Currently, FAA law has extremely complicated rules for establishing a noise boundary around airports. (A noise boundary is a geographic area inside which there is a certain acceptable noise level.) This is referred to as the DNL65. and it has several major flaws. The FAA Reauthorization Act Of 2018 attempted to address these flaws in several ways. This letter, from a caucus of Congressmen engaged on airport community issues complains to the Administrator that the spirit of the law is not being adhered to and demands that he make attempts to put his agency into compliance.
The language is fairly technical, however there are a couple of basic points they raise: First, that the noise boundary be determined by actual noise measurements (currently the noise boundaries are ‘modeled’ and those calculations often do not reflect in any way the lived experience for residents.) Second, that the ‘acceptable’ noise level of sixty five decibels (hence DNL65) has been determined to be far too high to conform with current understandings of healthy living.
By Jon Hemmerdinger 24 August 2020 A ban on aircraft that do not meet new noise standards would do little to reduce overall aircraft noise and would impose costly requirements on airlines and aerospace manufacturers. That is according to a 20 August report from the US Government Accountability Office into the likely impact of a
1. Range of Alternatives. 2. Alternatives Outside the Capability of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency. 3. No-Action Alternative. 4. Agency’s Preferred Alternative. 5. Proposed Action v. Preferred Alternative. 6. Environmentally Preferable Alternative. 7. Difference Between Sections of EIS on Alternatives and Environmental Consequences. 8. Early Application of NEPA. 9. Applicant Who Needs Other Permits. 10.
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 161—NOTICE AND APPROVAL OF AIRPORT NOISE AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS Contents Subpart A—General Provisions §161.1 Purpose. §161.3 Applicability. §161.5 Definitions. §161.7 Limitations. §161.9 Designation of noise description methods. §161.11 Identification of land uses in airport noise study area. Subpart B—Agreements §161.101 Scope. §161.103 Notice of the proposed restriction. §161.105 Requirements for new entrants. §161.107 Implementation of the restriction. §161.109 Notice of
TOPICS:16hr2020 Report to Congress (“Report”)April 14average day-night level standardBarbara LichmanCDNLCNELconcentrated noise impact pointsLAeqLdenLmaxNAnoise metricsPart 150SELTA Posted By: Cynthia Schultz June 16, 2020 Share this article: Missed opportunity or necessary avoidance? Cynthia Schultz, PE While it would be easy to take the FAA to task for ignoring the congressional mandate, it is not so easy
Posted in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115254, § 188, Congress required the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to “evaluate alternative noise metrics to current average day-night level standard, such as the use of actual noise sampling to address community airplane noise concerns.” In its April 14, 2020
The 2020 UC Davis Aviation Noise and Emissions Symposium will focus on defining the challenges that face the noise and emissions industry over the next few years and discussing real-world solutions. Symposium Presenters will share ground-breaking efforts being undertaken by elected officials, airports, consultants, communities, and the FAA to mitigate noise and environmental impacts of
An earlier version of this bill was introduced into the 115th Congress as HR6168
116th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5874 To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to amend regulations concerning the day-night average sound level, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 12, 2020 Ms. Meng (for herself, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Beyer, Mr.