SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0773.

Title: FAA Aircraft Noise Complaint and Inquiry System (Noise Portal).

Form Numbers: None.

Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection. ( printed page 25752)

Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on January 20, 2026 (91 FR 2416). The FAA collects information through its Noise Portal to respond to public complaints and inquiries about aircraft noise. Individuals voluntarily submit their name, email address, location of the noise event, and a description of the issue. This data helps the FAA identify noise sources, respond directly to the complainant, and understand community concerns. The respondents are members of the public who experience aircraft noise, typically near their homes. The FAA gathers this information online through the Aviation Noise Complaint and Inquiry response (ANCIR) system, which centralizes and streamlines complaint intake and response.

This collection is essential for the FAA to provide timely, accurate, and location-specific responses. It also supports broader goals like detecting noise trends, improving community engagement, and understanding environmental impacts. The FAA uses deidentified, aggregated data to develop public FAQ's, share insights with stakeholders, and support safety analysis across agencies. While no law specifically requires this data collection, several mandates guide the FAA's public engagement efforts; 49 U.S.C. 106(q) requires an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman; the 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy affirms federal responsibility for noise management; and the FAA Reauthorization Acts of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) and 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63) direct the agency to enhance transparency and community collaboration.

Summary of Comments: FAA received public comments during the 60-day comment period and are summarized into the topics below followed by a concise summary of the FAA response.

1. Purpose/utility of the ANCIR portal.

Public comment: The portal merely “summarizes” complaints and does not analyze them in an operational context or produce actions to address noise impacts (AICA and many individual commenters).

FAA response: ANCIR is intended as a centralized, standardized intake/routing/tracking/response system—not an operational analysis or automatic mitigation tool; complaint data can inform understanding of recurring concerns but is not, by itself, determinative of operational or policy changes.

2. Repeated submissions/very high-volume reporters.

Public comment: Repeated reports from the same people should be treated as evidence of ongoing exposure (not “duplicates”) and the portal currently mislabels or ignores repeat submissions.

FAA response: The FAA acknowledges repeated submissions can reflect recurring conditions and will consider clarifying how repeated submissions are handled and described; at the same time, the FAA notes very high volumes of substantially similar submissions from a few individuals can overwhelm resources and that procedural limits may be necessary; use of repeated submissions as direct operational evidence is a broader policy question outside the immediate PRA scope.

3. Lack of integration with operational/noise-exposure data.

Public comment: Complaint data should be integrated with operational datasets (flight tracks, noise contours, event metrics like overflights) so complaints can meaningfully inform operational review and mitigation.

FAA response: The FAA views that integration as beyond the scope of this PRA action; practical constraints include privacy laws, separate systems that don't always interoperate, different airport screening/validation methods, and governance/legal considerations—so systematic operational coupling would require broader policy, technical, and legal decisions.

4. Quality of FAA responses/“form letter”/transparency.

Public comment: Many complainants receive boilerplate or no meaningful follow-up; the portal feels like a “black hole” and undermines trust.

FAA response: FAA recognizes concerns about clarity of acknowledgments and whether responses meet user expectations; it will consider whether portal language, instructions, and acknowledgments should be improved to better explain purpose and handling of submissions (while noting limitations on what FAA can or will do in response).

5. Accessibility and reporting pathways (phone, web, mail).

Public comment: Removing regional phone lines and emphasizing web reporting disadvantages elderly/disabled or those without internet.

FAA response: ANCIR was centralized to provide a consistent national intake; FAA observed greater use of the webform but notes postal mail remains an option; FAA will consider accessibility and communication as part of its review of the information collection.

6. Portal functionality/usability/technical issues.

Public comment: Problems include inability to record event time when entered slightly after the event, lack of integration with other apps (Air-Noise), and other form issues.

FAA response: The FAA will consider design, usability, and functionality comments insofar as they relate to improving the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection and minimizing respondent burden; specific technical integrations are constrained by system boundaries and scope.

7. Representativeness and geographic participation bias.

Public comment: The portal's design may distort the geographic distribution of concerns ( e.g., under-reporting from certain communities).

FAA response: FAA will consider whether portal design/operation affects complaint participation or geographic representation and whether adjustments could better capture participation patterns and representativeness.

8. Role of complaint data in policy, mitigation, or operational change.

Public comment: Complaint submissions should be treated as evidence that leads to operational changes (curfews, route changes, mitigation).

FAA response: FAA reiterates complaint data are an important input but decisions on procedures or mitigation require broader consideration of safety, efficiency, statutory authority, feasibility, and environmental review; using complaint data as dispositive evidence is a policy question outside the PRA information-collection review.

9. Noise metrics, health impacts, and survey metrics ( e.g., DNL).

Public comment: The FAA should update noise metrics to reflect health impacts (sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, etc.) and use metrics beyond DNL.

FAA response: Much of this relates to substantive noise policy and public-health questions outside the PRA notice; however, the FAA will consider whether the information collection could better capture types of impacts complainants report (as a matter of collection clarity/utility).

10. Interoperability with airport or third-party complaint systems.

Public comment: Portal should accept or be reconciled with airport-level systems and third-party reporting tools.

FAA response: FAA notes airport systems vary in screening/validation and that integrating disparate systems raises privacy, legal, technical, and governance issues beyond the PRA collection review; FAA will consider ( printed page 25753) aspects of how the collection captures and presents information but full system integration is a larger project.

11. Reporting cadence and public reporting of complaints.

Public comment: Requests for regular (monthly/quarterly) complaints reports and for complaint data to be paired with proposed FAA actions.

FAA response: FAA reports ANCIR complaint information regularly (quarterly and annual roll-ups) but notes ANCIR itself is not an operational analysis platform that automatically yields proposed operational actions; complaint data can inform outreach and identification of recurring topics.

12. Broad allegations about FAA capture, NextGen, and enforcement failures.

Public comment: Some submissions allege FAA misconduct, industry capture, or that modernization programs (NextGen/MOSAIC) created harms.

FAA response: The FAA treats such broad operational/policy allegations as outside the scope of this PRA notice (which focuses on the information collection); specific safety or enforcement concerns should be pursued through appropriate FAA safety, oversight, or policy channels.

Respondents: 45,000.

Frequency: As needed.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 11,250 hours.

91 FR 25751