Airport Noise Regulation In India
________________________________________________________________________________
This Blog is written by Utkarsha Singh from University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. Edited by Ritika Sharma.
________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The issue of noise pollution around airports had previously been raised by the National Green Court (NGT) in January when it heard petitions filed by residents of Vasant Kunj and Bijwasan in South Delhi. Both residential areas are very close to the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA) in the Capital.
The Union Ministry of the Environment issued a notification establishing noise standards for all airports in the country. The limits, however, exclude defence aircraft and those landing and taking off.
The notification, issued on June 18, states that noise standards within the general limit for various airports are equivalent and applicable as “Industrial Zones”. “The specified noise limits shall replace and supersede the ambient air quality with respect to the noise limits of existing areas: silence, residential and commercial areas,” reads the notification signed by Dr. A Senthil Vel, scientist, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) which was called the Environment Amendment (Protection) Rules, 2018.
The rules state that busy airports – a civil airport with more than 50,000 aircraft movements per year (take-off or landing), must not exceed noise levels beyond 75 dB (A) LEQ (decibels) during the day (6 am to 10 pm) and 65 dBA overnight (10 pm to 6 am). All other airports, and airport with more than 15,000 movements but less than 50,000 movements per year, should not exceed levels beyond 65 dBA during the day and 60 dBA at night. However, the proposed airports are so far excluded.
DB (A) LEQ denotes the time-weighted average sound level in decibels on the “A” scale that relates to human hearing. This means that the average noise levels during the 16 hours interval are considered for the weighted average time in the airport noise zones, which should not exceed the prescribed limits. Levels should be measured at different points on the border of an airport and then averaged. The specified limits will have a tolerance limit of 10dB (A) LEQ, which is the threshold, and the levels that exceed this need must be controlled by the respective airport authorities.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
The Anti-noise campaigners contended that the notification is overriding the noise zoning laws including silence or residential zone laws, which is a health hazard. The rules imply that new airports can be established in any area, including next to hospitals, schools, courts, or other noise-sensitive areas, and those health-based noise laws will not apply.
An airport noise zone is an area for each airport, based on the master plan, which will be defined as a noise contour for day and night by the respective airport operator based on the existing rules of the civil aviation ministry, according to the rules.
The rules further state that for new, upcoming or proposed airports, the airport operators must perform noise modeling and the results must be submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) while seeking environmental clearance. Operators were also required to develop noise zones at the airport.
IMPACT
The companies that run India’s two busiest airports, Delhi and Mumbai, responded positively to the move to set noise standards for the country’s airports. A spokesperson of the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) claimed that the development of aviation-specific noise standards is a key step towards managing aircraft noise at airports in India. Prior to this, there were no airport-specific standards for aircraft and airport noise zones. This will ensure effective monitoring of aircraft noise and compliance, which will be monitored by DGCA. DIAL has agreed to comply with the notification according to the given timeline. DIAL has already taken various noise mitigation measures at Delhi Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA), and is working collaboratively with all stakeholders. And are also constantly exploring all feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise levels.
Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), which operates Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, said its noise levels are much lower than government-issued safety standards. They have implemented a comprehensive noise monitoring system based on the specifications of the DGCA and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to analyze the impact of aircraft noise on communities and have two fixed noise monitoring terminals installed below the take-off and landing flight routes, and a mobile unit at the airfield to respond to noise pollution issues.
Noise mapping is a scientific method to understand the existing and projected noise levels in a particular area. The mapping, generally performed by calculating noise levels in different scenarios, helps to develop an action plan for mitigation measures.
Taking serious note of noise pollution from aircraft during take-off and landing and also during airport movements, the National Physical Laboratory of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has decided to assist Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) and the Indian Airport Authority to ‘map noise’ of all airports in the country and suggest appropriate mitigation measures to minimize their impact.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
The main statutory provisions regarding the control of noise pollution:
Constitution of India and Noise Control
Rapid industrial development, urbanization and the regular flow of people from rural to urban areas have contributed significantly to environmental degradation, but at the same time, the authorities in charge of pollution control work: the Control Board Pollution cannot sit with hands together under the pretext that they have no financial or other means to control pollution and support the environment.
Apart from that, Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to life, Arts. 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution are as under: –
Article 51 A (g)- “to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”.
Article 48A- “Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”.
Indian Penal Code and Noise Control
Provisions under Sec. 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, noise is actionable as “public nuisance”. The section reads : “A person is guilty of Public nuisances who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right”. People who by any offensive means corrupt the air or by any means cause loud and continued noise- and thereby cause injury or annoyance to those dwelling in the neighborhood in respect of their health or comfort and convenience or living are liable to prosecution for causing a public nuisance.
Aircraft Act, 1934 and Noise Control
The impact of civil aviation on the environment is evident in the growing public concern about noise, which is the most irritating and most responsible element of the growing opposition to further growth in aviation. Concern about rising aircraft noise levels has been appreciated by the global aviation community.
Consequently, in 1968, at the sixteenth session of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Buenos Aires, a resolution was adopted requesting ICAO to urgently study the problem of noise pollution of the planes. ICAO, in accordance with this resolution, carried out a detailed study of the noise problem and developed laws in the form of International Standards and Recommended Practices for aircraft noise. Finally, ICAO adopted them as an annex. 16 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. According to these standards, all aircraft must have noise certification from the authorities of the state of registration of the aircraft based on satisfactory evidence that the aircraft meets the requirements that are at least equal to the applicable standards. specified in the Annexure 16.
India is a member state of ICAO and has therefore accepted the noise specifications in the annex. 16 for implementation in India. Therefore, according to an issued aeronautical information circular which is a legal directive, establishes that aircraft that are not certified against noise in accordance with the annex. 16 standards will not be able to operate in India after December 31, 1987.
Under the Indian Aircraft Act, 1934 causing intentional damage or injury is actionable. Although there is no specific provision related to the control of aircraft noise pollution, but under the standard, the powers confirmed by Sec. 8 (A) of the Aircraft Act of 1934 and its replacement of the Aeronautics rules India (Public Health), 1946. The government can establish rules to control noise pollution to safeguard health. Noise restriction regulations and safety regulations are incorporated into the Aircraft Rules. To enforce the regulations, environmental committees are established in the field of aviation headed by secretaries of state governments with broad membership of the Department of Civil Aviation, Municipal Corporations, Department of Health, etc., at all airports. These committees also consider ways and means to maintain environmental cleanliness, waste disposal, and removal of unauthorized slums or places to eat, etc., around the airport.
It should be mentioned here that, in theory, there are noise restrictions at Indian airports, but there are no known cases in which the airline has been penalized for violating established noise standards. No serious effort has been made to impose night curfews to reduce noise pollution.
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
On February 14, 2000, the Union Government promulgated the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 in the exercise of its power conferred by the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to control the increase in the level of environmental noise in public places from various sources.
Rule 5 of the Noise Rules 2000 restricts the use of loudspeakers / public address system. Rule 5 was amended in 2010 to restrict the use of sound production equipment as well. In all these cases, written permission is required to use such equipment.
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Noise Control
Before the 1987 amendments to the 1981 Air Act, the Act did not include noise pollution regulation in its range. But after the 1987 amendments, the noise has been recognized as an air pollutant. Amendment Sec. 2 (a) now defines ‘air pollutant’ as ” mean any solid liquid or gaseous substance including noise present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or environment. ” Therefore, the 1987 Amendment to the Air Law now specifically extends the provision of the Air Law, including increasing sanctions on citizens and issuance of precautionary measures by Magistrates, to control noise pollution.
The Central and State Boards now exercise the powers and functions under Secs. 16 and 17 of the Air Law, respectively, in relation to the prevention and control of noise pollution, including the setting of noise standards. In compliance with the powers conferred under Sec. 16, the Central Pollution Control Board has established noise standards during the reference years.
CASE LAWS
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973)
The appellant requested a court order against the execution of a Burbank city ordinance establishing an 11 p.m. At 7 a.m., curfew on jet flights from Hollywood-Burbank Airport. The District Court found the ordinance to be unconstitutional on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of the Supremacy Clause, with respect to both prevention and conflict.
Held: In light of the prevailing nature of the federal aircraft noise regulation scheme, as reaffirmed and reinforced by the 1972 Noise Control Act, the Federal Aviation Administration, now in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, has control Total on aircraft noise, avoiding state and local control.
Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962)
Allegheny County owns and maintains the Great Pittsburgh Airport at a site it acquired to provide airport facilities under the Federal Airports Act. In an approach zone or glide path, the flight pattern established by the Civil Aeronautics Administrator for landing and departing aircraft from the airport requires aircraft to fly regularly and frequently at very low altitudes on the petitioner’s residential property. The resulting noise, vibrations, and danger forced the petitioner and his family to move out of their home.
Held: The County has taken an air easement on the petitioner’s property for which he must pay fair compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Luedtke v. County of Milwaukee, 371 F. Supp. 1040 (E.D. Wis. 1974)
The plaintiffs allege that “aircraft … pass over (their) properties or (near) them, at unreasonably low altitudes, while taking off and landing,” thus causing “noise, vibration, dust, fumes, soot, jet no. spent fuel, harmful substances, and other particles that will be dropped on “your property.” Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs charge the defendants with negligence, nuisance, and violation of Section 114.04, Wis. States which deal with responsibility for low-altitude, dangerous, or damage-causing flights.
Held: The bombardment of noise, fumes, and particulate matter of which the plaintiffs complain is but a necessary by-product of modern flight. If proven, the existence of such nuisance incidents constitutes evidence only of the need for compensation from the airport operator, Milwaukee County; It is that entity that is obliged by federal law to anticipate the reported problems and provide an adequate area for the normal activities of a major airport. It is also ordered that the defendant county’s motion to dismiss the instant complaint be and hereby is granted.
Aaron v. City of Los Angeles
In an effort to avoid liability, he argued that the planes were the immediate cause of noise and therefore of the federal government, which regulates flight in navigable airspace. They must be responsible for the damages.
Held: The court ruled, however, that, while the federal government exercises some control over navigable airspace, this did not immunize the city, as the owner of the airport, for lack of appropriation, for eminent domain otherwise, the land and airspace necessary to provide appropriate aircraft approaches.
State of Illinois v Butterfield
The state sought relief from the substantial increase in aircraft operations, noise pollution and air pollution at O’Hare International Airport. The suit charged that the FAA’s policy of unlimited growth at O’Hare, its authority to approve flight paths, and the resulting pattern of aircraft operations constituted federal action affecting the quality of the environment and, therefore, required that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared by the FAA and CAB,65 pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Held: The district the court agreed with the plaintiff’s claims that the FAA and CAB must be required to submit an EIS before continuing to increase aircraft traffic and operations at O’Hare. Court noted that the EIS must be done, although the airport was already very busy before the enactment of NEPA.
ANALYSIS
The last decade has seen a dangerous hike in the amount of pollution and the real disaster is yet to be faced by the coming generation as the quality of all the non- renewable natural resources keep on degrading.
Noise pollution has not been very much worried upon but the slow and long-term effects of it have led to nuisance and other health-related problems. Airport noise pollution is one of the most disputed causes of it. The steps were taken by the Union Ministry in curbing the amount of noise pollution by the airlines by putting a limit on the noise levels during day as well as night such that they don’t interfere with the comfort of the commercial and residential area has been an important and a judicious decision. It is in the best favor of the people as well as of the environment. The fact that the notification issued was welcomed by both DIAL and MIAL operating Indira Gandhi International Airport and Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport respectively, is a relief as these are the two busiest Airports of Delhi and Mumbai.
There is sufficient evidence of a negative effect of exposure to airplane noise on children’s cognitive abilities, such as reading and memory, as well as on standardized scores on academic tests. Evidence is also emerging to support the insulation of schools that may be exposed to high levels of airplane noise. A variety of plausible mechanisms have been proposed to account for the effects of airplane noise on children’s learning.
CONCLUSION
The nuisance due to aircraft noise has been recognized by authorities and policy makers as a harmful effect that should be avoided and reduced. Priority is given to reducing noise at the source (for example, engine noise, aerodynamic noise) and reducing noise by adjusting take-off and landing procedures, but these measures are not always sufficient or feasible. Home acoustic insulation is often applied, but may not reduce nuisance levels when associated with poor indoor air quality. In addition, the observed influence on the annoyance of various non-acoustic factors, such as fear, perceived control, and trust in authorities, suggests that communication strategies that address these problems could greatly contribute to the reduction of annoyance, together or even in the absence of noise. reduction.
REFERENCE:
(1) https://supreme.justia.com
(2) http://www.lawsindia.com/Industrial%20Law/K092.htm
(3) https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2342&context=jalc