Airport noise data posted publicly

Summary#

H-5708, “An Act relative to noise report data and good neighbor policy at Beverly Regional Airport,” would create new duties for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Aeronautics Division and Beverly Regional Airport. Its stated goal is to establish noise-reporting requirements; the supplied material says the bill passed the House, but does not show that it has become law.

  • The Aeronautics Division must collect and post noise reports and complaints made to the airport from April 1 to October 1, including when the reported noise occurred. Monthly data must be posted within 20 days after each month and kept online permanently.
  • The Division must collect monthly data from the airport tower on the number and time of day of “Touch and Go” operations (landings followed by takeoff without stopping or leaving the runway), and post it on the airport’s website permanently.
  • The Division must annually give collected noise data to the transportation secretary and the House and Senate chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation.
  • If at least two airport commissioners request it, the airport commission must hold a public meeting on noise reports. Commissioners and the airport manager must answer public questions to the best of their ability.
  • The Division must annually provide the airport manager and commissioners with Good Neighbor policy guidance, including a sample policy and public-information tools. The airport must give pilots and student pilots a written policy and post it visibly; each airport badge applicant must also receive a copy.

What it means for you#

  • People reporting airport noise: Their reports made to Beverly Regional Airport during the stated period must be included in data the Division collects and posts. The bill does not say whether the full complaint, the reporter’s identity, or only certain details will appear online.
  • Pilots, student pilots and badge applicants: They must be given a copy of the Good Neighbor Policy. The bill does not set flight limits or require pilots to change how they fly.
  • Flight schools and airport tenants: The Division’s guidance must include suggested steps for informing tenants, but the bill does not require flight schools or tenants to adopt particular practices.
  • The airport commission and manager: They must take part in the specified policy and meeting duties. The bill does not create a new independent agency or a new noise-enforcement service.
  • The public: Noise data must be available online. A public noise meeting is required only if at least two commissioners request one.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated costs is supplied.

  • The Division must collect, publish and share data, and provide annual guidance. The bill does not state staffing levels or funding.
  • The airport must distribute and post policy copies and may have to hold a public meeting when the request condition is met. No cost estimate is given.
  • The bill does not set fees, fines or new benefits.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not describe how reports will be collected, checked, categorized or handled if they contain personal information.
  • It does not define “excessive noise” or explain what information beyond the required day, date and hour must be posted.
  • It does not clearly say who must write or approve the Good Neighbor Policy, or what rules the policy must contain.
  • It does not specify how the airport tower data will be recorded or what “time of day” means.
  • The bill states an effective date of January 1, 2027, while also declaring itself an emergency law. The supplied text does not explain how those provisions interact.
  • The supplied material does not establish what noise-reporting or policy practices are already in place.

Case for#

  • Public, permanent records could help residents and officials see when noise reports and Touch and Go operations occur.
  • Monthly publication and annual sharing with transportation officials could make the information easier to track over time.
  • Giving pilots a written policy and providing guidance to airport officials could make noise impacts on nearby residents more visible.
  • The public meeting requirement gives commissioners a clear duty to answer questions if at least two commissioners request a meeting.

Case against#

  • The bill requires collecting and publishing data but does not set a noise limit or require action when reports or operations raise concerns.
  • The Good Neighbor guidance must include a sample policy, but the bill does not spell out what pilots must do under the policy or require a particular flight practice.
  • Permanent online posting could raise privacy concerns if reports contain personal details; the bill does not state what will be removed or withheld.
  • The bill creates ongoing duties for the Division and airport without specifying funding, staffing or a process to check compliance.