[Federal Register: July 14, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 136)]
[Notices]
[Page 43802-43824]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy00-117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No.: 30109]
Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Proposed policy document, Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In 1976, the Department of Transportation published its
Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, which provided a course of action for
reducing aviation noise impact. The principles contained in that
document and subsequent legislative and regulatory action have resulted
in a dramatic reduction in the number of Americans adversely exposed to
aviation noise.
The changes in transportation use, public expectations, and
technology warrant a review of the policy, which the Department is now
undertaking. In particular, the Department is considering issuing a
revised policy statement, which may extend to all forms of
transportation noise, in order to provide direction to its efforts over
the next 25 years.
Although the 1976 policy document was signed by the Secretary of
Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the future document will be divided into two parts:
first, the Secretary will publish a policy statement broadly addressing
noise concerns. Based on this policy statement, the FAA Administrator
will issue aviation noise policy guidelines.
The issuance of this draft document on aviation noise abatement
represents a first step in a process to develop an aviation noise
policy. It is intended to stimulate ideas that will result in comments
to the public docket. These comments will be evaluated, along with
other inputs, in the development of a comprehensive policy statement
and guidance document.
This proposed FAA policy document reaffirms and incorporates the
major tenets of the 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy and includes
subsequent developments. It summarizes current conditions affecting
aviation and sets forth goals, policies, and strategies for addressing
them. This policy document also outlines the foundations and
methodologies for assessing aviation noise, promoting research and
development in aircraft noise reduction technology and noise abatement
procedures, and promoting compatible usage of noise impacted lands.
Finally, it presents a selective listing of reference materials that
form the basis for the Federal Government's aviation noise policies.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket
(AGC-200), Docket No. [30109], 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in
Room 915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Connor, Noise Division, AEE-
100, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone, (202)
267-8933; facsimile, (202) 267-5594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons are invited to
participate by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments should identify the regulatory docket or
notice number and should be submitted in triplicate to the
[[Page 43803]]
Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or
before the specified closing date for comments will be considered by
the Administrator before taking action on this proposed policy. The
proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments
received. All comments received will be available, both before and
after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for
examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA public
contact concerned with the substance of this document will be filed in
the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments submitted in response to this notice must include a
preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is
made: ``Comments to Docket No. xxxxx.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 7, 2000.
James D. Erickson,
Director of Environment and Energy.
FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000
Section 1: Introduction
The first comprehensive aviation noise abatement policy was issued
by the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) on November 18, 1976. At that time, six
to seven million Americans residing near airports were exposed to
significant levels of aircraft noise--defined by FAA as those areas in
which noise levels are Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 dB or
higher. Aircraft noise had become a growing problem in the 1960's with
the introduction of jet aircraft and the rapidly increasing number of
commercial aircraft operations in the United States. Aircraft noise,
and its adverse impacts on residential and other noise sensitive land
uses, was recognized as a major constraint on the further development
of the aviation system, threatening to limit the further construction
and expansion of airports and ground access to them. The 1976 Policy
outlined a national effort under Federal leadership to reduce aircraft
noise, with aircraft noise source reduction being a key component of
the policy.
The 1976 Policy has been highly successful. It has guided actions
over a period of almost 25 years that have substantially reduced
aviation noise and its impacts. By the year 2000, the FAA estimates
that there will be about 500,000 Americans exposed to significant
levels of aircraft noise--down substantially from the six to seven
million people exposed in 1976. Even as noise has been so dramatically
reduced, the national aviation system, including the airport component
of that system where aircraft noise is the most severe, has grown
significantly in this last quarter of the century.
As we stand at the threshold of the 21st century, the achievements
realized from the 1976 Policy provide a solid foundation for the
future. The successive phaseouts of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft are
responsible for the larger component of the considerable success in
reducing noise levels around the airports. With all civil turbojet
aircraft heavier than 75,000 pounds now Stage 3 compliant, the most
severe aircraft noise will be limited to within or very near the
airport boundaries. The long-term outlook beyond 2000 is for a
generally stable situation with respect to noise contours around
airports, followed by further reduction as the result of advances in
noise abatement technology and the replacement of hushkitted Stage 3
airplanes by built--as Stage 3 airplanes. One of the cornerstones of
the FAA's year 2000 aviation noise abatement policy is the continuation
of aircraft source-noise reduction. The FAA is aggressively pursuing a
variety of approaches, including source noise abatement technologies,
with the goal of substantially reducing community noise exposure. In
late 1999, the Secretary of Transportation supported this effort by
announcing as one of his flagship initiatives the need for more
stringent aircraft noise standards. The initiative states ``Promote the
development of international certification noise standards for turbojet
airplanes that will be more stringent than the current Stage 3
standards; and, develop models to assess new noise abatement
technologies that will encourage introduction of quieter planes.''
The 21st century will offer opportunities for additional noise
reduction not only from its source, through improved aircraft design,
but also from other technological advances. New tools such as Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology, which will be used for greater
safety and efficiency of air transportation, will also be used to
mitigate noise by keeping aircraft tightly within their designated
noise corridors. Noise abatement flight procedures are constantly
evolving with advances in technology, improved aircraft design, and
more refined airspace management procedures. State-of-the-art
navigational technology will enable us to refine the ability to define,
and the pilot's ability to fly, flight tracks with increased precision
in the vicinity of noise sensitive areas.
The continued development of aviation growth is a vital element of
U.S. transportation, and the aviation industry is, in turn, a powerful
generator of economic activity and jobs within communities.
Notwithstanding anticipated technological improvements, aircraft noise
will remain and will be a pivotal quality-of-life issue. While the
number of Americans exposed to significant levels of aviation noise has
been dramatically reduced since the 1976 Policy was issued, a large
number of people still remain so impacted. Furthermore, even as
Americans stimulate aviation growth by their increased air travel, they
also express an ever-increasing desire for a quieter neighborhood
environment. As significant noise around the Nation's airports is
dramatically reduced, people will direct more attention to the lower
but still annoying noise levels. Unless aircraft noise is addressed
with purpose and vigor, it will likely become a potential impediment to
the robust airport and aviation system growth and operation that will
be needed as public demand for access to aviation services continues to
grow.
The FAA continues to place great emphasis on reducing the number of
persons residing in areas of significant noise exposure around
airports. Each airport with areas of significant noise exposure outside
its boundary is encouraged to evaluate its current and projected noise
levels, and to develop a program that both reduces the number of
persons significantly impacted by noise, and prevents new noncompatible
development from occurring. This may be accomplished through either the
Federal voluntary airport noise compatibility planning process, with
FAA technical and financial assistance, or through a locally-determined
process. Community involvement is a critical part of airport noise
compatibility planning. It serves to provide input on noise mitigation
measures that are the most desirable to airport neighbors, while
informing the public of the technical and reasonable limits to noise
reduction.
Noise relief continues to be a shared responsibility, as described
in the 1976 Policy. The FAA and the aviation industry have the primary
responsibility to address aircraft source noise, technological
advances, and air traffic procedures. Airport proprietors, State and
local governments, and citizens have the primary responsibility to
address airport noise compatibility planning and local land use
planning and zone. The airport operator must be
[[Page 43804]]
involved in local land use planning and control efforts on a continuing
basis.
The 1976 Policy encouraged airport proprietors and others to
consult with FAA about their plans and proposals and to suggest
innovative ways to meet the noise problem in their communities. Airport
proprietors were encouraged to consult and review proposals to restrict
use with airport users and the FAA before implementation. FAA advised
airports so that ``uncoordinated and unilateral restrictions at various
individual airports do not work separately or in combination to create
an undue burden on foreign or interstate commerce, unjustly
discriminate, or conflict with FAA's statutory authority.'' This policy
foreshadowed the national noise policy announced by the Airport Noise
and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). Citing similar concerns, the Act,
among other things, established a national program for review of
airport Noise and access restriction proposals.
At the time of the 1976 Policy, before the phaseout of Stage 1,
there was limited potential for effective control of the sizeable land
area subjected to significant noise levels. Land use solutions were to
a large extent beyond the reach of local affected communities until
effective aircraft source noise reduction was implemented. However,
with the year 2000 phaseout of Stage 2, compatible land use has become
a viable, effective, and necessary solution. With the vast reduction in
land area that is significantly impacted by aviation noise, the major
actions needed at the beginning of the 2000's decade to achieve and
maintain noise compatibility around airports are land use and
developmental actions outside the airport boundary appropriate to the
airport's remaining and future noise.
The Federal Government generally does not control land use--zoning
authority is reserved to the States and their subdivisions. The FAA has
established a compatible land use initiative program to encourage and
guide State and local governments having land use control authority, to
exercise that authority in a way that serves both the airport and the
community. Jurisdictions are particularly urged to refrain from
permitting noise sensitive land uses to develop ever closer to airports
as the Stage 2 phaseout shrinks their noise contours. In some
communities, it may be possible to establish a broad noise buffer
beyond areas of significant noise exposure, between the airport and the
community, where noise sensitive land uses would either be prohibited
or remediated in some way. Noise buffers are subject to determinations
of local feasibility and decisions. The FAA will respect and support
such locally established buffers.
Beyond the airports' environs, with responsible airspace management
and safety being the first consideration, the FAA's goal is to design
prospective air traffic routes and procedures to minimize noise
consistent with local consensus. The FAA will carefully review the
noise impact of prospective changes to air traffic routes and
procedures on communities and, in response to requests, will consider
alternatives to minimize noise sensitive areas as described above.
Locations with unique noise sensitivities in national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and other Federally managed areas merit and will
receive special consideration as FAA manages the navigable airspace and
evaluates aviation actions that raise noise concerns for these areas.
The 1976 Policy initiated the first pilot program under which the
Federal government funded up to 25 airport noise control plans a year.
That modest beginning was expanded in the 1980's and 1990's by
legislation and policies. By the end of the century, the FAA had issued
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for over $2.6 billion from an
earmarked noise set-aside. Since the statutory establishment of the
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program in 1990, the FAA has approved
PFC collection at commercial service airports exceeding $1.6 billion
for noise mitigation projects. Additional AIP funding is provided to
mitigate the noise impact of airport expansion projects. In addition to
these Federal administered funds, airports finance substantial noise
mitigation with locally generated funds. U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) policy on airport rates and charges identifies
aircraft noise abatement and mitigation as an environmental cost
recoverable through fees charged to air carriers for the use of airport
facilities and services. All funding sources must be used responsibly
to ensure continuing strong financial support for noise mitigation,
including exploration of innovative financing and creative public/
private partnerships. In summary, the FAA's year 2000 aviation noise
abatement goals are the following:
<bullet> Continue to reduce aircraft noise at its source.
<bullet> Use new technologies to mitigate noise impacts.
<bullet> Bring existing land uses into compatibility with levels of
significant noise exposure around airports, and prevent the development
of new noncompatible uses in these areas.
<bullet> Design prospective air traffic routes and procedures to
minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of
airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus and safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace.
<bullet> Provide special consideration to locations in national
parks and other Federally managed areas having unique noise
sensitivities.
<bullet> Ensure strong financial support for noise compatibility
planning and for mitigation projects.
This document is comprised of five sections plus an appendix of
references, with this introduction being Section 1. Section 2 is the
heart of the policy, and outlines FAA's noise goals and policies, with
a brief discussion of each policy element. Section 3 describes the
legal and regulatory framework governing aviation noise and the shared
responsibilities of all those who must act in complementary ways to
mitigate the noise problem--government, aviation, and private citizens.
Section 4 presents the FAA's' methods and standards for measuring and
assessing noise impacts, which are derived from scientific research and
a series of Federal interagency committee reviews. Section 5 provides
greater detail on aircraft source noise reduction, history, research,
and future prospects.
As stated previously, the 1976 Policy has served the nation well.
This comprehensive update to that Policy seeks to build upon ANCA and
meet the challenges of the first part of the 21st century. It is a task
that must be shared by government at all levels, by the aviation
industry, and by citizens. Solutions depend on technological advances,
solid airport noise compatibility programs, strong land use
commitments, noise-responsible airspace management, and adequate
financial resources.
Section 2: Goals and Policies
This section is the heart of the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy.
It outlines FAA's noise goals and policies, and provides a brief
discussion of each element. This policy fully incorporates and
amplifies, clarifies, and supplements the 1976 Policy, based upon our
experience and changing needs.
2.1 Aviation Noise Goals
Since it was issued, the 1976 Policy has successfully guided
actions on civil aviation noise in the United States. To keep pace with
changing technology and the projected growth in aircraft operations,
the FAA must set realistic and achievable aviation noise goals, and
[[Page 43805]]
develop new policies to support the safety and efficiency of the
National Airspace System (NAS) while seeking to minimize the adverse
impacts of aviation noise on people and the environment. Building on
past successes in the area of aviation noise, the FAA's goals are to:
Goal 1: Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source
The successive phaseouts of noisier Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft
have been largely responsible for the considerable reduction in the
number of persons exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in
the United States. Ongoing research and development programs by FAA,
NASA, and industry to develop quieter aircraft, combined with
regulatory action by FAA will result in achievable future reductions in
the number of persons exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise.
Goal 2: Use new technologies to mitigate noise impacts
New technologies bring with them the challenge to integrate noise
planning and mitigation into their deployment. GPS, automated flight
guidance, free flight, and other innovations will all be examined for
their potential to mitigate noise impacts while improving safety and
efficiency.
Goal 3: Encourage development of compatible land uses in areas
experiencing significant noise exposure around airports, to the extent
feasible, and prevent the development of new noncompatible uses in
these areas
In the year 2000, there will still be an estimated 500,000
Americans residing in areas of significant noise exposure. A top
priority for 2000 and beyond will be to achieve compatibility in these
areas. It is important that there be a corresponding emphasis on
protecting these gains by preventing new noise sensitive land uses from
becoming established in these areas, through stronger State and local
land use commitments. The FAA's airport noise compatibility program and
compatible land use--have and will continue to support this goal.
Goal 4: Design air traffic routes and procedures to minimize aviation
noise impacts in areas beyond the legal jurisdiction of the airport
proprietor, consistent with local consensus and safe and efficient use
of the navigable airspace
The trend in recent decades has been a growing expectation by
Americans of continuing environmental improvement, including a quieter
noise environment. In the airport environs, State and local
jurisdictions are strongly encouraged to prevent noise sensitive land
uses from developing ever more closely to airports as noise contours
shrink with the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet. Creating an extra
margin of noise buffer outside significant noise exposure areas is
possible for some communities, and locally-established buffers will be
supported and respected by the FAA--where a community has adopted and
implemented noise standards which are more stringent than FAA's noise
compatibility standards, FAA will respect those local standards in its
actions which could cause growth of the airport's noise contours,
through appropriate mitigation actions.
Goal 5: Provide specific consideration to locations in national parks
and other Federally managed areas having unique noise sensitivities
The American heritage is enriched with national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and other Federally managed areas containing
locations with unique noise sensitivities. These locations merit
specific noise considerations as the FAA manages the navigable airspace
and evaluates other aviation actions.
Goal 6: Ensure strong financial support for noise compatibility
planning and for mitigation projects
The 1976 Policy opened the door to Federal funding of local noise
abatement planning and programs. That modest beginning has since grown
into a sizeable noise set aside in Airport Improvement Program funding,
and was joined in the 1990s by the use of Passenger Facility Charges
and more substantial contributions from airport revenues to fund noise
mitigation. Future reliable sources of funding are vital, including the
exploration of innovative finance programs and public/private
partnerships to accelerate adequate financing of noise mitigation
projects.
2.2 Aviation Noise Policies
The seven elements comprising FAA's policies to achieve the
aviation noise goals outlined above are as follows:
1. The FAA will aggressively pursue the development and
prescription of a new generation of more stringent noise standards and
regulations in order to protect public health and welfare.
2. The FAA will examine new operational technologies for their
potential to mitigate noise impacts while maximizing aviation system
efficiencies.
3. The FAA will carefully review the noise impacts of prospective
changes to air traffic routes and procedures and, in response to
requests, will consider alternative actions to minimize noise impacts
for residents of communities surrounding airports and for noise
sensitive areas that are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of
interest.
4. The FAA will encourage airport proprietors, in consultation with
airport users, local planning officials, and the interested public, to
implement airport noise compatibility programs that will reduce
existing noncompatible land uses around airports, and prevent new
noncompatible uses.
5. As requested, the FAA will assist State and local governments
and planning agencies in establishing policies and practices to
minimize noise sensitive land uses around airports, including locally
determined buffers outside areas of significant noise exposure.
6. The FAA will take into account the specific circumstances of
locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas with
unique noise sensitivities in managing the navigable airspace and
evaluating proposed FAA actions that raise aviation noise concerns.
7. The FAA will continue strong support for noise compatibility
planning and noise mitigation projects with financial programs under
its jurisdiction, with airport rates and charges policy, and by
encouraging innovative funding mechanisms including creative public/
private partnerships.
2.3 Discussion of Noise Policy Elements
The above seven elements that together comprise the FAA's year 2000
aviation noise abatement policy are briefly discussed by number in the
remainder of this section.
Policy Element 1: Aircraft Source Noise Reduction
The FAA will aggressively pursue the development and prescription
of a new generation of more stringent noise standards and regulations
in order to protect public health and welfare.
Discussion: Although the reductions in noise impacted populations
and the reductions in new noncompatible uses resulting from the airport
noise compatibility program have been significant, over the last
quarter century the reduction of aircraft noise at its source has
provided the greater amount of noise relief to the public. The FAA has
a long-standing commitment to achieve increasingly effective source
noise reduction and, in accordance with the Secretary of
Transportation's
[[Page 43806]]
flagship initiative, is aggressively pursuing the development of even
more stringent noise standards. In 1968, the FAA first began developing
noise certification standards, initially for measuring and later for
limiting aircraft source noise. These certification standards, which
paralleled technological improvements in airplane engine design, were
codified as 14 CFR Part 36 (Part 36). Effective December 1, 1969, Part
36 set limits on noise emissions of large turbojet aircraft of new
design by establishing Stage 2 certification standards. The Noise
Control Act of 1972 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715) gave the FAA broader
authority to set limits for aircraft source noise. Using this
authority, the FAA established more stringent Stage 3 standards in Part
36, set limits on source noise for all newly produced airplanes, and
required in 14 CFR Part 91 (Part 91) the phaseout of Stage 1 turbojet
aircraft over 75,000 pounds by January 1, 1985.
Stage 3 Transition
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) required the
phased elimination of Stage 2 turbojet airplanes weighing more than
75,000 pounds operating in the contiguous United States. After December
31, 1999, civil turbojet airplanes over 75,000 pounds must be Stage 3
compliant to operate within the contiguous 48 states. To bring about
the earliest feasible reduction of noise levels, interim compliance
deadlines of 1994, 1996, and 1998 were established in the general
operating rules (Part 91, Subpart 1).
The Stage 2 phaseout regulations required all operators of affected
airplanes to report compliance progress to the FAA on an annual basis.
The regulations also provided separate criteria for interim and final
compliance waivers. As prescribed in the ANCA, a final compliance
waiver could only be granted to a domestic air carrier that had
achieved a fleet mix of at least 85 percent Stage 3 airplanes by July
1, 1999--no waiver may extend beyond December 31, 2003. The benefits of
the Stage 3 transition will continue to accrue after completion of the
Statutory compliance process. Newly manufactured Stage 3 aircraft are
quieter than their predecessors, and significantly quieter than older
hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes. Even with substantial growth in
operations, noise contours around many U.S. airports will continue to
shrink as hushkitted and older Stage 3 airplanes reach the end of their
service lives and are replaced by newer airplanes.
Source Noise Research
In early 1992, the FAA and NASA began co-sponsorship of a multiyear
program focused on achieving significant advances in noise reduction
technology. In October 1992, Congress reinforced this effort by
mandating that the FAA and NASA jointly conduct an aircraft noise
reduction research program with the goal of developing technologies for
subsonic jet aircraft to operate at reduced noise levels. The goal of
this program is to identify noise reduction technology to reduce the
community noise impacts of future subsonic airplanes by 10 dB (relative
to 1992 technology) by the year 2001. Based on the progress in this
program and in fulfillment of its legislative mandate, the FAA plans to
amend aircraft noise standards and regulations during the first decade
of the century to take advantage of feasible noise reduction
technologies.
In addition, the FAA is supporting NASA's proposal to extend the
research program in order to reach the enabling technology goals in its
own ``Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for
Success'' program. Working closely with industry, government, and
academia, NASA has set bold goals to sustain U.S. leadership in civil
aeronautics and space. The goals are grouped into Three Pillars:
``Global Civil Aviation,'' Revolutionary Technology Leaps, and ``Access
to Space.'' Included among the ten enabling technology goals of the
program is ``Environmental Compatibility.'' Its noise goal is to reduce
the perceived noise levels of future aircraft by a factor of two by
2007 and by a factor of four by 2022, compared to 1995 technology. This
effort could result in even greater aircraft source noise reductions.
The FAA is also a major participant on an ICAO Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) technical working group that
is formulating proposals for an increase in stringency of the
international noise standard for subsonic jet and large propeller-
driven airplanes. The FAA plans to set new Stage 4 standards by early
in the next century. New standards would result in a future timed
transition to a generation of airplanes quieter than Stage 3, similar
to source-noise reduction transitions that have been implemented since
the 1976 Policy.
Future Supersonic Transport (SST) Airplanes
With respect to future SST airplanes, specific noise standards have
not yet been established. The FAA anticipates that any future standards
for SST airplanes would be proposed so as to produce no greater noise
impact on a community than a subsonic airplane certified to Stage 3
noise limits. Accordingly, the Stage 3 noise limits prescribed in Part
36 for subsonic airplanes may be used as guidelines for developing any
future SST airplanes. This policy is consistent with Chapter 4 of the
International Civil Aviation Organization's Annex 16, Volume 1, which
states that Chapter 3 (equivalent to Stage 3) noise levels applicable
to subsonic airplanes may be used as guidelines for future SST
airplanes. Any provisions for noise certification of future SST
airplanes will give consideration, to the extent possible, to the
unique operational flight characteristics of future SST designs.
Policy Element 2: New Operational Technologies
The FAA will examine new operational technologies for their
potential to mitigate noise impacts while maximizing aviation system
efficiencies.
Discussion: The National Airspace System (NAS) is the
infrastructure within which aviation operates in the United States. The
NAS includes airports, automated flight service stations, air traffic
control towers, terminal radar control facilities, and en route air
traffic control centers. The FAA continually seeks to improve various
aspects of the NAS. In 1996, the FAA began to develop a NAS
modernization plan to define what the aviation system of the future
would look like and how it would be implemented. This plan--termed the
NAS architecture--is a collaborative effort between the FAA and the
aviation community. Several NAS modernization programs have the
potential to influence aviation noise.
GPS Augmentation
It appears that the principal navigation system for the 21st
century will be based upon the Global Navigation Satellite System
(GNSS). The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides a practical
starting point for eventual development of the GNSS, but will not
totally satisfy all civil aviation requirements for navigation and
landing. For use in civil aviation, augmentations are required to
improve GPS accuracy for precision approaches, provide integrity and
continuity for all phases of flight, and provide availability necessary
to meet radio navigation requirements. These GPS augmentations are
being implemented incrementally.
[[Page 43807]]
The first augmentation being developed in the United States is the
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The WAAS is a safety-critical
navigation system that will provide a quality of positioning
information never before available to the aviation community. It is a
geographically expansive augmentation to the basic GPS service. The
WAAS improves the accuracy, integrity, and availability of the basic
GPS signals. When fully implemented, this system will allow GPS to be
used as a primary navigation system from departure through Category I
precision approach. The wide area of coverage for this system includes
the entire United States and portions of Canada and Mexico. WAAS will
be deployed in phases. The final operating capability will satisfy
enroute through Category I precision approach capability requirements
for using GPS/WAAS as the only radio navigation aid.
Another augmentation to the GPS signal being developed in the
United States is the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). The LAAS is
intended to complement the WAAS. Together, the two systems will supply
users of the NAS with seamless satellite based navigation for all
phases of flight. In practical terms, this means that at locations
where the WAAS is unable to meet existing navigation and landing
requirements, the LAAS will fulfill those requirements. The LAAS will
meet the more stringent Category II/III requirements that exist at
selected locations throughout the United States. The LAAS will be
implemented in stages, with full completion expected in 2006.
When fully implemented, these WAAS and LAAS enhancements to the GPS
will permit greater precision in directing aircraft operations than
currently is available. The FAA anticipates that this increased
precision will permit the refinement of procedures, particularly
airport approaches and departures, to abate aircraft noise and minimize
exposure levels in noise sensitive areas.
Automated Flight Guidance
Automated flight guidance capabilities have steadily increased and
improved with time. Air carrier crews now routinely use autoflight
features that are operational during takeoff and landing. An Auto
Flight Guidance System (AFGS) includes features such as an autopilot,
autothrottles, displays, and controls that are interconnected in such a
manner as to allow the crew to automatically control the aircraft's
lateral and vertical flight path and speed. A flight management system
(FMS) is sometimes associated with an AFGS. An FMS is an integrated
system used by flight crews for flight planning, navigation,
performance management, aircraft guidance and flight progress
monitoring. Some aircraft now have automated features identified for
operations specifically at low altitudes--for noise abatement--which
when used, contribute to performance, workload, cost, noise, and safety
benefits. Such features are certificated on the aircraft by either type
certification or supplemental type certification.
Free Flight
The introduction of technologies such as GPS and Auto Flight
Guidance allows the future NAS Architecture to be built on a concept of
air traffic management called ``free flight.'' This concept is
predicated on greater sharing of information between pilots and air
traffic controllers to facilitate air traffic management. It is
designed to permit aircraft operators to select their own routes as
alternatives to the published preferred instrument flight rule (IFR)
routes, thereby removing the constraints currently imposed on these
users. By providing increased controller-planning support through
decision support tools, pilots will be permitted to select the most
direct, cost-effective routes between takeoff and landing. As traffic
density increases however, the free flight concept calls for structured
flow. The same tools that provide flexibility en route and in low-
density traffic areas will also help ensure the most efficient flow
within a highly structured airspace such as a terminal area.
Free flight is being implemented incrementally. Many of the tools
necessary to achieve free flight are currently available; others are
still being developed. Enhanced satellite navigation will significantly
enhance free flight capability. Full implementation will occur as
procedures are modified and technologies become available and are
acquired by users and service providers. The dispersal of aircraft at
higher altitudes because of free flight can reduce lower-level noise
exposure on the ground. At lower altitudes, such as when approaching
and departing airports, it would normally be more desirable to
concentrate flights (and noise) over those areas least sensitive to
noise rather than dispensing the aircraft. Here, free flight's
technology may also have applicability to landing, takeoff, and lower
altitude flight tracks, by safely concentrating aircraft into narrowly
defined corridors which have been protected from noise sensitive
development and helping them to avoid the more noise sensitive land
areas.
Policy Element 3: Air Traffic Procedures
The FAA will carefully review the noise impact of prospective
changes to air traffic routes and procedures and in designing these
changes will consider actions to minimize noise impacts for residents
of communities surrounding airports and for noise sensitive areas that
are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of interest consistent
with safety, efficiency, and local consensus.
Discussion: By law, the FAA has the sole authority to establish
flight operational procedures and to manage the air traffic control
system and navigable airspace in the United States. The FAA is
responsible for evaluating actions under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The FAA's environmental goal is to make and
implement air traffic decisions that minimize the noise and other
environmental impacts on residential and other noise sensitive areas,
consistent with the highest standards of aviation safety and the need
for effective and efficient air traffic management. FAA's Community
Involvement Policy ensures that FAA will seek and consider community
input before making decisions that affect the public. This policy
emphasizes active, early, and continuous communication with affected
members of the public throughout the NEPA process.
Airspace Changes
The basic structure of the airspace has not changed appreciably
over the last ten years. However, in that decade aircraft, navigation
aides, and technology in general have advanced by several generations.
Free flight has been established as the key direction for the evolution
of the NAS. Airspace is a major component of the free flight concept.
These advances create the need to redesign the airspace to meet
evolving needs. Changes in airspace configuration, architecture, or
structure will have implications for air traffic control, air traffic
management, the user community, and the environment.
The FAA's policy is to ensure appropriate consideration of noise
impacts in decisions on airspace changes, together with safety,
technical, and economic factors. The FAA has developed the Integrated
Noise Model (INM), a computerized modeling tool widely used by the
civilian aviation community for evaluating aircraft noise impacts in
the airport environs. The FAA is developing the Noise Integrated
Routing System (NIRS), a computerized
[[Page 43808]]
research tool for assessing the environmental impacts of air traffic
actions beyond the airport environs, up to 18,000 feet above ground
level (AGL). NIRS adapts the noise data and algorithms from the INM for
use in an air traffic design system. The program requires integration
with air traffic models which contain the routes and events used to
assess delay, capacity, and workload. NIRS provides airspace planners
with environmental noise screening assessments for airspace design
changes encompassing a wide area. NIRS allows an airspace design team
to perform noise evaluations concurrently with other modeling
requirements. The enables the same routes, procedures and events used
in delay/capacity analyses to be used in the related environmental
analyses. Predicted noise levels over noise sensitive areas for both
existing and alternative scenarios are modeled, and a change of
exposure criteria is used to determine if the proposes action is likely
to be controversial on environmental grounds. If controversy is
anticipated, FAA may use NIRS to identify alternatives or mitigation.
Whenever practicable in designing routes and procedures, the FAA seeks
to identify and avoid environmentally sensitive areas and to minimize
noise effects when such areas cannot reasonably be avoided.
Noise Abatement in the Airport Environs
Most noise impacts related to air traffic procedures are in the
airport environs where aircraft operate in the closest proximity to
people and homes. FAA requires an environmental assessment for new or
revised procedures which would route air traffic over noise sensitive
areas at less than 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
Where runway use, flight procedure, or air traffic changes are not
necessary for operational reasons, but are proposed for noise abatement
reasons, the FAA relies on airport proprietors to submit requests for
such changes. Airport proprietors are the appropriate initiators of
such noise abatement proposals because of the liability they bear for
noise impacts in the airport environs. Noise abatement proposals are
submitted to the FAA by airport proprietors in a variety of ways,
including recommendations in airport noise compatibility programs. The
airport proprietor and the FAA both have roles in environmental review
and affording opportunities for public participation for proposed air
traffic changes in the airport environs.
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91.53A, Noise Abatement Departure
Profiles (NADP), provides standards for noise abatement departure
procedures for subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes with maximum
certificated takeoff weights exceeding 75,000 pounds.
The AC provides guidance for selecting the most effective
procedures for specific airport environments, while standardizing those
choices within a practical number of options in order to increase the
margin of safety by superseding a growing number of unique, airport-
specific practices. AC 91-53A provides two standard departure
procedures, one to benefit noise sensitive communities that are the
closest to the airport, and one to benefit more distant noise sensitive
communities. It does not mandate the selection of either the AC's
close-in or distant NADP. Rather, it allows discretion to select either
of the NADPs described in the AC or to use the standard NADP in 14 CFR
25.111(a).
In some cases, local communities seek assurance that certain air
traffic procedures will remain in place in perpetuity for noise
abatement reasons. Airport proprietors do not have the authority to
make air traffic commitments for the FAA because of Federal preemption
of airspace use and management. Airport proprietors do have the
discretion to assure communities that they will not in the future
request the FAA to make any procedural changes at the airport for noise
abatement purposes that differ from the procedures at issue. Consistent
with its policy, the FAA does not initiate noise abatement procedural
changes absent an airport proprietor's request and would only consider
changes on its own initiative necessary to assure the highest standards
of safety and efficiency in the use of the navigable airspace.
The FAA will make every possible effort to maintain noise abatement
procedures that have the community's support. However, unforeseen
future circumstances may render current procedures untenable for
airspace safety and efficiency, and the FAA cannot abrogate its
airspace responsibility in local agreements. It is also possible that
future circumstances may render today's noise abatement procedures
unnecessary or less desirable from a noise standpoint than alternative
arrangements, resulting in local decisions to revisit them. Changes in
air traffic procedures that have potentially significant noise impacts
on communities surrounding an airport require preparation of an
environmental assessment or impact statement.
Beyond the Airport Environs
Beyond the airport environs, aircraft following air traffic routes
and procedures normally do not significantly influence the noise
environment of underlying land uses. Air traffic procedures for
operations over 3,000 feet AGL are normally categorically excluded from
FAA environmental assessment requirements. At the same time, in
recognition that some actions that are normally categorically excluded
can be highly controversial on environmental grounds, the FAA has
developed the Air Traffic Noise Screening Model (ATNS), which allows
air traffic specialists and planners to evaluate potential noise
impacts from proposed air traffic changes. The ATNS can evaluate
proposed changes in arrival and departure procedures between 3,000 and
18,000 feet AGL for large civil jet aircraft weighing over 75,000
pounds. Where a proposed change would cause an increase in noise of DNL
5 dB or greater, FAA considers whether there are extraordinary
circumstances warranting preparation of an environmental assessment.
Where air traffic changes are not necessary for operational
purposes, the FAA is willing in the appropriate circumstances to
consider changes for noise abatement reasons for communities at greater
distances from airports that are outside the airport proprietor's legal
area of interest and already at noise levels consistent with Federal
land use compatibility guidelines. In these cases, proposed changes
must first be consistent with safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace, and also reflect local consensus. Final decisions will then
reflect the FAA policy that operational changes made for noise
abatement reasons must reduce the number of people affected by noise
and the severity of the effect, without increasing noise effects in
natural environments with unique noise sensitivities.
Overflights of Noise Sensitive Areas
The FAA Advisory Circular 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight
Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, identifies 2,000 feet AGL as the minimum
recommended altitude for overflights of noise sensitive areas when
aircraft are not landing at or taking off from an airport. It
identifies typical noise sensitive areas to include: outdoor
assemblies, churches, hospitals, schools, nursing homes, residential
areas designated as sensitive by airports, and units of the National
Park System. Consistent with aviation safety and efficiency, the FAA
will actively assist
[[Page 43809]]
other agencies in seeking the voluntary cooperation of operators with
regard to the 2,000 feet AGL minimum altitude advisory. This assistance
includes proposals for regulation of low-flying fixed-wing airplanes,
helicopters, ultralight vehicles, balloons, and gliders.
Policy Element 4: Airport Noise Compatibility Planning
The FAA will encourage airport proprietors, in consultation with
airport users, local planning officials, and the interested public, to
implement airport noise compatibility programs that will minimize
aviation noise impacts, reduce existing noncompatible land uses around
airports, and prevent new noncompatible uses.
Discussion: Airport noise compatibility planning is the primary
tool used by many airport proprietors and local officials to minimize
aviation noise impacts in the vicinity of airports. Airport noise
compatibility planning involves an evaluation of an airport's existing
and future noise exposure, the selection of effective measures to
reduce noise and noncompatible land uses, and the implementation of
those measures. The measures to be implemented are analyzed in a
document called an airport noise compatibility program (NCP).
The FAA has provided technical and financial support for airport
noise compatibility planning since 1976. FAA's current program derives
from the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA),
implemented through 14 CFR Part 150 (Part 150) in 1985. ASNA directed
the FAA to establish by regulation a single system for measuring
aircraft noise exposure, to identify land uses that are normally
compatible with various noise exposure levels, and to receive voluntary
submissions of noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs
from airport proprietors. Airport sponsors who prepare noise exposure
maps are immune from certain future liability for noise damages. After
preparing the map, airport operators may prepare noise compatibility
programs. These programs contain measures that an airport operator
plans to take to reduce existing or prevent the development of new
noncompatible land uses in the area covered by the noise exposure map.
Airport sponsors must consult affected parties and provide the
opportunity for a public hearing. Airport proprietor participation in
airport noise compatibility planning is voluntary. Over 230 airports
are participating in the program and 193 airports have FAA approved
NCPs in place--this includes about two-thirds of our busiest commercial
airports.
Airport noise compatibility planning addresses both existing and
future aviation noise impacts. Noise exposure maps use noise contours
to depict the extent of existing and future noise exposure within the
community and the location of noise sensitive land uses (e.g.,
residences, schools, hospitals, churches) within the contours.
Knowledge of future noise exposure provides a basis for long-term local
planning and investment in noise mitigation for particular noise
sensitive areas, including how to compatibly develop any vacant land or
to redevelop older urban areas around airports into compatible uses.
Based on the noise exposure maps, strategies are developed and
evaluated to reduce noise exposure and noncompatible land uses around
an airport. Noise solutions are airport-specific--no two airports are
alike in their noise and land use environments. The best solutions for
one airport may not be effective or desirable in another location. ASNA
makes the airport proprietor responsible for airport noise
compatibility planning, including selecting the specific noise
abatement and mitigation measures deemed appropriate for inclusion in
the airport noise compatibility program.
The FAA reviews airport noise compatibility programs submitted by
airport proprietors under Part 150 for consistency with criteria
established by law and regulation. Program measures must be reasonably
consistent with the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses
around the airport and of preventing the introduction of additional
noncompatible land uses. Program measures must not derogate safety or
adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace. Program
measures must not impose an undue burden on interstate or foreign
commerce. Program measures must not be unjustly discriminatory or
violate other airport grant agreement assurances. Program measures
should be designed to meet both local needs and needs of the national
air transportation system. Finally, program measures must be consistent
with all of the powers and responsibilities of the FAA Administrator.
The FAA is directed by law to approve airport noise compatibility
programs that meet the specified criteria. The FAA may request that an
airport proprietor consider additional or alternative program measures,
but the FAA does not have the authority to substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor regarding which measures to select for
implementation. The FAA may only approve or disapprove program measures
recommended by an airport proprietor in accordance with established
statutory and regulatory criteria. If an airport noise compatibility
program is not acted on by the FAA within the statutory 180-day
timeframe, it is automatically approved by law with the exception of
flight procedures. Flight procedures are not subject to automatic
approval.
Although the FAA has established, under ASNA and Part 150, a
uniform system for measuring the noise in and around airports, the
responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses
and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise
contours rests with the local authorities. In preparing noise
compatibility programs, airport sponsors may support the use of state
and local land use compatibility standards more stringent than Federal
guidelines.
If an airport proprietor proposes an airport noise and access
restriction subject to the requirements of 14 CFR Part 161 (Part 161),
the FAA encourages the proprietor to integrate the required Part 161
analysis into a Part 150 planning process which first analyzes
nonrestrictive measures to mitigate noise, and then analyzes the
proposed restriction.
For Stage 2 restrictions, which are not subject to FAA approval
under Part 161, the FAA advises airport proprietors who have integrated
a Part 161 analysis into a Part 150 study to await the FAA's
determinations under Par 150 before adopting the restriction. FAA's
Part 150 determinations may provide valuable insight regarding the
proposed restriction's consistency with existing laws and the position
of the FAA with respect to the restriction.
Stage 3 restrictions are subject to either formal agreement among
airport users or to FAA approval under Part 161. If an airport
proprietor integrates a Stage 3 restriction proposal and analysis into
a Part 150 program, the proprietor may submit a combined Part 150/Part
161 submission to the FAA, as provided for in the Part 161 regulation.
The FAA will evaluate the proposed Stage 3 restriction under Part 161
requirements in addition to evaluating the submission under Part 150
requirements.
Effective airport noise compatibility planning is a continuous
process, rather than a one-time accomplishment. A number of airport
proprietors have prepared updates to previously approved airport noise
compatibility program as changes have occurred over
[[Page 43810]]
time. For the foreseeable future. Part 150 will remain the primary FAA
program for evaluating and mitigating aircraft noise in an airport's
vicinity.
Part 150 is a valuable tool for supporting and complementing local
land use planning and zoning efforts. A primary goal of part 150 is to
improve the compatibility of land uses surrounding airports by reducing
existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of new
noncompatible land uses. In response to congressional concerns, as of
October 1, 1998, FAA policy is to place additional emphasis on the
prevention of new noncompatible land uses by limiting Federal funding
to soundproof new homes built in noise-impacted areas. FAA's policy is
that new noise sensitive land uses should be prevented from developing
around airports or, in cases where prevention is not feasible, they
should be rendered compatible with noise exposure levels through
measures such as sound insulation during construction.
Policy Element 5: Land Use Planning and Zoning
The FAA will assist State and local governments and planning
agencies in establishing policies and practices to minimize noise
sensitive land uses around airports, including locally determined
buffers outside areas of significant noise exposure.
Discussion: Both the 1976 Policy and Part 150 clearly assert that
State and local governments, including airport proprietors and planning
agencies, are responsible for determining the acceptable and
permissible land uses around airports and defining the relationship
between specific properties and airport noise contours. The airport
operator must be an integral part of this planning process, and bears
its own responsibility for tracking planning and development taking
place in its environs, and interceding with local governments as may be
appropriate to help assure long-term compatibility. Where permitted by
law, the FAA is prepared to support compatible land buss planning and
actions by providing planning guidance, as well as technical and
financial assistance. Toward this end, the FAA has engaged in a
national compatible land use initiative in a cooperative partnership
with the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO).
The transition by the year 2000 to an all Stage 3 fleet of large
commercial airplanes significantly reduces aviation noise from levels
previously experienced. Noise contours will continue to shrink well
into the 21st century around many airports. This reduction in aviation
noise exposure presents both a challenge and an opportunity to
institute and maintain effective compatible land use policies and
practices.
There will be significant pressure to develop residential and other
noise sensitive land uses closer to some airports as noise contours
shrink towards the airport boundary. Such development should be
undertaken only after prudent, thoughtful community planning and
appropriate mitigation. The general trend over the past few decades has
been an increasing interest on the part of the American public in
continuing to upgrade environmental standards. Once noise exposure
levels have stabilized with the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet, the
demand by residents near airports for an ever quieter environment may
outpace the delivery of further source-noise gains from advances in
aircraft noise abatement technology. Additionally, not every airport
will remain relatively static with respect to aircraft noise; some
airports will experience high levels of growth and expansion of their
facilities after completion of the Stage 3 transition, with consequent
growth of their noise contours.
It is important for the various governmental entities that own
airports and control land uses around those airports to coordinate
airport and land use planning, and to undertake complementary actions
that take into account the needs and operational requirements of the
airport and the developmental goals and environmental needs of the
community. The FAA encourages airport noise compatibility planning
pursuant to Part 150.
The FAA encourages local jurisdictions with responsibility for land
use planning and zoning to take the strongest compatible land use
actions with in those areas around airports still subject to
significant noise exposure after the transition to an all Stage 3
fleet. According to FAA guidance, areas of significant noise exposure
are those in which noise levels are DNL 65 dB or higher. Significant
noise exposure is not compatible with a variety of noise sensitive land
uses, as delineated in FAA's compatible land use guidelines in Part
150. Jurisdictions should take all possible actions to make existing
land uses compatible and to prevent new noncompatible land uses form
developing at DNL 65 dB and above.
The FAA further encourages jurisdictions to guard against
development of new noise sensitive land uses in areas that have been
compatible within the DNL 65 dB contour in the last decade or more, but
will be just outside that contour with Stage 3 transition. In
situations where noise compatibility measures were funded by Federal
grants, Federal grant assurances require that these properties must not
become residential or zoned for other noise sensitizes uses, but must
remain non-noise sensitive even if shrinking noise contours place them
outside DNL 65 dB.
Based upon local factors, local jurisdictions may take a more
comprehensive approach to aviation noise exposure below DNL 65. Some
communities are more noise sensitive than others. Part 150 guidelines
recognize local discretion to define noise sensitivity. Some
communities have better opportunities than others, because of vacant
land or urban redevelopment projects, to reduce and prevent noise
sensitive land uses beyond the DNL 65 dB countour. Stage 3 transition
and the noise compatibility gains otherwise achieved since the 1976
Policy increase the feasibility in certain locations of dealing with
noise exposure below significant levels. A few airport proprietors and
local jurisdictions have already begun to address areas outside DNL 65
dB to create an extra margin of noise buffer between the airport and
the community.
The FAA will support local efforts to establish noise buffers by
agreement between the airport proprietor and the local community,
evidenced through both commitments and land use actions by affected
jurisdictions. If jurisdictions firmly and consistently act to reduce,
prevent, or mitigate noise sensitive development in buffer areas, the
FAA will recognize such areas and actions accordingly in NEPA
assessments for proposed airport development and in Part 150 noise
compatibility programs, and any resulting noise mitigation
recommendations.
Local jurisdictions may use the complete array of available methods
to address noise sensitive land uses. Several of the most widely used
methods are briefly described below, although these are not intended to
preclude the use of other methods. A combination of methods, comprising
a graduated response from the most to the least adversely affected land
uses, may serve communities effectively and can prudently balance costs
with levels of noise exposure. The FAA strongly encourages the
reduction and prevention of noncompatible land uses at noise exposure
levels of DNL 65 dB and higher. Mitigation techniques short of
reduction and prevention may be more viable in buffer areas. Methods
may support each other for the same
[[Page 43811]]
properties, such as combining sound insulation, an easement, and
disclosure. In applying the basic Federal policy elements, the FAA
encourages local jurisdictions to.
<bullet> Establish zoning ordinances or other control measures to
preclude new noise sensitive development; acquire existing
noncompatible properties and relocate people; implement policies and
programs to redevelop noise sensitive areas into more compatible land
uses.
<bullet> If noise sensitive development cannot be removed or
precluded: acoustically insulate existing structures; establish local
building codes for new residential and other noise sensitive
construction requiring attenuation of exterior noise levels; purchase
noise easements.
<bullet> Require formal disclosure of aviation noise exposure
levels as a part of real estate transactions for properties located
near airports, where authorized by State and local law; provide
transaction assistance to noise impacted property owners wishing to
sell.
Policy Element 6: Areas With Unique Noise Sensitivities
The FAA will take into account the specific circumstances of
locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas with
unique noise sensitivities in managing the navigable airspace and
evaluating proposed FAA actions that raise aviation noise concerns.
Discussion: The FAA's Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over
Federally Managed Areas, issued November 8, 1996, affirms the FAA
commitment to carefully balance the interests of the general public and
aviation transportation with the need to protect certain natural
environments from the impact of aviation noise. This policy statement
addresses FAA's management of the navigable airspace over locations in
national parks and other Federally managed areas with unique noise
sensitive values. It affirms that the FAA will exercise leadership in
achieving an appropriate balance among environmental concerns, airspace
efficiency, and technical practicability, while maintaining the highest
practicable level of safety. This policy envisions joint efforts by the
FAA and resource-managing Federal agencies to enhance compatibility by
coordinating management of the airspace and the management goals of
these specific areas.
In order to promote an effective balance of agency missions, the
Secretaries of Transportation and the Interior are jointly reviewing
the environmental and safety concerns resulting from park overflights,
developing a national policy on overflights of national parks, and
working toward resolution of overflight issues in specific national
parks. The overarching goal is to identify how best to provide access
to the airspace over national parks while ensuring all park visitors a
quality experience and protecting park resources.
The FAA and the National Park Service have initiated individual and
joint efforts to achieve a better understanding of the effects of
aviation noise on areas within national parks, preserves, and wildlife
refuges. A primary focus for FAA is to identify the extent to which
low-level noise (i.e., noise levels below existing thresholds of
significant, or even adverse, impact for most common land uses) may
adversely impact areas with unique noise sensitivities. At present, no
scientifically verified, predictable criteria have been established.
Until standardization of criteria has been achieved to the satisfaction
of the Federal agencies with noise and land use responsibilities,
particular interfaces of concern between aviation and special resource
areas will be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the FAA and
the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the area.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13084, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' the FAA is committed to removing
obstacles that detrimentally affect or impede working directly and
effectively with tribal governments. FAA will engage in meaningful
consultation with tribal governments whenever significant impacts on
trust resources are identified. When requested by a tribal government,
the FAA will use best efforts to make aeronautical charts available to
tribal representatives, as well as information on how to identify types
of aircraft that may be overflying tribal lands. Additionally, on
request from tribal officials, the FAA will use best efforts to depict
Native American lands that are of significance on a year-around basis
on visual flight rules aeronautical sectional maps. The areas will be
depicted using the demarcation associated with flying over noise
sensitive national park areas. All aircraft are requested to maintain a
minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface while flying over
these types of areas. On request from tribal officials, the FAA will
also use best efforts to assist in alerting pilots of Native American
seasonal events of significance through Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs) or a
graphical depiction in the appropriate Airport Facility Directory.
Policy Element 7: FAA Financial Programs
The FAA will continue strong support for noise compatibility
planning and noise mitigation projects with financial programs under
its jurisdiction, with airport rates and charges policy, and by
encouraging innovative funding mechanisms including creative public/
private partnerships.
Discussion: The 1976 Policy initiated a pilot program under which
the FAA awarded the first grants to airport proprietors to develop
comprehensive airport noise control plans. This pilot program was
expanded in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA),
which created airport noise compatibility planning under Federal
Aviation REgulations (FAR) Part 150 that continues today. ASNA
authorizes the FAA to fund the preparation of airport noise
compatibility plans and to fund the implementation of noise
compatibility programs developed under those plans, subject to FAA's
approval of the program measures.
All public airports are eligible to apply for Federal assistance in
preparing and implementing airport noise compatibility programs under
Part 150. An approved Part 150 program is required for an airport
proprietor to receive specifically earmarked grant funds for a broad
array of noise mitigation projects. A statutory exception is sound
insulation of educational or medical buildings in a noise impact area,
which may be funded without an approved Part 150 program. Units of
local government in the airport area may also apply for grants to help
carry out parts of approved Part 150 programs that are both within
their jurisdiction and ability to implement.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 established the
first reservation, referred to as a ``set-aside,'' of Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funds specifically for noise compatibility
planning and projects under Part 150. The first noise set-aside was
established at 8 percent of the total available annual AIP. In 1982,
approximately $41 million was given in noise grants. Since 1982, the
noise set-aside has remained a key component in AIP legislation, while
the set-aside has remained a key component in AIP legislation, while
the set-aside percentage has been increased to reflect the growing
demand for noise funding. In the last funding year of the century, the
noise set-aside (established at 31 percent of AIP discretionary
funding) has been over $168.8 million. From the inception of airport
noise compatibility funding through fiscal year 1999, the
[[Page 43812]]
FAA has issued noise planning and project grants totaling over $2.6
billion under the Airport Improvement Program.
In addition to the AIP noise set-aside, the FAA administers other
statutory provisions and supports decisions that result in additional
funding for noise mitigation. The FAA is responsible for evaluating the
environmental impact of proposed airport development projects submitted
for FAA approval and funding.
FAA's airport funding statue includes environmental requirements.
For example, FAA may only approve a grant for a major airport
development project that has a potentially significant impact on
natural resources if there is no possible and prudent alternative and
the project includes reasonable steps to minimize the harm. These
mitigation commitments are included in the FAA decision and any
subsequent grant agreements. Such commitments are eligible for AIP
funding from sources other than the noise set-aside as part of the cost
of the airport development project.
The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program, established by the
Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990, includes among its
objectives the funding of projects to mitigate airport noise impacts.
PFC-eligible projects include mitigation for areas adversely impacted
by noise, with or without an approved Part 150 program. Since the
inception of the PFC program, the FAA has approved PFC collection
authority exceeding $1.6 billion for noise mitigation projects--an
important and growing supplement to Federal funding provided through
the AIP.
Another important source of airport funding for noise mitigation is
airport-generated revenue. As part of its role in administering the
AIP, the FAA assumes a stewardship role related to the protection of
the Federal investment in airports. Generally, an airport accepting
Federal assistance must agree to use all airport revenue for related
costs. The FAA has long recognized that noise mitigation associated
with an airport capital development project qualifies as a capital cost
of the airport and, therefore, is an appropriate use of airport
revenue. In June 1996, DOT issued its Policy Regarding Airport Rates
and Charges, 61 FR 31994, outlining the expenses an airport proprietor
may include in establishing cost-based fees charged to air carriers for
the use of airport facilities and services. The policy permits the
recovery, through rates and charges, of reasonable environmental costs
to the extent that the airport proprietor incurs a corresponding actual
expense. The policy expressly identifies aircraft noise abatement and
mitigation as a permitted recoverable environmental cost. These
provisions were not vacated in a ruling on the policy, Air Transport
Association v. Department of Transportation, 119 F.3d 38 (D.C. Cir.
1997).
In the future, the FAA will continue to make Federal funding
available for measures directed at mitigating noise around airports,
reducing noncompatible land uses, and protecting currently compatible
land uses, when such funding is financially feasible and permitted by
law. The challenge is to ensure adequate financial support for noise
mitigation. The FAA manages available AIP funds in a manner to sustain
airport noise compatibility planning and programs for as many airports
as possible with noise affected communities, giving priority
consideration to mitigating the most significant higher noise levels.
The FAA evaluates the national demand for Federal noise funding and
recommends adjustments to the Congress in reauthorizations of airport
grant legislation. Increasingly, the FAA seeks to leverage available
Federal funding with other funding sources, including PFCs and airport
revenue. In the last two years, the FAA has explored innovative
financing proposals. The FAA approved an innovative project to relocate
a large number of people on an accelerated schedule from an area of
airport noise impact through a Federal/local public and private sector
partnership arrangement of shared costs and responsibility. The noise
mitigation advantages of this project were obvious, and the overall
costs were lower in terms of AIP demand than would have been the case
under the traditional approach to funding. Future innovative finance
arrangements can help to sustain a strong funding commitment to noise.
The FAA will work with State and local governments and the private
sector to create new partnerships and opportunities to increase
reliable sources of funding and to accelerate adequate financing of
noise mitigation projects.
Section 3: Authorities and Responsibilities--Legal Framework
3.1 Legal Responsibilities of the Federal Government
The principal aviation responsibilities assigned to the Federal
Avaiation Administrator and since 1966 to the Secretary of
Transportation, under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49
U.S.C. 40101 et seq., concern promoting the development of civil
aeronautics and safety of air commerce. The basic national policies
intended to guide our actions under the Federal Aviation Act are set
forth in section 103, 49 U.S.C. 40101(d), which provides public
interest standards, including:
(1) Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as
the highest priorities in air commerce;
(2) Regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and
fulfills national defense requirements;
(3) Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology;
(4) Controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating
civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the
safety and efficiency of both of those operations;
(5) Consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities; and
(6) Developing and operating a common system of air traffic control
and navigation for military and civil aircraft.
To achieve these statutory purposes, sections 307(a), (b), and (c)
of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), 44502, and 44721,
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 exercised this authority by
promulgating wide-ranging and comprehensive Federal regulations on the
use of navigable airspace and air traffic control.\1\ Similarly the FAA
has exercised its aviation safety authority, including the
certification of airmen, aircraft, air carriers, air agencies, and
airports under Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act, section 601 et
seq., 49 U.S.C. 44701 et seq. by extensive Federal regulatory
action.\2\ In legal terms the Federal government, through this exercise
of its constitutional and statutory powers, has preempted the areas of
airspace use and management, air traffic control and aviation safety.
The legal doctrine of preemption, which flows from the Supremacy Clause
of the Constitution, is essentially that state and local authorities do
not have legal power to act in an area that already is subject to
comprehensive Federal regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 14 CFR Parts 71, 73, 75, 91, 93, 95, and 97
\2\ See 14 CFR Parts 21-43, 61-67, 91, 121 through 149.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the increasing public concern about aircraft noise that
accompanied the introduction of turbojet powered aircraft into
commercial service in the 1960s, and
[[Page 43813]]
the constraints such concern posed for the continuing development of
civil aeronautics and the air transportation system of the United
States, the Federal government in 1968 sought--and Congress granted--
broad authority to regulate aircraft for the purpose of noise
abatement. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 44715,
constitutes the basic authority for Federal regulation of aircraft
noise. In 1972, displaying some dissatisfaction with the FAA's
methodical regulatory practice under section 611, the Congress amended
that statute in two important respects. To the original statement of
purpose, ``to afford present and future relief from aircraft noise and
sonic boom,'' it added consideration of, ``protection to the public
health and welfare.'' It also added the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to the rulemaking process. Section 611 now requires the FAA to
publish EPA proposed regulations as a notice of proposed rulemaking
within 30 days of receipt. If the FAA does not adopt an EPA proposal as
a final rule after notice and comment, it is obliged to publish an
explanation for not doing so in the Federal Register.
Whether considering a rule it proposes on its own initiative or in
response to the EPA, the FAA is required by section 611(d) to consider
whether a proposed aircraft noise rule is consistent with the highest
degree of safety in air commerce and air transportation, economically
reasonable, technologically practicable and appropriate for the
particular type of aircraft.
The FAA acted promptly in implementing section 611. On November 18,
1969, it promulgated the first aircraft noise regulations, Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 36, 14 CFR Part 36, which set a limit on
noise emissions of large aircraft of new design. It reflected the
technological development of the high-bypass ratio type engine, and was
initially applied to the Lockheed 1011, the Boeing 747, and the
McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. The Part 36 preamble announced a basic policy
on source noise reduction and a logically phased strategy of bringing
it about. Essentially, Part 36 established the quietest uniform
standard then possible, taking into account safety, economic
reasonableness, and technological feasibility. Part 36 was initially
applicable only to new types of aircraft. As soon as the technology had
been demonstrated, the standard was to be extended to all newly
manufactured aircraft of already certificated types. Ultimately, the
preamble indicated, when technology was available the standard would be
extended to aircraft already manufactured and in operation. The last
step would require modification or replacement of all aircraft in the
fleet that did not meet the Part 36 noise levels. The first two steps
have already been accomplished. This third step is being taken now.
In accordance with the Federal noise abatement program announced in
the 1976 Policy, the FAA adopted regulations in 14 CFR Part 91 to phase
out operations in the United States of so-called ``Stage 1 aircraft''
by January 1, 1985. These aircraft were defined as civil subsonic
aircraft with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds that do not
meet Stage 2 or 3 Part 36 noise standards. In 1980, pursuant to the
Aviation Noise Abatement Act of 1979, the FAA extended the phaseout
requirement to foreign international operators, and was directed to
issue exemptions to operators of two-engine turbojets with 100 or fewer
seats for small community service until January 1, 1988.
In addition to its regulatory authority over aircraft safety and
noise, the FAA has long administered a program of Federal grants-in-aid
for airport construction and development. By virtue of its decision-
making on whether to fund particular projects, the FAA has been able,
to a degree, to ensure that new airports or runways will be selected
with noise impacts in mind. That indirect authority was measurably
strengthened when in 1970 the Airport and Airway Development Act
expanded and revised the FAA's grant-in-aid program for airport
development, and added environmental considerations to project approval
criteria. These criteria include consideration of whether the project
is consistent with plans (existing at the time the project is approved)
of public agencies authorized by the State in which the airport is
located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the
airport. The 1976 amendments to the 1970 Act increased funding levels
and provided new authority to share in the costs of certain noise
abatement activities, as part of a pilot program initiated under the
1976 Policy. Under this program, the FAA funded up to 25-airport noise
control plans per year
In 1979, Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act, 49 USC 47501 et seq., to support Federal efforts to encourage
development of compatible land uses around civil airports in the United
States. In 1981, the FAA adopted 14 CFR Part 150 to implement ASNA. As
explained in detail in Section 2, under ASNA, FAA is authorized to
provide grants to airport sponsors to fund voluntary preparation of
noise exposure maps, comprehensive noise compatibility planning, and
soundproofing, land acquisition, and other projects to carry out noise
compatibility programs. Noise compatibility programs are developed in
consultation with surrounding communities and airport users. The
airport must notify the public and afford an opportunity to comment at
a public hearing.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA) established
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and first made funds available
for noise compatibility planning and to carry out noise compatibility
programs authorized under ASNA. The AAIA has been amended several
times, and authorizes the current Federal AIP program. Since 1976, the
ability of the FAA to provide financial assistance under the AIP has
remained limited in terms of both percentage of project costs and the
types of projects eligible for Federal aid. Applications for airport
development projects have consistently exceeded available funding,
although the amounts available for obligation under the AIP have ranged
from approximately $450 million in Fiscal Year 1982 to a recent high of
approximately $1.9 billion in Fiscal year 1992. Through additional
legislation, FAA gained authority to grant AIP funds to units of local
government in order to soundproof public schools and hospitals.
In 1990, Congress established a National Aviation Noise Policy in
the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 USC 47521 (ANCA). This Policy
had three primary elements. The first was a program for transition to
an all-Stage 3 civil subsonic turbojet fleet. In 1991, pursuant to
ANCA, the FAA amended Part 91 to establish a phased program to require
operations by civil subsonic turbojet airplanes weighing more than
75,000 pounds to meet Stage 3 noise standards by the year 2000. This
phaseout requirement applied to all operators of large Stage 2
airplanes, not just air carriers, operating in the contiguous United
States.
The second element was a national program for review of airport
noise and access restrictions on operations by Stage 2 and 3 aircraft.
ANCA applies to restrictions on operations by Stage 2 aircraft proposed
after October 1, 1990, and to restrictions on operations by Stage 3
aircraft not in effect before October 1, 1990. In 1991, as a companion
rulemaking to the Part 91 amendment, the FAA adopted Part 161 to
implement the requirements under ANCA relating to airport restrictions.
[[Page 43814]]
After careful study, the FAA determined that Part 161 should cover
operations by all Stage 2 aircraft, including those weighing less than
75,000 pounds that are not subject to the phaseout requirement. Part
161 also applies to proposals to restrict operations by helicopters
that are certificated as Stage 2. ANCA, as implemented by Part 161,
provides that airports must give 180 days notice and an opportunity for
public comment on a cost-benefit analysis concerning proposals to
restrict operations by Stage 2 aircraft. Proposals to restrict
operations by Stage 3 aircraft must (1) be agreed upon by the airport
and all users at the airport or (2) satisfy procedural requirements
similar to proposals to restrict Stage 2 operations and be approved by
FAA. To be approved, restrictions must meet the following statutory
criteria:
(1) The restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary and
nondiscriminatory.
(2) The restriction does not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce.
(3) The proposed restriction maintains safe and efficient use of
the navigable airspace.
(4) The proposed restriction does not conflict with any existing
Federal statute or regulation.
(5) The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for public
comment on the proposed restriction.
(6) The proposed restriction does not create an undue burden on the
national aviation system.
ANCA does not supersede preexisting law except to the extent
required by the application of its terms. Preexisting law governing
airport noise and access restrictions is discussed in detail below,
under ``Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors.'' FAA encourages
airport proprietors to seek to enter into voluntary agreements with
users. Voluntary agreements are not subject to ANCA, and may include
agreed-upon enforcement mechanisms that are consistent with Federal
law.
The final element of the national noise policy was the provision of
another source of funds eligibility, conditions upon compliance with
the national program for review of airport noise and access
restrictions. In 1990, Congress amended the Anti-Head Tax provisions of
the Federal Aviation Act to authorize FAA to approve collection and use
of PFCs by public agencies.\3\ Public agencies that control commercial
service airports may, subject to FAA approval, receive passenger
facility charges collected from enplaning passengers using the airport,
and use these charges for airport development or noise abatement
projects. PFCs charges may be used, among other things, to finance
remedial measures that would qualify for AIP funding if included in an
approved airport noise compatibility program. The PFC program has
assumed increasing importance in providing revenue for noise as well as
capacity-enhancing projects.
3.2 Legal Responsibilities of State and Local Governments
While the Federal government's exclusive statutory responsibility
for noise abatement through regulation of flight operations and
aircraft design is broad, the noise abatement responsibilities of state
and local governments, through exercise of their basic police powers,
are circumscribed. The scope of their authority has been most clearly
described in negative terms, arising from litigation over their rights
to act.
The chief restrictions on state and local police powers arise from
the exclusive Federal control over the management of airspace. Local
authorities have been long prevented by Federal preemption of authority
in the area from prohibiting or regulating overflight for any
purposes.\4\ That principle was found in 1973 to include any exercise
of police power relating to aircraft operations in City of Burbank v.
Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973). In the Burbank case, the
Supreme Court struck down a curfew imposed by the City in the exercise
of its police power at an airport not owned by it. The court stated
that, ``the pervasive nature of the scheme of Federal regulation of
aircraft noise leads us to conclude that there is Federal preemption.''
411 U.S. at 633. The national character of the subject matter also
supported preemption. 411 U.S. at 625. ``If we were to uphold the
Burbank ordinance and a significant number of municipalities followed
suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control of the timing of
takeoffs and landings would severely limit the flexibility of the FAA
in controlling air traffic flow. The difficulties of scheduling flights
to avoid congestion and the concomitant decrease in safety would be
compounded.'' 411 U.S. at 639. Although control of noise is deep-seated
in the police power of the states (411 U.S. at 638), the Court found
that Congress unequivocally intended that the Federal government have
``full control over aircraft noise, preempting state and local
control.'' 411 U.S. 625, 627-28, 639. The Court's reliance on the
legislative history of section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act and its
1972 amendments indicates that other types of police power regulation,
such as restrictions on the type of aircraft using a particular
airport, are equally proscribed. The Court, however, specifically
excluded consideration of what limits, if any, apply to a municipality
acting in its proprietary capacity.
In two subsequent cases, Federal courts determined that the
constitutionality of state airport noise regulations depended upon
whether they sought to directly control aircraft noise or mitigate its
effects. In Air Transport Association v. Crotti, 389 F. Supp. 58 (N.D.
Cal., 1975) a state airport noise statute that imposed noise abatement
duties on airport proprietors without directly regulating aircraft
operation was upheld. California's statutory and regulatory scheme
established permissible cumulative noise (community noise equivalent
noise levels or CNEL) standards for continued operation of airports,
monitoring requirements, and ultimate noise levels for surrounding land
uses. In upholding the validity of the statutory scheme, the court
noted that airport authorities were left to choose among suggested
procedures, and were free to use other noise control measures beyond
those suggested to achieve the prescribed noise standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F.2d 369 (2d
Cir. 1968) Town noise ordinance that prohibited overflights over the
village by aircraft that did not meet certain noise standards held
invalid because Congress had preempted the field of aircraft
operation. Compliance with the ordinance would have required the
alteration of FAA-promulgated flight patterns and procedures
controlling aircraft in the New York City area; American Airlines v.
City of Audubon Park, 297 F. Supp. 207, 407 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir.
1969) Court held that local ordinance conflicted with the glide
slope which aircraft were required to follow in approaching the
airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The court indicated that efforts to control aircraft traffic under
the CNEL might be suspect, but since no action had been taken the court
refrained from ruling upon limitations to the airport proprietor's
authority. In this same case, the court struck down maximum single
event noise exposure levels (SENEL) for takeoff and landings of
aircraft, which had been established by the State for enforcement by
counties through criminal fines levied against aircraft operators. The
court held that these state regulations were per se unlawful exercises
of police power because they attempted to regulate noise levels
occurring when aircraft were in direct flight in clear contravention of
FAA's statutory authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See also, Minnesota Public Lobby v. Metropolitan Airport
Commission, 520 N.W. 2d 388 (Minn. 1994) Minnesota Supreme Court
held that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was not required to
develop a plan to comply with state pollution control noise
standards in operating Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
The State's noise standards as applied to MAC impinged on aircraft
operations because (1) enforcement of the standards would severely
limit the flexibility of the FAA in controlling aircraft flow and
(2) compliance would be impossible without either substantially
reducing aircraft operations, converting much of South Minneapolis
and the surrounding suburbs to non-residential areas, or moving the
airport. In the opinion of the court the State had no power to
require an airport proprietor such as MAC to use its proprietary
powers in certain ways that may have achieved compliance with the
noise standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43815]]
In 1981, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a measure
that the state required an airport proprietor to implement in order to
comply with the airport noise standards upheld in Crotti. In San Diego
Unified Port District v. Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1981), cert
den. 455 U.S. 1000 (1982), the State of California sought to require
the Port District, as owner of Lindbergh Field, to extend a curfew. The
State made extension of the curfew a condition of the variance needed
to continue to operate the airport, which was not in compliance with
California noise standards. Like the curfew in City of Burbank, the
court found that the State's curfew impinged on airspace management by
directing when planes may fly in the San Diego area, and on Federal
control of aircraft noise at its source by restricting the permissible
flight times of aircraft solely on the basis of noise. The court
explained that the Federal government has only preempted local
regulation of the source of noise, not the entire field of aviation
noise. The effects of noise may be mitigated by state and local
government independently of source noise control. ``Local governments
may adopt local noise abatement plans that do not impinge upon aircraft
operations.'' 651 F.2d at 1314. The court declined to interpret the
1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy as evidence that the Federal
Government had abdicated its duties to regulate aircraft noise or for
the proposition that states may use their police power to coerce
political subdivisions to use proprietary powers. The court also found
that the State of California was not a proprietor of Lindbergh Field,
and thus could not rely upon Burbank's proprietor exception permitting
airports utilizing their proprietary powers (rather than police powers)
to enact reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory rules defining
the permissible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using
the airport.
The ruling in City of Burbank was held to govern the exercise of
zoning authority to ban a taxiway project in Burbank-Glendale Pasadena
Airport Authority v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.
1992). In the BGPAA case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed
the constitutionality of an ordinance that required prior submission
and approval of plans for development of a 54-acre parcel of land. The
land, which was used solely for aircraft landings and takeoffs at
Burbank Airport, was slated for construction of a taxiway project that
was expected to produce significant safety improvements and noise
benefits. The ordinance was enacted by the City of Los Angeles just
before construction of a taxiway project was to begin, and applied
exclusively to the parcel of land owned by the airport but located in
the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. The court found that the
City was prohibited from conditioning airport development on prior City
approval. It stated that proper placement of taxiways and runways is
critical to the safety of takeoffs and landings and essential to the
efficient management of the navigable airspace. The Court stated that
Federal aviation safety interests preempted control of airport ground
facilities. The Court held that nonproprietor jurisdictions may not
abuse their land use powers by delaying a safety project and
withholding a building permit until the FAA and the airport proprietor
agree to aircraft noise control terms.
Recent years have witnessed a steady increase in state and local
ordinances and zoning measures that seek to regulate growth and
expansion of large metropolitan airports.\6\ Federal law and policy
continues to confirm that state and local police power regulation of
aircraft noise is Federally preempted when it impinges on airspace
management, aircraft flight, and operations. Non-proprietors may take
noise impacts into account in siting airports and other facilities, and
may mitigate the effects of noise. Federal aviation statutes do not
direct the Federal government to decide where airports should be
located, or whether and where an existing airport should acquire
additional property for expansion; instead, such decisions are the
primary responsibility of airport owners and operators. However,
Federal authority to control the navigable airspace necessarily
encompasses the placement, size, and configuration of runways.
Likewise, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 prescribes a
dominant role for the FAA in airport development, which encompasses
constructing, repairing, or improving public use airports, and imposes
significant program responsibilities on the FAA. Non-proprietor
jurisdictions have no role in determining the legal requirements for
runway expansion and development within the boundaries of the existing
airport. Federal aviation law preempts local ordinances designed to
control and impede air navigation facilities, airport safety projects,
or development projects on airport property at major airports as a
means of controlling aircraft noise, and to otherwise control flight
operations and impede safe and efficient airspace management. As a
corollary of this principle, state and local governments may not use
their police powers to require airport proprietors to exercise their
proprietary powers to control aircraft noise at its source. The FAA is
closely scrutinizing actions by state and local governments seeking to
limit airport expansion, particularly of major metropolitan airports.
FAA has and will continue to intervene in appropriate cases to assure
that state and local governments exercise their authorities in full
accord with the principles in City of Burbank and its progency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport Board v.
City of Irving, 854 S.W.2d 750 (Ct. of Appeals Texas 1993), writ
denied, 894 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. App-Ft. Worth 1995); City of New
Orleans v. Kenner, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1046 (ED La 1992),
rev'd__F.2d__ (5th Cir. 8/6/92); City of Cleveland v. City of Brook
Park, 893 F. Supp 742 (ND Ohio 1995); City of Burbank v. BGPAA (85
Cal Rpt. 2d 28 (1999), review den., 1999 Cal. LEXIS 5393 (Cal Sup.
Ct. 8/11/99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to established case law, Section 105 of the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. 41713 expressly provides that
States, political subdivisions of States, and political authorities of
at least two States, are prohibited from enacting or enforcing any law
relating to a price, route, or service of an air carrier. This statute
was intended to ensure that States would not undo Federal deregulation
with regulation of their own. This statute prohibits state laws or
local noise ordinances that would constitute a direct or indirect
regulation of a price, route or service of an air carrier. As noted in
the Section entitled ``Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors,''
it preserves the authority of airport proprietors.
The FAA encourages local authorities to implement airport noise
compatibility planning and protect their citizens from unwanted
aircraft noise, principally through their powers of land use control.
Control of land use around airports to ensure that only compatible
development may occur in noise-impacted areas is a key tool in limiting
[[Page 43816]]
the number of citizens exposed to noise impacts, and it remains
exclusively in the control of state and local governments.
Occasionally, it is a power enjoyed by individual airport operators;
some operators are municipal governments that can impose appropriate
land use controls through zoning and other authority. But even where
municipal governments themselves are operators, the noise impacts of
their airports often occur in areas outside their jurisdiction. Other
police power measures, such as requirements that noise impacts be
revealed in real estate transactions, are also available to them. Other
measures are also available to mitigate the effects of noise, such as
by baffling existing noise or resetting those affected by noise.
Finally, local governments have legal authority to take noise impacts
into account in their own activities, such as their choice of location
and design for new airports, new schools, hospital or other public
facilities, as well as sewers, highways and other basic infrastructure
services that influence land development.
3.3 Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors
Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Federal law
preempts state or local law when Congress expressly or impliedly
indicates an intention to displace state or local law, or when that law
actually conflicts with Federal law. As discussed above, in 1973, the
Supreme Court held that the pervasive scope of Federal regulation of
the airways implied a congressional intention to preempt municipal
aircraft noise restrictions based upon the police power. The court left
the door open to noise regulations imposed by municipalities acting as
airport proprietors, \7\ however, based on such municipalities
legitimate interest in avoiding liability for excessive noise generated
by the airports they own. After Burbank, Congress expressly provided
that the proprietary powers and rights of municipal airport owners are
not preempted by Federal law. 49 U.S.C. 41713 (section 105 of the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978). Thus, the task of protecting the
local population from airport noise has fallen to the agency, usually
the local government, that owns and operates the airport.
Subsequent to the Burbank decision, the courts have confirmed that
Congress has reserved a limited role for local airport proprietors to
regulate noise levels at their airports. Thus, the responsibilities of
state and local governments as airport proprietors are less restricted
than those of non-proprietor governments. The rationale for the airport
proprietor exception is that airport proprietors bear monetary
liability for excessive noise under the Supreme Court decision in
Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962). The Court found that
because the airport proprietor had that liability, fairness dictated
that airport proprietors must also have the power to insulate
themselves from that liability. The proprietor, the court reasoned,
planned the location of the airport, the direction and length of the
runways, and has the ability to acquire more land around the airport.
From this control flows the liability, based on the constitutional
requirement of just compensation for property taken for a public
purpose. The Court concluded: ``Respondent in designing the Greater
Pittsburgh Airport had to acquire some private property. Our conclusion
is that by constitutional standards it did not acquire enough.'' The
role of the proprietor described by the Court remains the same today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Traditionally, airport proprietors own and operate the
airport, promote the airport, and have the legal power to acquire
necessary approach easements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, it is understandable that non-proprietor localities in
the vicinity of major airports cannot be permitted an independent role
in controlling the noise of passing aircraft. In the words of the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
[t]he likelihood of multiple, inconsistent rules would be a dagger
pointed at the heart of commerce--and the rule applied might come
literally to depend on which way the wind was blowing. The task of
protecting the local population from airport noise has, accordingly,
fallen to the agency, usually of local government, charged with
operating the airport.
British Airways Board v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
558 F.2d 75, 83 (2d Cir. 1977).
An airport proprietor's powers, however, are not unlimited. For
example, Federal case law consistently holds that proprietors are
vested only with the power to promulgate reasonable, nonarbitrary, and
nondiscriminatory regulations establishing acceptable noise levels for
the airport and its immediate environs that avoid the appearance of
irrational or arbitrary action. National Helicopter Corp. v. City of
New York, 137 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 1998); British Airways Board v. Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, 558 F.2d 75, 564 F.2d 1002 (2d
Cir. 1977). The Department of Transportation's own policy statement
similarly states that an airport owner's conduct is not preempted as an
exercise of its proprietary powers when such exercise is reasonable,
nondiscriminatory, nonburdensome to interstate commerce, and designed
to accomplish a legitimate State objective in a manner that does not
conflict with the provisions and policies of the aviation provisions of
Title 49 of the United States Code. 14 CFR 399.110(f).
In the British Airways case, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey banned the Concorde SST aircraft from using Kennedy
International Airport pending a six-month study of operating experience
at other U.S. airports. Rather than applying its 1951 noise standard to
the new Concorde aircraft, the Port Authority banned the aircraft based
on its low frequency sound. Air France and British Airways challenged
the ban, arguing among other things, that the ban was preempted by
DOT's authorization of Concorde landings at JFK and provision of
detailed regulations for noise control at the airport, and that it was
discriminatory and an undue burden on commerce. The Court of Appeals
held that the Port Authority possessed the power and bore the
responsibility to establish fair, even-handed and nondiscriminatory
regulations designed to abate the effect of aircraft noise on
surrounding communities and directed the lower court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the Port Authority's ban
based upon low frequency sound.
Subsequent to the first ruling, the Port Authority resisted in
responding to the airlines' desire to secure a fair test of their
aircraft in New York. The Port Authority refused to accord landing
rights to an airplane that was capable of meeting its rule that had
consistently been applied to all other aircraft for nearly 20 years--
112 PNdB. As a result, the carriers brought suit again. In the second
British Airways case, the Court of Appeals affirmed its prior ruling
concerning the limitations of proprietary powers. The court then
affirmed the enjoining of further prohibition of Concorde operations at
Kennedy Airport until the Port Authority promulgated a reasonable,
nonarbitary and nondiscriminatory noise regulation that all aircraft
were afforded the opportunity to meet. The action of the Port Authority
purporting to exercise delegated authority to regulate noise was held
to constitute unjust discrimination within the meaning of the AAIA when
the action resulted in denial of use of the airport to aircraft that
met noise standards applies to other aircraft allowed to use the
airport.
The court pointed out that with respect to the reasonableness of
airport
[[Page 43817]]
use restrictions, it is important that they be found on ``definitive
findings, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed use would
jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the public.'' British
Airways, 564 F.2d 102, 1014 (2d Cir. 1977).
A noise curfew prohibiting the arrival or departure on a non-
emergency basis of any aircraft between the hours of 12 midnight and 7
a.m. applying to all aircraft regardless of the noise emission level of
degree of noise produced was found to be an unreasonable, arbitrary,
and discriminatory and overbroad exercise of power by the county in
U.S. v. Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
In City and County of San Francisco v. FAA, 942 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir.
1991), a city regulation was interpreted to ban a retrofitted Q-707
meeting Stage 2 standards from using the airport while other Stage 2
aircraft making similar levels of noise were permitted. The aircraft
operator filed a complaint with the FAA alleging that exclusion of its
retrofitted 707 was unjustly discriminatory in violation of the city's
Airport Improvement Program grant assurances. A DOT law judge found
that the city had breached its grant assurance that it would operate
the airport without unjust discrimination. The FAA Administrator
affirmed the law judge's finding because the city's noise regulation
allowed aircraft that were equally noisy or noisier than Q-707's to
operate at the airport and increase in number without limit, while
excluding the Q-707 based on a characteristic that had no bearing on
noise (date of type-certification as meeting Stage 2 requirements).
Thus, the regulation violated the statutory requirement and the city's
grant assurance requirement that the airport would be available without
unjust discrimination. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
FAA's interpretation of the statutory and grant assurance requirements
as reasonable. This case, as in the British Airways cases, illustrates
that use of noise control regulations by an airport proprietor to bar
aircraft on a basis other than noise, or without a factual basis, was
found to be inconsistent with a fair and efficient national air
transportation system.
Airport proprietors are also prohibited from enacting noise
restrictions that would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
The Commerce Clause prohibits any state or local government actions
that would unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce. For the most
part, noise ordinances that would violate the Commerce Clause when the
particular means chosen by the proprietor to achieve its goals are
irrational, arbitrary or unrelated to those goals. For example, a court
would likely strike down a noise ordinance if its purpose was in fact
to disfavor interstate commerce, its benefits were illusory or
insignificant, or impermissible parochial considerations
unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. In U.S. v.
Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), the court found that a
blanket nighttime curfew regardless of noise emission had an adverse
impact on the flow of air commerce because it interfered with and
prevented the efficient use of the navigable airspace, resulting in
bunching of flights, delays in flights not only at Westchester County
Airport but at LaGuardia and other airports in the metropolitan area,
and disruption in the flow of air traffic in the New York City
metropolitan area. The curfew further represented an unlawful exercise
of local police power by the County.
In National Aviation v. Hayward, 418 F. Supp. 417 (N.D. Cal. 1976),
the court reviewed the constitutionality of an ordinance which
prohibited the operation of aircraft between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7
a.m. by aircraft which exceeded a noise level of 75 dBA. The plaintiffs
argued that the ordinance burdened interstate commerce by forcing them
to make their flights from Oakland Airport rather than Hayward Air
Terminal, thereby impairing their ability to deliver mail and
newspapers to customers in California and other nearby states. The
court upheld the airport's nighttime noise level limitation as a valid
exercise of proprietary rights. On application of a balancing test
under the Commerce Clause, the court found that the burden imposed on
the flow of commerce was incidental and did not overcome the local
interest in controlling noise levels at Hayward Air Terminal during
late evening and morning hours. The nighttime noise level limitation
did not sufficiently reduce the value of aircraft operator leases so as
to be an unlawful taking under the 14th Amendment.
In Santa Monica Airport association v. City of Santa Monica, 659
F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1981), the court stuck down an airport ban on the
operation of jet aircraft on the basis of noise under the Commerce and
Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution because the quality
and quantity of noise emitted by the jets had no greater tendency to
irritate and annoy than that emitted by permitted propeller-driven
aircraft.
In Alaska Airlines v. City of Long Beach, 951 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.
1991), the City of Long Beach had enacted a curfew in 1981 which
limited air carrier flights to 15 per day and required carriers to use
quieter aircraft. The Court of Appeals overruled the district court's
findings that the ordinance was preempted by Federal law, impermissibly
burdened interstate commerce, violated equal protection principles, and
was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise not rationally related to
legitimate governmental concerns. The Court of Appeals found that each
of the challenged provisions of the ordinance was sufficiently
supported by a reasonable and legitimate justification.
Airports that are recipients of Federal airport development grants
have specific contractual duties, under the terms of their airport
development grant agreements, to ensure that their facilities are
available under equitable conditions. These obligations include the
duty to ensure that the airport is available for public use on fair and
reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, and that no
restriction results in the establishment of an exclusive right. The
courts have made it clear that these contractual obligations are an
important aspect of the limitations on an airport owner's authority to
control aircraft noise, for example, in the issuance of curfews.
In U.S. v. Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), discussed
in part above, the court also found that the county had obligated
itself by the FAA's grant assurances to make the airport available for
public use on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust discrimination,
and at all times. The court noted that failure to comply with the
conditions of a grant authorized the FAA to suspend current grant
payments and withhold future grants. The court held that Westchester's
curfew on flight operations constituted a breach of the terms,
conditions, and assurances set forth in the grant-in-aid agreements
between the county and the FAA, and that the FAA properly refused to
pay further grant monies to the county based on its failure to comply
with grant conditions and assurances.
The power thus left to the proprietor--to control what types of
aircraft use its airports, to impose curfews or other use restrictions,
and, subject FAA approval, to regulate runway use and flight paths--is
not unlimited. Though not preempted, the proprietor is subject to two
important Constitutional restrictions. It first may not take any action
that imposes an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and
second may not unjustly discriminate between different categories of
airport users. As discussed,
[[Page 43818]]
airport proprietors that are recipients of FAA airport development
grants are subject to certain statutory and contractual obligations
including that to make the airport available for public use on
reasonable terms and conditions. Also, states, political subdivisions
of states, and political authorities of at least two states may not
enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force
and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air
carrier, unless that law or regulation is consistent with the
proprietary exception. See, 49 U.S.C. 41713.
Our concept of the legal framework underlying this Policy Statement
is that proprietors retain the flexibility to impose such restrictions
if they do not violate any Constitutional or statutory proscription. We
have been urged to undertake--and have considered carefully and
rejected--full and complete Federal preemption of the field of aviation
noise abatement. In our judgment the control and reduction of airport
noise must remain a shared responsibility among airport proprietors,
users, and governments.
Summary
The legal framework with respect to noise may be summarized as
follows:
<bullet> The Federal Government has preempted the areas of airspace
use and management, air traffic control, safety and the regulation of
aircraft noise at its source. The Federal government also has
substantial power to influence airport development through its
administration of the Airport Improvement Program.
<bullet> Other powers and authorities to control airport noise rest
with the airport proprietor--including the power to select an airport
site, acquire land, assure compatible land use, and control airport
design, scheduling and operations--subject to Constitutional
prohibitions against creation of an undue burden on interstate and
foreign commerce, and unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjust
discriminatory rules that advance the local interest, other statutory
requirements, and interference with exclusive Federal regulatory
responsibilities over safety and airspace management.
<bullet> State and local governments may protect their citizens
through land use controls and other police power measures not affecting
airspace management or aircraft operations. In addition, to the extent
they are airport proprietors, they have the powers described in the
preceding section.
The authorities and responsibilities under the Policy may be
summarized as follows:
<bullet> The Federal Government has the authority and
responsibility to control aircraft noise by the regulation of source
emissions, by flight operational procedures, and by management of the
air traffic control system and navigable airspace in ways that minimize
noise impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest
standards of safety. The Federal government also provides financial and
technical assistance to airport proprietors for noise reduction
planning and abatement activities and, working with the private sector,
conducts continuing research into noise abatement technology.
<bullet> Airport Proprietors are primarily responsible for planning
and implementing action designed to reduce the effect of noise on
residents of the surrounding area. Such actions include optimal site
location, improvements in airport design, noise abatement ground
procedures, land acquisition, and restrictions on airport use that do
not unjustly discriminate against any user, impede the Federal interest
in safety and management of the air navigation system, or unreasonably
interfere with interstate or foreign commerce.
<bullet> State and Local Governments and Planning Agencies should
provide for land use planning and development, zoning, and housing
regulations that are compatible with airport operations.
<bullet> Air Carriers are responsible for retirement, replacement
or retrofit for older jets that do not meet Federal noise level
standards, and for scheduling and flying airplanes in a way that
minimizes the impact of noise on people.
<bullet> Air Travelers and Shippers generally should bear the cost
of noise reduction, consistent with established Federal economic and
environmental policy that the costs of complying with laws and public
policies should be reflected in the price of goods and services.
<bullet> Residents and Prospective Residents in areas surrounding
airports should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can
be taken to minimize its effect on people. Individual and community
responses to aircraft noise differ substantially and, for some
individuals, a reduced level of noise may not eliminate the annoyance
or irritation. Prospective residents of areas impacted by airport noise
thus should be aware of the effect of noise on their quality of life
and act accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 14 CFR Parts 71, 73, 75, 91, 93, 95, and 97
\2\ See 14 CFR Parts 21-43, 61-67, 91, 121 through 149.
\3\ See 49 USC 40116, 14 CFR Part 158.
\4\ American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F.2d 369 (2d
Cir. 1968) Town noise ordinance that prohibited overflights over the
village by aircraft that did not meet certain noise standards held
invalid because Congress had preempted the field of aircraft
operation. Compliance with the ordinance would have required the
alteration of FAA-promulgated flight patterns and procedures
controlling aircraft in the New York City area; American Airlines v.
City of Audubon Park, 297 F. Supp. 207, 407 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir.
1969) Court held that local ordinance conflicted with the glide
slope which aircraft were required to follow in approaching the
airport.
\5\ See also, Minnesota Public Lobby v. Metropolitan Airport
Commission, 520 N.W. 2d 388 (Minn. 1994) Minnesota Supreme Court
held that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was not required to
develop a plan to comply with state pollution control noise
standards in operating Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
The State's noise standards as applied to MAC impinged on aircraft
operations because (1) enforcement of the standards would severely
limit the flexibility of the FAA in controlling aircraft flow and
(2) compliance would be impossible without either substantially
reducing aircraft operations, converting much of South Minneapolis
and the surrounding suburbs to non-residential areas, or moving the
airport. In the opinion of the court the State had no power to
require an airport proprietor such as MAC to use its proprietary
powers in certain ways that may have achieved compliance with the
noise standards.
\6\ See, e.g., Dallas Ft. Worth International Airport Board v.
City of Irving, 854 S.W. 2d 750 (Ct. of Appeals Texas 1993), writ
denied, 894 S.W. 2d 456 (Tex. App-Ft. Worth 1995); City of New
Orleans v. Kenner, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1046 (ED La 1992),
rev'd__F.2d__ (5th Cir. 8/6/92); City of Cleveland v. City of Brook
Park, 893 F. Supp 742 (ND Ohio 1995); City of Burbank v. BGPAA (85
Cal Rpt. 2d 28 (1999), review den., 1999 Cal. LEXIS 5393 (Cal Sup.
Ct. 8/11/99).
\7\ Traditionally, airport proprietors own and operate the
airport, promote the airport, and have the legal power to acquire
necessady approach easements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4: Assessing Aviation Noise
4.1 Foundations
The Federal government's methods and standards for measuring and
assessing noise impacts derive from scientific research and a series of
interagency committee reviews.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise
In 1979 the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN)
was formed to develop Federal policy and guidance on noise. The
committee's membership included the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the FAA, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Departments
of Defense (DOD), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans
Affairs (VA). Among other things, it developed consolidated Federal
agency land use compatibility guidelines using Yearly Day-Night Average
Sound Levels (DNL) as the common descriptor of noise levels. In order
to develop the guidelines, it was also necessary to establish a
correlation between land use and noise exposure classifications.
The FICUN issued its report entitled Guidelines for Considering
Noise in Land Use Planning and Control in June 1980. This report
established the Federal government's DNL 65 dB standard and related
guidelines. The FICUN generally agreed that standard residential
construction was compatible for noise exposure from all sources up to
DNL 65 dB. Their land use compatibility guidelines for noise exposure
between DNL 65-70 dB called for building codes to require at least 25
dB outdoor to indoor noise level reduction (NLR); between DNL 70-75 dB,
at least 30 dB NLR.
The FICUN considered noise exposure above DNL 75 dB to be
``incompatible'' with all residential uses except transient lodging
with NLR of at least 35 dB. The report contained a comprehensive
guidelines table. This table contains the following footnote regarding
residential and certain other noise-sensitive uses in the moderate
exposure zone from DNL 55-65 dB:
The designation of these uses as ``compatible'' in this [moderate
impact] zone reflects individual Federal agencies' consideration of
general cost and feasibility factors as well as past community
experiences and program objectives. Localities, when evaluating the
application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have
different concerns or goals to consider.
The designations contained in the FICUN's land use compatibility
table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land
covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal,
State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable
and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific
[[Page 43819]]
properties and specific noise contours rests with the local
authorities.
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979
The ASNA was the first Federal legislation specifically addressing
airport noise compatibility. The FAA implemented the ASNA's provisions
in Part 150. This regulation adopted the DNL metric and the 65 dB land
use compatibility guideline. This Federal guideline has been widely
accepted by airport proprietors as a threshold for limiting new
residential development and for sound insulation where new development
is permitted above this guideline. The subsection on Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning in Section 2 addresses Part 150 provisions in
greater detail.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
In 1991, the FAA and EPA initiated the Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise (FICON) to review technical and policy issues
related to assessment of noise impacts around airports. Membership
included representatives from DOD, DOT, HUD, the Department of Justice,
VA, and the Council on Environmental Quality. The FICON review focused,
among other things, on the manner in which noise impacts are determined
and described and the extent of impacts outside of DNL 65 dB that
should be reviewed in a NEPA document. The FICON's findings and
recommendations were published in an August 1992 report, Federal Agency
Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.
With respect to DNL, the FICON found that there are no new
descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute
for the present DNL cumulative noise exposure metric. It further
recommended continuing the use of the DN metric as the principal means
for describing long-term noise exposure of civil and military aircraft
operations. The FICON reaffirmed the methodology employing DNL as the
noise exposure metric and appropriate dose-response relationships
(primarily the Schultz curve for Percent Highly Annoyed) to determine
community noise impacts.
Based on these findings, the FICON supported agency discretion in
the use of supplemental noise analysis. It also recommended that
further analysis should be conducted of noise-sensitive areas between
DNL 60-65 db having an increase of 3 dB or more if screening analysis
shows that noise-sensitive areas at or above DNL 65 dB will have an
increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more. The FICON decided not to recommend
evaluation of aviation noise impact below DNL 60 dB because public
heath and welfare effects below that level have not been established.
The FICON strongly supported increasing research efforts on
methodology development and on the impact of aircraft noise. It
recommended a standing Federal interagency committee be established to
assist agencies in providing adequate forums for discussion of public
and private sector proposals identifying needed research and in
encouraging research and development in these areas.
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) was
formed in 1993 based on the FICON report's policy recommendation to
form a standard interagency committee for facilitating research on
methodology development and on the impact of aircraft noise. Membership
includes representatives from DOD, HUD, DOT and the Department of the
Interior, as well as NASA and the EPA. Each of the Federal agencies
conducting significant research on aviation-related noise is
represented on FICAN. Some member agencies, such as HUD and EPA, are
not currently conducting research but have broad policy roles with
respect to aviation noise issues.
The FICAN does not conduct or directly fund any research. Rather,
it serves as a clearinghouse for Federal aircraft noise research and
development (R&D) efforts and as a focal point for questions and
recommendations on aviation noise R&D. Products include various
reports, studies, analyses, findings, and conclusions. The FICAN holds
periodic meetings, including a public forum, and issues a report on its
activities annually. Since its inception in 1993, it has reached the
following conclusions:
<bullet> Interagency communication between researchers will help
researchers to understand other agencies' goals and objectives in their
research programs; afford the opportunity for researchers to discuss
the projects ongoing at their own or other agencies; and result in more
efficient use of Federal funds by reducing redundancy of research,
increasing collaboration, and pooling the talents of various agency
scientists.
<bullet> The public forum is a valuable mechanism for soliciting
input from interested members of the aviation profession and community
members.
<bullet> The Acoustical Society of America should form a working
group tasked with development a revised standard for predicting noise-
induced sleep disturbance.
Current and future FICAN activities include:
<bullet> Working with researchers to develop individual agency
priorities for research to address issues regarding overflight noise in
parks and wilderness areas.
<bullet> Publishing technical positions on aviation noise topics
based on definitive research by member agencies. Such topics include
noise-induced sleep disturbance, non-auditory health effects, and land
use compatibility guidelines.
4.2 Assessment Methodologies
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL)
The FAA and other Federal agencies use DNL as the primary measure
of noise impacts on people and land uses. This cumulative metric is the
Federal standard because it:
<bullet> Correlates well with the results of attitudinal surveys of
residential noise impact;
<bullet> Increases with the duration of noise events, which is
important to people's reaction;
<bullet> Takes into account the number of noise events of the full
24 hours in a day, which also is important to people's reaction;
<bullet> Takes into account the increased sensitivity to noise at
night by including a 10-dB nighttime penalty between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. to compensate for sleep disturbance and other effects;
<bullet> Allows composite measurements of all sources of community
noise; and
<bullet> Allows quantitative comparison of noise from various
sources with a community.
DNL is the only metric backed with a substantial body of scientific
survey data on the reactions of people to noise. It provides a simple
method to compare the effectiveness of alternative airport scenarios.
Land use planners have acquired over 20 years of working experience
applying this metric to make zoning and planning decisions. DNL is a
sound and workable tool for land use planning and in relating aircraft
noise to community reaction. Experience indicates that DNL provides a
very good measure of impacts on the quality of the human environment,
forming an adequate basis for decisions that influence major
transportation infrastructure projects. In an August 1992 report, the
FICON reaffirmed both DNL as the appropriate metric for measuring
aviation noise exposure and DNL 65 dB as the Federal Government's level
of significance for assessing noise impacts.
[[Page 43820]]
Some people challenge the use of DNL to assess aviation noise
because it is a measure of exposure from cumulative events over time
rather than a measure of exposure from a single noise event. Commonly
cited as potential alternative metrics are the Sound Exposure Level
(SEL), which describes cumulative noise exposure from a single event,
and Maximum Level (L<INF>max</INF>), the highest level during a single
event. Although sometimes useful as supplemental measures of noise
exposure, single event metrics pose problems. They present neither an
accurate picture of noise exposure nor the overall impact of noise on a
community. Because single event metrics by definition are not
composites of cumulative events, 100 aircraft operations a day would be
no worse than one operation. Similarly, one event at 90 dB would be
assessed as worse than 100 events at 89 dB. These effects clearly do
not reflect noise impacts or annoyance reactions accurately.
Alternatively, DNL increases with the number of operations, while
single event measures do not. DNL combines the number of operations
with the loudness of each operation into a cumulative noise dose. The
resulting values correlate well with independent tests of annoyance
from all sources of noise.
Human response to noise involves both the maximum level and its
duration, so the maximum sound level alone is not sufficient to
evaluate the effect of noise on people. Clearly, people are bothered by
individual noise events, but their sense of annoyance increases with
the number of those noise events, and with those that occur late at
night. The DNL metric provides a combined measure of these factors that
can be used to evaluate existing and predicted future conditions on an
unambiguous, single-number basis. Although DNL is an average of
cumulative noise levels, sound levels of the loudest events control the
DNL calculation. Both L<INF>max</INF> and SEL measure individual sound
events that may occur only once, or may occur several times during the
day. The number of times these events occur and when they occur are
important in measuring the noise environment. DNL is a time-average of
the total sound energy over a 24-hour period, adjusted by providing a
10 dB penalty to sound levels occurring between 10PM and 7AM. This 10
dB penalty means that one nighttime sound event is equivalent to 10
daytime events of the same level. Accordingly, DNL combines both the
intensity and number of single noise events with a nighttime weighting
factor in a manner that is strongly influenced by maximum sound levels.
Recognizing that DNL often is criticized based on perceptions of
community annoyance, the FICON reaffirmed that complaints are an
inadequate indicator of the full extent of noise effects on a
population. The DNL 65 dB level of significance does not mean that no
one is annoyed below that level. Extensive research has been conducted
to evaluate annoyance. In an attempt to meet demand for a usable and
uniform relationship between noise and annoyance, T.J. Schultz reviewed
the results of 161 social surveys where data were available to make a
consistent judgment concerning what percent of the population was
``highly annoyed'' (%HA). The surveys were of community reactions to
several types of transportation noises such as road traffic, railroad,
and aircraft noises. The results agreed fairly well with one another,
and Schultz developed an equation for describing the relationship
between the level of exposure (in DNL) and percent of population highly
annoyed. Schultz published the results of the surveys in 1978 in
``Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance.'' In 1992, the US Air
Force updated Schultz's research with a total of 400 surveys.
Comparison of the original and updated results indicate that they
differ by less than two percent in the DNL range from 45 to 75 dB. The
following chart presents the relationship between %HA and DNL:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY00.006
The Schultz curve indicates that about 12 percent of people living
at DNL 65 dB report themselves to be ``highly annoyed'' by
transportation noise. About 3 percent are highly annoyed at a DNL of 55
dB.
Noise Analysis Criteria for Changes in DNL
The DNL 65 dB contour remains the FAA's lower limit for defining
significant noise impact on people. For a variety of reasons, noise
predictions and interpretations are frequently less reliable below DNL
65 dB. DNL prediction models tend to degrade in accuracy at large
distances from the airport. Smaller proportions of the population are
highly annoyed with successive decreases in noise levels below DNL 65
dB. The FICON studied criteria for predicting changes in community
annoyance below DNL 65
[[Page 43821]]
dB. It found that a DNL 3 dB increase at the DNL 60 dB level is
generally consistent with the existing DNL 1.5 dB screening criterion
at the DNL 65 dB level. This finding was based on using the Schultz
curve to relate changes in impact level with changes in DNL. Increases
of 5 dB at DNL 55 dB, 3 dB at DNL 60 dB, and 1.5 dB at DNL 65 dB all
resulted in a three percent increase in %HA.
For airport development and other actions in the vicinity of an
airport, the FAA guidelines for screening based on changes in aviation
noise impacts above and below DNL 65 dB follow:
DLN 65 dB and above--An increase in noise exposure of 1.5 dB or
more at these levels is considered a significant addition of noise. A
Federal action resulting in such an increase would require an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
DLN 60-65 dB--Increases in noise of 3 dB or more that remain
between DNL 60-65 dB do not result in significant exposure but can be
noticeable and may be highly annoying to some people. The FAA will
consider mitigation options but would not require an EIS in noise-
sensitive areas between DNL 60-65 dB that are projected to have an
increase of 3 dB or more as a result of the proposed changes.
For air traffic changes farther away from an airport, FAA
recognizes that some actions in areas below DNL 60 dB may produce
noticeable noise increases and generate adverse community reaction.
Although increases in noise in these areas are well below the standard
criteria for significant impact, the FAA's air traffic screening
procedures provide mechanisms to identify whether there are
extraordinary circumstances warranting an EA.
Supplemental Metrics
The FICON recognized that DNL can be supplemented by other metrics
on a case-by-case basis, but advised continued agency discretion in the
use of supplemental noise analysis. It found that the use of
supplemental metrics is limited because threshold levels of significant
impact have not been established and there is no accepted methodology
for aggregating these values into a cumulative impact description.
Supplemental metrics can be useful in characterizing specific events
and enhancing the public's understanding of potential effects resulting
from proposed changes in aircraft operations. Supplemental single event
analysis sometimes is conducted to evaluate sleep disturbance and, less
frequently, specific speech interference issues. For proposed FAA
actions in the vicinity of national parks in pristine areas and land
uses such a wildlife refuges where the Part 150 land use compatibility
guidelines bear little relevance, the FAA supplements DNL noise
analysis with other metrics on a case-by-case basis. The following
metrics are useful for site-specific applications on a case-by-case
basis:
Equivalent Sound Level (L<INF>eq</INF>) is a cumulative metric that
can be appropriate where aircraft noise can affect activity periods of
less than 24-hour duration.
Maximum Sound Level (L<INF>max</INF>) is a single event metric that
can be used to describe the greatest sound level in decibels during a
given time period at a noise-sensitive location.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a single event metric that can be
used to describe noise exposure at noise-sensitive locations. This
metric can be expressed both in terms of maximum levels and number of
occurrences at varying levels.
Time Above dBA Threshold (TA) is a metric that can be used in the
same situations as L<INF>eq</INF>, such as measuring noise exposure
within specific time periods. The designation of threshold to be used
in supplemental TA measurements may be defined with respect to speech
interference or the ambient (background) noise level.
4.3 Aircraft Research in National Parks
In 1987, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law (PL) 100-91, the
National Parks Overflight Act, which called for the NPS to recommend to
the FAA actions for the substantial restoration ``natural quiet'' to
the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). One year later, the FAA issued
the Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2, creating a Special
Flight Rules Area, flight-free zones, and defined routes for commercial
air tours and sightseeing within the GCNP. Another milestone occurred
in 1995 when the NPS presented a report to Congress on aircraft noise
in national parks.
The FAA and the NPS initiated a model validation process. In August
1999, the agencies hosted a two-day meeting at Grand Canyon National
Park of eight internationally recognized acoustics experts (the
Technical Review Committee (TRC)). Representatives from Harris, Miller,
Miller and Hanson; Volpe National Transportation System Center; and
Wylie Laboratories worked with the TRC to develop a protocol that would
measure the output of various acoustic models against the actual
acoustic environment in the Grand Canyon National Park. The desired
outcome of the process is a level of confidence in the ability of the
tested models to replicate the conditions found in the park. The on-
site data was collected during the month of September 1999 and a Spring
2000 report is planned. The TRC will be asked to review and comment on
the results.
4.4 Research on Low Frequency Noise
The issue of low frequency aircraft noise and its impact on
structural integrity and human health was explored in detail as part of
the environmental assessment of the introduction of Concorde supersonic
transport operations into the United States. Potential impacts were
found to be negligible. Field studies found that the noise-induced
vibrations as a result of Concorde operations cause no structural
damage. In addition, the Concorde sound pressure levels at low
frequencies were found to be well below the EPA threshold for potential
health impact. As a result of these findings, the FAA concluded that
low frequency noise of subsonic aircraft in a typical airport
environment had no significant impact on structures or human health.
This does not mean that there may not be some noticeable vibration in
certain cases.
Human annoyance resulting from the effects of aircraft noise
induced structural vibration is a recently raised concern. Low
frequency noise and perceptible vibration may be experienced when
aircraft noise levels are high (near the start of takeoff roll) and
there are many aircraft events. This same combination of factors also
tends to lead to high DNL levels (generally within the 65 DNL contour
or higher). However, unlike the widely accepted relationship between
aircraft noise exposure in DNL and community annoyance, there does not
currently exist a scientific consensus or Federal guidelines on the
human annoyance effects of noise-induced structural vibration.
Overall evidence recently evaluated by the FAA suggests low
frequency noise is not a separate impact phenomenon, but rather is
connected to high cumulative aircraft noise exposure levels. It may be
of concern under certain conditions in areas already within the 65 DNL
contour due to higher frequency noise. Perceptible vibration due to low
frequency noise may be a secondary effect under certain conditions
(e.g., home location relative to takeoff roll and aircraft fleet
composition) in homes that are exposed to high levels of aircraft noise
as calculated with the DNL metric. The
[[Page 43822]]
FAA supports and promotes further research on this issue through FICAN.
Section 5: Source Noise Reduction
Commercial air transportation became a major factor in the U.S.
economy with the introduction of jet-powered civil transport aircraft
into passenger service in the early 1960's. The economic vitality of
jet service triggered explosive growth both in the air transportation
industry and in those cities and industries it serviced. However, as
airports grew in size and importance, the areas adversely impacted by
aviation noise also expanded. Despite economic and transportation
benefits, as air service expanded to new communities and flight
frequencies increased, complaints about aviation's noise impact became
common.
As noise became a major concern, both the Federal government and
the aviation industry sponsored research into ways to resolve noise
problems. In the 1960's, aircraft and engine manufacturers jointly
developed the first generation of low-bypass ratio turbofan engines
that were both lower in noise and more fuel-efficient than the turbojet
engines then in use. In the early 1970s, another major technological
advancement occurred with the introduction of the second generation of
high-bypass turbofan engines. These research efforts contributed to
considerable progress in aircraft noise reduction through quiet engine
designs.
5.1 Aircraft Source Noise Standards
On July 21, 1968, Congress passed the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act
of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715), giving the FAA its first express
authority to regulate aircraft noise through the establishment of
aircraft noise standards. Beginning in 1968, the FAA developed
certification standards, first for measuring and then for limiting
aircraft noise at the source. These certification standards, which
paralleled technological improvements in airplane engine designs, are
codified in 14 CFR Part 36. The adoption of Part 36 in 1969 prohibited
the further escalation of aircraft noise levels of subsonic civil
turbojet and transport category airplanes, and required new airplane
types to be markedly quieter than the generation of turbojets that were
developed in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
The historical evolution of the FAA's certification standards from
Stage 1 to Stage 2 to Stage 3 assisted U.S. airframe manufacturers in
gaining a competitive advantage by providing the quietest and most
fuel-efficient airplanes available. Effective December 1, 1969, the
first U.S. aircraft noise regulations in Part 36 set a limit on noise
emissions of large aircraft of new design by establishing Stage 2
certification standards. Stage 2 criteria served as the basic standard
for engine noise and were based on then-current technology and
initially applied only to new types of airplanes. Under the Noise
Control Act of 1972, the FAA was given broader authority to set limits
for aircraft noise emissions. This authority is codified in 49 U.S.C.
44715.
On February 25, 1977, the FAA amended Part 36 to establish three
levels (or stages) of aircraft noise with specified limits, and
prescribed definitions for identifying those airplanes classified under
each stage. It also required applicants for new type certificates
applied for on or after November 5, 1975, to comply with what are now
known as Stage 3 noise standards, and to prescribe the acoustical
change requirements for airplanes in each noise level stage under Part
36. The amendment was ``intended to encourage the introduction of the
newest generation of airplanes, as soon as practicable'' and provide a
compliance schedule to maximize the incentive to replace rather than
retrofit older aircraft. This amendment prescribed the noise level
standards for that ``newest generation of airplanes.'' The three stages
of aircraft noise established in Part 36 have been used as the noise
operating limits for civil subsonic turbojet aircraft in the phaseouts
of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 airplanes.
5.2 Airplane Operating Noise Limits--Stage 1 Phaseout
When the 1976 Policy was published, it announced a program which
would ultimately prohibit operation within U.S. airspace of any civil,
subsonic turbojet airplanes with a standard airworthiness certificate
and with maximum takeoff weights of more than 75,000 pounds that had
not been shown to meet the Stage 2 noise standards contained in Part
36. In accordance with the 1976 Policy, the FAA adopted regulations
that in part established a phased compliance program for U.S. domestic
operations to reduce aircraft noise. Subpart 1 of Part 91 required that
civil subsonic airplanes with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds
comply with Part 36 Stage 2 or Stage 3 noise levels by January 1, 1985,
in order to operate in the United States. Compliance could be achieved
by (1) replacing the older fleet with new, quieter airplanes; (2) re-
engining the aircraft; or (3) using noise reduction technology, such as
hushkits, that has been shown to be technologically feasible and
economically reasonable for use on older turbojets.
On February 18, 1980, the Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA). Title III of that Act required the
FAA to promulgate regulations extending application of the January 1,
1985, cut-off date for turbojet aircraft to U.S. and foreign
international operators if no international agreement could be achieved
on a compliance deadline. Since no such agreement could be reached, on
November 28, 1980, the FAA amended Sec. 91.303 to make it applicable to
all operators for their operations in the U.S. The ASNA also mandated
that certain civil two-engine turbojet airplanes with 100 of fewer
seats be given exemptions from the noise rule until January 1, 1988
(the so-called ``small community service'' exemptions). The FAA
implemented the ``service to small community'' exemption for two-engine
subsonic airplanes in Sec. 91.307.
5.3 Airplane Operating Noise Limits--Stage 2 Phaseout
Through passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
(ANCA), Congress directed that domestic and foreign civil subsonic
turbojet airplanes with maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds must
meet Stage 3 standards to operate within the contiguous United States
after December 31, 1999. In implementing this statutory requirement,
the FAA promulgated a rule in 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart I, requiring that
domestic and foreign airplanes that do not meet Part 36 Stage 3 noise
levels either be retired or modified to meet those levels. To bring
about the earliest feasible reduction of noise levels, interim
compliance deadlines for phaseout of Stage 2 and transition to Stage 3
airplane fleets were established on the basis of technological and
economic reasonableness. Interim compliance options and related
deadlines are:
Phaseout Method
An operator could choose to reduce the number of Stage 2 airplanes
it maintains on its operations specifications for operation in the
contiguous United States to the required percentage of its established
base level number on each compliance date as follows:
After December 31, 1994, 75 percent of its base level;
After December 31, 1996, 50 percent of its base level; and
After December 31, 1998, 25 percent of its base level.
[[Page 43823]]
Fleet Mix Method
An aircraft operator could choose to increase the number of Stage 3
airplanes it maintains on its operations specifications for operation
in the contiguous United States so that its fleet consists of:
Not less than 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1994;
Not less than 65 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1996;
and,
Not less than 75 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1998.
New Entrant Compliance
A new entrant air carrier (a domestic or foreign air carrier
beginning service in the contiguous United States after November 5,
1990) must increase the number of Stage 3 airplanes it maintains on its
operations specifications for operation in the contiguous United States
so that its fleet consists of:
At least 25 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1994;
At least 50 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1996; and
At least 75 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1998.
The regulations require all operators of subject airplanes to
report compliance progress to the FAA annually. They also provide
separate criteria for interim and final compliance waivers. As
prescribed in ANCA, a final compliance waiver may only be granted by
the Secretary of Transportation (through delegation, by the FAA) to a
domestic air carrier for no more than 15 percent of its fleet and that
has achieved a fleet mix of at least 85 percent Stage 3 airplanes by
July 1, 1999. Any final compliance waiver granted may not extend beyond
December 31, 2003.
5.4 Potential Gains From Source Noise Reduction Research
Federal policy recognizes noise impacts on populations and
emphasizes source reduction to alleviate those impacts. This policy
initiated the Stage 1 phaseout, which subsequently was codified into
Federal law. It also resulted in the establishment of Stage 3
standards. In conjunction with additional Federal legislation, the
Federal government's aviation noise policy facilitated the phaseout of
Stage 2 airplanes by the year 2000. In keeping with this policy, the
FAA places a high priority on developing future aircraft noise
reduction technology to support the continued expansion of the national
aviation system.
In early 1992, the FAA and NASA began sponsorship of a multiyear
program focused on achieving significant noise reduction technology
advances. In October 1992, Congress mandated that the FAA and NASA
jointly conduct an aircraft noise reduction research program, the goal
of which is to develop, by the year 2001, technologies for subsonic jet
aircraft to operate at reduced noise levels. Current and projected
funding of this project in the FAA's and NASA's co-sponsored research
program will exceed $200 million by the year 2000. The project's stated
goal is to develop technology to reduce the community noise impact of
the future subsonic airplanes by 10 dB (relative to 1992 technology).
Future Noise Standards
The FAA is a major participant on an ICAO Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP) technical working group that is
formulating proposals for an increase in stringency of the
international noise standard for subsonic jet and large propeller-
driven airplanes. The FAA plans to set new Stage 4 standards by early
in the next century. New standards would result in a future timed
transition to a generation of airplanes quieter than Stage 3, similar
to source-noise reduction transitions that have been implemented since
the 1976 Policy.
The Secretary of Transportation's flagship initiative supports the
development of more stringent aircraft noise standards. FAA is
aggressively pursuing the development of international certification
noise standards for turbojet airplanes that will be more stringent than
the current Stage 3 standards; and, developing models to assess new
noise abatement technologies that will encourage introduction of
quieter planes.
Source Noise Reductions for Aircraft Under 75,000 lbs.
Commercial and business aircraft of not more than 75,000 pounds
gross weight make a significant contribution to aviation in the United
States. They often provide the bridge between smaller communities and
the major air carrier airports. Generally, this task is performed by
commuter aircraft and specialized air traffic services. Privately owned
business aircraft also make a contribution to the system by providing
specialized point-to-point service for corporate executives and staff.
This service saves valuable time and relieves hub congestion while
providing increased aircraft capacity to the system. Each of these
classes of smaller aircraft makes its unique contribution to the
overall efficiency of aviation. Together, they extend air service to
many smaller outlying areas, both rural settings and suburban.
The Stage 1 and Stage 2 airplane phaseouts affected only large
commercial airplanes with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds.
There are no provisions in either Federal law or FAA regulations that
are directed at phasing out airplanes of not more than 75,000 pounds.
In 1990-91, the FAA undertook a study in accordance with the provisions
of 49 U.S.C. 47525 to determine whether requirements governing noise
and access restrictions in Part 161 should apply to Stage 2 airplanes
of not more than 75,000 pounds as well as to those above that weight.
After careful consideration of the various issues involved and of
comments received from the public, the FAA concluded that the analysis,
notice, and comment provisions for proposed restrictions should apply
to all Stage 2 aircraft operations regardless of gross weight. This
conclusion was based on the need to protect the interests of all
segments of aviation and of the general public.
The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) passed a
resolution in January 1998 that is a first step in voluntary
elimination of noisy business aircraft. Coordinated with the FAA, the
resolution calls for the NBAA's 5,200 members to refrain from adding
Stage 1 aircraft to their fleets beginning in January 2000 and to end
the operation of Stage 1 aircraft by January 2005. This resolution
affects business aircraft at or below 75,000 pounds. In the absence of
specific Federal legislation, the FAA encourages and supports voluntary
efforts by the aviation industry that will result in reducing noise of
Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft of not more than 75,000 pounds in gross
weight.
Helicopter Noise Reduction Research
44 U.S.C. 44715 directs the FAA to prescribe and amend aircraft
noise standards taking into consideration whether the standard is
economically reasonable, technologically feasible and appropriate for
the applicable aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certificate. An
FAA research project seeks to demonstrate the technological and
economical feasibility of incorporating existing noise abatement
technology concepts into the designs of light helicopters produced by
small manufacturers. The project is a technology transfer effort that
will address existing noise abatement design concepts for individual
small helicopter designs. Prototype hardware will be constructed and
tested, or existing airframe designs modified, to demonstrate the
airworthiness and noise reduction potential of the noise abatement
designs. The FAA-sponsored
[[Page 43824]]
activity is a follow-on to the similar NASA research program directed
toward the larger, more technologically advanced manufacturers and
involving the development of advanced noise design technologies.
General Aviation Noise Reduction Research
In 1994, Congress directed that the FAA and NASA jointly conduct a
noise study of propeller-driven small airplanes and rotorcraft to
identify noise reduction technologies, evaluate the status of R&D and
determine the need for addition research activities. For propeller-
drive small airplanes, the study identified the need for user-friendly
tools to design quieter propellers, engine systems optimized for low
noise, and demonstration of these concepts.
The FAA and NASA initiated a government/industry/university
partnership for acoustics technologies following the findings of the
study. This research supports the General Aviation Action Plan (GAAP),
which was developed by the general aviation (GA) industry and the FAA.
One of the goals of the GAAP is to promote the development of new
methodologies and technologies that will reduce the overall perceived
noise footprint of GA aircraft. In response, the FAA and NASA are co-
sponsoring a research program that seeks to identify and develop
propeller-driven aircraft noise reduction and control technologies. The
objective of the project is to enable U.S. manufacturers to produce
quieter propeller-driven airplanes.
Appendix: References
Source Literature
Acoustical Society of America. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for
Determination of Compatible Land Use. ANSI S12.40-1990.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. Federal Agency
Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Washington, D.C.:
FICON.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN), 1980.
Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control.
(U.S. Government Printing Office Report #1981-337-066/8071)
Washington, D.C.: FICUN.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection. 1995. Evolution of the Noise
Climate Around Airports. Working Paper Number 59. Montreal, Canada:
ICAO.
National Research Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
(CHABA). 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact
Statements on Noise. Report of Working Group 69. Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council.
National Research Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
(CHABA). 1981. Assessment of Community Response to High-Energy
Impulsive Sounds. Report of Working Group 84. Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council.
National Research Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics
(CHABA). 1981. The Effects on Human Health from Long-term Exposures
to Noise. Report of Working Group 81. Washington, D.C.: National
Research Council.
Schultz, T.J., 1978. ``Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise
Annoyance.'' Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 64(2):
377-405.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary and
Federal Aviation Administration, 1976. Aviation Noise Abatement
Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.
Office of Environment and Energy. 1984. Land Use Compatibility
Study: Aircraft Noise and Land Use. FAA-AEE-84-16. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. DOT, FAA.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.
Office of Environment and Energy. 1989. Report to Congress on the
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
DOT, FAA.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.
1993. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles. Advisory Circular 91.53A.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration.
Office of Environment and Energy. 1994. Future Noise Contour
Analysis. FAA-AEE-96-06. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Public Health and
Welfare Criteria for Noise, July 27, 1973. EPA Report 550/9-73-002.
Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and
Control. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. EPA Report No. 550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. EPA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Guidelines for Noise
Impact Analysis. EPA-550/9-82-105. Springfield, Va.: National
Technical Information Service (PB82-219205).
Statutes
Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715).
Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA) (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715).
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA) (49 U.S.C.
40116, 46505, 47501-47508).
Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) (49 U.S.C. 47521-
47533).
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)
Regulations in 14 CFR
Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness
Certification.
Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules; Subpart I, Operating
Noise Limits.
Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.
Part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access
Restrictions.
[FR Doc. 00-17784 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M