UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Response to Comments for Dicamba, D317713 FROM: Nicole Zinn, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Kendra Tyler, Chemical Review Manager Susan Lewis, Chief Special Review and Reregistration Division PEER REVIEW PANEL: March 29, 2006 SUMMARY During the Phase 3 comment period during the dicamba reregistration process, BEAD received comments from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and the San Francisco Department of Environment ( SFE). The comment from Hawaii highlights the important uses of dicamba in Hawaiian agriculture. The comment from San Francisco encourages the Agency to consider safer alternatives when conducting a benefits assessment. Both comments will be considered if a benefits assessment is deemed necessary for this chemical.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comments were received from the University of Hawaii at Manoa and the San Francisco Department of Environment ( SFE). BEAD has summarized and responded to the individual comments below. 2 Comment from the University of Hawaii at Manoa:

Dicamba is important for golf courses, seed corn, sugarcane and asparagus. Dicamba is important for resistance management purposes on golf courses. For seed corn, it is believed that dicamba tolerance has been incorporated into the breeding stock and that it may take considerable effort to find a suitable alternative broadleaf herbicide. In sugarcane, dicamba is useful when other herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4 D, are not used or used to a lesser extent and to control weed species ( Desmodium spp.) not controlled with 2,4 D. No additional details were provided for the asparagus use.

BEAD Response:

BEAD has limited data and information for crops grown in Hawaii. For the sites described in the comments, with the possible exception of sugarcane, there is little information available that pertains to production in Hawaii. Therefore, it is very useful for the University of Hawaii to indicate the important uses of dicamba in Hawaii. Comments that include specific information about target pests, alternatives and usage are most useful. If a benefits assessment is needed, these comments could help BEAD focus its assessment.

Comment from San Francisco Department of Environment ( SFE):

When conducting a benefits assessment, the Agency should consider available alternatives, including those alternatives that are considered safer. Not considering alternatives " skews the perceived need for the products being considered for registration." SFE is particularly concerned with " weed and feed" products. The comment further indicates that SFE is currently using safer alternatives.

BEAD Response:

BEAD evaluates the available alternatives in our alternatives and benefits assessments. If a benefits assessment is conducted for dicamba, BEAD would be interested to learn which alternatives are being used by SFE.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56350-56353]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24618]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-4042]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S.
Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition-Regulated Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the collection of information that FDA uses
to establish and maintain lists of U.S. manufacturers and processors
with an interest in exporting products regulated by the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) to countries that require such
lists to be maintained. The notice also solicits comments on changes to
the electronic registry that will allow manufacturers and processors of
CFSAN-regulated products to electronically request inclusion on the
export lists.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before January 14, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of January 14, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-N-4042 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Establishing and Maintaining
Lists of Manufacturers/Processors With Interest in Exporting CFSAN-
regulated Products.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential

information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit
your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two
copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be
confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy,
including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of
comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential
information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the
Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact
information to be made publicly available, you can provide this
information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S. Manufacturers/Processors
With Interest in Exporting CFSAN-Regulated Products

OMB Control Number 0910-0509--Revision

    The United States exports a large volume and variety of foods in
international trade. For certain food products, foreign governments may
require assurances from the responsible authority of the country of
origin of an imported food that the processor of the food is in
compliance with applicable country of origin regulatory requirements.
Some foreign governments establish additional requirements with which
exporters are required to comply and ask for additional assurances from
the responsible authority. When requested, FDA may provide this
information in the form of lists which are provided to the foreign
governments.
    For products subject to importing country listing requirements, FDA
has historically maintained certain export lists of manufacturers/
processors that: (1) Have expressed interest in exporting their
products to these countries; (2) are subject to FDA's jurisdiction; and
(3) are not the subject of a pending enforcement action (e.g., an
injunction or seizure) or pending administrative action (e.g., a
warning letter).
    FDA has generally published guidance documents for these lists
under the authority of section 701(h) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)), which authorizes the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop guidance documents
with public participation presenting the views of the Secretary on
matters under the jurisdiction of FDA.
    The guidance documents generally explain what information
manufacturers/processors should submit to FDA to be considered for
inclusion on the lists and what criteria FDA intends to use to
determine eligibility for placement on the lists. The guidance
documents also explain how FDA intends to update the lists and
communicate any new information to the governments that requested the
lists. Finally, the guidance documents note that the information is
provided voluntarily by manufacturers/processors with the understanding
that it may be posted on FDA's external website and that it will be
communicated to, and possibly further disseminated by, the government
that requested the list; thus, FDA considers the information on the
lists to be information that is not protected from disclosure under 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
    Application for inclusion on each list is voluntary. However, some
foreign governments may require inclusion on the list for acceptance of
imported products. FDA recommends that U.S. manufacturers/processors
that want to be placed on the export lists send FDA the following
information: (1) Country to which the food manufacturer/processor wants
to export product; (2) type of food product facility; (3) the Food
Facility Registration number (the information collected by this module
is approved under OMB control number 0910-0502), FDA Establishment
Identifier number, or Dun & Bradstreet number for the facility; (4)
name and address of the firm and the manufacturing plant; (5) name,
telephone number, and email address of the contact person; (6)
information on the products intended for export; (7) identities of
agencies that inspected the plant; (8) date of last inspection, plant
number, and copy of last inspection notice; and (9) if other than an
FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report. We request that this
information be updated every 2 years.
    In addition to the information above, some countries may require
additional information such as documentation that the firm has been
certified by a third-party certification body that it meets the
requirements of the importing country. Other information may need to be
submitted to be included on the lists depending on the requirements of
the importing country. FDA plans to

provide exporters with information about any such additional
information required by a foreign country as a condition for entry and
collect the other information to accommodate the importing countries'
requirements.
    We use the information submitted by firms to determine their
eligibility for placement on the export lists, which may be published
on our website. The purpose of the lists is to help CFSAN-regulated
industries meet the import requirements of foreign governments.
    FDA currently maintains export lists for the European Community and
China covered under OMB control numbers 0910-0320 and 0910-0839,
respectively. These export lists also serve to assist firms to meet the
import requirements of foreign governments. OMB control numbers 0910-
0509, 0910-0320, and 0910-0839 are very similar in that they allow FDA
to collect information from firms for the purpose of establishing
export lists for foreign governments that require these lists before
allowing the subject goods to be imported. Thus, with this notice, FDA
proposes to consolidate these collections of information for government
efficiency and to allow the public to look to one OMB control number
for all collections of information for CFSAN export lists. This
collection of information is intended to cover all of CFSAN's existing
export lists, as well as any additional export lists required by
foreign countries.
    In 2016, FDA launched the Dairy Listing Module, an electronic
registry system (Form FDA 3972) to facilitate applications for
inclusion on the dairy export lists. FDA has expanded this system to
accommodate applications for inclusion on export lists for CFSAN-
regulated products, affording all firms the efficiencies of submitting
information electronically. The expanded system is called the Export
Listing Module (ELM). The ELM has data fields that allow firms to input
the information identified above that FDA recommends providing. In
addition, the ELM contains data fields such as ``Additional
Information'' and ``Additional Documents'' that allow firms to submit
any additional data or information (such as third-party certifications)
that foreign governments may require. Screenshots of the ELM are
available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ImportsExports/Exporting/ucm496929.htm. If a firm is unable to submit
an application via the ELM, it may contact CFSAN and request
assistance.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include U.S. manufacturers/processors subject to FDA/CFSAN
jurisdiction that wish to export to certain foreign countries that
require inclusion on export lists.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New requests to be placed on the lists......           1,460               1           1,460  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................             730
Third-party certification...................             370               1             370  21........................................           7,770
Biennial update.............................           2,505               1           2,505  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................           1,253
Third-party certification biennial update...             555               1             555  21........................................          11,655
Occasional updates..........................             300               1             300  0.5 (30 minutes)..........................             150
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..........................................          21,558
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The information collection reflects an increase in burden by 18,458
hours due to the consolidation of the information collections covered
by OMB control numbers 0910-0839 and 0910-0320. Also, our current
estimate of the number of foreign countries that may require us to
establish lists in the next 3 years and the type of information they
may require us to collect in order to maintain such lists has also
resulted in an increase. At the same time, we have developed an
electronic reporting portal that is expected to reduce the overall
reporting time per submission. The portal will enhance the ability of
firms to more efficiently request inclusion on export lists.
    We base our estimate on the number of manufacturers/processors that
have submitted new written requests, biennial updates, and occasional
updates over the past 10 years. The estimate of the number of burden
hours it will take a manufacturer/processor to gather the information
needed to be placed on the list or update its information is based on
our experience with manufacturers/processors submitting similar
requests. We believe that the information to be submitted will be
readily available to manufacturers/processors. This collection is
incorporating additional information collected to maintain lists of
eligible exporters of CFSAN-regulated products who wish to export to
foreign markets, including the European Union, Chile and China under
OMB control numbers 0910-0320, ``Request for Information from U.S.
Processors that Export to the European Community'' and 0910-0839,
``Establishing and Maintaining Lists of U.S. Manufacturers/Processors
with Interest in Exporting CFSAN-Regulated Products to China. ''
    We estimate that 1,460 firms will average 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to
submit new requests for inclusion on the list, 2,505 firms will average
30 minutes (0.5 hour) to update their information every 2 years, and
300 firms will average 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to occasionally update
their information in this system.
    Some firms will need to provide documentation that they obtained
third-party certification to certify that they have met the
requirements of the importing country. Currently, only China has this
requirement. Based on our experience with this program, 370 firms will
spend about 21 hours to complete the third-party certification for a
total of 7,770 burden hours. During the biennial update, we estimate
that about half of the 1,110 manufacturers/processors for which the
importing country requires third-party certification will be
recertified, meaning that 555 manufacturers/processors (1110
manufacturers/processors x 0.5) will get recertified each year. We
estimate that it will take each such manufacturer/processor about 21
hours to complete the certification process for a total of 11,655
burden hours (555 manufacturers/processors x 21 hours).
    We calculate, therefore, that the total burden for this collection
is 21,558 hours.

    Dated: November 2, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24618 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26641-26647]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09113]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2023-0855]

Request for Comments on the Federal Aviation Administration's
Review of the Civil Aviation Noise Policy, Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments from interested individuals,
entities, and other parties to review four key considerations of its
civil aviation noise policy, in the context of noise metrics and noise
thresholds. The civil aviation noise policy sets forth how the FAA
analyzes, explains, and publicly presents changes in noise exposure
from aviation activity: recreational and commercial fixed wing
airplanes, helicopters, commercial space transportation vehicles,
unmanned aircraft systems, as well as emerging technology vehicles
(newer types of vehicles that will operate in U.S. airspace). The FAA
will consider how changes to the civil aviation noise policy may better
inform agency decisionmaking, the types of impacts it considers in
making decisions (e.g., community annoyance, certain types of adverse
health impacts highly correlated with aviation noise exposure), and
potential improvements to how the FAA analyzes, explains, and presents
changes in exposure to civil aviation noise.

DATES:
    Comments: Send comments on or before July 31, 2023.
    Public Meetings:
    1. Tuesday, May 16, 2023, 1 to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET),
virtual;
    2. Thursday, May 18, 2023, 6 to 8:00 p.m. ET, virtual;
    3. Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 9 to 11:00 p.m. ET, virtual; and
    4. Thursday, May 25, 2023, 3 to 5:00 p.m. ET, virtual.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2023-0855
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the public meeting, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which you can review at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For questions concerning this action, contact Mr. Donald S. Scata,
Jr. or Ms. Krystyna Bednarczyk, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    First, the FAA is reviewing research on the effects of exposure to
aviation noise, including the correlation of exposure to aviation noise
with adverse health impacts, economic impacts, and annoyance.
    Second, the FAA is reviewing its standard noise metric that
describes exposure to aircraft noise, and potential revisions to the
choice of standard metric(s).
    Third, the FAA is reviewing its definition of the threshold of
significant noise exposure for actions analyzed under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to determine if that threshold remains
appropriate or requires revision.
    Last, the FAA is examining the level of aircraft noise exposure
below which land uses are considered ``normally compatible'' with
airport operations, as that term is defined in the regulations
implementing the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. This
includes consideration of the criteria for application of noise
mitigation measures to address adverse noise exposure in areas that the
FAA currently considers to be ``normally compatible'' with airport
operations under FAA's regulations.
    The FAA will consider how changes to the civil aviation noise
policy may better inform agency decisionmaking, the types of impacts it
considers in making decisions (e.g., community annoyance, certain types
of adverse health impacts highly correlated with aviation noise
exposure), and potential improvements to how the FAA

analyzes, explains, and presents changes in exposure to civil aviation
noise. Because the review addresses the technical elements of the FAA's
civil aviation noise policy, this review will not itself reduce noise
associated with aviation. The FAA will hold virtual webinars to provide
background information regarding the noise policy review and respond to
technical matters.

I. Background

A. FAA Actions With Respect to Civil Aviation Noise

    Aircraft and vehicles make noise. More than 2.3 million passengers
fly daily in U.S. airspace. Demand continues to grow for aviation
passenger and cargo services. At the same time, new users seek to
operate in U.S. airspace using different aircraft and vehicles that
will change where and how communities are affected by aircraft noise.
Commercial space rocket launches, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or
drones), and urban air mobility/advanced air mobility (UAM/AAM)
vehicles will operate in ways that differ fundamentally from
traditional fixed wing aircraft and helicopters that take off and land
at airports. As a result, these operations will change the way
communities interact with aircraft and experience noise exposure.
    The FAA, air carriers, airports, aircraft manufacturers, other
stakeholders and industry members, local communities, and elected
officials share responsibility for addressing aircraft noise concerns.
For example, FAA does not make decisions about flight times, number of
operations, and aircraft type departing from or landing at airports.
These decisions rest with private industry. Airport location and land
uses surrounding airports are a function of local community zoning and
land use planning. Runway alignment is determined by the prevailing
winds at that specific location. The FAA is charged with controlling
aircraft noise by regulating source emissions, designing flight
operational procedures, and managing the air traffic control system and
navigable airspace in ways that minimize, where appropriate, noise
impacts on the ground consistent with the highest standards of
safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), 44502, and 44721, which provide
extensive and plenary authority to the FAA concerning use and
management of the navigable airspace, air traffic control, and air
navigation facilities. The FAA has implemented this authority by
promulgating regulations at 14 CFR parts 71, 73, 75, 91, 93, 95, and
97. See also 49 U.S.C. 44715, which requires the FAA Administrator
to prescribe noise standards for aircraft noise and sonic boom and
to prescribe regulations to control and abate aircraft noise and
sonic boom by promulgating aircraft noise regulations. FAA has
implemented this authority by promulgating regulations at 14 CFR
part 36, on source noise reduction and limits on noise emissions of
large aircraft of new or modified design. Essentially, part 36
establishes the quietest uniform standard then possible, after
taking into account safety, economic reasonableness, and
technological feasibility. In addition, the FAA has phased out older
aircraft to achieve noise reductions consistent with Congressional
mandates and international standards. As of January 2016, all
civilian transport category aircraft, regardless of weight, are
required to meet Stage 3 requirements in order to operate in the
continental U.S. and any air carrier aircraft manufactured today
must meet Stage 5 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has long recognized that aircraft noise is a primary and
pivotal concern of many stakeholders. Accordingly, the FAA strives to
reduce noise in ways within its purview, but its ability to control the
change in airport noise exposure is limited. The FAA has acted
continuously and effectively within the bounds of its authority to
improve the environmental effects of the aviation sector by better
understanding, managing, and, where possible, reducing the adverse
environmental impacts of global aviation through research and
technological innovation, policy,\2\ and outreach to the public.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FAA established noise certification standards for new and
modified designs of civil subsonic aircraft in 14 CFR part 36. The
FAA does not intend to consider changes to these regulations in the
NPR.
    \3\ FAA, 2020, Report to Congress: FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) Section 188 and Sec 173, https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/congress/media/Day-Night_Average_Sound_Levels_COMPLETED_report_w_letters.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the last six decades, aircraft have gotten much quieter due in
part to action by the FAA. The FAA has phased out operations by older,
noisier aircraft and set more stringent aircraft certification noise
standards to reduce the amount of noise they emit.\4\ The FAA also
established research and development partnership programs with academia
and industry to develop quieter aircraft technology.\5\ As a result,
the noise produced from one flight by a Boeing 707-200 jet, a typical
commercial aircraft that began to fly in 1957 is roughly equivalent to
the noise produced from 30 flights by a typical Boeing 737-800 jet.\6\
At the same time, the number of enplanements has increased from
approximately 200 million in 1975 to over 850 million today.
Enplanements are predicted to grow over the next twenty years, on
average, by 4.7 percent annually.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FAA regulation of older, noisier aircraft technology is
consistent with congressional direction and International Civil
Aviation Organization standards. See, e.g., 82 FR 46123 (Oct. 4,
2017).
    \5\ For more information, see the FAA's Continuous Lower Energy,
Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) Program, at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/aircraft_technology/cleen/.
    \6\ Based on an average of approach and takeoff certificated
noise levels as defined in 14 CFR part 36.
    \7\ This growth rate was developed by FAA as part of its 2022-
2042 commercial aviation forecast, which incorporates assumptions
from statistical (econometric) models to explain and account for
emerging trends for different segments of the aviation industry. See
FAA, FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2022-2042 at 2, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/FY2022_42_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As operations have increased substantially since the mid-1970's,
the number of people adversely exposed to aviation noise (levels above
the Day Night Average Sound Level of 65 decibels) in the U.S. has
declined dramatically from roughly 7 million to just over 400,000
today. This is significant improvement in environmental outcomes
because the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that between 1970 and 2010,
the percentage of the population living in dense urban areas increased
from 73.6 percent to 80.7 percent. FAA regulation of noise at the
source has improved environmental outcomes. In the eyes of the public,
however, aircraft noise and its impact on people continues to be a
major source of concern.
    This perception was reinforced by results of a nationally scoped
survey that updated FAA's understanding of the dose-response
relationship between exposure to aircraft noise and community annoyance
(Neighborhood Environmental Survey or NES).\8\ On January 13, 2021, the
FAA published in the Federal Register a notice and request for input on
the FAA's research activities that would inform the FAA's aircraft
noise policy and would inform the future direction of the FAA noise
research portfolio.\9\ In addition to setting forth the FAA aircraft
noise policy and research efforts, the notice described the results of
the NES and research into the societal benefits and costs of noise
mitigation measures. The FAA explained that the Neighborhood
Environmental Survey updated the FAA's understanding of the dose-
response relationship between exposure to aircraft noise and community
annoyance. The NES showed that a

higher percentage of people were ``highly annoyed'' by aircraft noise
across all levels of noise exposure that were studied.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Miller, Nicholas P., et al. Analysis of the neighborhood
environmental survey. DOT/FAA/TC-21/4. 2021, https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Safety-Papers-Publications/Airport-Safety-Detail/ArtMID/3682/ArticleID/2845/Analysis-of-NES. See also FAA, Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy
and Research Efforts: Request for Input on Research Activities to
Inform Aircraft Noise Policy, 86 FR 2722 (January 13, 2021).
    \9\ FAA, Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy and Research
Efforts: Request for Input on Research Activities to Inform Aircraft
Noise Policy, 86 FR 2722 (January 13, 2021).
    \10\ 86 FR 2724. See also FAA, The Foundational Elements of the
Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aircraft Noise Policy: The
Noise Measurement System, its Component Noise Metrics, and Noise
Thresholds (April 2023), https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview/NPR-framing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More than 4,100 comments were submitted in response to the FAA's
January 13, 2021 Federal Register notice. Some commenters suggested
additional topics for research, which the FAA has taken under
consideration. Overwhelmingly, however, the public encouraged the FAA
to revise its policy in light of its research findings rather than
waiting for the results of the FAA's ongoing research.
    In response to that feedback, the FAA initiated a review (noise
policy review or NPR) of its civil aviation noise policy (policy). The
FAA policy is set forth in various agency regulations, orders,
guidance, and policy statements.\11\ It identifies how the FAA
analyzes, explains, and publicly presents changes in noise exposure
from aviation activity: recreational and commercial fixed wing
airplanes, helicopters, commercial space transportation vehicles,
unmanned aircraft systems, as well as emerging technology vehicles
(newer types of vehicles that will operate in U.S. airspace). It
applies to actions the FAA regulates, conducts, authorizes, or funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., 14 CFR part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type
and Airworthiness Certification, 34 FR 18364 (Nov. 18, 1969); 14 CFR
part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, 49 FR 49269
(December 18, 1984); 14 CFR part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport
Noise and Access Restrictions, 56 FR 48698 (Sept. 25, 1991); U.S.
Department of Transportation and FAA, The Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy, (Nov. 18, 1976) (ANAP) available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/; FAA Order
1050.1F, Environmental Policies and Procedures (FAA Order 1050.1F),
80 FR 44209 (July 24, 2015); FAA Order 5050.4B, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for
Airport Projects (FAA Order 5050.4B); FAA Joint Order 7400.2N,
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters (Nov. 3, 2022) at Chapter
32. ``Environmental Matters and Appendix 9, Noise Policy for
Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Lands''; and FAA Order
1050.1F Desk Reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As commenters on the January 13, 2021 notice pointed out, the
current policy is based on research conducted many decades ago. Since
the policy was first issued, additional research has been conducted
into the effects of aircraft noise on individuals and communities. The
research spans aviation noise topics such as the economic value of
noise impacted property, community annoyance, children's learning,
speech interference, sleep disturbance, and human health impacts such
as cardiovascular health.\12\ The NPR provides an opportunity to
determine whether, and if so, how, to update the policy in response to
these and other research findings described in the January 13, 2021
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Wolfe, Malina, Barrett & Waitz 2016, Cost and benefits of
U.S. Aviation noise land-use policies, Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, v. 44 (2016) 147-156, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.010 (assessed quantitatively the
costs and health and public welfare benefits of noise mitigating
land-use management practices at 16 U.S. airports, specifically
housing insulation and property acquisition, as compared to control
of noise at the source. This study estimated that reducing
environmental noise exposure through local land-acquisition and
soundproofing policies can provide health and welfare benefits from
$10,000 per person when applied in low-income ($20,000 per capita)
and low-noise-exposure (65 dB) communities and upwards of $25,000
per person in high-income ($60,000 per capita) and high-noise-
exposure (75 dB) communities. However, the study concluded that the
costs of these programs often exceed their benefits except for at
the highest noise exposure levels.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Effect of Changes in Aircraft and Vehicle Operations in U.S.
Airspace.

    As described in Section I.A., infra, the NPR will also consider how
the noise environment is changing from newer users of the airspace
using the airspace differently than operators of recreational or
commercial fixed wing airplanes and helicopters. This includes newer
users operating commercial space transportation vehicles (rocket
launches and reentries), unmanned aircraft systems (also known as UAS
or drones), and other emerging technology vehicles (newer types of
vehicles that will operate in the U.S. airspace).

C. FAA Regulation of Noise Under the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 and Assessment of Changes in the Noise
Environment Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In response to a law called the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979,\13\ the FAA took a series of actions related to aviation
noise. First, the FAA established a system for measuring how aircraft
noise is experienced on the ground. The experience of noise by people
and other receptors on the ground is described in this notice as
``aircraft noise exposure.'' Currently, the FAA uses a single-metric
system to analyze aircraft noise exposure. The noise metric \14\ that
is the heart of this single-metric system is called the Day-Night
Average Sound Level (DNL).\15\ Currently, DNL is the FAA's core metric
for decisionmaking in situations involving aircraft noise exposure.
This law requires the FAA to develop a single system for analyzing
aircraft noise exposure; however, the system does not have to be
composed of a single metric. Rather the system must have a high degree
of correlation between the projected noise exposure levels and the
surveyed reactions of people to those noise levels and must account for
the intensity, duration, frequency, and tone of noise-producing
activity, as well as the time of occurrence.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, codified
at 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq., and implemented through 14 CFR part 150
(Part 150).
    \14\ A ``noise metric'' refers to the unit or quantity that
quantitatively measures the exposure of individuals to noise.
    \15\ See 14 CFR 150.7. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)
is the 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, for the period from
midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to
sound levels for the periods between midnight and 7 a.m., and
between 10 p.m., and midnight, local time. This is a cumulative
noise metric.
    \16\ 49 U.S.C. 47502(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in response to that law, the FAA issued regulations (14 CFR
part 150) to establish the requirements and the process and procedures
for airport noise compatibility planning.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This included procedures, standards, and methodology for
airport development and submission, and FAA review of airport noise
exposure maps and airport noise compatibility programs and the
provision for using a single system to measure noise at airports and
surrounding areas and determine exposure of individuals to noise
that results from the operations of an airport when preparing these
documents. See 14 CFR 150.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the regulations also identify land uses that are ``normally
compatible'' with various noise exposure levels. These land use
classifications were developed by the FAA based on its evaluation of
the Federal land use compatibility guidelines established during the
1970s by a Federal interagency committee comprised of research agencies
and agencies with expertise in aviation-related noise.\18\ To the
extent practicable, FAA's ``normally compatible'' and ``noncompatible''
land uses are comparable to and consistent with, although separate
from, other Federal programs directed towards similar considerations of
noise exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Federal agencies that are responsible for Federal
programs in which noise exposure is a factor and which comprised the
interagency committee that developed the Federal land use
compatibility guidelines include, among others, the U.S. Department
of Defense, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
the National Park Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As one of the four elements of the review, the FAA will consider
how the agency's updated understanding of the effects of aircraft noise
on individuals, communities, and noise-sensitive areas should be used
to potentially revise the

definitions adopted by the FAA of land uses that are ``normally
compatible'' with airport operations and associated with different
levels of aviation noise exposure. This will include consideration of
the criteria for application of noise mitigation measures to address
adverse noise exposure in areas that the FAA currently considers to be
``normally compatible.'' In this notice, the FAA is focused on noise
metrics and noise thresholds.\19\ While the FAA will consider public
comments regarding elements of the policy not related to noise metrics
and noise thresholds, these comments will not be the agency's initial
priority in the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ When FAA refers to ``noise thresholds'' collectively, it
means both the definition of the level of significant noise exposure
for actions subject to environmental review requirements set out in
FAA Order 1050.1F as well as the definitions of the levels of noise
exposure that are deemed to be ``normally compatible'' with airport
operations, as set forth in Table 1 of Appendix A to Part 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq., requires Federal agencies to analyze the potentially
significant environmental impacts of actions the FAA takes directly and
to actions taken by a non-Federal entity where the FAA has authority to
condition the permit, license, or other approval of the non-Federal
entity's action (``Federal action'').\20\ The FAA established through
an agency order (FAA Order 1050.1F) the policies and procedures that
implement the requirements of NEPA and the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. While the significance of
an impact may vary with the context and setting of a proposed Federal
action, FAA Order 1050.1F established a quantitative limit to describe
the significance of changes in aviation noise exposure (NEPA
significance threshold) based on community annoyance.\21\ The NEPA
significance threshold is triggered if a proposed Federal action
``would increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area
as defined in part 150 that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65
dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65
dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when compared to the
no action alternative for the same timeframe.'' \22\ For example, an
increase from DNL 65.5 dB to 67 dB would be considered a significant
impact, as would an increase from DNL 63.5 dB to 65 dB.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FAA Order 1050.1F at Paragraph 1-9.
    \21\ FAA Order 1050.1F at Exhibit 4-1.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA considers the significance of project impacts when
determining the appropriate level of environmental review and the level
of public involvement that may be required before a decision on a
proposed Federal action is made. Finally, while NEPA does not require
any particular outcome, its requirements ensure that FAA officials make
informed decisions after considering the environmental consequences of
proposed Federal actions. The FAA's determination to establish a NEPA
significance threshold, the type of impact (community annoyance) that
informed the selection of the limit of the NEPA significance threshold,
and the noise metric (DNL) that quantitatively describes the impact of
noise exposure are three of the four elements of the policy that are
under review as part of the NPR. Specifically, this review will
consider whether the FAA should continue to use the cumulative DNL
metric as the sole basis for decisions made in the context of analyses
prepared pursuant to NEPA and the Part 150 regulations or adopt a suite
of metrics to address different scenarios based on the noise
environment, source of noise, and other considerations.
    The result of this review may include modifying the FAA's system
for considering aviation noise. Modifications could include replacing
DNL as the sole decisionmaking noise metric; incorporating new
decisionmaking noise metrics into the system; identifying when the
metrics that may comprise the system should be used alone or in
combination; and revising the FAA policy \24\ on the use of
supplemental metrics. In addition, the FAA will consider how these
metrics should be calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The FAA's NEPA procedures address the use of supplemental
noise metrics. See FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, Appendix B, paragraph B-1.6; 1050.1F Desk
Reference, Section 11.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Immediate Effect of the Noise Policy Review

    The FAA notes that none of the changes currently being considered
through this noise policy review will immediately affect the level of
noise to which an individual, community, or noise-sensitive area (e.g.,
park, school, hospital, etc.) is exposed. A downward adjustment to the
definition of existing significant noise exposure will not change the
actual noise environment. Nor will real-world noise experienced by
individuals and communities be changed if the FAA changes its criteria
for identifying significant new noise exposure associated with proposed
actions being examined in an environmental review conducted pursuant to
NEPA.\25\ No policy change on its own will cap or reduce the levels of
aviation noise. The FAA normally takes actions that enhance the safety,
efficiency, and capacity of U.S. airspace while considering associated
noise impacts. As these actions are proposed, the FAA analyzes and
discloses publicly the modeled change in the noise environment to help
the public understand how their experience of aviation noise will
change over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and FAA
Order 1050.1F. NEPA directs the Federal government to ensure that
the likely significant environmental effects of proposed policies,
plans, programs, projects or other actions are identified and
assessed before the Federal agency makes a decision on whether the
proposal should proceed. It also identifies certain procedures that
must be followed regarding the level of environmental analysis to be
conducted as well as ensures certain types of public disclosure and
public involvement before the FAA makes a decision or takes an
action. This does not mean, however, that the FAA must choose the
most environmental favorable or most environmentally acceptable
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Next Steps

    The FAA intends to give serious consideration to stakeholder \26\
input on the policy. If the FAA decides to revise the policy, any
revisions will also consider modern aviation noise research and how the
evolving use of the U.S. airspace affects experiences of aviation
noise. Any revisions to the policy will also promote more effective
public disclosure of noise impacts under NEPA. In summary, this review
should improve implementation of the major tenets of the 1976 Aviation
Noise Abatement Policy, which sets forth the goals, policies, and
strategies the FAA should employ to reduce the impact of aviation
noise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The FAA will continue to coordinate on matters related to
aviation noise research and policy through the Federal Interagency
Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), which provides a forum for
Federal agencies to coordinate on future research needs to
understand, predict, and better control the effects of aviation
noise. FICAN comprises Federal agencies that conduct research on
aviation-related noise as well as agencies that do not conduct
research but that have broad policy roles with respect to aviation
noise issues. Current member agencies include: the U.S. Departments
of Defense, Transportation, Interior, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development as well as the Environmental
Protection Agency and NASA. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, the FAA will coordinate with the Council on
Environmental Quality if the FAA recommends changes to its NEPA
implementing procedures (FAA Order 1050.1F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Purpose of This Notice

    The FAA invites comments through this notice to inform its
consideration of these foundational elements of the policy. The FAA
recognizes that

exposure to aviation noise is a pivotal quality-of-life issue for the
public and welcomes input on how the FAA's assessment and disclosure of
noise impacts may improve community understanding and expectations
regarding future noise exposure. The most helpful comments would
reference a specific recommendation, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting information.
    At this time, the FAA cannot predict how many comments will be
received, whether requests to extend the comment period will be
submitted, or how long it will take to review and respond to public
comments. While the FAA will work expeditiously to review the input
when the public comment period closes, the FAA cannot provide
information regarding the timing of follow-on actions. However,
following the FAA's consideration of comments, the FAA will publish in
the Federal Register a subsequent notice to announce the input it
received and how the FAA considered it in developing its recommended
revisions to the policy. That notice will identify the elements of the
policy that will be modified and explain how the FAA recommends
revising the policy. The FAA will identify the subsequent actions it
will take to implement the recommendation and whether the future change
to the policy will be implemented through proposed rulemaking or other
administrative actions. That notice will identify the FAA office that
will be primarily responsible for implementing the recommended revision
and identify, with specificity, the agency regulations, orders,
guidance, or policy statements that will be modified. Finally, that
notice will set forth how the public can continue to provide input when
the FAA proposes revisions to relevant documents.

II. Request for Comments

    The FAA seeks written public comments on the ways it describes
potential impacts of aircraft noise as well as how the FAA defines the
threshold of significant noise exposure for noise sensitive receivers.
In addition, the FAA seeks public comment on the noise exposure limit
that normally would be considered compatible for noise-sensitive land
uses. To provide background information and context for the questions
set forth below, the FAA invites the public to review a framing paper
entitled, The Foundational Elements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Civil Aircraft Noise Policy: The Noise Measurement
System, its Component Noise Metrics, and Noise Thresholds, available
at: https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview/NPR-framing. The FAA welcomes
any comments from the public on any of these issues and is particularly
interested in the public's responses to the questions and information
requested below.
    The FAA maintains a robust program of activities related to
aviation noise. The FAA's approach is multi-pronged, including research
and development, regulatory control, and public and stakeholder
outreach programs relating to the public's experience of aviation
noise. In the next section of this notice, the FAA presents a series of
questions designed to solicit public input that will supplement and
augment the FAA's technical consideration of these issues. The FAA
intentionally designed the questions below to seek written comment from
a range of aviation stakeholders with varying levels of familiarity
with the FAA, its role in addressing aircraft noise exposure, and the
noise metrics the FAA uses to analyze, explain, and publicly present
adverse noise exposure. One of the FAA's key goals in issuing this
notice is to obtain stakeholder input on the information FAA develops
and uses to make decisions that affect aviation noise. Public comments
addressing potential improvements in how, where, and with whom the FAA
communicates regarding changes in aircraft noise exposure will be
particularly helpful as the FAA continues to develop a policy that will
respond to affected communities' core interests, concerns, and needs.
    Comments that focus on the issues and questions identified below
will be most helpful. These questions are meant as a guide and
commenters may provide their views or submit general comments related
to how the FAA describes and discloses aviation noise impacts. The more
specific the comments, the more useful they will be in agency
deliberations. If relevant, commenters are requested to provide
technical information, data, or other evidence to support the comment
submission. Finally, the FAA requests that commenters identify the
number of each question to which a response is submitted.
    1. Vehicle Type. When the FAA published the ANAP \27\ in 1976, the
impacts of aviation noise were related to commercial jet service at or
in the immediate vicinity of airports. What types or elements of
current or future air vehicle activity (e.g., unmanned aircraft systems
(also known as UAS or drones), advanced air mobility, rotorcraft,
subsonic fixed wing, supersonic, or commercial space) should the policy
describe and disclose? How should this information be described using
noise metrics? Should the FAA use this information to make decisions or
for public disclosure only? Please explain your reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The ANAP was issued by the Secretary of Transportation and
the FAA Administrator on November 18, 1976. This document is
available on the FAA website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Operations of Air Vehicles.
    a. What elements of aircraft operations (e.g., en-route, takeoff,
landing) should the noise metric evaluate and disclose? Should the FAA
use this information to make decisions or disclose to the public noise
impacts? Please explain your reasoning.
    b. What interests or concerns do communities in the vicinity of
airports have? How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics?
What noise metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your
reasoning.
    c. What interests or concerns do overflight communities \28\ have?
How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics? What noise
metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The phrase ``overflight communities'' in this Notice refers
to communities located under the flight paths of aircraft and
vehicles that are distressed by aircraft noise and are located
outside of the DNL 65 dB contour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. What interests or concerns do communities in the vicinity of
commercial space transportation operations have? How can these concerns
be addressed using noise metrics? What noise metrics would address
these concerns? Please explain your reasoning.
    e. What interests or concerns do communities in the vicinity of UAS
(drone) package delivery or other newly emerging technology operations
have? How can these concerns be addressed using noise metrics? What
noise metrics would address these concerns? Please explain your
reasoning.
    3. DNL. What views or comments do you have about the FAA's core
decisionmaking metric, DNL? How would these views regarding DNL be
resolved if the FAA employed another noise metric (either in addition
to, or to replace DNL) or if the FAA calculated DNL differently? Please
explain your reasoning.
    4. Averaging. DNL provides a cumulative description of the noise
events expected to occur over the course of an entire year averaged
into a representative day, described as an Average Annual Day (AAD).

    a. Do you believe an AAD is an appropriate way to describe noise
impacts? Please explain why or why not.
    b. If not, what alternative averaging schemes to AAD should be
considered and why? What information would the use of an alternative
averaging scheme capture that AAD does not?
    5. Decisionmaking Noise Metrics. The FAA currently uses DNL as its
primary decisionmaking metric for actions subject to NEPA and airport
noise compatibility planning studies prepared pursuant to 14 CFR part
150.
    a. Should different noise metrics be used in different
circumstances for decisionmaking?
    b. If the answer to Question 5.a. is ``yes,'' please identify: the
metric, the information it provides that DNL does not, and explain when
and how it should be employed by the FAA in its system (e.g., should
the FAA use a noise metric other than DNL to evaluate noise exposure in
quiet settings, such as national parks, national wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, etc.)? Should this metric be used when the FAA is making
decisions that affect noise in these settings? Should this metric be
used alone or in combination with another metric?
    c. If the metric should be used in combination with another metric,
please describe how they should be used together for decisionmaking.
    d. If the answer to Question 5.a is ``no,'' should DNL remain the
core decisionmaking metric or should another metric be substituted in
all circumstances?
    e. How would the use of the metrics that you recommend support
better agency decisionmaking? Please explain and illustrate with
specific examples how the use of the recommended metric(s) would
benefit agency decisionmaking.
    6. Communication.
    a. Please identify whether and how the FAA can improve
communication regarding changes in noise exposure (e.g., what
information FAA communicates, where and with whom FAA communicates,
what information methods FAA uses to communicate and the venues at
which FAA shares this information). Please explain your reasoning.
    b. Should the FAA consider revisions to its policy on the use of
supplemental noise metrics in the FAA's NEPA procedures? Please explain
how this policy should be modified to improve FAA communication of
noise changes when the FAA is making decisions that affect noise.
Please explain your reasoning.
    c. What information about the change in noise resulting from civil
aviation operations (e.g., UAS or drones, helicopters, fixed wing
aircraft, rockets/commercial space transportation vehicles, and new
entrant technologies) should the noise metric communicate to the
public? Please explain your reasoning.
    d. Please explain how the public will benefit if the FAA implements
your proposal in response to Questions 6.a and 6.b.
    7. NEPA and Land Use Noise Thresholds Established Using DNL or for
Another Cumulative Noise Metric. The FAA has several noise thresholds
that are informed by a dose-response curve (Schultz Curve \29\), which
historically provided a useful method for representing the community
response to aircraft noise. Two of the noise thresholds informed by the
Schultz Curve are the FAA's significant noise impact threshold for
actions being reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act and
the land use compatibility standards established in 14 CFR part 150,
Appendix A. Both of these rely on the cumulative noise metric DNL and
are referred to collectively in this question and questions 8-10 as
``the FAA noise thresholds.'' On January 11, 2021, the FAA published
the results of the Neighborhood Environmental Survey,\30\ a nationally
representative dataset on community annoyance in response to aircraft
noise. The Neighborhood Environmental Survey results show higher
percentage of people who self-identify as ``highly annoyed'' by
aircraft noise across all DNL levels studied in comparison to the
Schultz Curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Schultz, T.J. 1978, ``Synthesis of Social Surveys on
Noise Annoyance,'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
64(2): 377-405. The Schultz Curve in this document refers to the
curve generated from a meta-analysis of social surveys which set
forth a widely accepted relationship between DNL and the percentage
of the population who are highly annoyed by noise. This meta-
analysis was later validated by interagency government committees
focused on aircraft noise issues. See, e.g., Federal Agency Review
of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992.
    \30\ Miller, Nicholas P., et al. Analysis of the neighborhood
environmental survey. No. DOT/FAA/TC-21/4. 2021 available at:
https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Safety-Papers-Publications/Airport-Safety-Detail/ArtMID/3682/ArticleID/2845/Analysis-of-NES. See also FAA, Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy
and Research Efforts: Request for Input on Research Activities to
Inform Aircraft Noise Policy, 86 FR 2722 (Jan. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. How should the FAA consider this information (i.e., the Schultz
Curve and Neighborhood Environmental Survey findings) when deciding
whether to retain or modify the FAA noise thresholds \31\ established
using the DNL metric or to establish new FAA noise thresholds using
other cumulative noise metrics? Please explain your reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ As explained in this Notice in footnote 24, infra, when FAA
refers to ``noise thresholds'' collectively, it means both the
definition of the level of significant noise exposure for actions
subject to environmental review requirements set out in FAA Order
1050.1F as well as the definitions of the levels of noise exposure
that are deemed to be ``normally compatible'' with airport
operations, as set forth in Table 1 of Appendix A to Part 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Should the FAA consider other or additional information when
deciding whether to retain or modify the FAA noise thresholds that were
established using the DNL metric or to establish new FAA noise
thresholds using other cumulative noise metrics? Please describe the
reason for the recommendation and identify the data, information, or
evidence that supports the recommendation.
    c. How should research findings on auditory or non-auditory effects
(e.g., speech interference, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular health
effects) of noise exposure caused by civil aircraft and vehicles be
considered by the FAA when it decides whether to retain or modify the
FAA noise thresholds \32\ that were established using the DNL metric?
How should the FAA consider this same research when deciding whether to
establish new FAA noise thresholds using other cumulative noise
metrics? Please explain your response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. In examining whether to change its metrics and thresholds for
noise, the FAA needs reliable information to support any changes. One
type of information that the FAA can rely on is epidemiological
evidence. This means the study (scientific, systematic, and data-
driven) of the distribution (frequency, pattern) and determinants
(causes, risk factors) of health-related states and events (not just
diseases) in specified populations (neighborhood, school, city, state,
country, global). What amount of epidemiological evidence is sufficient
to provide the FAA with a sound basis for establishing or modifying the
FAA noise thresholds \33\ either using the DNL metric or another
cumulative noise metric? Please explain your response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Should the FAA consider using factors other than annoyance to
establish FAA noise thresholds \34\ using the DNL metric or other
cumulative noise metrics? What revisions to existing FAA noise
thresholds or new noise thresholds do you recommend be

established and why? Please explain your response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. FAA Noise Thresholds Using Single-Event or Operational Metrics.
As the FAA learned from the results of the NES, people are bothered by
individual aircraft noise events, but their sense of annoyance
increases with the number of those noise events. Should the FAA
consider employing new FAA noise thresholds \35\ using single-event or
operational metrics? If the answer is ``yes,'' which metrics should be
used to establish the FAA noise thresholds? What should be the relevant
noise exposure level for the new noise thresholds you propose? Please
explain your reasoning. If the answer is ``no,'' please explain your
reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. FAA Noise Thresholds for Low-Frequency Events. Should FAA
establish noise thresholds \36\ for low-frequency events, such as those
associated with the launch and reentry of commercial space
transportation vehicles authorized by the FAA Office of Commercial
Space Transportation? If the answer is ``yes,'' which metrics should be
used to establish the noise thresholds? What should be the relevant
noise exposure level for the new noise thresholds you propose? Please
explain your reasoning. If the answer is ``no,'' please explain your
reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Miscellaneous. What other issues or topics should the FAA
consider in this review regarding noise metrics, the method of
calculating them, the establishment of noise thresholds,\37\ or FAA's
method of communicating the change in noise exposure? Please explain
your response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Literature Review. In this review, the FAA will examine the
body of scientific and economic literature to understand how aviation
noise correlates with annoyance as well as environmental, economic, and
health impacts. The FAA also will evaluate whether any of these impacts
are statistically significant and the metrics that may be best suited
to disclose these impacts. A bibliography of this body of research is
available for review in the Background Materials tab in the Docket and
as Appendix 1 to the FAA framing paper entitled, The Foundational
Elements of the Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aircraft Noise
Policy: The Noise Measurement System, its Component Noise Metrics, and
Noise Thresholds. This framing paper is available at: https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview/NPR-framing. Please identify any studies
or data regarding civil aviation noise not already identified by the
FAA in the bibliography that you believe the FAA should evaluate.
Please explain the relevance and significance of the study or evidence
and how it should inform FAA decisions regarding the policy.

III. Public Participation

Virtual Webinars

    The FAA recognizes that the noise policy is of interest to Federal
agencies, project proponents, airport sponsors, airport and corridor
communities, and the public generally. As a result, the FAA is taking
steps to ensure stakeholders can request clarification, ask questions,
and provide written feedback. The FAA will hold virtual webinars to
provide background information regarding the review and respond to
technical matters.
    Participants may join the virtual webinars via telephone or
virtually using Zoom. Access information and registration instructions
will be made available on the FAA's Noise Policy Review website,
located at https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview.
    If there is not sufficient time to respond to all questions asked,
the FAA will make supplementary materials available on the FAA's
website at a later date, located at https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview. Further instructions on signing up and participating
in the virtual webinars will be made available on the FAA's website at
a later date, located at https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview.
Supporting materials and written feedback to questions to which the FAA
was unable to respond during the virtual webinar will be submitted to
the docket as described above and posted to the FAA's website at
https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview.
    We request members of the press to RSVP to the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least two weeks prior to the
meeting that you plan to attend.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at least
two weeks prior to the meeting that you plan to attend.

How do I prepare and submit written comments?

    To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the docket,
please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Please review information available at https://www.faa.gov/noisepolicyreview to assist you with submitting your comment to the
docket using the instructions given above under ADDRESSES.
    Please note, if you are submitting comments electronically as PDF
(Adobe) file, the FAA asks that the documents submitted be scanned
using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, to allow the FAA
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.
    The FAA will consider your comments and consider appropriate
revisions to its policy. The FAA will publish in the Federal Register a
notice announcing the revisions it expects to make to its policy and
identify the relevant agency documents that will express the revised
policy, which elements of the agency document it expects to modify, and
the process the FAA will use to issue and implement the revised policy.

Will the FAA consider late comments?

    The FAA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, the FAA will also consider comments received after
that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by others?

    You may read the comments received on the internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this notice, at https://www.regulations.gov. You may also read comments at the address given
above under ADDRESSES.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Kevin Welsh,
Executive Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-09113 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P