AAAE National Aviation Environmental Management Conference Steven M. Taber Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP Aviation Noise Tampa, Florida February 9-10, 2009

Introduction Noise is highly subjective Try to make it less disagreeable to most people Things are getting quieter, but who cares? Two Areas Assessing the Problem Solutions to the Problem

Assessing The Problem Assessing and Tracking=Three Things How is the noise created? How is the noise transmitted? What is the community’s response to the noise? Recent updates Assessment and tracking of aircraft noise Understanding the effect of aircraft noise on the community

Assessing and Tracking Noise Two Updates over the past year FAA continues development of “Aviation Environmental Design Tool” (AEDT) Lochard development of “WebTrak FlyQuiet”

AEDT to Be Released in 2011 “One-Stop Shopping” AEDT will replace EDMS INM NIRS Include the capabilities for national and global analyses.

Lochard’s WebTrak FlyQuiet Product Identifies flights that do not comply with airport noise procedures and communicates that information to the airport operator Enables airports to reinforce procedures and improve future compliance Aircraft operators can quickly investigate noise and flight track violations themselves 0/lang,uk_us/ 0/lang,uk_us/

The Effect of Aviation Noise on the Community FICAN recommends using ANSI Standard S to predict Aircraft noise awakenings New PARTNER studies focus on annoyance, sleep disturbance, sound transmission

FICAN Recommends ANSI Standard S Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) updated its recommendation regarding how to predict people being awakened by aircraft noise FICAN now recommends the use of ANSI S , Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 6: Methods for estimation of Awakenings Associated with Outdoor Noise Events Heard in Homes

FICAN Recommends ANSI Standard S (p.2) FICAN: “ANSI S provides a method to predict sleep disturbance in terms of percent awakenings or numbers of people awakened associated with noise levels in terms of indoor A-weighted sound exposure level.” See, 08.pdf 08.pdf New standard enables estimation of awakenings from an entire night of noise events

PARTNER Studies The Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) “An FAA/NASA/Transport Canada sponsored Center of Excellence” Three projects to assess, model and predict annoyance, sleep disturbance, and sound structural transmission Project 24, Noise Exposure Response: Annoyance. Project 25, Noise Exposure Response: Sleep Disturbance Project 26, Sound Structural Transmission

Project 24, Noise Exposure Response: Annoyance Outgrowth of PARTNER Project No. 2 “Goal is to develop a deeper understanding how noise affects annoyance in communities in proximity to airports.” Looking at the impact of low frequency noise on annoyance level. Will investigate whether knowledge of the noise source influences annoyance.

Project 25, Noise Exposure Response: Sleep Disturbance Goal=understand the impact of aircraft noise on sleep and develop models that predict sleep disturbance A more robust sleep disturbance model Coupled with noise prediction tools

Project 26, Sound Structural Transmission Development of numerical models to evaluate the transmission of low frequency noise through windows, doors, walls, and roofs Focus is on residential buildings Will help manufacturers establish criteria for classifying acoustic performance

Introduction Noise is highly subjective Try to make it less disagreeable to most people Two Areas Assessing the Problem Solutions to the ProblemSolutions to the Problem

Solutions to the Problem Two aspects of limiting the effect of aviation noise Noise mitigation, i.e., limiting the population affected by noise and limiting the effect of noise on the population Effective Community outreach

Noise Mitigation Four types of noise mitigation Land use compatibility planning and management Noise abatement operational procedures Noise reduction at the source (i.e., the aircraft) Aircraft operational restrictions

Noise Mitigation Type 1: Land Use Compatibility Planning and Management PARTNER Study. Land Use Management and Airport Controls: A Further Study of Trends and Indicators of Incompatible Land Use aptcontrol.pdf Funding for noise mitigation.

PARTNER Study: Land Use Management and Airport Controls Concludes that earlier land-use policies may have led to some of today’s conflicts Makes three recommendations: A proactive and effective communication link should be established and maintained between, city, county, airport, neighborhood communities, and real estate developers A nationally standardized method of complaint collection and reporting should be designed “Suggested” that local jurisdictions put in place an ordinance making it mandatory for any individual, city, county or real estate developer to obtain approval from the Airport Director for any substantial structure or zoning change occurring within the immediate vicinity of an airport and under flight paths.

Funding for Noise Mitigation $2.86 billion of total PFC revenue devoted to noise mitigation projects Noise grants (from AIP) totaling $272.7 million awarded to 48 airports in fiscal 2008 That funding level is $15.6 million less than the $288.3 in AIP noise mitigation grants awarded to 63 airports in fiscal 2007.

AIP Funding For Noise Mitigation

Noise Mitigation Type 2: Noise abatement operational procedures Draft update of Part 150 advisory circular (AC 150/5020-1)

Draft AC 150/ Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility Planning Section 7.10 Proposes noise mitigation measures that reduce noise impact beyond the 65 dB DNL contour line. Here is the issue: Airports must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measure will have a “noise benefit” “Noise benefit”=when the number of people located on a noise map is reduced due to a mitigation measure. Most airport noise maps end at the 65 dB DNL contour.

Draft AC 150/ p.2 Perplexing issues Because CDAs reduce noise impact beyond the 65 DNL contour, the definition of a noise benefit cannot be met If local jurisdictions adopt more distant contour as the “level of significant noise impact” then that contour can be used to show a noise benefit Most airports would need to get local jurisdictions to change their planning documents

Draft AC 150/ (p.3) Second Perplexing Issue: The Part 150 and 161 regulations are linked If demonstrated noise benefits occur beyond the 65 dB DNL contour line, then airports could more easily impose noise and access restrictions under Part 161 FAA does not want to make it any easier to obtain a Part 161 approval

Third Type of Noise Mitigation: Noise reduction at source (i.e., the aircraft) Newer aircraft are quieter Airlines continue to retire noisier, less fuel efficient aircraft FAA’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) technologies initiative

Fourth Type of Noise Mitigation: Aircraft Operational Restrictions. Disfavored, but still possible FAA remains opposed to restricting aircraft as a method to reduce noise. Proposed changes to Burbank/Bob Hope airport

Solutions to the Problem Two aspects of limiting the effect of aviation noise Noise mitigation, i.e., limiting the population affected by noise and limiting the effect of noise on the population Effective Community outreachEffective Community outreach

Effective Community Outreach Land Use Management and Airport Controls: A Further Study of Trends and Indicators of Incompatible Land Use. PARTNER, Sept FAA Initiatives PARTNER project to develop a website Development of a guidebook

Lawsuits Involving Noise Lawsuits that were resolved this past year Town of Winthrop v. FAA, No (1st Cir. July 23, 2008).

Lawsuits Involving Noise (p.2) Lawsuits that have been filed that may be resolved this year Airspace Redesign (County of Rockland, NY v. FAA, Case No (D.C. Circuit)) Petitioners Reply Brief due March 6, 2009 Oral Argument on May 7, 2009

Lawsuits Involving Noise (p.3) Lawsuits that probably will be filed in the near future Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lawsuit will challenge the expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport. City of Dania Beach has stated that it intends to file a lawsuit Somerville, MA Challenge to the “sharp increase” in takeoffs from Runway 33L Claim is that this has generated significant noise levels in the community

References AEDT News, September 2007 AEDT News, September 2008 ACRP Synthesis 9 “Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Selected TopicsACRP Synthesis 9 “Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Selected Topics FAA, Program Guidance Letter “Management of Acquired Noise Land: Inventory, Reuse, Disposal” February 1, 2008FAA, Program Guidance Letter “Management of Acquired Noise Land: Inventory, Reuse, Disposal” February 1, 2008 FAA, Advisory Circular AC 150/ “Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports” August 5, 1983FAA, Advisory Circular AC 150/ “Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports” August 5, 1983 FAA, Draft Advisory Circular AC 150/5020-1a “Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility Planning” Comments to be submitted by the end of February, 2009 PARTNER “Land Use Management and Airport Controls: A further study of trends and indicators of incompatible land use”PARTNER “Land Use Management and Airport Controls: A further study of trends and indicators of incompatible land use”

Final Note... A copy of this presentation will be posted in “Pages” section of the “Aviation and Airport Development Law Blog” at On that page will be links to some of the documents mentioned in the presentation While there, please subscribe so that you will receive updates when new posts appear.