Introduction
In the 1980s, an increased rate of aircraft flights from newer fleets prompted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to impose nighttime noise restrictions around airports. These restrictions were intended to protect nearby residents from loud aircraft noise at night, limiting when and where aircrafts can run.
Today, only a handful of major U.S. airports have curfews, with different cities imposing different times. In California, San Diego’s International Airport encourages “the quietest aircraft [use] available in the industry between 10:00 PM. and 7:00 AM.” But in other places, voluntary curfew periods from 10 PM to 7 AM in Naples Municipal Airport are mandated, or noise abatement rules from midnight to 6 AMin LaGuardia Airport are imposed.
What is H.R. 6562, or the R.E.S.T. Act?
Introduced by Congressman Jimmy Panetta [D-CA-19] in 2023, the Restore Everyone’s Sleep Tonight Act, or R.E.S.T. Act, expands these protections across the nation, implementing optional aircraft curfews between 10 PM and 7 AM. Any airline that violates this access restriction will incur a base penalty, with an additional fine if the noise of an aircraft taking off or landing exceeds 80 dBA. While the bill seems to let airports determine the penalty amount, U.S. airports with existing access restrictions impose fines anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000, depending on the number of offenses and exceptions like emergency flights, evacuation efforts by air, or government-related fleets.
More R.E.S.T. for Residents
On average, jet engines emit between 140 and 180 decibels at takeoff. As the noise limit considered safe for humans is 85 decibels, many believe nighttime aircraft operations jeopardize adequate rest and increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases and complications from loud noise. While advances in commercial aircraft mitigate noise, supporters of the R.E.S.T. Act argue these are insufficient to dampen noise in the high engine power takeoffs and landings. By having a nighttime curfew for aircraft, many believe the policy will boost local livability, as disruptions to sleep quality dwindle in the absence of dangerous noise levels.
Proponents of R.E.S.T. also note that the aviation sector is one of the fastest-growing global polluters, accounting for two percent of global emissions. According to the U.N., not taking one long flight can reduce a passenger’s carbon footprint by two metric tons. Limiting the number of late-night flights could lead to a reduction in emissions from aircraft, decreasing both light pollution and carbon footprint. Additionally, noise pollution emitted from aircraft overflights causes habitat destruction and fragments the conservation of biodiversity. While nighttime aircraft noise is not the only disruption factor for such disruption, R.E.S.T. may minimize nighttime noise pollution.
Arguments Against R.E.S.T.
Opponents believe R.E.S.T. will limit the airport’s capacity to support flight volumes and handle delays, as seen in Europe. As weather complications, such as tailwinds and headwinds, modify arrival times, operational hours of an airport need flexibility to avoid backups of circling planes overnight.
Critics also doubt the effectiveness of imposing curfews like R.E.S.T. In 2022, 89 flights departed San Diego Airport after their curfews, and only a few incurred violations. With relatively low fines and record wiping every six months, airlines have little to no incentive to adhere to an airport curfew and change their behavior. However, proponents argue permissibility fluctuates with airports; in fact, 98% of Naples Municipal Airport’s nighttime operations ceased during their voluntary curfew periods.
Even considering inter-airport differences, opponents argue a one-size-fits-all policy will fail to address unique circumstances that vary by airport. Smaller airports located closer to neighborhoods and cities may need stricter restrictions, while 45 percent of U.S. cities are at least 75 miles away from large airports. Aviation activity and distance toward metropolitan centers also vary with airport types; harsher restrictions on smaller airports may fail to address noise complaints from larger airports that are not in metropolitan areas. Those against the R.E.S.T. Act also raise concerns over the bill’s varying degree of effectiveness on private versus public airports. With around 5,000 public-use and 14,000 private-use airports in the U.S., the latter are not subject to the same regulations as U.S. airports owned by state or local governments.
Aside from the bill seeming one-size-fits-all, the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act (A.N.C.A.) sets national standards and limits on noise already. However, A.N.C.A. shifts the power of noise abatement away from local governments and airport proprietors to limit the decentralized restrictions that airports can impose. Given the different air traffic volumes and surroundings of U.S. airports, critics believe a nationwide bill that standardizes an aircraft curfew period seems to be unproductive and unlawful.
Conclusion
While R.E.S.T. aims to improve local sleep quality and curb light pollution, the act may overlook diverse operational needs of different airports with a “one-size-fits-all” policy, create logistical inefficiencies, and be generally ineffective. Regardless of stances on the bill, it needs to be reintroduced in Congress, as it remained stuck in the 188th Congress.