Order Code RL33949
Environmental Impacts of Airport Operations,
Maintenance, and Expansion
Updated September 5, 2007
Linda Luther
Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Environmental Impacts of Airport Operations,
Maintenance, and Expansion
Summary
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”) is set to expire 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 airport-controllable 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). Proposals have also been introduced in the House
(H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, and H.R. 2698, the Federal
Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2007) and the Senate
(S. 1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007). The bills include
provisions that would fund environment-related 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.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Airport Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Noise Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Water Quality Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Deicing and Anti-icing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fuel Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Air Quality Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Emissions of Criteria Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Emissions of Toxic Air Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Environmental Reviews Under NEPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Environmental Provisions in FAA Funding Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Research Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FAA Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Senate Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mitigation Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FAA Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Senate Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
House Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
For Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Approaches To Addressing Airport Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

---

Environmental Impacts
of Airport Operations, Maintenance,
and Expansion
Introduction
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 airport-controllable 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”)
will expire 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
introduced by the House (H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007) and the
Senate (the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, (S. 1300; S.Rept.
110-144).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. Environmental and energy-related research provisions have also been
1 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 John Fischer.
2 See FAA “Budgets in Brief,” available at [http://www.faa.gov/about/budget/].
3 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, coordinated by Bart Elias.

---

CRS-2
proposed by the House in the Federal Aviation Research and Development
Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2698).
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.
Overview of Airport Environmental Issues
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
4 See CRS Report RL32707, Avoiding Gridlock in the Skies: Issues and Options for
Addressing Growth in Air Traffic, by Bart Elias.

---

CRS-3
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 requirements commonly applicable to all
industrial operations (e.g., waste management, pesticide use, chemical use reporting)
are not discussed in this report.5
Noise Issues
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.
5 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].
6 GAO, Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present
Environmental Challenges, GAO/RCED-00-153, August 30, 2000.
7 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.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Selected Approaches To Addressing Airport Noise
Approach
Description
Challenges to Implementation
Mitigation
Includes mechanisms for
This approach addresses immediate needs of a
accommodating/living with
community affected by high levels of aircraft
existing noise levels in
noise. However, some mitigation efforts (e.g.,
certain areas adjacent to an
soundproofing) do not address issues associated
airport, such as the
with outdoor noise. Further, the use of limited
installation of sound-
funds for short-tem benefits detracts from
proofing materials at nearby investments in long-term noise reduction
homes, schools, and
technology.
hospitals and purchasing
land “buffers” around the
airport.
Land use
Involves accommodating
Airport authorities are often able only to
restrictions
existing noise levels by
recommend such restrictions, not impose them on
establishing land use/
a local zoning or land use planning commission
development restrictions
(federal guidelines exist, but the federal
based on noise exposure
government has no authority to set or enforce
levels in certain areas
standards) . Local land use decisions take many
adjacent to an airport.
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.
Operational
Includes the implementation Many operational noise abatement procedures
of airport/aircraft
may be easily implemented and require limited
restrictions that will
funding. However, operational restrictions may
decrease or eliminate noise
limit an airport’s capacity, further contributing to
exposure, such as
airport congestion and travel delays, and to higher
restrictions on the use of
airline operating costs. The FAA’s process for
certain runways, limits on
approving of operational procedures (at 40 C.F.R.
hours of airport operation,
161, referred to as the Part 161 process) is
implementation of certain
complex; legal challenges and judicial review of
departure and landing
the process may significantly slow the process.
procedures (e.g., continuous
descent approaches (CDA)),
or the use of specific flight
paths to avoid populated
areas.
Technological
Involves research into
Implementation of quieter aircraft technology
advancements
quieter aircraft 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, including 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).

---

CRS-5
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 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, coordinated by Bart Elias and CRS Report RS20531, Noise Abatement and
Control: The Federal Role, by David Bearden.
Water Quality Issues
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).
8 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, at [http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/
environmental/airport_noise/noise_exposure_maps/].
9 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.
10 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.
11 NAS, For Greener Skies, p. 15.
12 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.

---

CRS-6
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 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.
13 For more information about the NPDES Permit Program , see EPA’s Web page “NPDES
Permit Program Basics,” at [http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=45].
14 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.
15 For more information, see EPA’s “Stormwater Program” Web page, at
[http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6], and CRS Report 97-290, Stormwater
Permits: Status of EPA’s Regulatory Program, by Claudia Copeland.

---

CRS-7
Deicing and Anti-icing Activities. 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, 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
16 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].
17 EPA, Office of Water, “Preliminary Data Summary.”
18 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].
19 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].

---

CRS-8
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 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.
Fuel Storage. 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.
20 See the EPA’s Web page “Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines,” at [http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/guide/airport/].
21 Currently, there are no ELGs applicable to the air transportation industry.
22 EPA, “Preliminary Data Summary” (see footnote 15), p. 1-4.
23 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.

---

CRS-9
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 500-gallon 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 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.
Air Quality Issues
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).
24 Required under 40 C.F.R. 112.8.
25 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.
26 Final Rule, 71 Federal Register 77266-77293, December 26, 2006. For additional
information on new and existing SPCC requirements, see the EPA’s “Oil Program” Web
page at [http://epa.gov/oilspill].
27 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/oilspill/SPCCFactsheetMobile
RefuelersDec06.htm].

---

CRS-10
! 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
Emissions of Criteria Pollutants. 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 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
28 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,” at [http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/
envir_policy/airquality_handbook/media/Handbook.PDF].
29 For information regarding air pollutant emissions from commercial aviation, see EPA’s
“Aircraft” web page, available at [http://www.epa.gov/oms/aviation.htm].
30 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].
31 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.
32 For information on areas currently designated as being in nonattainment, see the EPA’s
“Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants,” available at [http://www.epa.
gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html].
33 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 coordinated James E.
McCarthy.
34 42 U.S.C. § 7410.

---

CRS-11
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.
Emissions of Toxic Air Pollutants. 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.
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
35 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.
36 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).
37 See the FAA’s “Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) Program” Web page at
[http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/vale/].
38 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
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
Environmental Reviews Under NEPA
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
38 (...continued)
[http://epa.gov/ttn/atw/aircrafthaps/aircrafthaps_rpt.pdf].
39 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].
40 For more information about NEPA, see CRS Report RL33152, The National
Environmental Policy Act: Background and Implementation, by Linda Luther.
41 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.

---

CRS-13
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 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.
Environmental Provisions in
FAA Funding Proposals
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 regulations related to those impacts, the FAA proposal and bills under
consideration in the Senate (S. 1300) and the House (H.R. 2881 and H.R. 2698)
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
42 Available at [http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/publications/orders/
environmental_5050_4/].

---

CRS-14
! 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. H.R. 2881 (§ 509) includes a unique provision that
would require FAA, to the maximum extent possible, to 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.
Research Funding
FAA Proposal. 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 FYs 2008-2010 (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;
! a 50% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions associated with aircraft
landings and takeoffs;
! a 10 decibel (dB) reduction, compared to 1997 levels, in subsonic
aircraft noise;
! a feasability determination regarding the use of alternative fuels in
aircraft systems; and
! 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].”
43 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.
44 PARTNER is an aviation cooperative research organization sponsored by FAA, NASA,
and Transport Canada, operating out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

---

CRS-15
Senate Proposal. 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 FAA 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.”
House Proposals. H.R. 2881 includes a provision (§ 505, CLEEN Engine
and Airframe Technology 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 would also promote the development of alternative jet fuels (§511).
Unlike the proposal in S. 1300, which would just support coal research, H.R. 2881
would require research on alternative fuels from various sources, including coal,
natural gas, biomass, ethanol, butanol, and hydrogen.
Environmental and energy-related research provisions have also been proposed
by the House in the Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act
of 2007 (H.R. 2698). This bill would amend the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
Authorizations for research and development for FYs 2008 through 2011 by
authorizing a total of $18 million for ACRP “environment” projects and
approximately $125 million for “environment and energy” projects (§ 3). Also, § 9
of H.R. 2698 proposes to permanently authorize the ACRP.
H.R. 2968 requires the Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office
to establish environmental requirements for noise, emissions, and energy
consumption that must be met in the Next Generation Air Transportation System (§
4(h)). The environmental requirements must be met through a combination of
technological and operational procedures. Responsibility for the research,
45 49 U.S.C. § 48102(a).

---

CRS-16
development, and demonstration of the technological procedures shall be assigned
to NASA. Responsibility to demonstrate optimized operational procedures will be
assigned to FAA.
H.R. 2698 would require an interagency study (headed by the FAA
Administrator in coordination with NASA and the U.S. Global Climate Change
Science Program) on the effects of aviation on climate and the potential for
mitigating those effects (§5). The bill would authorize $2 million for FY2008 and
$5 million annually for FY2009 through FY2011 for this research.
H.R. 2968 would also require the FAA to study technologies that would allow
the use of unleaded gasoline in piston-engine aircraft (§13). Currently, piston-engine
aircraft — mostly general aviation aircraft — use leaded gasoline. H.R. 2698 would
also require the FAA to contract with the National Research Council to assess 1) the
adequacy of FAA’s energy- and environment-related research programs (§14(a)), and
2) the impact of space weather on aviation (§14(b)).
Mitigation Grants
FAA Proposal. 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.
Senate Proposal. Section 215 of S. 1300 includes provisions that are
essentially identical to the FAA proposal providing grants for environmental
mitigation pilot programs.
House Proposal. 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.
Grants and Procedural Changes to Assist
with Environmental Compliance
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.
FAA Proposal. 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.
46 49 U.S.C. § 47128.

---

CRS-17
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.
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.
Senate Proposal. Section 210 of the 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.
House Proposal. Section 502 of the 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 the H.R. 2881 are similar to the FAA proposal and S.
1300 provisions regarding methods of implementing and/or expediting NEPA
requirements.
47 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/].
48 49 U.S.C. § 47173.
49 49 U.S.C. § 47504.

---

CRS-18
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.

Requirements to Address Noise Issues
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 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.
Senate Proposal. 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
50 Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508).
51 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 online at [http://www.massport.com/about/press_news_
hanst.html].
52 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 online at [http://transportation.house.
gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=59].

---

CRS-19
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
House Proposal. Section 506 of H.R. 2881 would also 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.
For Additional Information
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].
53 49 U.S.C. 47504(a)(2).
54 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 online at
[http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca36_harman/03_27.shtml].

---

CRS-20
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
Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RL32707, Avoiding Gridlock in the Skies: Issues and Options for
Addressing Growth in Air Traffic, by Bart Elias.
CRS Report RL33920, Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization: An
Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation, coordinated by Bart
Elias.

---