia, Charles E. Phillips, Sr., Mayor, Pro Tem, written statement..................................... 167 Sierra Club, Dickson J. Hingson, Ph.D.: Letter to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, in response to the Oversight Hearing on the Department of Transportation on October 18, 2007 (dated Obtober 21, 2007).................... 172 Letter to the Federal Aviation Administration in response to Draft 2000 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy (dated October 21, 2000)........................................................ 178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.008 HEARING ON AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: NOISE ---------- Wednesday, October 24, 2007 House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. I think Members and others may be held up outside; there is a little demonstration going on down the hall. But I am sure Members will come in as soon as they can. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair will ask all Members, staff, and everyone to turn off electronic devices or put them on vibrate. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on Aviation and the Environment: Noise. I have a statement which I will submit for the record so that we can go to our two colleagues on the first panel. I welcome everyone here today on the issue of airport noise issues. The purpose of the hearing is to learn more about noise issues near our airports and what communities have done and what they are doing to address the problem. Over 750 million people traveled by air in 2006; one billion people are expected to travel by air in the year 2015. As airports struggle to increase capacity to meet demands, they must reach a balance between the need to expand with the quality of life of the people who live near and around our airports. I have, as I said, a full statement that I will submit for the record so we can expedite matters and go directly to our first panel of witnesses. But, before I do, and before I recognize Mr. Petri, the Ranking Member, for his opening statement or any comments, I ask unanimous consent to allow two weeks for all Members to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also ask consent to submit my full statement for the record. Let me only say this is obviously an important hearing that concerns many of our constituents, especially those who are affected by changes in the level of noise because of changing flight patterns and so on. Overall, it is my own experience, and I think the experience of this Committee, that the broad picture is that the situation has gotten somewhat better. Sound levels are going down. We will be hearing from Pratt and Whitney about the improvements that are being made. But that being said, it doesn't solve the problem for someone who confronts an increase in noise because of changing flight patterns, and I look forward to hearing from our colleagues about the concerns of their constituents in that regard. Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments and would recognize our first panel of witnesses, two colleagues from the New York delegation. We will ask our colleagues to offer their testimony, and traditionally we have not asked Members who are testifying before this Subcommittee to wait around and answer questions. We realize that you have busy schedules, as we do. In fact, I just left a markup to be here, and I have to go back to that markup in a few minutes. But, at this time, the Chair would recognize the Honorable Joseph Crowley, who is a Member of Congress, of course, from the New York Seventh District, and Carolyn McCarthy, who is a Member of Congress from New York's Fourth District. At this time, the Chair would recognize Mr. Crowley for his testimony. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for conducting this hearing. In my district, airport noise is a daily burden shouldered by my constituents, and I appreciate your attentiveness to this important issue. As you know, I represent Queens and the Bronx, New York, and we are home to LaGuardia Airport, one of the Nation's busiest airports, and the busiest and most congested airspace in the United States. If you looked at a map of the area, you would probably focus on the fact that LaGuardia Airport is surrounded by Flushing Bay on one side and the Grand Central Parkway on the other. It is, however, also in the middle of several densely populated communities, including Woodside, Astoria, East Elmhurst, Jackson Heights in Queens, and many parts of the Bronx as well. While the airport is a central part of our community-- helping support New York's economy by shuttling visitors and busy people in and out of the region--its presence does negatively impact on the day-to-day life for tens of thousands of my constituents. In particular, the air pollution resulting from road traffic and airplanes at LaGuardia is a severe problem, as is the noise pollution caused by the airport and its related facilities. That is why, working with the Environmental Protection Agency and New York University, I commissioned a study to determine the effects of airport and airport-related noise on my constituents. The results of this report concluded that some residents living near LaGuardia were exposed to noise levels nearly four times greater, with some levels exceeding the 65 decibel threshold set by the Federal Aviation Administration, than those experienced by residents not living within close proximity to the airport Twenty-four hour time histories also found that residents living within the footprint of LaGuardia were exposed to noise levels in excess of the levels New York City code stipulates for sleeping areas from the house of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and more than 55 percent of the people living within the flight path were reportedly bothered by aircraft noise. Similarly, homes surrounding JFK Airport were subjected to comparable levels of noise as those around LaGuardia, and I would expect they would be comparable to any homes and communities surrounding our Nation's major airports. These findings are particularly noteworthy because noise is not just an annoyance or inconvenience. It is hazardous to one's health and well-being, and it diminishes an individual's quality of life. The World Health Organization found that airport noise has been linked to cardiovascular disease. And the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, in September 200 report, concluded, and I quote: ``Research on the effects of aircraft noise on children's learning suggests that aircraft noise can interfere with learning in the following areas: reading, motivation, language and speak acquisition, and memory. The strongest findings to date are in the area of reading, where more than 20 studies have shown that children in noise impact zones are negatively impacted and affected by aircraft.'' The FAA has recognized the need to mitigate airport noise and has created a volunteer process whereby airport authorities may undertake a Part 150 study to determine the extent of airport noise on a community and then, as a follow-up, establish a plan for remediation of that noise, which could include residential soundproofing. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that airport noise can severely impact the health and well-being of individuals, particularly our children, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has never undertaken or even attempted to conduct a Part 150 study or noise mitigation effort for the homes in the neighborhoods surrounding LaGuardia or its other airports: JFK, Newark, Teterboro, or Stewart Airports. In fact, in the Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, this Committee directed, at my request, that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey begin a Part 150 study and residential soundproofing. The Committee's bipartisan language I won't read, but will submit for the record in my testimony. Unfortunately, the Port authority ignored the explicit direction of this Committee and still has not taken any action to soundproof residences in my area, which is why I am here today. It is my hope this public forum and the further engagement of this Committee will encourage the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to finally pursue the necessary course of action. As this Committee knows, only 17 of the top 50 busiest airports have not submitted a Part 150 study, and three of these 17 airports--LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark--are operated by one entity, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In fact, other large airports have successfully conducted Part 150 studies and soundproofed homes. Of particular note is Los Angeles International Airport. LAX completed its study and is soundproofing the homes in its footprint. It has been a major success story, with the major concern being the length of time to fully implement and mitigate all the homes for noise. If LAX can undertake this project, why can't the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey? I have worked diligently with this Committee's leadership, both under former Chairman Don Young and now under our Chairman Costello and full Chair Oberstar, on the issue of airport noise. I have appreciated your past efforts and support. I hope you will agree that the time has come for soundproofing and other noise mitigation efforts to get underway at the homes surrounding LaGuardia Airport and the other four airports under the Port Authority's control. And if today's hearing does not compel the Port Authority to act, I am going to ask that the FAA Reauthorization plans, which is working its way through the chambers--including the Ways and Means Committee on which I sit--include language strengthening the laws regarding soundproofing of homes and places of worship, and mandating soundproofing and other forms of noise abatement for people living in the footprints of our Nation's largest and busiest airports. Airport and airport-related noise is a real issue of concern to my constituents, both those living around an airport like my constituents or those in the flight path like my colleague, Mrs. McCarthy's. I sincerely appreciate and thank Chairman Oberstar and you, Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri, for holding this hearing, for inviting me to testify, and for inviting the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to testify. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this matter. I thank you again. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Crowley, for your thoughtful testimony and for your leadership on this issue. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the Fourth District from New York, Congresswoman McCarthy. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri for holding this hearing today and allowing me the opportunity to testify before the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation. A lot of my testimony goes along the same lines as my colleague, Mr. Crowley. We share the same problems. I hope this hearing will allow us to explore the effects that airplane noise has on communities near busy airports, and I hope that we can continue to work together in order to find solutions that will reduce airplane noise. I represent the Fourth Congressional District of New York. My district is located in Nassau County, a densely populated area adjacent to John F. Kennedy International Airport. Due to the close proximity to JFK, many communities in my district are severely affected by noise from airplanes landing and taking off from JFK, including the Village of Floral Park. I receive hundreds of calls, letters, and e-mails regarding airplane noise. This issue affects thousands of my constituents on a daily basis. The Village of Floral Park and the Town- Village Aircraft Safety and Noise Abatement Committee, which represents several communities in my district, have led the effort to reduce airplane noise. This is who I represent in my testimony today. The communities surrounding JFK have always experienced airplane noise from planes flying in and out of JFK. The residents were fully aware of this when they purchased their homes in the area. However, due to several factors, there has been a gradual increase in the volume of air traffic and airplane noise since 2000. The result is that it is significantly more difficult to maintain a decent quality of life in these communities. But the concerns extend beyond quality of life. Airplane noise not only affects the quality of life of residents, but can also have dangerous effects on their health. The extended exposure to the loud DNL levels not only affects the hearing of adults and children, but has also been linked to increased blood pressure. Airplane noise has also been found to have an effect on children's education, as my colleague, Joe Crowley, has said. Children who are exposed to prolonged periods of airplane noise learn to read at a slower pace than those not exposed to the noise. These factors come into play every day for the residents of Floral Park and the surrounding communities. We know that the DNL levels are high, but there has not been a study to determine how serious the health risks are for residents. Despite these quality of life and health concerns, airplane noise and traffic increase in 2000 at JFK, Congress passed legislation in 2000 to phase out slot restrictions at JFK. The full impact of this legislation occurred on January 1st, 2007, when the restrictions on the hourly departures and arrivals were completely eliminated. In the first four months of this year, the volume of air traffic has increased by 26.4 percent. As a result, the FAA authorized JFK to utilize three of its four runways for longer periods than was historically permitted, thus limiting the number and length of the breaks between airplane noise flying over the affected communities. The elimination of the limits on departures or arrivals from JFK has forced the airport and New York TRACON to deviate from the letter of agreement, which has a significant impact on the areas surrounding JFK. Airplane noise can be heard at all hours of the day and into the night. Flights over these communities can continue for more than 16 hours a day, with airplanes departing and landing as often as 30 to 60 seconds apart. Residents of these communities have reported up to 115 planes per hour during peak time. One solution to the increase in traffic and an increase in airplane noise is to reinstate the limits on departures and arrivals from JFK. Short of this, we should at least begin discussing how JFK and airline carriers can come to an agreement to reduce air traffic. A reduction of air traffic to and from JFK will reduce airplane noise, as well as delaying congestion. The idea is also supported by President Bush, who recently sent a letter to Secretary Peters, asking he to confer with the members of the aviation industry and regulations to find a solution to reduce the air traffic congestion and delays. A small number of communities bear the enormous burden of airplane noise from increased air traffic in order to benefit the larger region, and, as a result, the Federal Government should offer their assistance. The air traffic going in and out of JFK brings significant benefits to Long Island and to New York. The accessibility that JFK and LaGuardia airports provide to the New York area allows individuals to conveniently conduct business, visit family, or simply take a vacation. This is good for New York and this is also good for Long Island. However, the cost of the increase in traffic at JFK includes flight delays, congestion, and almost constant airplane noise that plagues all of our communities. The Federal Government should increase and expand the assistance available under the Airport Improvement Program for soundproofing. The Airport Improvement Program has done a great job of ensuring students living in these affected areas have a quieter learning environment by soundproofing schools with noise levels above 65 DNLs. This funding should be increased and made available to soundproof additional facilities. Lastly, JFK was excluded from the FAA's noise mitigation study under the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign. Although the main goal of the Airspace Redesign is to reduce delays and increase efficiency, reducing airplane noise should also be a priority. Airplane noise over the affected areas is directly related to the amount of the air traffic to and from JFK. Reduction in delays and an increase in efficiency will only make more slots available for departures and arrivals at JFK, resulting in an increase in air traffic airplane noise. If a noise mitigation study had been conducted by the FAA for JFK, it may have been possible to identify migration measures to decrease airplane noise. I urge the FAA to conduct a noise mitigation study on the areas surrounding JFK under the Airspace Redesign. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with the Committee and with my colleague, Mr. Crowley, to reduce airplane noise over the communities surrounding JFK and LaGuardia. With that, I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and my full testimony has been handed in. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, and let me mention, concerning the AIP program and the reauthorization bill, we have substantially increased the authorization for the AIP program, as you suggested in your testimony. I believe the amount is $15.8 billion over the course of the bill. So we are anxiously awaiting the other side of the Capitol to take action on their bill so that we can go to conference and, in fact, produce a bill that provides increased funding to our airports. The Subcommittee thanks both of you not only for your testimony here today. As Congressman Crowley pointed out, this hearing is a result of a request that he and other Members of the New York delegation made, as well as Mr. Hall on our Subcommittee, who is on his way over here. So we thank you. We assure you that the Subcommittee will continue to work with you and work with the delegation on this important issue. Thank you. The Chair would now ask the second panel to come forward, and as you are moving forward, I will begin with introductions. The first witness on the second panel is Carl Burleson, who is the Director of the Office of Environment and Energy for the FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, the Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ralph Tragale, who is the Manager of Government and Community Relations for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Deborah McElroy, the Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, for the Airports Council International-North America; the Honorable Arlene Mulder, who is the Mayor of Arlington Heights and the Chairperson of the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission; Dr. Alan Epstein, the Vice President of Environment and Technology, Pratt and Whitney, United Technologies Corporation; and Mr. Dennis McGrann, who is the Executive Director of the National Organization to Insure a Sound- Controlled Environment. With that, before we recognize our witnesses and receive their testimony, the gentleman from Tennessee, the former Chairman of this Subcommittee, would like to make a brief statement Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't interrupt the proceedings like this, but I have got an appointment in just a few minutes with former Congressman Bill Lipinski, and I need to leave here in just a few minutes. I did want to say just a couple of things. Sometimes we have trouble admitting that great progress has been made in a particular area, and perhaps that is because people within the government working on a particular problem always want more funding and companies outside of government who are working on the same problem want more money as well. But according to our briefing papers, the FAA says that today jets are 75 percent quieter today than earlier jets. We are also told that there has been an over 90 percent reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft noise from 1975 to 2005. A lot of that has come about because of tremendous interest in this problem and tremendous pressure from Chairman Oberstar when he chaired this Subcommittee for many years, and also work by the Full Committee. We are also told in the briefing papers that, since 1982, the AIP has provided $5 billion for noise abatement projects and PFC charges have provided another $2.4 billion for these projects since 1982. So we have spent an awful lot of money in this area. Now, I have noticed in past years that some people who live close to airports seem to develop superhuman hearing. I remember one time, when this Subcommittee was touring the Dallas Airport, we were told that one man had the airport on his speed dial and had called several thousands of times to complain about aircraft noise; and, of course, the Dallas Airport is the second largest airport, geographically, in the Country, so many other airports really have worse problems in this area, or had them, than the Dallas Airport. But whenever we have done scientific testing in the homes of some of these people who have complained the most, we have found that the decibel levels just weren't there. Now, all I am trying to get at is this: There probably are a few places where we still have a serious problem with noise, but we have made tremendous progress and we have spent many, many billions of dollars on this problem in the last few years, and perhaps it may be time to consider that some of these billions may be better spent in other ways at most airports in this Country. But I thank you for calling this hearing to look into this and thank you for letting me make these comments at this time. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and at this time will recognize our first witness for his testimony. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we will ask all of you to submit your entire statement into the record and we would ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Burleson for his testimony. TESTIMONY OF CARL E. BURLESON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; DR. GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; RALPH TRAGALE, MANAGER, GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS, PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY; DEBORAH C. MCELROY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL-NORTH AMERICA; THE HONORABLE ARLENE J. MULDER, MAYOR OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS AND CHAIRPERSON, O'HARE NOISE COMPATIBILITY COMMISSION; DR. ALAN EPSTEIN, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, PRATT AND WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; DENNIS M. MCGRANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, N.O.I.S.E., NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT Mr. Burleson. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you this morning to address an issue that is central to any discussion of aviation and the environment: aircraft noise. This is not a new issue. In 2003, we celebrated the hundredth anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight and the opening of the aviation age; 2003 also marked the 92nd anniversary of the first editorial complaining about aircraft noise. In AERO magazine in 1911, an editorial on the fitting of silencers noted ``that the tremendous racket that is present associated with the aero plane plays a considerable part in prejudicing the public against these machines.'' The good news is we have overcome enough of the public prejudice to have 2 billion people fly worldwide each year, more than the number of people that populated the earth in the early 20th century. The challenge, of course, is that aircraft noise remains the most significant environmental issue in the U.S. system today, as it seeks to add capacity to meet demand for air travel by our citizens. We have made major strides in lessening aircraft noise impacts in the United States over the past few decades. As Congressman Duncan just noted, in the 30-year period between 1975 and 2005, passenger enplanements grew from a little over 200 million to more than 700 million, while exposure to significant aircraft noise declined more than 90 percent, from over 7 million Americans in 1975, to now about a half million. Quieter aircraft and engine technology made possible by Federal and industry investments and research, development, and deployment has produced the bulk, about 90 percent, of this noise reduction. These technology advances have been complimented by noise abatement and flight procedures, compatible land use efforts, and noise compatibility programs. The FAA has strongly supported noise compatibility programs at nearly 300 airports in the U.S. with both technical and financial assistance. Primarily through the process known as the Part 150 program, the FAA has provided about $5 billion since 1982 in airport improvement grants and nearly $3 billion in passenger facility charges since 1990. So that totals $8 billion in financial assistance for airports for noise projects. Now, two years ago, in a report to Congress based on input from a wide section of stakeholders, we laid out a national vision and strategy for tackling noise, as well as other key aviation environmental issues. This vision has become the basis of the environmental approach at the heart of the NextGen plan. The national vision includes achieving absolute reduction in the numbers of people exposed to significant aircraft noise even as aviation grows. It reflects the reality that despite impressive past achievements, communities and citizens remain concerned about aircraft noise, and we must continue to take steps to address these impacts. To tackle this challenge will require a robust and multifaceted approach that develops and deploys new technologies, takes advantage of operational advances, and includes effective policies and investments. Frankly, the challenges going forward may prove more difficult as we cope not just with traffic growth, but the need to find solutions not just for noise, but simultaneously for air quality and climate effects. We don't have the luxury of considering just one aviation environmental impact in isolation. In the near term, we want to accelerate the ability to employ operational procedures, such as continuous descent arrivals or CDA, to lessen aviation's environmental footprint. CDA is one of these win-win strategies that gets you less noise, less emissions, and less fuel burn, as well as saving time. We are pleased by this Committee's support in the aviation reauthorization bill, of provisions that would help us enhance deployment of operational flights like CDA, as well as a provision that would expand AIP eligibility to include environmental assessment of noise abatement flight procedures like this. It is clear we are not going to be able to repeat our past success in reducing noise without advances in technology. Proposals in this Committee's aviation reauthorization bill, such as the consortium to develop lower energy emissions and noise technology, or CLEEN, and the pilot program for demonstrating promising technologies, would offer FAA, as well as other partners, the ability to accelerate the development of new noise and emissions technologies. In closing, it is clear that the public remains concerned about aircraft noise impacts, and this concern represents a key constraint on the future growth of aviation. We have no single or simple revolutionary solution at this point. What we do have is a clear vision of what the Next Generation system needs to achieve in environmental improvements and a commitment to advance those improvements in technology, operations, and policy. Success will require a partnership and shared responsibility, and the FAA is committed to working with all stakeholders to manage the National Aviation System in a sound environmental manner. Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. I would be willing to take questions at the proper time. Thank you. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony and now recognizes Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Petri, Mr. Duncan, Members of the Subcommittee. My testimony this morning addresses three questions: first, what are the key factors that affect the level of aviation noise exposure for communities? Second, what is the status of efforts to address the impacts of aviation noise? And, finally, what are the major challenges and next steps for reducing the effects of aviation noise? Our research has shown that three key factors affect the level of aviation noise for communities. The first and primary factor is the operation of jet aircraft engines. It is also the case that airframes can be a significant source of noise, and with the current trend in engine noise reduction, the relative effect of airframe noise could increase. The second factor is local government decisions that allow communities to expand near airports. FAA has issued guidance that discourages residential uses in areas that are exposed to significant levels of noise. However, some communities face strong demographic and economic pressures that can lead to incompatible development. The end result is that some of the gains in reducing community exposure to noise are being eroded by incompatible land development. The third factor is aircraft flight paths, including changes in those flight paths which are intended to improve system safety and efficiency or that result from diversions. Flight path changes can expose some previously unaffected communities to aircraft noise. With regard to our second question, numerous efforts are under way to address the impact of aviation noise. First, a more stringent noise standard is being implemented as new aircraft are being designed and manufactured. According to FAA, the current standard resulted in a 32 percent reduction in the number of people exposed to significant noise levels. The new standards, known as Stage 4, will be 10 decibels lower than the prior standard. There are, however, some considerations that may affect the impact of the new standard on reducing noise level. For example, many of the aircraft in the current fleet already meet the new standard, and it could be at least a decade before the entire fleet is Stage 4 compliant. Furthermore, further increases in air traffic may offset the reductions in noise levels that result from these quieter aircraft. A second type of effort is noise mitigation measures. These are typically carried out by airports and funded primarily through FAA's Part 150 noise compatibility program. Since its inception in 1982, nearly 300 airports have participated in the Part 150 program, and these airports have invested over $8 billion in AIP and PFC funds for noise-related purposes. Another type of effort is the noise research that is conducted and sponsored by FAA and NASA. This type of research has contributed to the development of technologies that have significantly reduced aviation noise, such as quieter engines and airframes. But some stakeholders are concerned that declines in Federal funding may have slowed the pace of government-initiated and sponsored research and, in turn, this may delay the next significant technological leap for reducing aviation noise. The implementation of NextGen is another effort with significant possibilities for mitigating both noise and emissions. For example, systems such as ADSB will allow more precise control of aircrafts during approach and descent, thereby enabling the use of procedures such as CDA, which will reduce communities' exposure to both aviation noise and emissions. Finally, some airports are making efforts beyond what is required to respond to community concerns. These airports are using such techniques as supplemental metrics to identify the effects of exposure to aviation noise, mitigation beyond the 65 DNL, and expanded community outreach and education programs. Turning to our last question on the major challenges and next steps, Mr. Chairman, we think that, in the future, as in the past, technological advances through R&D will be the key to reducing aviation noise. However, given the government's overall fiscal condition and other national priorities, additional Federal funding for noise reduction may be difficult to obtain. It may require some tradeoffs and new initiatives. The environmental and related provisions in FAA's reauthorization bill, such as the CLEEN program and the environmental mitigation pilot program, are the kinds of initiatives that can directly address this issue. For the airlines, equipping with NextGen technologies that will enable operations that could reduce community exposure to aviation noise will also be challenging. FAA estimates the cost of equipping the fleet to take full advantage of NextGen will be about $14 billion. Consideration might be given to ways to incentivize early equipage and training for pilots. Of course, there is no silver bullet for aviation noise. Even with quieter aircraft and more efficient NextGen procedures, aviation noise is expected to persist around airports, even if the so-called silent aircraft comes into the fleet some time in the 2030 time frame. As a very important next step in addressing the challenge, local and Federal officials will need to improve their cooperation and efforts to deter incompatible land use and regulations. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, in the final analysis, the national airspace is an essential part of the Nation's critical infrastructure, global economic competitiveness and national security. Ensuring that this national system can operate safely and efficiently will require compromise and cooperation among the various levels of government and the balancing of legitimate community concerns and environmental issues with the strategic needs of the Country. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. You probably all heard the bells ring. We have two recorded votes on the Floor, but we will proceed to take Mr. Tragale's testimony before we recess to go over and vote, and then we will return immediately. Mr. Tragale. Mr. Tragale. Thank you. Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Congressman Duncan, other Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. My name is Ralph Tragale and I am the Manager of Government and Community Relations for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I would like to thank you for organizing this hearing and giving us the opportunity to talk about how we have handled noise at our airports. While my comments are brief, they will demonstrate the significant results, I think, that our noise programs have achieved in the New York/New Jersey area. The Port Authority is a bi-State pubic agency that was created by the two States, with the consent of Congress, and we operate many of the major transportation facilities in the New York/New Jersey area, including things like the George Washington Bridge, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnel, several bridges that connect Staten Island and New Jersey. We also own and formerly operated the World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. More importantly, the agency operates four commercial airports--John F. Kennedy, Newark Liberty, LaGuardia, Teterboro Airport--and those airports are responsible for generating $62 billion in annual economic activity. Just last year we accommodated over 104 million annual air passengers, which is a huge impact to the economy. Those operations account for 375,000 jobs in the New York/New Jersey area. In addition, on November 1st, the Port Authority will take over operation of Stewart International Airport. We are very excited about that and, at this time, I would like to personally thank Congressman Hall, even though he is not here, for his help in helping us acquire the airport, as well as Congressman Hinchey. Regarding the issue at hand, the Port Authority first dealt with noise in 1959. The Port Authority--I don't know if you are aware--established the first aviation noise policy in the world. We have a departure noise limit at our airports, 112 PND (perceived noise decibel), and we feel that is important to mention because it was that rule, that predated all the noise standards in the world, that really led aircraft engine manufacturers to go into a serious research and development stage to build quiet engine technology. At that time, every aircraft in the world wanted to come to New York at some time. It was that important to them that they made the investment to build quiet engine technology, and I think the Port Authority led the way in that regard. Over the next more than 40 years, the Port Authority developed several major noise mitigation programs. All of those programs working with local communities to develop zoning requirements, run-up restrictions, flight abatement procedures, voluntary curfews and other things, and it was those programs that led FAA to develop the Part 150 study. So the Part 150 study is a voluntary Federal program and it really has all the elements of the Port Authority existing noise programs, as I stated. The only thing that we don't do is the residential soundproofing. However, I must state that we have a significant commitment to school soundproofing. To date ,we have 78 schools in our noise program, and we have committed over $400 million in funding to soundproof those schools. To get back to the issue of noise and the people impacted, in the 1970s there was over 2 million people in the noise contour of our airports, and right now it is less than 100,000. So we believe, together with the efforts of the industry, the airlines, and certainly Congress, we have been able to make a tremendous effort to reduce noise, and that is a 95 percent decrease in the number of people impacted by noise. However, obviously, we won't be satisfied until we have full noise compatibility between our airports and our neighbors. That is very important to us and that is why we worked hard with FAA on their Airspace Redesign and other procedures to try and address this need. Obviously, the million dollar question is why don't we have a Part 150 study, so I will just address that. As I noted earlier, it is a voluntary Federal program; it is not a mandated program. And as I also stated, it is developed mostly after our existing noise abatement programs. So we have all the elements of it except for the residential piece. We felt that it was more important to soundproof schools and, as I said, we have invested $400 million in that. So we stand ready to work with Congressman Crowley, Congresswoman McCarthy, and other Members of our delegation, as well as this Subcommittee, to address any future requirements on us. At this time, I would just like to say thank you very much. I would like to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their help in this hearing. Thank you very much. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you. The Chair will announce that the Subcommittee will stand in recess for about 20 minutes, and we will come immediately back after the second vote and hear the testimony of the rest of the panel. [Recess.] Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order and the Chair now recognizes Ms. McElroy for her testimony. Ms. McElroy. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. My name is Debby McElroy, and I serve as Executive Vice President, Policy and External Affairs for Airports Council International-North America. Our member airports enplane more than 95 percent of the domestic and virtually all of the international airline passenger and cargo traffic in North America. Continued robust growth for the aviation industry is predicted by both government and industry analysts, increasing attention on the environmental impacts of aircraft and airport operations. Airport directors well understand this concern and, for decades, have taken proactive steps to better understand and mitigate those impacts, especially aviation noise in their local communities. Additionally, since much of the major source of aviation- related noise, aircraft, is outside an individual airport's control, ACI and its members are working collaboratively to influence international, Federal, and State and local organizations, as well as working with manufacturers and airlines to continue to address this important issue. While, over the last three decades, aircraft engines have become quieter, reducing the overall exposure of aircraft noise, there are still many older noisy aircraft in the U.S. fleet, and aircraft noise continues to be an issue. Many airport directors will tell you that, despite their best efforts, including working with local communities to manage the push for continued residential development near airports, airport noise remains at the forefront of their agenda. That is why we have been disappointed that the International Civil Aviation Organization negotiations have not yielded more stringent noise standards for newly certificated aircraft. As Dr. Dillingham stated earlier, it could be more than a decade before an appreciable change is realized. Airport operators continue to focus on reducing the aviation noise impacting local communities, implementing FAA directed noise abatement runway use and flight tracks, programs for ground run-ups, noise management programs, airport sponsored pilot awareness or fly quiet programs, sound insulation programs, and local land use actions. Now, while much has been done, airports are continuing to enhance the mitigation of noise primarily through the Airport Noise Compatibility Program, often referred to as Part 150, which promotes comprehensive airport noise planning and mitigation. Airport operators decide to undertake a Part 150 study when doing so promises to further reduce aircraft noise exposure to jurisdictions within the airport's environment. As part of this voluntary program, FAA has approved both AIP grants and PFC funding for noise mitigation to assist local communities. Such assistance, as discussed earlier, includes soundproofing residences, schools, and hospitals; conducting land use and zoning studies; as well as designing noise abatement procedures. It is important to note that not all airports use the Part 150 process. Several, like the Port Authority, already have long-established community planning processes that parallel the 150 requirements. Other airports already enjoy a high degree of community support for their noise mitigation programs and have determined that a Part 150 study is not required. Airports across the Country also work with local citizens, governments, and elected officials to develop procedures and programs to reduce noise. You will shortly hear from Mayor Mulder, who will detail the process in place at the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. San Francisco's Community Roundtable is another example. The airport's Fly Quiet Program is a locally-based initiative that promotes a participatory approach in complying with noise abatement procedures by grading an airline's performance. As part of the program, San Francisco staff generates a Fly Quiet Report which provides airline scores on the noise mitigation procedures. The overall scores are then made available to the public. There is also San Jose's Neighborhood-Focused Acoustical Treatment Program, which identifies residences and other sensitive living areas. At these locations, sound insulation improvements are installed at no cost to the proper owner. ACI-NA applauds the Subcommittee and the full T&I Committee for its hard work on H.R. 2881. We especially commend you for your efforts to mitigate noise by phasing out aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds that do not meet Stage 3 requirements and the establishment of an environmental mitigation pilot program. Continued research is also critical, as you recognize, and we appreciate your efforts with the CLEEN Engine and Airframe Technology program, as well as increasing ACRP funding, which provides research funds to study programs to mitigate the impact of noise. We also appreciate the addition of AIP eligibility for completion of the environmental review and assessment activities necessary to implement flight procedures included in an airport's Part 150 program. We would ask that you consider expanding this to cover flight procedures not yet included in the airport's Part 150 program. This provision would allow AIP funding so that an airport, which believes implementation of the procedures would significantly benefit the community, wouldn't have to wait to amend their program. That way, we could work with the airlines and the FAA to more expeditiously implement those procedures. We also would ask that the Part 161 program be re-examined to provide additional options for airports to solve noise problems with reasonable non-discriminatory operation restrictions. In closing, ACI and its member airports thank you for the opportunity to share our views, and we look forward to working with you as you address this important issue. Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes Mayor Mulder. Ms. Mulder. Chairman Costello and Ranking Member Petri and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to say good morning, or afternoon at this point. It is certainly a privilege to b with you and share our story with you. I am here today representing the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, which is a consortium of communities and school districts in the O'Hare area that works on meaningful methods of reducing the impact of aircraft noise around O'Hare International Airport. I also am the Mayor of the Village of Arlington Heights, a community of nearly 80,000 residents located directly northwest of O'Hare International Airport, and I personally live under the most frequently used longest runway. As a community in close proximity to O'Hare, Arlington Heights has been concerned about the impact, and its negative impact, particularly, of aircraft noise for many years. In 1991, citizens began, in earnest, making criticisms and taking an active role. As a result, we were the first suburb to create a noise committee and initiated the first sound measuring study. In that study, we learned a great deal and we researched other airports. As a result of that, in 1996, Mayor Daley extended an invitation to the suburbs around O'Hare, after extensive fighting between the neighbors of O'Hare and the airport. It was at that time that the Village of Arlington Heights, along with others, chose to join this commission. By way of background, the Compatibility Commission, which I will refer to as ONCC, was officially formed, as I said, in 1996, and we have to commend Mayor Daley and his vision for trying to create a mechanism for constructive ways for the suburbs and school districts to work more effectively with the Department of Aviation, as well as FAA and the air traffic controllers. We also meet with the airline pilots and other stakeholders in the aviation industry in looking for ways to curb the negative impact. As a result of Mayor Richard M. Daley's vision and ongoing commitment--which I must stress is extremely important, I believe, in a major city like Chicago--that all the members work together and all of our meetings are open to the public, and we are very proud of the accomplishments, collaboration, not confrontation, that we have in our existence of more than a decade. We do our work and we choose to do it in a board room, not a courtroom. The members of ONCC are locally elected officials and appointed representatives of the suburban communities. These members are not paid for the service to this Commission, but they do live and work in the suburbs and are affected by aircraft noise, and want to answer to their constituents. The 42 municipal and school district members of the Commission strive to balance the regional economic engine that O'Hare is and the quality of life issues that are vital to the residents living near the airport. ONCC also understands that reducing aircraft noise cannot be accomplished with the simple flip of a switch; it is an evolutionary process that results in subtle day-to-day progress and, over time, produces significant measurable results. There are three standing committees. One is the technical committee where we research processes that you have heard from Mr. Burleson before, CDA and other means of actually changing the flight patterns that can reduce noise. The other two are for schools and residential sound insulation. That is looking at points of impact, as opposed to the source, which the technical committee views. By the end of 2006 program year, the O'Hare Residential Sound Insulation Program will have insulated more than 6,100 homes at the average cost of $30,000 per home, for a total of $180 million. The School Sound Insulation Program, the world's largest, to date has $285 million having been spent on effectively soundproofing 114 schools. The Residential and School Sound Insulation Programs are currently funded through FAA airport improvement program grants at the total of 80 percent, with the City of Chicago using PFCs for the additional 20 percent. FAA is now the primary funded of O'Hare Residential Sound Insulation, as the FAA required the mitigation as part of the record of decision in the O'Hare Modernization Program, referred to as the OMP, for the first time, 5900 single-family homes that would be sound insulated from 1996 to 2004, the City of Chicago, in that first group, funded that program entirely using PFCs. The ONCC is looking at this new program with part of the OMP as actually having the opportunity to insulate homes before those residents have the impact of the new opened runways. O'Hare Compatibility Commission is also looking at how to mitigate noise by using land planning, and thanks to the very innovative program put together by the FAA, there are grants available that communities can use as incentive to look at rezoning and having more compatible use where air paths will be utilized. As the City of Chicago continues its aggressive noise mitigation efforts at O'Hare and Midway, the ONCC supports the City of Chicago's efforts to obtain substantial increase in the AIP Noise Set Aside, as well as the FAA discretionary grants for Midway and O'Hare sound insulation projects. We commend the Aviation Committee and the House of Representatives for significant AIP dollars increase in the new reauthorization bill. ONCC also agrees with the position of many airports across the Country, including Chicago airport system, to give the airports the ability to increase the passenger facility charge rate ceiling and provide the airports with the flexibility of setting that amount. What all the members of ONCC, including the City of Chicago, who sits with us and has one vote, as all of us do, share is the concern for the impact of noise on residents. All of the members, regardless of their individual positions on the O'Hare Modernization Program, are dedicated to finding the most effective ways to reduce aircraft noise. The ONCC is now working to renew the enthusiasm in this mandate, given the fact that we can make a difference. The ONCC strongly commends FAA administration for thoroughly defining environmental goals in the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Through NextGen, we realize that the FAA will be able to substantially address the impacts of air traffic growth by increasing the national air capacity system while addressing the quality of life impacts at the same time. FAA is able to implement the new procedure by merging aircraft navigation capabilities, which was alluded to prior to my comments, so I won't repeat them. But the initiatives like NextGen, ONCC an continue advocating for additional funding for technological approaches and the research for advanced flight track procedures like RNAV. NextGen also addresses another cutting edge approach, and that is the CDA. ONCC highly commends, again, the FAA for working towards the implementation of these new technologies. The Aviation and Environment Report, which I believe all of you received, is an extensive work that I had the honor to participate in. This ha certainly come from many, many highly educated and technical people, and I think FAA has shown new aggressiveness and innovativeness. ONCC asks that Congress continue to support FAA and the groups that promote open dialogue, accessibility to information and forums such as we have done in O'Hare. I have with me an article from Minneapolis where lawsuits are still hindering the growth of aviation. It is imperative that we work and sit at the table together. I want to thank you today. Sound insulation has been the most effective way to reach people who have negative impact. They do come to the table and listen. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Mayor, we thank you for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein. Mr. Costello and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address aircraft noise, one of the most significant challenges facing U.S. commercial aviation. I am Alan Epstein from Pratt and Whitney, which has been producing dependable engines for over 80 years. I am here to speak about Pratt and Whitney's innovative technology, which will dramatically reduce community noise and emissions. Fifty years ago, the first commercial engines were designed with little regard to noise. Since their sound levels were like being next to speakers at a rock concert, they quickly proved unacceptable. In the early 1960s we introduced the first turbo fans, which reduced noise. Today, three engine generations later, we have reduced the number of people impacted by aircraft noise by 95 percent. However, our national goal should be to eliminate aircraft noise as a community concern. Aircraft design has always involved compromise between low noise and low cost. Recently, Pratt and Whitney has developed Geared Turbofan engine technology to rebalance this compromise. We can now achieve both low cost and very low noise. We are very excited about our new Geared Turbofan engine for 70 to 200 passenger aircraft. This engine reduces fuel burn and CO2 by more than 12 percent. It also reduces noise by almost 20 decibels, below Stage 4. This is like the difference between standing near a running garbage disposal and listening to the sound of my voice. Two weeks ago, we announced that the Geared Turbofan will power the new Mitsubishi Regional Jet, which will enter service in about six years. This technology can be applied from the smallest regional jets to the largest wide bodies. To take full advantage of the Geared Turbofan very low noise, we must also modernize the Nation's air traffic control system. The current constraints of the overburdened system do not allow even exceptionally quiet aircraft to deviate from existing traffic patterns. For example, an aircraft flying to the east coast from LAX must fly west to gain altitude over the ocean to reduce noise before it crosses over the city. An advanced Geared Turbofan powered airplane would be quiet enough to take off directly to the east. This would save an average of 12 minutes of flight time, which reduces fuel, cost, and emissions. But unless we modernize air traffic control, airlines will not be permitted such freedom. Recently, much has been written about climate change and the role that aviation may play. We at Pratt and Whitney believe that environmental goals such as reduced CO2 can, and must, be achieved without compromising the low noise the communities deserve. A Geared Turbofan simultaneously offers the lowest fuel burn, noise, and cost. An advanced engine of this type will deliver the low CO2 of giant supersonic propellers without their inherent noise penalties. In fact, this so-called open rotor would be a large step backwards in noise compared to modern airplanes. Aerospace is this Nation's largest manufacturing export. We have done so well because of superior products. But advanced technology is expensive. Our Geared Turbofan incorporates 20 years of research, more than $1 billion of Pratt and Whitney investment. We built on foundational technologies developed in partnership with NASA. The U.S. is the world leader in aviation because of historical research partnership of government, university, and industry. Recently, I was at an aviation conference where EU investment plans were presented. Frankly, I am worried. Just as other nations have increased their investment, U.S. funding has dropped sharply. Therefore, we strongly support such initiatives as the proposed FAA CLEEN program. However, even with CLEEN, our Nation's investment in basic aviation technology is only a tiny fraction of what it was 20 years ago. We must do more at FAA and NASA. In summary, it is important to take an integrated approach to reducing aviation's impact on the environment. Pratt and Whitney's Geared Turbofan and the modern air traffic control system will make a real difference. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Epstein. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McGrann. Mr. McGrann. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Committee, my name is Dennis McGrann, and I am the Executive Director of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment. NOISE is an affiliate of the National League of Cities and, for over 37 years, has served as America's preeminent community voice on aviation noise issues. We are compromised of locally elected officials, including city council members, mayors, county supervisors and commissioners from communities across the United States adjacent to major commercial airports. Our members regularly participate in cooperative communications with airports and the aviation industry stakeholders, and we serve on a national level as Chair of the FAA's PARTNER advisory board, as well as a member of the FAA's Airport Compatibility Planning Committee and the Environmental Working Group. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of thousands of Americans in communities across the United States who live under the flyways of our major commercial aviation corridors and who deal with the environmental, health, and safety consequences associated with aviation noise, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today and addressing these critical issues. I would also be remiss if I did not take time to thank Full Committee Chairman Oberstar for his years of dedicated service and attention to the challenges faced by communities and airport neighbors across the Country, and for addressing the issues of aviation noise. In 2003, Chairman Oberstar was awarded the NOISE Lifetime Achievement Award and Environmental Champion for his outstanding efforts in engaging local communities in aviation noise and related issues. Our members are communities that depend on airport neighbors for jobs, commerce, and our economic vitality. We recognize that the reality of aviation today requires that the system needs to increase capacity and that our airport neighbors need to grow to accommodate this expansion. We are, however, dedicated to addressing the issues faced by communities, who chronically with the adverse environmental and health impacts of excessive aviation noise, and continuously seek to engage all community and aviation stakeholders in a constructive dialogue to address these issues. I would like to call attention today to three key aspects that we believe are essential in pursuing meaningful route to effective management of noise issues: communication, research and development, and ongoing noise mitigation. First, the benefits of effective communication between communities and airports are clear. When airports and communities work together to meet the challenges of aviation noise, success follows. NOISE supports those efforts and advocates for communication and cooperation, as opposed to litigation and confrontation. We work to foster this dialogue and strive to bring together community leaders, airport operators, and government officials to establish a framework for empowerment of localities surrounding airports. As an example, for 25 years, the San Francisco International Airport Community Roundtable has fostered a successful airport/community interaction and involvement. Eighteen cities, the operator of San Francisco International Airport, the city and county of San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo comprise the roundtable, a voluntary public forum established in 1981 for discussion and implementation of noise mitigation strategies at San Francisco International Airport. Another development that will enhance communication is the PARTNER-sponsored Noisequest web site, designed to educate communities and airports on effective strategies and available tools which will help create a constructive dialogue when addressing noise issues and community concerns. We also urge continuation of a Vision 100 initiative that enables community empowerment, that is, the extension of authorization for Section 160, which authorizes the FAA to fund grants to States and local government units with the goal of reducing incompatible land use around large-and medium-sized airports. This program is a key step towards avoiding litigation and a useful tool for communities to use independent of the airport operator. A second important element to addressing these issues is a key to future funding of research and development efforts. There are numerous programs and technologies today being explored that hold great potential for the future with quieter skies. One example is PARTNER research and testing in the development of continuous descent approach (CDA), which allows for quieter landing procedures. We cannot stress enough the value of investment in CDA and other technologies, which may not only aid in the reduction of noise pollution, but decrease adverse environmental impacts of aviation on our land, air, and water. It is essential, while working to achieve better technology and community involvement, we must not abandon effective noise mitigation efforts. While we work towards this communication and technologies, we still must be aware and concerned with communities that have seen their neighborhood airports expand around them and who now deal daily with the resultant environmental consequences. Homes, schools, hospitals and churches in communities adjacent to major airports are often subject to the effects of excessive aviation noise. We need to promote noise mitigation, compatible land use planning, insulation programs, and other effective strategies in these communities to reduce noise and achieve NextGen's stated goal of a real reduction in the environmental impact of the national aviation system. Again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your colleagues for holding this hearing today, and I pledge that NOISE will continue to provide a vehicle for interaction between communities, airports, and national aviation stakeholders. Thank you. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. McGrann. The Chair will go to and recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson, under the five minute rule. Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember, several years ago, at a meeting in Europe, when the United States businesses were told they couldn't fly their airplanes in because we were using a hush kit, and they wanted us to have like what they were doing, engines that were designed to be quieter, and we had a significant fight over that but ultimately won, thank goodness. It seems to me that we ought to be doing whatever we can possibly do to drive the technology to get our airplanes flying more quietly, but what I want to know is: Who will get the money? Who will be doing that research, what agencies or wherever it will go? What kind of money do we need to be putting into it? And what can we reasonably expect as a possible solution? What is going to help drive quieter engines, is it bigger mufflers or what is it? Can you talk a little bit about that for me, please, anyone? Mr. Dillingham. I will take a shot at it first, Mr. Lampson. I think that, as in the past, research and development is probably going to be the path to the technological leap that you are talking about. I think that, as in the past, it will be NASA and FAA, FAA-sponsored research with universities and the private sector. One of the problems is that, over the last decade,--I think one of the panelists mentioned it this morning--is that the funding for aeronautical research has been declining, and a point that we mentioned in our statement with regard to NASA is that NASA has adjusted its research portfolio to focus on earlier stages of research, and it leaves what we are referring to as a research gap for things that are going to be available within the NextGen time frame. NASA would disagree with that, but based on the numbers that we have seen, we think that that is really a potential problem or is a problem now. But on the positive side, as many of the panelists have mentioned, some of the provisions in the FAA reauthorization will speak to closing that research gap. Mr. Lampson. When and if--and hopefully there will be-- money goes to NASA--NASA is already strapped significantly, and I was hoping that was where you would go with your answer, seeing how significant a supporter and proponent of what we have been getting out of our National Aeronautics and Space Administration--do we give them blanket money or direct it specifically? And, if so, how specific? Where do we put it? And what kind of money are we talking about? NASA is $2.8 billion down in its own budget now because--and I wasn't paying attention to the time, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry--because of the loss of the last shuttle and because of the storm in Florida doing damage. Do you have any advice there? And then I will quit. My apologies for going over. Mr. Burleson. Thank you, sir, for the question. I think the advice I would offer, Congressman, is the proposal that both the Administration put forward, and which the House has taken up in its legislation. I think this is really the way forward, which is to find a balanced approach which puts a correct emphasis on immediate mitigation through insulation; work on operational procedures to enhance the ability to reduce aviation's environmental footprint through those measures; and then to find a way to balance what is NASA's proper role. NASA has done exceptional work for this Country in foundational research, as my colleague from Pratt and Whitney described how much their engine has been based on longer term research of NASA; but then also filling this gap, which is, I think, the CLEEN proposal that we very strongly support. IT offers the ability to try to work more directly in a consortium with industry to accelerate the introduction of technology and noise and emissions that are at a certain stage of maturity, but need a way to get over this gap to commercialization. So I think that is really the way forward to having this balanced approach in several different ways. Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much. Anything that any of you would like to add to that for us, we would love to hear from you, regardless of what Committee it will be going to. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas and recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have only a few minutes left because of votes on the Floor, and I reserve my time at this point. Mr. Costello. Very good. The Ranking Member reserves his time and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick. I would like to thank all of you for coming here today and thank Mr. Crowley and Ms. McCarthy, my colleagues in absentia, for further enlightening us on their situations living close to a major airport. Mr. Tragale, I have a number of constituents who are, on the one hand, looking forward to working with you and with the Port Authority on the expansion and growth of Stewart Airport, which we know is going to be an important economic contributor to our district and to the Hudson Valley, but at the same time are concerned about the noise level increasing as the number of flights increase. Can you tell me what specific action the Port Authority expects to take to diminish the effect of increased noise levels around Stewart? Mr. Tragale. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. If I may, you weren't here earlier, but I publicly thanked you for your efforts in helping us acquire Stewart, so thank you very much again. In terms of how we are going to work with the community at Stewart and in the Orange County community that you represent, I think one of the things that you have heard from people there is we already met with more people, even not operating an airport, than the existing airport operator ever has. So I think that is a testament to how we are going to go forward after November 1st. But also, last week we issued a letter, and your office was invited as well. We are establishing a citizens advisory panel at Stewart Airport to ensure that all entities in the community have a say in how we grow the airport together in a smart, efficient, and with a good quality of life as a key component of that. So we will be making all of our decisions in concert with you and with the other members of the community. Mr. Hall. I very much appreciate that, and thank you for that approach. Mr. Burleson, you mentioned in your testimony that Airspace Redesign is not without its impacts on some individuals and communities. Some of the communities in my district are in that situation, and I was curious if you or if the FAA intends to take any further action to mitigate the effect of their increased noise on these people in, specifically, I would say, the Pound Ridge area of Westchester and the Warwick area of Orange County, who feel that even before the redesign has been implemented, they perceive increased noise and see it on paper increasing further. Is there any way that you plan or do you plan to work with them to try to mitigate that? Mr. Burleson. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I think if you look at the record of how the work has been undertaken in the Airspace Redesign, we clearly recognize that it is a difficult issue. As you try to modernize airspace, clearly, while the overall numbers show that there will be fewer people impacted by moderate noise, that doesn't mean everyone equally benefits as you make these changes. I think there have been a number of meetings and the FAA has tried to address this in a reasonable fashion. I think in terms of the specific areas that you are mentioning, I would defer to my air traffic colleagues. I will take your question to them and will get back to you. Mr. Hall. Thank you. [Information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.009 Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I will submit other questions in writing and yield back. Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes Ms. Norton. Before Ms. Norton is recognized, let me say that we have votes on the Floor again, and what the Chair intends to do is have Ms. Norton ask questions. I have two very quick questions, and then Mr. Petri and I have agreed that we will submit questions to you in writing, and we will adjourn the hearing prior to leaving to vote. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, since you have to go to the Floor and, unfortunately, I do not, because this is a vote on a rule and not on the Committee as a whole, if you would like to go first, since I can remain afterwards and ask my questions. Mr. Costello. Very good. Mr. Tragale, two quick questions. One is the Port Authority does not participate in the 150 program. Can you tell us why? Mr. Tragale. Well, as I stated in my testimony, we feel that we have all the important components of the 150. The only component we don't have is residential soundproofing. But we feel that our significant commitment to the school soundproofing program, $400 million, certainly shows that we are committed to reducing the impact of noise. Mr. Costello. And the second part of the question is why has the Port Authority chosen not to soundproof the homes within the area. Mr. Tragale. Well, I think the easy answer to that is since the 1970s, when there were 2 million people in the contour, to today, what is less than 100,000, and over a 95 percent reduction in noise, people impacted by noise, we feel that we have more than achieved goals that any airport operator can point to, and spending money on homes that are no longer being impacted would seem to be an imprudent use of Federal dollars. Mr. Costello. Just a comment. Mayor, let me compliment you and Mayor Daley for the program that was implemented with the O'Hare modernization. Obviously, it has worked very well, from your testimony and what we have heard from others, and it, I think, is a model that can be used for other airports around the Nation. The Chair is now going to recognize Ms. Norton. As she correctly pointed out, she does not have to go to the Floor to vote, but at some point, some day, I hope she is in fact required to go to the Floor and vote with us. But I will recognize Ms. Norton and, before I do, thank all of our witnesses. After her questioning, the hearing will be adjourned. We thank you, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri and I will submit written questions to you. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any day now, we are going to get the vote bill through the Senate, it is going to come up again, and I am pleased to be able to vote in this Committee and to be a Member of this Committee. I suppose Mr. Burleson is the appropriate party to ask my question. In a real sense, my question, my information comes out of the region where I live and the district I represent. It is certainly germane to, and increasingly so, to areas around the Country. I would like Mr. Burleson, there is a brief mention on page 2 of your testimony suggesting a kind of tradeoff between noise and aviation emissions that comes with change in aircraft design and operations. I wish you would elaborate on that. I mean, noise is an environmental menace; the emissions are an environmental menace. What is the correlation you speak of? What is the tradeoff implied in your reference? Mr. Burleson. Thank you for the question, because I think this is really a core issue that we are going to have to grapple with going forward. Certainly, my colleague from Pratt and Whitney can elaborate some on the nature of engines, but when you design an engine and are trying to maximize certain characteristics, the nature of combustion is such that, if you want to reduce noise, especially in high bypass engines, you tend to burn at a higher temperature the fuel, which produces more nitrogen oxide. So, oftentimes, in the design of an engine, you may have a tradeoff between am I maximizing noise or am I trying to reduce nitrogen oxide. And then you would have a different impact in terms of am I reducing noise in a community or am I more concerned about how nitrogen oxide contributes to the local air quality impacts. Ms. Norton. I would really like to ask you about that tradeoff. You speak, I guess this is at page 4, about the reduction in what you call older aircraft. Are you saying that the newer aircraft emit more harmful carbons than the aircraft they have replaced? Mr. Burleson. No, Congresswoman. What I am trying to convey is, as you design engines, there are actually three design elements: one with noise, one with local air quality impacts, and then you also have fuel burn, which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. So the good news is actually that noise and fuel burn tend to go on the same path, at least in the paths of engine design. Nitrogen oxide has been harder to reduce. So as aircraft have been produced and as stringent standards have been raised, this is just an issue that, both in the design of the aircraft, as well as the operation of the system, we have to take into account. For example, when you put in noise abatement procedures, you potentially have a more circuitous route to an airport, potentially burning more fuel, and that might, while it reduces noise, might actually produce more local emissions. So what we have tried to do or, actually, the path we are going down is, traditionally, people have looked at these issues in stovepipes; they have only looked at noise, they have only looked at local air quality or they have only looked at, now, greenhouse gas emissions. And what we have said is, and actually where we are spending money in the FAA, is building a set of models that helps us understand both that the design of the aircraft, how are these trade-offs made, as you are operating the aircraft in the system how are those trade-offs made. Most importantly, as we are thinking about policies and standards and market-based approaches or noise abatement and approaches like this, how do we design a set of approaches and policies that ensure that knowledge is made known to citizens and, as we are making national policy, how we deal with these different impacts. So, again, I think we are at the point of building those models and hopefully we are going to be able to provide a better understanding of what we need to do in each of these areas and, therefore, reach the targets more effectively and more cost-effectively. Ms. Norton. Well, I am not sure we were trying to do all three at the same time before. I mean, the interest in emissions may not have been as important as, for example, the complaints of regions about the kind of noise. And it is hard for me to believe, given the extraordinary change in engines and aircraft and aircraft noise, that if one was in fact focused, given the state of scientific knowledge today, the kind of work you have already done, that one could not in fact tackle all at the same time, because the notion of being left between a rock and a hard place is very disconcerting. Mr. Epstein. If I can respond to that, Congresswoman. Ms. Norton. Yes, please. Mr. Epstein. Conventional thinking has led us to a mature state of airplanes and engines, and the tradeoff that Mr. Burleson talked about is a very real one, and some forward- thinking people in my company, almost two decades ago, said how do we get out of this. We always have to deliver products that give the most value to our customer, which is money, so they want the lowest cost engines and there has always been a tradeoff between cost and noise, and noise was the poor cousin. What we realized was that by innovative architecture, in this case putting the gear in, we could simultaneously give our customers the lowest cost, which is what they want, and the communities the lowest noise. As Mr. Burleson said, that is also the lowest fuel burn and CO2. So this is a discontinuous change in how we make airplane engines and I think it will have a big effect. Ms. Norton. So is your testimony that this innovation you are talking about, does in fact handle all three of these issues? Mr. Epstein. It improves all three at the same time, yes. We couldn't sell our engines if they didn't provide real value to our customers, and they are more than happy to get the additional benefits of low emissions and low noise. Ms. Norton. Well, of course, the industry is under such pressure about gas prices. It is hard to believe that that hasn't been first and foremost. Then, of course, in certain regions like this we have had change in aircraft which help to deal with the noise issue, which is a major problem in Virginia, major problem in the District. Then there have been ordinary changes involving, perhaps, use of more fuel, such as the change in vector, the change in direction of the aircraft. After 9/11 there was an immediate concern in the neighborhoods because the direction was changed when, for security reasons, there was a great concern about where planes fly. That has been since changed, and I think the planes can now fly in ways that mitigate the noise, because the complaints went away, and I think after people got used to, after we got used to where the risk was, we began to deal with it. But I am very concerned that the industry is really put in a very, very difficult position with the genuine need to deal with emissions of various kinds, with the cost of gasoline and unwillingness of the American people, frankly, to pay for more gas, to begin to conserve. Therefore, these prices are going to stay up. I am concerned about choices in research that, if choices have to be made, it is hard for me to believe that the choices are not going to be made consistent with where the most pressure is, and the pressure of fuel costs, particularly for this industry, is pretty overwhelming. And then, of course, we have great concern throughout the world about emissions, and we are trying to deal with that at the same time. Local communities probably are most vocal about noise, and here the industry has to deal with all three at the same time, so does the FAA. I suffer from believing, frankly, that particularly given the advances that have already been made through technology and science, I suffer from believing that we can in fact deal with all of this at the same time and that the need and the necessity to do so is going to drive it. And the real question for me is does Congress need to do anything to drive the unusual challenge of dealing with several different priorities at the same time. Yes. Ms. Mulder. Congresswoman, if I can just, from a community perspective, again, I know in my testimony I commended FAA because I believe that in the recent couple of years they have really become innovative with creating a center of excellence, and there are several layers of that. To give an example, we were very excited when United announced to us that they were going to be phasing out the 727s. I said, oh, you have heard that we don't like all that noise because those hush kits don't really work. And he looked at me and said, well, mayor, I wish I could say that, but it really is because we had to put three pilots in that plane, and in the replacement we only need two. So the airlines are pushed to look at cost. The other incentive is when our engine manufacturers are producing these more efficient engines, they use and burn less fuel. We have been talking about flight patterns that actually reduce the fuel burn as well. Money is in every one of these levels, and I have always told everyone in the industry you can't take away the hope of our residents that we are working on this. There is another thing that is going to help that is out there. And I think the center of excellences are bringing the different components of the aviation industry together, and if everyone does a little bit, the end product--and there are, I think, three diagrams at the end of my testimony that show the significant decline in our complaint calls to the airport increase in the number of insulations of homes and schools, and those are things that are telling our constituents that people care and they are working on it, and industry is working with the Government. So I think supporting FAA, supporting NASA, continue the research, we need to keep doing this, because when you look at other nations, there is significant subsidy for the airline, Airbus, for example, compared to Boeing, how much money they get from their governments. Airports get money from governments much more extensively than here in this Country. And it is such an important component of our transportation, it is essential, from a residential standpoint, to know that my Federal Government, Congress, is supporting FAA's creative and innovative new direction. Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman Norton, if I could? Ms. Norton. Yes. Mr. Dillingham. You asked a question about what could Congress do, especially in terms of this sort of three-pronged effort. I think the Congress is already doing a lot through the AIP, the increase in the AIP fund; through some of the provisions that are currently in the reauthorization that is being considered. And I think, just to underscore what was just said, what has given us the most bang for our buck over time has been research and development, and there is, in fact, research and development going on in all three of those areas. What is unfortunate, though, is that the research and development dollars have been on a steady decline over the last decade or so, and to the extent that other nations, as mentioned earlier, are putting more into research and development, that is something that should be considered, is to keep the research and development monies flowing. But I think that the other nations of the world are approaching this noise and emissions issue the same way we are, in terms of trying to go at it three ways. So I think it is not going to be overnight. Noise is always going to be with us. Emissions are always going to be with us. But there is progress being made and there is a plan that goes out two decades to address these issues. Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I must say the complexity of the challenges faced lead me to see the great hope, frankly, in R&D. I don't think you can simply, by regulation, say to the industry we want more of this, so do it. Not in this climate, not given this industry and the pressure it has been under and not given fuel costs. Now you have a whole new awakening of the American people to the importance of controlling emissions, to greening, to our responsibility. I would hope that we would use this new awakening to make people understand the complexity of it, that you have got to do several things at the same time or else, forgive me, you won't have to worry about noise, the glacier shall have melted and nobody will much be around to see or even hear the noise. The Chair indicated that he asked all of his questions. I want to thank you on his behalf and on behalf of the Committee for very important testimony, which I assure you will be used by this Subcommittee and taken to the Full Committee to see what we can do to speed an understanding of what is needed to meet the complex new challenges. Thank you very much. This panel is dismissed. [Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8567.164