Environmental Impacts of Airport Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion

Congressional research reportMar 31, 2008

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱ

ǰȱȱ¡ȱ

ȱȱ

¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱ

ȱřŗǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

řřşŚşȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

¢ȱ

Funding authorization for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs set forth in the Vision

100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision

100”) expired at the end of FY2007. During the current reauthorization process, methods to

address the environmental impacts associated with airport operations and expansion are being

debated. This issue is important to various stakeholders, particularly those whose health, property

values, and quality of life may be affected by such impacts. The concerns of community members

and local, state, and tribal agencies regarding environmental impacts have led to the delay and

cancellation of some airport expansion projects.

To address these concerns, airports may be required to implement projects that would minimize

the environmental impacts of their operations. Some of these projects qualify for federal funding.

For example, in its FY2008 budget, the FAA requested $354 million to meet its “Environmental

Stewardship” goals. Projects funded under this category address the environmental impacts of

airports, primarily to abate airport noise (e.g., soundproofing homes or purchasing noise barriers).

Among other uses, funds may be spent on projects to minimize water quality impacts (e.g.,

funding projects that would control the discharge of deicing chemicals) and to reduce airportcontrollable air emissions (e.g., purchasing alternative fuel vehicles to replace the airport’s

ground services equipment). Funds also are authorized for researching new aircraft technology

that would reduce noise and air emissions.

The anticipated growth in air travel has heightened the significance and complexity of some

environmental regulatory issues. Also, several new requirements are expected to affect airport

operations (in terms of procedural changes and potential investment in infrastructure). The most

significant issues include changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards

applicable to deicing operations and oil spill prevention procedures, as well as state and local

agency directives to monitor and control air pollution, particularly toxic air pollutants.

The FAA has proposed legislation to reauthorize FAA funding (H.R. 1356 and S. 1076, the Next

Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007, introduced by request). On

May 3, 2007, the Senate reported its own bill (S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and

Modernization Act of 2007). On September 20, 2007, the House passed its version (H.R. 2881,

the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007). The bills include provisions that would fund environmentrelated research; fund grant programs to mitigate environmental impacts; fund grant programs to

help airports with environmental regulatory compliance; and amend existing noise requirements.

To better understand the need for funding for environment-related airport projects, this report

provides an overview of noise, water quality, and air quality issues associated with airport

operations. Also discussed are the environmental review requirements of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the environmental provisions in proposed

legislation to reauthorize FAA programs.

ȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of Airport Environmental Issues ..................................................................................... 2

Noise Issues............................................................................................................................... 3

Water Quality Issues.................................................................................................................. 5

Deicing and Anti-icing Activities........................................................................................ 6

Fuel Storage ........................................................................................................................ 8

Air Quality Issues...................................................................................................................... 9

Emissions of Criteria Pollutants.......................................................................................... 9

Emissions of Toxic Air Pollutants..................................................................................... 10

Environmental Reviews Under NEPA............................................................................................11

Environmental Provisions in FAA Funding Proposals ................................................................. 12

Research Funding.................................................................................................................... 13

FAA Proposal .................................................................................................................... 13

Senate Proposal................................................................................................................. 14

House Proposal ................................................................................................................. 14

Mitigation Grants .................................................................................................................... 15

FAA Proposal .................................................................................................................... 15

Senate Proposal................................................................................................................. 16

House Proposal ................................................................................................................. 16

Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist with Environmental Compliance.......................... 16

FAA Proposal .................................................................................................................... 16

Senate Proposal................................................................................................................. 17

House Proposal ................................................................................................................. 17

Requirements to Address Noise Issues.................................................................................... 17

Senate Proposal................................................................................................................. 18

House Proposal ................................................................................................................. 18

For Additional Information............................................................................................................ 19

Table 1. Selected Approaches To Addressing Airport Noise ........................................................... 4

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 19

ȱȱȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

The operation of an airport involves many activities that can affect the environment. In addition

to potential impacts to local air and water quality, aircraft noise levels may affect property values

or the quality of life of residents in nearby communities. Certain activities or projects to address

airport environmental impacts may qualify for federal funding.1 For example, in its FY2008

budget, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requested $354 million to meet the agency’s

“Environmental Stewardship” goals.2 Among other uses, those funds may be spent on projects to

abate airport noise impacts (e.g., soundproofing of residential homes, purchases of noise barriers

and monitors, and relocation of persons or businesses); to minimize water quality impacts (e.g.,

funding of projects that would control the discharge of deicing chemicals); and to reduce airportcontrollable air emissions (e.g., purchases of alternative fuel vehicles). Funds also are authorized

for research into new aircraft technology that would reduce noise and air emissions.

Funding authorization for FAA programs set forth in Vision 100—Century of Aviation

Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176, hereinafter referred to as “Vision 100”) expired at the end of

FY2007. On February 14, 2007, the FAA’s reauthorization proposal, entitled the Next Generation

Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1356 and S. 1076, hereinafter

referred to as “the FAA proposal”), was introduced by request. Subsequently, reauthorization

proposals have been passed by the House (H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007) and

reported by the Senate (S. 1300; S.Rept. 110-144, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act

of 2007).3 Each bill includes environment-related provisions that would fund projects intended to

minimize environmental impacts or help airports comply with regulatory obligations; fund

research, such as new technology that would produce quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft; and

amend existing environmental regulatory requirements.

To illustrate why airports may need these funds and how they could potentially utilize them, this

report provides an overview of the main environmental impacts associated with airport

operations: noise, water quality, and air quality. Also discussed are the environmental review

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347)

and an overview of environmental provisions in proposed legislation to reauthorize FAA

programs.

This report does not discuss the national or international environmental impacts of aviation in

general. Therefore, a discussion of the aviation industry’s potential contribution to global

warming is not discussed. However, information about this issue is included in the “For

Additional Information” section below.

Airports rely on various funding sources, some public and some private, to finance their capital development. For

information about federal funding available to airports, see CRS Report RL33913, Aviation Finance: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Reauthorization and Related Issues, by (name redacted).

See FAA “Budgets in Brief,” available at http://www.faa.gov/about/budget/.

For a summary and analysis of major legislative provisions of each bill, see CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation

Administration Reauthorization: An Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted) et al.

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

ȱȱȱȱ ȱ

In the next 15 years, air travel is projected to grow significantly.4 As a result, airport development

and expansion projects will likely become increasingly important. A potential challenge to the

completion of these projects is community concern regarding airport environmental impacts.

Airport operations involve a range of activities that affect the environment, including

•

the operation of aircraft;

•

the operation of airport and passenger vehicles, and airport ground service

equipment (GSE);

•

cleaning and maintenance of aircraft, GSE, and motor vehicles;

•

deicing and anti-icing of aircraft and airfields;

•

fueling and fuel storage of aircraft and vehicles;

•

airport facility operations and maintenance; and

•

construction.

The environmental impacts of these activities may intensify if an airport is undergoing expansion.

In some cases, before a state or local agency will allow an airport to move forward with an

expansion project, the airport authority must agree to implement certain environmental mitigation

projects. Community concern regarding environmental impacts has caused projects to be delayed

or cancelled.

All airports, regardless of size or location, are regulated to some degree under local, state, tribal,

or federal environmental requirements. Many of the environmental regulatory requirements

applicable to noise, water, and air quality have been in effect for years—airport managers are

accustomed to their compliance requirements. However, the anticipated growth in air travel has

heightened the significance and complexity of some environmental regulatory issues. Also,

several new requirements are expected to result in potentially significant changes to airport

operations (in terms of procedural changes and potential investment in infrastructure). The most

significant issues include

•

continuing community concern about noise,

•

changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations applicable to

aircraft and airfield deicing operations,

•

changes to EPA regulations applicable to oil spill prevention planning, and

•

state and local agency directives to monitor and control air pollution, particularly

toxic air pollutants.

Each of these issues is discussed below within the context of requirements applicable to noise,

water quality, and air quality issues. Primarily, the issues discussed in this report involve activities

that are unique to airport operations (e.g., deicing and aircraft noise). Environmental compliance

See CRS Report RL32707, Avoiding Gridlock in the Skies: Issues and Options for Addressing Growth in Air Traffic,

by (name redacted).

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

requirements commonly applicable to all industrial operations (e.g., waste management, pesticide

use, chemical use reporting) are not discussed in this report.5

ȱ ȱ

Aviation noise may have a negative impact on the quality of life and property values of members

of a surrounding community. (Direct health impacts of noise are more difficult to determine.)

Although the percentage of people affected by aircraft noise has been significantly reduced during

the past 35 years by advancements in aircraft technology and noise abatement efforts,6 aircraft

noise is often the principal focus for community groups and larger non-governmental

organizations that oppose runway expansion.

Despite improvements, noise continues to be a significant problem because

•

the amount of air traffic is growing,

•

the number of airliners and corporate jets is increasing, and

•

airline traffic and noise is concentrated at a small number of airports that are also

likely to be among the largest airports.7

•

An airport may use various approaches to address airport noise issues. Selected

approaches, and challenges to implementing them, are summarized in Table 1.

Each approach is potentially eligible for federal funding.

For a full characterization of federal statutes and regulations likely to apply to airports, see the EPA’s, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, “EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Air Transportation

Industry,” EPA Document Number EPA/310-R-97-001, October 1998, available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/

resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/airtrans.pdf.

GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges,

GAO/RCED-00-153, August 30, 2000.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Aeronautics Research and

Technology for Environmental Compatibility, For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation (2002),

p. 11.

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

Table 1. Selected Approaches To Addressing Airport Noise

Approach

Description

Mitigation

Includes mechanisms for accommodating/living

with existing noise levels in certain areas

adjacent to an airport, such as the installation

of sound-proofing materials at nearby homes,

schools, and hospitals and purchasing land

“buffers” around the airport.

Land use

restrictions

Operational

Technological

advancements

Challenges to Implementation

This approach addresses immediate needs of a

community affected by high levels of aircraft

noise. However, some mitigation efforts (e.g.,

soundproofing) do not address issues associated

with outdoor noise. Further, the use of limited

funds for short-tem benefits detracts from

investments in long-term noise reduction

technology.

Involves accommodating existing noise levels

Airport authorities are often able only to

by establishing land use/ development

recommend such restrictions, not impose them

restrictions based on noise exposure levels in on a local zoning or land use planning commission

certain areas adjacent to an airport.

(federal guidelines exist, but the federal

government has no authority to set or enforce

standards) . Local land use decisions take many

factors into account, including, but not limited to,

considerations of aviation noise. Further, land use

restrictions are only as strong as the local

agency’s interest in enforcing them. Also, this is

not an option in areas where heavy development

around the airport already exists.

Includes the implementation of airport/aircraft Many operational noise abatement procedures

restrictions that will decrease or eliminate

may be easily implemented and require limited

noise exposure, such as restrictions on the use funding. However, operational restrictions may

of certain runways, limits on hours of airport

limit an airport’s capacity, further contributing to

operation, implementation of certain

airport congestion and travel delays, and to

departure and landing procedures (e.g.,

higher airline operating costs. The FAA’s process

continuous descent approaches (CDA)), or

for approving of operational procedures (at 40

the use of specific flight paths to avoid

C.F.R. 161, referred to as the Part 161 process) is

populated areas.

complex; legal challenges and judicial review of

the process may significantly slow the process.

Involves research into quieter aircraft

Implementation of quieter aircraft technology

technology.

would minimize the need for funding mitigation

measures or operational restrictions. Also,

increased fuel costs may make options that

increase fuel efficiency, and incidently decrease

noise, more attractive. However, incremental

advancements in noise reduction are costly and

have long lead times, both as a result of the time

it takes to make improvements in aircraft noise

levels and the long lifetimes of existing aircraft in

the fleet.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a review of various sources,

For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation (National Academy of Sciences [NAS],

National Research Council, Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for Environmental

Compatibility, 2002).

including

Ultimately, decisions regarding mitigation measures and operational changes are made by the

airport authority in accordance with requirements of the state or local government; land use

restrictions can be suggested by the airport authority, but are implemented entirely at the

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

discretion of local government.8 The federal role is primarily to fund those efforts, establish

aircraft noise limits,9 and fund research.10

Interested stakeholders have debated for a long time how funding dollars should be allocated.

Airports are likely to prefer funding short-term operational and mitigation strategies to address

immediate needs. Others argue that an increased proportion of federal funding should be directed

toward research. For example, according to the NAS, the National Aeronautical and Space

Administration (NASA) has set technically feasible noise reduction goals, but the level of funding

for its research programs is too low to achieve the current goals on schedule or to remove noise as

an impediment to the growth of aviation.11

For more information on airport noise requirements, see the “Mitigating Aircraft Noise Through

Policy and Technology” section of CRS Report RL33698, Reauthorization of the Federal

Aviation Administration: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) et al., and CRS

Report RS20531, Noise Abatement and Control: The Federal Role, by (name redacted).

ȱ¢ȱ ȱ

Airport operations include many activities likely to result in the discharge of pollutants to

adjacent water bodies. Those activities include aircraft and airfield deicing and anti-icing,12 fuel

storage and refueling, aircraft and vehicle cleaning and maintenance, and construction. These

activities are regulated under provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The CWA prohibits any “point source” (a discrete conveyance such as a drainage ditch, pipe, or

other outfall) from discharging pollutants into waters of the United States. The primary

mechanism for controlling pollutant discharges is through the administration of the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which is implemented, in

most cases, by individual states.13 The NPDES permit program regulates discharges of

stormwater14 and wastewater. Due to the nature of their outdoor operations and because airports

are included in one of the industrial categories regulated under the NPDES stormwater permitting

For examples of methods used by airports to address noise issues, see the FAA’s “Noise Exposure and Land Use

Information” Web page, provided pursuant to requirements specified under Vision 100: http://www.faa.gov/

airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/airport_noise/noise_exposure_maps/.

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA; P.L. 101-508) required the phaseout of certain older, louder

aircraft. In 2005, the FAA established more stringent aircraft noise standards applicable to all new airplane types

designed on or after January 1, 2006 (it does not require a phaseout of existing aircraft). See Federal Aviation

Administration, “Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Final Rule,” Federal Register, 70(127), 38741-38750, July 5, 2005.

Research and development is primarily carried out by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA).

The FAA focuses on assessing noise compatibility, aircraft certification, and regulatory issues, although some

development of aircraft noise modeling and assessment tools occurs within the FAA.

NAS, For Greener Skies, p. 15.

Deicing involves the removal of frost, snow, or ice from aircraft surfaces or from paved areas, including runways,

taxiways, and gate areas. Anti-icing refers to the prevention of the accumulation of frost, snow, or ice on these same

surfaces.

For more information about the NPDES Permit Program , see EPA’s Web page “NPDES Permit Program Basics”:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=45.

Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots,

and building rooftops during rainfall and snow events. By running over contaminated surfaces, stormwater becomes

polluted. Most stormwater discharges are considered point sources and require coverage by an NPDES permit.

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

program (under the Standard Industrial Classification code “Transportation by Air”), all airports

are required to have a stormwater permit.15 Airports that discharge other wastewater, such as from

equipment maintenance and cleaning operations, require an additional NPDES wastewater

permit.

Discharges associated with stormwater often pose the greatest challenge to airport managers,

because airports may be spread out over a wide surface area, with a majority of operations

exposed to the elements. For example, the Dallas Forth Worth International Airport encompasses

18,000 square acres and has 62 stormwater outfalls. Controlling or monitoring every outfall is

difficult.

The primary method for controlling stormwater discharges is the implementation of best

management practices (BMPs) that prevent or minimize the discharge of pollutants into a water

body (e.g., construction of a stormwater retention pond to prevent stormwater drainage directly

into receiving waters). BMPs appropriate for one airport are not necessarily appropriate for

another. Factors that may affect permit requirements (i.e., appropriate BMPs), include

•

the local climate (dry versus rainy/wet, cold versus warm);

•

the type or size of adjacent water bodies—pollutants are diluted depending on the

size of the water body receiving the discharge (e.g., a creek or stream versus a

river or ocean);

•

the water quality of adjacent water bodies—local permitting authorities consider

existing pollutant levels when controlling airport discharges; and

•

airport size.

To comply with the Clean Water Act, most airport operators are particularly concerned about

managing deicing chemicals and preventing oil spills.

ȱȱȬȱȱ

With regard to water quality compliance issues, the management of deicing and anti-icing

chemicals poses the greatest challenge to many airport operators. The deicing and anti-icing of

aircraft and airfield surfaces is required by the FAA to ensure the safety of passengers. However,

when performed without discharge controls in place, airport deicing operations can result in

environmental impacts.16

Discharges from deicing operations have the potential to cause fish kills, algae blooms, and

contamination to surface or ground waters. In addition to potential aquatic life and human health

impacts from the toxicity of deicing and anti-icing chemicals, the biodegradation of propylene

glycol or ethylene glycol (i.e., the base chemical of deicing fluid) in surface waters (e.g., lakes,

For more information, see EPA’s “Stormwater Program” Web page: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?

program_id=6, and CRS Report 97-290, Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA's Regulatory Program, by (name re

dacted).

The EPA estimates that airports discharge approximately 21 million gallons of aircraft deicing fluids each year. See

EPA, Office of Water, “Preliminary Data Summary: Airport Deicing Operations,” August 2000, available at

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/airport/airport.pdf.

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

rivers) can greatly affect water quality, including significant reduction in dissolved oxygen

levels.17

Studies have also shown toxicological effects of deicer solutions that cannot be attributed to

either propylene glycol or ethylene glycol.18 This has led to concern that these effects are

attributable to unknown, proprietary additives.19 The environmental route and impact of these

additives is not yet understood.

Typically, airlines are responsible for aircraft deicing and anti-icing operations, and airports are

responsible for the deicing and anti-icing of airfield pavement. The airport is ultimately

responsible for managing the resulting wastewater. This responsibility is typically outlined in the

airport’s stormwater permit.

As discussed above, significant differences exist among airport NPDES permits. For example, a

local permitting authority may impose specific requirements, such as restrictions as to where

deicing operations may occur, a requirement to use deicing collection units to vacuum deicing

fluid prior to entering the storm water system, or requirements to use monitoring equipment to

ensure compliance with the permit. Other permits may simply allow the airport to discharge

deicing fluids directly into an adjacent water body.

According to the EPA, the disparity in airport permitting requirements has led the agency to

consider implementing national standards in the form of effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) for

airport deicing and anti-icing operations.20 ELGs are national regulations for controlling

wastewater discharges to surface waters. ELGs are technology-based and specific to an industry.

ELGs applicable to airport deicing would be designed to provide uniform guidance for NPDES

permit writers across the country, thereby establishing a baseline standard for all airports.21

In 2004, the EPA began to develop ELGs for airport deicing operations. Initial estimates from the

EPA indicate that treatment technology and pollution prevention practices could potentially

reduce deicing discharges from the current level of 21 million gallons a year to 4 million gallons

a year.22

As stated previously, many airports have strict permit provisions that specify the management of

deicing chemicals. Others have few controls. Those with few controls may be required to make

capital improvements to comply with new permitting requirements. At this stage, cost estimates

for the aviation industry as a whole are not available.

The EPA is currently collecting survey data from airports and air carriers and conducting detailed

sampling programs. The current work will be used to identify the best available technology that is

EPA, Office of Water, “Preliminary Data Summary.”

Steven Corsi, “Snowbanks harbor toxic remains of aircraft deicers: New research shows that aircraft deicer additives

can remain in airport snowbanks far longer than deicer backbone glycol,” Science News, April 12, 2006, available at

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/apr/science/as_snowbanks.html.

Steven Corsi, U.S. Geological Survey, “USGS Examines Environmental Impacts of Aircraft De-Icers,” January 10,

2007, available at http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1603.

See the EPA’s Web page “Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines,” at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/airport/.

Currently, there are no ELGs applicable to the air transportation industry.

EPA, “Preliminary Data Summary” (see footnote 16), p. 1-4.

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

economically achievable for treatment and discharge of spent deicing liquids. The EPA currently

plans to publish a proposed rule in December 2007 and to take final action by September 2009.

ȱȱ

Because airports need to store fuel onsite to refuel aircraft and airport ground service equipment,

most airports are required to develop a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)

plan.23 These requirements are designed to ensure that facilities that store oil have planned for and

taken measures to prevent environmental damage resulting from oil spills. An SPCC plan is

required to include

•

operating procedures intended to prevent oil spills, such as procedures to inspect

tanks and associated piping for leaks;

•

control measures installed to prevent a spill from reaching navigable waters, such

as the construction of a dike, containment curb, or pit around a tank or tank farm;

and

•

countermeasures to contain, clean up, and mitigate the effects of an oil spill that

reaches navigable waters, such as the presence of a spill clean-up kit with sorbent

booms or wipes.

As listed above, one of the primary control measures required under the SPCC requirements is the

use of a secondary containment system for oil storage containers. Such a system must be large

enough to temporarily hold the entire contents of the largest oil tank in the oil storage area, in the

event of a breach in the system.24 For example, if a tank farm had four 12,000-gallon tanks and

two 5,000-gallon tanks, and was the storage location for 10 mobile refueling trucks with 500gallon tanks, the tank farm would be required to have secondary containment sufficient to hold

the contents of the largest tank—12,000 gallons.

When the EPA proposed new SPCC requirements in 2002, airport operators and the EPA

disagreed about the secondary containment requirements applicable to mobile airport refueling

trucks.25 In particular, airport operators argued that it was impractical to require mobile refuelers

to provide secondary containment equal to the size of the tank because, during refueling

operations, they would be expected to move to various areas of the airfield that could not be fitted

with secondary containment systems.

To address these concerns, the EPA amended the SPCC Rule to exempt mobile refuelers from

specifically sized containment requirements.26 However, mobile refuelers remained subject to the

SPCC planning requirements, at 40 C.F.R. 112 (referred to as the SPCC Rule), are authorized under the Oil Pollution

Act of 1990, an amendment to § 311 of the Clean Water Act.

Required under 40 C.F.R. 112.8.

Airport mobile refuelers are vehicles that have a bulk storage container on board or towed by the vehicle, designed or

used solely to store and transport fuel for transfer into or from an aircraft, ground service equipment, or other oil

storage container.

Final Rule, 71 Federal Register 77266-77293, December 26, 2006. For additional information on new and existing

SPCC requirements, see the EPA’s “SPCC Rule” Web page: http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/index.htm.

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

general secondary containment requirements of the SPCC Rule (e.g., periodic testing of the

container and piping).27

The EPA has extended the compliance date applicable to mobile refuelers (and for other new

SPCC requirements) to October 31, 2009. This pending regulation may require airport operators

to install necessary secondary containment mechanisms to comply with the regulation, in addition

to meeting other SPCC requirements applicable to that facility.

ȱ¢ȱ ȱ

Airport emissions affecting local air quality come from both mobile and stationary sources,

including the following:

•

Aircraft.

•

Motor vehicles (e.g., cars and buses for airport operations, and passenger,

employee, and rental agency vehicles).

•

Ground service equipment (GSE) (e.g., aircraft tugs, baggage and belt loaders,

generators, lawn mowers, snow plows, loaders, tractors, air-conditioning units,

and cargo moving equipment).

•

Stationary sources (e.g., boilers, space heaters, emergency generators,

incinerators, fire training facilities, aircraft engine testing facilities, painting

operations, and solvent degreasers).28

Airport operations may produce various regulated pollutants, including volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), lead, sulphur oxides (SOx),

and nitrogen oxides (NOx), known collectively as “criteria” pollutants. They also may produce a

complex array of toxic or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).29

ȱȱȱȱ

The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants. Under the CAA,

the EPA is authorized to establish emission standards,30 based on certain health and environmental

criteria, for NOx (the primary pollutant associated with aircraft emissions), ozone,31 CO, SOx,

lead, and particulates. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), subsequently

established by the EPA, specify allowable concentrations and exposure limits for each of these

Regulations regarding general secondary containment requirements are listed under 40 C.F.R. §112.7(c)-(d). Also

see “SPCC Rule Amendments: Streamlined Requirements for Mobile Refuelers,” December 2006, at

http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/spcc/factsheet_mobile_refuelers_dec06.htm.

For a complete list of potential sources of airport air emissions and methods that airports must undertake to monitor

and control them, see “Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases”: http://www.faa.gov/

regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/airquality_handbook/media/Handbook.PDF.

For information regarding air pollutant emissions from commercial aviation, see EPA’s “Aircraft” Web page:

http://www.epa.gov/oms/aviation.htm.

See EPA’s “Regulatory Announcement: New Emission Standards for New Commercial Aircraft Engines,” available

at http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f05015.htm.

Ozone is not directly emitted from vehicles or aircraft but is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx),

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and sunlight.

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

criteria pollutants. A geographic area that meets the standard is considered to be in “attainment”

for a particular NAAQS; areas that do not meet a standard are in “nonattainment.”32 A

“maintenance” area is one that was previously in nonattainment but is currently attaining the

NAAQS subject to a maintenance plan.33

The CAA requires states to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how they

will implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.34 According to the Government

Accountability Office (GAO), the aviation industry as a whole makes a limited contribution to all

criteria pollutant emissions nationwide.35 However, individual airports (particularly large airports

in urban areas) may contribute significantly to local criteria pollutant levels. If an airport is

located in a nonattainment or maintenance area, it may be required to change its infrastructure or

operations to conform with provisions of the SIP, particularly if the airport is undergoing an

expansion that requires approval from a state or local agency.

Because aircraft emissions are a significant source of emissions at an airport, and largely outside

the control of the airport, emission reductions will likely have to be made in operations or

processes that the airport does control. For example, the airport ground vehicles may be changed

to alternative fuel vehicles, some GSE may be converted to electrified systems, or older boilers

and chillers may be replaced with more energy-efficient systems.

Vision 100 included several provisions intended to reduce airport ground emissions at

commercial service airports located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas.36 The

FAA is implementing the Vision 100 airport emission provisions in a single program called the

Voluntary Airport Low Emission program (VALE).37 The VALE program allows airport sponsors

to use Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) to finance

low-emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate electrification, and other air quality

improvements. Participation in the VALE program is voluntary for airport sponsors and state air

quality agencies.

ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ

Increasingly, airports and the FAA are asked by various agencies and communities surrounding

airports to analyze the health impacts of aircraft and other airport-related sources of air toxics,

also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This information is needed primarily when

conducting an environmental review pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; see

discussion below) and at the request of local or state agencies.

For information on areas currently designated as being in nonattainment, see the EPA’s “Green Book Nonattainment

Areas for Criteria Pollutants”: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.

For an extended discussion of issues regarding NAAQS, see CRS Report RL30853, Clean Air Act: A Summary of the

Act and Its Major Requirements, by (name redacted) et al.

42 U.S.C. § 7410.

GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Strategic Framework Needed to Address Challenges Posed by Aircraft

Emissions, GAO-03-252, February 2003, p. 39. GAO’s data were obtained from the EPA.

See Subtitle B-Passenger Facility Fees, § 121 (Low-Emission Airport Vehicles and Ground Support Equipment);

Subtitle C-AIP Modifications, § 151 (Increase in Apportionment for, and Flexibility of, Noise Compatibility Planning

Programs), § 158 (Emission Credits for Air Quality Projects), and § 159 (Low-emission Airport Vehicles and

Infrastructure).

See the FAA’s “Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) Program” Web page at http://www.faa.gov/

airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/vale/.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

Ten HAPs comprise the majority reported to occur in aircraft and/or GSE exhaust: lead (also a

criteria pollutant), formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, xylene, benzene, toluene,

naphthalene, acrolein, and propionaldehyde.38 Unlike information on criteria air pollutants,

information on emission levels, transformation, and transport of aircraft and other airport-related

HAPs and their health impacts is not currently well-developed.39

ȱ ȱȱȱ

If an airport project receives federal funding or requires some federal decision (e.g., permit or

approval), an environmental review of that project is required before it can move forward. The

term “environmental review” is used broadly, but usually refers to the requirement that a federal

agency review or consider the environmental impacts of its actions pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq).40 A review under NEPA

results in one of the following:

•

Preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) if the significance of

environmental impacts is uncertain, followed by the issuance of a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) if the impacts are not found to be significant.

•

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it is certain that a

project’s environmental impacts are significant.

•

A determination that a project is categorically excluded from the requirement to

prepare an EIS or an EA, if it has no significant environmental impact.

As the proponent of the airport project or improvement, the airport authority is responsible for

identifying all environmental issues that must be addressed in the NEPA documentation. Part of

that effort includes analyzing all reasonable alternatives that would meet a project’s purpose and

need.

For projects requiring an EIS, the FAA documents the final project decision by issuing a public

Record of Decision (ROD). In addition to documenting the final decision, the ROD documents

any mitigation efforts that the airport operator is required to implement as a condition for moving

the project forward. The mitigation actions may be stipulated be provisions of local, state, tribal

or federal requirements.41

Although the ROD may specify mitigation measures, mitigation is not required under NEPA.

NEPA specifies a process that the agency must complete to analyze a project’s environmental

See “Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)

Associated with Aircraft, Airports, and Aviation,” prepared for the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy, by URS

Corportation, July 2003, available at http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/aircrafthaps/aircrafthaps_rpt.pdf.

Transportation Research Board, “Aircraft and Airport-Related Hazardous Air Pollutants: Research Needs and

Analysis,” description of current research project, available at http://www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?

ProjectID=131.

For more information about NEPA, see CRS Report RL33152, The National Environmental Policy Act: Background

and Implementation, by (name redacted).

NEPA Records of Decisions are available at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/

records_decision/. For an example of mitigation requirements, see the ROD for Logan International Airport, p. 16,

August 2, 2002.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŗȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

impacts, but it does not dictate the outcome. That is, NEPA does not require an airport to chose

the project alternative with the least environmental impacts. However, within the context of the

NEPA process, the environmental review may identify environmental compliance requirements

that would dictate a certain outcome (e.g., it may identify Clean Water Act requirements that

specify that the least environmentally harmful alternative be selected). Further, the ROD may

specify mitigation measures that an airport authority agreed to implement as a condition of

gaining local agency or community acceptance of a project—not necessarily a measure required

by local, state, tribal, or federal law.

To streamline the NEPA process, Vision 100 directed the FAA to develop an “expedited,

coordinated environmental review process” applicable to the aviation project review process for

airport capacity enhancement projects at congested airports, aviation safety projects, and aviation

security projects. The coordinated process provides that any environmental review, analysis,

opinion, permit, license, or approval issued or made by a federal agency or airport sponsor for

such a project must be completed within a time period established by the Secretary of

Transportation, in cooperation with the agencies that participate in the process. The coordinated

process may be delineated in a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary and the

heads of other federal and state agencies who participate in the process. Further, the act authorizes

the FAA to define the scope and content of a project’s EIS and requires all participating agencies

to be bound by the purpose and need and project alternatives analysis determined by the Secretary

of Transportation.

On April 28, 2006, FAA issued Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.42 The order delineates the agency’s new NEPA

policies and procedures, including the streamlining requirements specified in Vision 100.

ȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱ

To address issues associated with air quality, water quality, and community noise impacts, and to

assist airport operators with complying with local, state, and federal requirements related to those

impacts, the FAA proposal and the bills under consideration in the Senate (S. 1300) and passed in

the House (H.R. 2881) include similar proposals that would

•

provide funding for research into technology or processes that would reduce

noise, air emissions, water quality impacts, and energy use;

•

provide grants for programs or projects intended to mitigate or minimize

regulated environmental impacts; and

•

provide grants or specify regulatory procedures to assist airports in complying

with environmental requirements.

S. 1300 and H.R. 2881 also include provisions that would establish certain requirements to reduce

noise.

Available at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/environmental_5050_4/.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŘȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

H.R. 2881 includes two unique provisions. The first (§ 509) would require FAA, to the maximum

extent possible, implement “sustainable practices” in the construction and major renovation of air

traffic control facilities in order to reduce energy use and improve environmental performance at

those facilities. Finally, each proposal includes provisions seeking to modify the Air Tour

Management Program, a program designed to regulate commercial air tours over national park

units primarily in an effort to mitigate noise and other adverse impacts. These provisions seek to

narrow the scope of this program to park service units where noise or other adverse impacts from

air tours have been identified or could become a more substantial issue. The second (§ 512)

specifies the sense of the Congress with respect to the European Union (EU) directive extending

the EU’s emission trading proposal to international civil aviation. The bill specifies that, by not

working through the International Civil Aviation Organization in a consensus-based fashion, the

EU directive is inconsistent with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and that it is

antithetical to building international cooperation to address greenhouse gas emissions from

aircraft.

ȱȱ

Section 601 would permanently authorize the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP).43

Under § 601, the FAA proposes to increase funding from $10 million to $15 million for FY2008FY2010 (specified under § 102). Five million dollars per year of the ACRP funds would be set

aside for research activities related to the airport environment, including reductions in noise and

air emissions and addressing water quality issues.

The FAA proposal would also create a consortium to research aircraft technologies that would

produce lower energy, air emissions, and noise. The FAA proposal (§ 606, “Research Consortium

for Lower Energy , Emissions, and Noise Technology Partnership”) would create the consortium

by requiring FAA to work with the existing Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and

Emissions Reduction (PARTNER)44 to develop Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and Noise

(CLEEN) engine and airframe technology. The proposal would establish the following

performance objectives for the consortium:

•

a 25% increase in aircraft fuel efficiency, compared to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft

technology;

•

a 50% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions associated with aircraft landings and

takeoffs, relative to the International Civil Aviation Organization standard

adopted in 2004;

•

a 10 decibel (dB) reduction, compared to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft technology;

•

a feasability determination regarding the use of alternative fuels in aircraft

systems; and

The ACRP was authorized as a four-year pilot program under Vision 100 (49 U.S.C. 44511(f)). Funds for the

program are authorized under the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations, under the Airport Planning and

Development and Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs.

PARTNER is an aviation cooperative research organization sponsored by FAA, NASA, and Transport Canada,

operating out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

ȱȱȱ

ŗřȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

•

a determination regarding the ability to retrofit or re-engine aircraft to use new

engine technologies.

Under the FAA proposal, funding would be authorized under the Next Generation Air

Transportation System program at “sums as necessary to carry out [the program].”

ȱȱ

Provisions regarding the ACRP (§ 601) are essentially identical to the FAA proposal, except that

S. 1300 would also include $15 million in funding for FY2011 (§ 601(b)). The bill also includes a

proposal similar to FAA’s that would create a research consortium (§ 602, “Reduction of Noise,

Emissions, and Energy Consumption from Civilian Aircraft”). Funding for the research

consortium would be made available from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations for

research and development.45 The bill directs the Administrator to designate an institution as a

“Consortium for Aviation Noise, Emissions, and Energy Technology Research” to conduct

research with NASA and other relevant industries. The performance objectives the consortium is

directed to accomplish are the same as those in the FAA proposal.

Unique to S. 1300 is a provision regarding clean coal fuel technology. Section 603 would require

the Department of Transportation to establish a research grant program to develop synthetic jet

fuel from clean coal. (However, the bill does not provide a definition of “clean coal.”) Funds

would be authorized from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Section 603 would also require the

FAA Administrator to designate an institution as a “Center of Excellence for Coal-to-Jet

Research.”

ȱȱ

Under § 104 (“Research, Engineering, and Development”), H.R. 2881 would amend the Airport

and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations for research and development for FY2008 through

FY2011 by authorizing a total of approximately $125 million for “environment and energy”

projects and $20 million for ACRP “environment” projects (as in the Senate and FAA proposals,

H.R. 2881 would permanently authorize the ACRP (§ 907)).

H.R. 2881 includes a provision (§ 505, “CLEEN Research, Development, and Implementation

Partnership”) that is similar to the FAA proposal that would create a consortium to develop

Continuous Low Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) engine and airframe technology. H.R.

2881 does not specify that the FAA must work with PARTNER to achieve the established

performance goals. However, the goals are the same as those specified in the FAA proposal and S.

1300. H.R. 2881 specifies that from FY2008 through FY2011, not more than $111 million may be

appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund Authorizations for this program.

H.R. 2881 also specifies certain environmental-related responsibilities of the Next Generation Air

Transportation System Joint Planning and Development Office. Included is a directive to

establish specific quantitative goals for, among other factors, the environmental impacts of each

phase of Next Generation Air Transportation System. Those goals are required to take into

49 U.S.C. § 48102(a).

ȱȱȱ

ŗŚȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

account noise pollution reduction concerns of affected communities to the greatest extent

practicable in establishing the environmental goals (§ 202).

Under Title IX, “Federal Aviation Research and Development,” H.R. 2881 includes the following

additional environmentally related research and development requirements (except where noted,

the bill does not specifically authorize funds for this research):

•

Interagency research initiative on the impact of aviation on the climate (§

903)—directs the FAA Administrator, in coordination with NASA and the U.S.

Global Climate Change Science Program, to establish a research initiative to

assess the impact of aviation on climate and to evaluate approaches to mitigate

that impact.

•

Research program on space weather and aviation (§ 910)—would require the

FAA Administrator, in coordination with the National Science Foundation (NSF),

NASA, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to

initiate a research program on the impacts of space weather to aviation. To

conduct this research, the Administrator may use grants or cooperative

agreements. Further, the bill would authorize $1 million to be appropriated for

each of FY2008 through FY2011.

•

Aviation gas research and development program (§ 911)—would require the

FAA to study technologies that would allow the use of unleaded gasoline in

piston-engine aircraft (currently, piston-engine aircraft—mostly general aviation

aircraft—use leaded gasoline). The bill would authorize $750,000 to be

appropriated for each of FY2008 through FY2010.

•

Research reviews and assessments (§ 912)—would require FAA to contract

with the National Research Council (NRC) to assess the adequacy of FAA’s

energy- and environment-related research programs, and the impact of space

weather on aviation.

•

Research program on alternative jet fuel technology for civil aircraft (§

914)—this section is similar to the proposal in S. 1300 (§ 603) that would

support coal research, except that the House proposal would also require research

into the development of alternative fuels from additional sources, including

natural gas, biomass, ethanol, butanol, and hydrogen. Funds for the program

would be authorized from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

ȱ ȱ

ȱȱ

Section 604 would provide grants for up to six environmental mitigation demonstration pilot

projects. Eligible projects would include those that would reduce or mitigate aviation impacts on

noise, air quality, or water quality in the vicinity of the airport. The federal share of the projects

would be 50% of the project costs, up to $2.5 million, and would be apportioned under the AIP.

ȱȱȱ

ŗśȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

ȱȱ

Section 215 of S. 1300 includes provisions that are essentially identical to the FAA proposal

providing grants for environmental mitigation pilot programs.

ȱȱ

Section 507 of H.R. 2881 includes provisions that are essentially identical to the FAA proposal

and those in S. 1300 providing grants for environmental mitigation pilot programs.

ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱȱȱ

The FAA proposal and provisions in S. 1300 include almost identical proposals that would amend

the state block program, address methods of implementing and/or expediting requirements of the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and amend certain noise compatibility program

requirements.

ȱȱ

Section 602 would amend the state block grant program46 by specifying that federal

environmental requirements would apply to the program. Both proposals also specify that any

federal agency that must grant any approval (i.e., permit or license) to a state must consult with

that state during the approval process. Further, the federal agency would be required to use any

state-prepared environmental analysis associated with that approval.

Sections 603 and 605 address methods of implementing and/or expediting requirements of the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)47 and airport noise compatibility planning

requirements (Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150, commonly referred to as

Part 150 requirements). Section 603 would amend current requirements that allow FAA to accept

funds from an airport sponsor to hire additional staff or obtain the services of consultants to

expedite the processing, review, and completion of environmental activities associated with an

airport development project.48 The proposal would allow FAA to accept funds to hire additional

staff to: conduct “special environmental studies” related to a federally funded airport project;

conduct studies or reviews to support noise compatibility measures approved under the Part 150

requirements; or implement environmental mitigation efforts specified in a project’s final

decision and delineated at the completion of the NEPA process.

49 U.S.C. § 47128.

Among other provisions, NEPA requires airport operators to consider the environmental impact of any proposed

action that may require federal funding or approvals. It also requires them to look at all reasonable alternatives to meet

a given project’s purpose and need, before final decisions are made. For more information, see FAA’s “NEPA

Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects,” Order 5050.4B, April 2006, at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/

airports/resources/publications/orders/environmental_5050_4/.

49 U.S.C. § 47173.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŜȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

Section 605 would amend the existing noise compatibility program requirements49 to allow grants

to airport operators to assist them with meeting environmental review requirements applicable to

proposals to implement flight procedures. Further, the proposal would allow a project sponsor to

provide FAA with funds to hire additional staff as necessary to expedite completion of the

environmental review necessary to implement flight procedures.

ȱȱ

Section 210 of S. 1300 is essentially identical to § 602 of FAA’s proposal regarding the state

block grant program. Unique to S. 1300 is a provision that would establish a pilot program for up

to three states that do not already participate in the block grant program.

Sections 211 and 212 of S. 1300 are essentially identical to §§ 603 and 605 of FAA’s proposal

regarding methods of implementing and/or expediting requirements of NEPA.

ȱȱ

Section 502 of H.R. 2881 is essentially identical to the FAA proposal and S. 1300 (except for

pilot program proposal in S. 1300) regarding the state block grant program.

Sections 503 and 504 of H.R. 2881 are similar to the FAA proposal and S. 1300 provisions

regarding methods of implementing and/or expediting NEPA requirements.

Unique to H.R. 2881 is a requirement to fund an “aircraft departure queue management pilot

program” (§ 508) at five public-use airports. The programs would be required to develop and test

new air traffic flow management technologies to better manage the flow of aircraft on the ground

and reduce ground holds and idling times for aircraft to decrease emissions and increase fuel

savings.

Also unique to H.R. 2881 is a directive to review the current regulatory responsibilities of FAA

and EPA with regard to establishing engine noise and emission standards (§ 510). The review

would be required to consider, among other factors, the degree to which those standards could be

evaluated and addressed in an integrated manner.

ȱȱȱȱ ȱ

In 1990, Congress mandated a phase out of non-Stage 3 aircraft over 75,000 pounds by December

31, 1999.50 This has allowed Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds, primarily

corporate and private-use aircraft, to continue to operate. In 2006, such aircraft represented a

relatively small number of all operational turbojet aircraft under 75,000 pounds (approximately

1,330 or 13%). However, at some airports, particularly smaller commercial and general aviation

airports, their use makes a disproportionate contribution to noise exposure contours. For example,

the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) reported that at the L.G. Hanscom Field in Bedford,

MA, non-Stage 3 aircraft accounted for less than 1% of the airport’s annual traffic in 2005, yet

49 U.S.C. § 47504.

Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508).

ȱȱȱ

ŗŝȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

were responsible for 23% of the noise energy produced by civil aircraft.51 Also, some airport

operators have reported that between 50% and 80% of noise complaints lodged with the airport

have been related to non-Stage 3 aircraft.52 As a result, several airports have sought to ban or

restrict access to such aircraft. Those efforts have generally been prohibited by FAA.

ȱȱ

Section 711 of S. 1300 would address this issue by prohibiting the operation of aircraft under

75,000 pounds, with certain exceptions, unless it complies with Stage 3 noise levels. The

prohibition would take effect five years after the bill’s enactment.

Section 714 of the bill proposes the creation of an exploratory program for the redevelopment of

property purchased with noise mitigation funds or passenger facility charge funds, to encourage

airport-compatible land uses. The trial program would involve up to four airport operators that

have submitted a noise compatibility program to FAA. Provisions in this section would also

amend the list of allowable noise compatibility measures53 to include land use planning that will

prevent the introduction of additional incompatible land uses.

Section 214 of the bill would expand passenger facility fee eligibility for noise compatibility

projects at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The section specifies that the funds may be

used for a project for the Lennox School District, adjacent to LAX, pursuant to a settlement

agreement reached between the airport and the school district in February 2005.54

ȱȱ

Like the Senate bill (§ 711), § 506 of H.R. 2881 would prohibit the operation of aircraft under

75,000 pounds, unless it complies with Stage 3 noise levels. The prohibition would take effect,

with generally the same exceptions specified in S. 1300, after January 1, 2013.

Also, § 513 of H.R. 2881 specifies the sense of the House that the Port Authority of New York

and New Jersey should undertake an airport noise compatibility planning study55—with particular

attention given to the impact of noise on affected neighborhoods, including homes, businesses,

and places of worship surrounding LaGuardia Airport and JFK Airport.

Massport December 19, 2006, press release: “Massport Endorses Congressional Efforts To Ban Stage 2 Aircraft;

Less than one percent of Hanscom Field’s traffic accounts for 23 percent of aircraft noise,” available at

http://www.massport.com/about/press_news_hanst.html.

See the statement of Mr. Robert L. Bogan, Deputy Director of the Morristown Municipal Airport on behalf of “The

Sound Initiative,” presented to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation

hearing on “The FAA’s Airport Improvement Program,” March 28, 2007, available at http://transportation.house.gov/

hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=59.

49 U.S.C. 47504(a)(2).

LAX and the Lennox School District are not specifically identified in the bill. However, the bill refers to a settlement

agreement that involved these parties. For more information, see Representative Jane Harman’s March 28, 2007 press

release: “Harman, Feinstein Introduce Bill to Reduce Aircraft Noise in Lennox Schools,” available at

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca36_harman/03_27.shtml.

Pursuant to Airport Noise Compatibility Planning requirements under 14 C.F.R. 150.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŞȱ

ȱ ȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱ¡ȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

Federal Aviation Administration, Workshop on the Impacts of Aviation on Climate: A Report of

Findings and Recommendations, August 2006, at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

policy_guidance/envir_policy/.

General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), Aviation and the

Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges,

GAO/RCED-00-153, August 2000.

General Accounting Office, Report to the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building

Runways and Actions to Address Them, GAO-03-164, January 2003.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Environmental

Activities and the MPCA,” at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/airport.html. (For general

information about the environmental compliance process at a specific airport.)

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Aeronautics Research

and Technology for Environmental Compatibility, For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental

Impacts of Aviation, 2002, at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1 0353&page=R1.

Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Report to the United States Congress, Aviation and the Environment: A

National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions, December 2004, at

http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/congrept_aviation_envirn.pdf.

Transportation Research Board, “Special Report 272—Airport Research Needs: Cooperative

Solutions,” 2003, http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?ID=1266.

CRS Report RL33891, Airport Improvement Program: Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL32707, Avoiding Gridlock in the Skies: Issues and Options for Addressing Growth

in Air Traffic, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization: An Overview of

Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted) et al.

ȱȱ ȱ

(name redacted)

Analyst in Environmental Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

ȱȱȱ

ŗşȱ

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.