A Guide To U.S. Aircraft Noise Regulatory Policy

151 Pages·2020·2.865 MB·English

by  Sanford Fidell, Vincent Mestre

Sanford Fidell
Vincent Mestre
A Guide To
U.S. Aircraft
Noise Regulatory
Policy
A Guide To U.S. Aircraft Noise Regulatory Policy
Sanford Fidell Vincent Mestre
(cid:129)
A Guide To U.S. Aircraft
Noise Regulatory Policy
123
Sanford Fidell Vincent Mestre
WoodlandHills, CA,USA Port Townsend, WA,USA
ISBN978-3-030-39907-8 ISBN978-3-030-39908-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39908-5
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNature
SwitzerlandAG2020
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilar
ordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
The World War II generation of acousticians, engineers, and social scientists who
laid the technical foundations for aircraft noise regulation and management in the
United States (among others, Leo Beranek, Richard Bolt, Per Bruel, Kenneth
Eldred, Harvey Fletcher, William Galloway, Harvey Hubbard, Karl Kryter, Alan
Marsh,TheodoreSchultz,S.S.Stevens,MichaelSmith,LouisSutherland,Henning
von Gierke, Robert Young, and Eberhard Zwicker) are now gone, and the ranks
of the succeeding generation are thinning. Few of today’s regulators, airport staff,
consultants, and researchers can recall the details of yesterday’s technical debates
and policy analyses on which today’s regulatory practices have been built. This
monograph is intended to provide perspective for informed contemporary discus-
sion of aviation noise regulation and management in the United States.
Community opposition to aircraft noise has been commonplace in
airport-vicinitycommunitiessincetheintroductionofcommercialjetserviceinthe
late 1950s. Aviation noise was not widely recognized as a societal problem in the
United States, however, until a strong environmental ethos arose inthe1960s,and
since requirements for disclosing and mitigating aircraft noise impacts of the
National Environmental Policy Act and similar state legislation came into effect in
the1970s. Subsequentworldwide disputes between communities and airports over
the effects of changes in aircraft operations and expansion of airport infrastructure
have often been highly contentious, often to the point of straining relations among
localgovernments,airports,airlines,andcommunityresidents;andoccasionallyto
theextentofintensepoliticalcontroversy,lengthylitigation,andevenmassprotest.
Scientific understanding of aircraft noise and its effects, not to mention regula-
tory policy, international technical consensus standards, aviation technology, and
public opinion have all evolved on separate timelines. U.S. policies supporting
generous federal subsidies1 for the air transportation industry since the 1920s are
now being questioned, while the underpinnings of decades-old aircraft noise reg-
ulatory practice are being re-examined on technical and political grounds. For
example, a 40-member Quiet Skies Caucus in the U.S. Congress incorporated
numerous aircraft noise-related requirements in the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018.2 Due to a lack of full appreciation for the context in which aviation noise
v
vi Preface
regulation has evolved in the United States, this re-examination is not always
well-informedandtechnicallyreasonable.Further,near-termdevelopmentssuchas
increased concentrations offlights in very narrow corridors many miles from air-
ports, low altitude autonomous flight operations in urban settings, and overland
supersonic flight risk spreading aircraft noise controversies well beyond the
immediate environs of airports.
Productive discussion of aircraft noise regulatory policy is unlikely without an
informed understanding of its origins and development. Examination of the data
andassumptionsonwhichnoiseregulationsarebased,andalternateinterpretations
of them, are rarely part of heated aircraft noise controversies, however. Instead,
manysuchcontroversiesrevolvearoundperennialissuesandfamiliarpositionsthat
have been repeatedly raised in differing contexts.
For example, the rationale for disclosure of predicted aircraft noise effects
mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) was developed in
an era when the charter of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”)
included promotion of civil aviation. Congress rescinded FAA’s responsibility and
authorityforpromotingcivilaviationin1996.Nationalnoisepolicieshavenotyet
been revised to reflect FAA’s new charter, and only recently have preliminary
discussionsofpolicyrevisionsbegun.Theagencyhasnotyetreviseditsdefinition
of “significant” noise impact, however, nor its views about land uses that it con-
siders compatible with continued operation and expansion of airports. Policies
based on obsolete goals and erroneous technical information have been retained
simply because they have survived purely judicial (i.e., non-technical) review.
Thismonographattemptstocastenoughlightontheoriginsandassumptionsof
aircraftnoiseregulationintheUnitedStatestoassistinitscontinuingimprovement.
Althoughthefocus ofthemonographisaircraft noise regulation,understandingof
underlying issues sometimes warrants discussion of related practical matters and
technical literature. The monograph is not, however, intended as a tutorial on
aircraft noise measurement and noise effects, and thus lacks detailed discussions
ofthesetopics.ReadersinterestedintheseandotherbasicsmayfindtheminMestre
et al. (2011) and Crocker (1997), among other places.
Woodland Hills, USA Sanford Fidell
Port Townsend, USA Vincent Mestre
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Varied Influences on Development of U.S. Aircraft Noise
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Tacit Assumptions of Current Aircraft Noise Regulatory
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Perennial Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 History of Technical Concern with Aircraft Noise
Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Basics of Contemporary Approach to Aircraft Noise
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Chronology of U.S. Aircraft Noise Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Landmarks in the Development of U.S. Aviation Noise
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 Pre-World War II Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 Post-World War II Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Influence of United States v. Causby and Griggs
v. Allegheny County Supreme Court Decisions . . . . . . . 8
2.1.4 Slow Recognition of Need for National Aircraft
Noise Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.5 Continued Industry Concerns with Liability
and Operational Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.6 Genesis of FAR Part 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
(“NEPA”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.8 FAA’s Definition of the Significance of Noise
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.9 Noise Control Act of 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
vii
viii Contents
2.1.10 Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979
(“ASNA”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.11 Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA”). . . . 17
2.2 Revocation of FAA Charter to Promote Civil Aviation . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 Other Developments Influencing the Growth of Aircraft
Noise Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.1 Air Mail Acts of 1925, 1930, and 1934. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2 Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.3 FAA Support for Airport Planning Exercises . . . . . . . . . 21
3 Aircraft Noise Effects on Individuals and Communities . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Annoyance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1.1 Consequences of an Acoustical Engineering
Perspective on “Community Response”. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.2 Difference Between Annoyance and Loudness . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Prospective Disclosure of Noise Impacts
for Airport Infrastructure Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1.4 DNL and the Equal Energy Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Dose–Response Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1 Early Dose–Response Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 The “Schultz Curve” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.3 FICON Position on Dose–Response Analysis . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.4 The “Updated” Schultz Curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.5 Uncertainty of Dose–Response Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.6 Other Dose–Response Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.7 Other Acoustic Predictor Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 Community Tolerance-Level Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.4 Time Constants of Arousal and Decay of Annoyance . . . . . . . . . 40
3.5 Complaints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.6 Speech Interference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.7 Sleep Disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.8 Task Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.9 Extra-Auditory Health Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.9.1 Relative Risks of Noise-Induced Health Effects . . . . . . . 46
3.9.2 Health-Related Justification for Aircraft Noise
Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.9.3 Hypothesized Mechanism of Disease Induction . . . . . . . 48
3.9.4 WHO’s Recent Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.9.5 Nature of Epidemiologic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.9.6 Limitations of Dose Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.10 Geographic Distribution of Costs and Benefits of Air
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Contents ix
3.10.1 Uneven Distribution of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.10.2 Airport Economic Impact Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.11 Aircraft Noise Effects on Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.12 Aircraft Noise Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.12.1 Small Claims Court Nuisance Suits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.12.2 Conventional Inverse Condemnation Litigation . . . . . . . 56
3.12.3 Challenges to Compliance with Environmental
Impact Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4 Aircraft Noise Measurement and Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Development of Aircraft Noise Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1.1 Introduction of Digital Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1.2 Aircraft Noise Certification for Purposes
of FAR Part 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1.3 Representativeness of Field Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.4 Permanently Installed Aircraft Noise Monitoring
Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.5 Uncertainty of Aircraft Noise Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.1.6 Implications of Uncertainty of Aircraft Noise
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.1.7 Classification of Monitored Noise Events . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.1.8 Smartphone Noise Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.1.9 Development of Aircraft Noise Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.10 Noisemap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.11 FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.1.12 FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). . . . 69
4.2 Reconciling Aircraft Noise Monitoring and Modeling. . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Implications of Uncertainty for Regulation of Aircraft
Noise Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5 Airport-Vicinity Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.1 Encroachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.2 ICAO’s “Balanced Approach”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.2.1 Airports Surrounded by Incompatible Land Use. . . . . . . 78
5.2.2 Airports Surrounded by Mixed Residential, Open
Space, and Noise-Compatible Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.2.3 Airports Surrounded by Undeveloped Land . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.3 Federal Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.4 Land Use Control Options Available to State/Local
Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.4.1 Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.4.2 Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.4.3 Transfer of Development Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.4.4 Building Code Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
x Contents
5.4.5 Capital Improvements Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.4.6 Sub-division Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.5 Sound Insulation Programs for Existing Homes and School . . . . 86
5.5.1 Los Angeles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.5.2 San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.5.3 Seattle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.5.4 San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.6 Purchase Assurance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.6.1 Indianapolis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.6.2 Newport Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.7 Acquisition of Land or Interest Therein (Easements). . . . . . . . . . 88
6 Airport Noise Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.1 Noise Control at the Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.2 Noise Control Through Operational Restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.2.1 Denial of Airport Use to Aircraft not Meeting FAR
Part 36 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2.2 Airport Capacity Limits Based on Noise
(“Noise Budgets”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2.3 Landing Fees Based on Noise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.2.4 Complete or Partial Curfews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.2.5 Noise Barriers (Shielding). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2.6 Noise Control Through Aircraft Operational
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2.7 Departure Thrust Cutback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2.8 Flight Track Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.2.9 Preferential Runway Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.2.10 Power and Flap Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7 Potential Changes to Airport Noise Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.1 Basis for Current Aircraft Noise Management Policies . . . . . . . . 100
7.2 Measures Capable of Improving Airport/Community
Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.2.1 Adopt a Systematic Rationale for Defining
the Significance of Noise Exposure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.2.2 Abandon One-Size-Fits-All Dose–Response Policy . . . . 104
7.2.3 Repeal or Revise ANCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.2.4 De-Linkage of Policy Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7.2.5 Adoption of a Regional Focus on Airport Capacity . . . . 106
7.2.6 Revision of Revenue Diversion Restrictions. . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2.7 Closer Scrutiny of Airport Noise Exposure Contours
Used for Land Use Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.2.8 Modifications to Encourage Conduct of Social
Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111