Sick of Helicopters in Sedona? Court of Appeals Rules: FAA Can Set Flight Paths to Reduce Environmental Impacts On Friday, July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) could require that helicopter flights use a route one mile off the north shore of Long Island for the purpose of noise reduction in residential areas. The FAA itself argued that limiting the flights to a given route was legal even if the sole purpose were noise reduction, including flights over areas modeled at less than FAA mitigation standards. The Helicopter Association&# 39; International, Incorporated’s primary argument was that the FAA lacks statutory authority to alter air traffic patterns for the sole purpose of reducing the impact of aircraft noise on residential communities. Airlines want the FAA’s authority to regulate air traffic to be limited to safety. The FAA now says that it had the general authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103, adopted in 1994, to “prescribe air traffic regulations …(to) protect individuals and property on the ground.” The Court found this “broad authorization over the flight of aircraft to protect individuals and property” gives it the authority to direct traffic to lower aircraft noise as FAA sees fit. The FAA argument and the Court’s holding is interesting because the FAA has long denied responsibility for over noise on the ground in and around airports due to overflights. FAA has rules, per CFR14, Part 150, defining how airport improvement funds can be used for mitigation of 65 DNL and over only interior residential noise is less than 45 DNL. SMAAC has known that FAA could, and should, direct flights to reduce noise exposure, in spite of frequent contrary comments by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. FAA adopted rules, 40 CFR 1502.14(a), making the cost of mitigation the deciding factor if operations would be as safe or safer practicing noise abatement (such as selected routes, higher altitudes, aircraft types). The local airport manager,the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and particularly the MAC Noise and Environmental staff, has long propagated the idea that FAA could not alter air traffic patterns just to reduce the environmental impact of overflights. MAC spread the word that fewer overflights of residential communities just to reduce exposing people to aircraft noise was not feasible, because the airlines would sue and win. In May 2013, the MAC alleged in a court motion that this was the case, including Federal pre-emption of Minnesota cities’ authority to set a lower, less noise intensity, standard for “compatible use” zones near airports or other noise generators. The contrary Appeals Court’s ruling seems to expose the MAC’s noise mitigation policy as neither informed nor in the best interests of people living or working near MSP. The Tabor Law Group’s on-line article remarked: If anything, this case emphasizes the importance of political action by groups opposed to aircraft noise – the residents of the north shore of Long Island made their voices heard and it was their voices that the FAA relied upon in making the NSHR mandatory. Whether the FAA will give the same kind of consideration to residents closer to an airport with substantially less money and political influence is another story (and another case). Credit is being given to Representatives Steve Israel and Grace Meng for insisting that the FAA manage both safety and noise reduction, particularly since Federal dollars are limited and a considerable investment was made to add but separate flight routes and altitudes for airlines using airports managed by the New York-New Jersey Port Authority. This gives credence to appeals to the Minnesota Congressional delegation to deal with the FAA to limit hourly operations at MSP for safety, less noise, and lower costs.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:45:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015