03/11/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN
AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
TUESDAY
MARCH 11, 1986
I. ROLL CALL & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. COMMITTEE UPDATE
- Runway Use Summary
- MASAC Members
III. OLD BUSINESS
- North Eagan Corridor
IV. NEW BUSINESS
- Joint Position Paper
V. DISTRIBUTION
- Governor's Task Force Report
- Mayor's Correspondence
- Airport Fact Sheets
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE
COMMITTEE
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN
DATE: MARCH 5, 1986
SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MARCH 11, 1986
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for
Tuesday, March 11, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be at the Eagan
Municipal Center in Conference Rooms A and B. Following the
meeting, there will be a joint City Council- Advisory Planning
Commission meeting to discuss Comprehensive Guide Plan issues
relative to airport noise. Members of the Airport Noise
Committee are encouraged to attend this meeting as well. Please
contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend
the meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide
background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on
Tuesday.
I. MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee
meeting of January 16, 1986 is enclosed for your review. These
minutes, subject to any change, require adoption by the
Committee.
COMMITTEE UPDATE - RUNWAY USE SUMMARY
Enclosed for your review you will find a copy of the summer 1985
air traffic count report for the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport. The major findings are summarized on the
first page. The most significant of the findings are numbers 1
and 5. Number 1 indicates that the parallel runways were used
for 87% of the takeoffs and 95% of the landings during the test
period. This means that the Eagan /Mendota Heights corridor was
receiving departures or takeoffs for approximately 100% of the
time that the airport was in operation. Finding number 5
indicates that winds are the driving factor in determining runway
use reducing the validity of the theory that aircraft are more
likely to fly over south Minneapolis then over Eagan and Mendota
Heights. This was a matter of particular concern to south
Minneapolis residents who were interested in removing the
language for the departure corridor entirely from the runway use
rules. Overall, the report tends to indicate that Eagan and
Mendota Heights continue to receive a significant portion of the
airport traffic and that the corridor continues to be the
preferred departure path above all other alternatives. No action
is required of the Committee on this item.
MASAC MEMBERSHIP
Staff has been informed by Darrell Weslander of MAC that Eagan is
entitled to an alternate member on MASAC in addition to our
voting member. Chairman Baker currently serves as the voting
AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING
MARCH 11, 1986
PAGE 2
member to MASAC. The MASAC appointment is a prerogative of the
City Council. The Council would appreciate input from the
Airport Committee members concerning potential membership on
MASAC. Therefore, I would appreciate your consideration of
possible membership on MASAC. Please indicate to me whether or
not you would like to be appointed to MASAC membership and I will
pass your desires on to the Council for their decision.
II. OLD BUSINESS
NORTH EAGAN CORRIDOR
Mr. Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission was the
guest speaker at the Thursday, February 27, Dakota County Chamber
of Commerce meeting. At that time, Mr. Hamiel expressed to Mayor
Blomquist and myself a desire to discuss better compliance with
the 105 departure corridor. Both Mr. Hamiel and Mr. Weslander
would like to arrange a meeting with a representative of the
Council, the City Administrator and myself to discuss this
matter. We will determine whether it will be possible to include
representation from this Committee at such a meeting. Because of
the nature of Mr. Hamiel's attempt to seek us out on this matter,
I believe they are relatively positive and sincere in their
desire to pursue means of improving FAA compliance with the 105
headings. The Committee is encouraged to discuss this
development and to recommend points to be raised in negotiations
with the Airports Commission.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend points for
consideration in negotiations on the north Eagan departure
corridor.
III. NEW BUSINESS
JOINT POSITION PAPER
Attached in your packets you will find a draft copy of the Joint
Position Paper, the preparation of which was recommended by
Representative Seaburg. City staff has requested a meeting of
other city staff members to review the draft. This meeting will
be held on Thursday, March 13, at 7:00 p.m. at Eagan City Hall.
The staff requests that the Committee review the Draft Position
Paper with an eye toward any amendments or alterations which
ought to be considered at the Thursday meeting. Of course, as
always, members of the Committee are welcome at the Thursday
meeting. It will be a work session, however, aimed at working
out a final document so recommendations for changes must be in a
timely manner.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend amendments or
additions to the Draft Position Paper for communities south of
the Minnesota River.
AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING
MARCH 11, 1986
PAGE 3
IV. DISTRIBUTION
Attached in your packets you will find copies of the Governor's
Task Force on airport noise final report which was reviewed by
Mayor Blomquist at the February 13 meeting. Attached too, are
copies of correspondence from Mayor Blomquist regarding the Task
Force decision and the means by which Chairman Glumack means to
implement noise reduction strategies and a recent editorial
cartoon related to this issue.
Also attached you will find new fact sheets on the airports
system. These are for your consideration only and do not require
discussion at this time. If you have any questions on any
matters contained in the packet, however, staff will be available
to respond to them at the meeting.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council and Advisory Planning Commission are scheduled
to hold a joint meeting beginning at 7:30 p.m., immediately
following the Airport Noise Committee meeting. The Committee
should endeavour to complete its deliberations in a timely
fashion so that it can observe the joint meeting. Staff will
make an effort to facilitate this time schedule.
Ad nistrative Assistant
cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Dale Runkle, City Planner
Attachments
JH:jh
MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 16, 1986
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on
Thursday, January 16, 1986 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 4:30 p.m. at which
the following were present: Chairman Tom Baker, John Gustin, Carol Dozois, •
Carolyn Braun and guest, Otto Leightner. Also present were City
Administrative Intern John Hohenstein and Assistant City Attorney David
Keller.
MINUTES
Gustin moved, Dozois seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
previous meeting of December 12, 1985. All voted yes.
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE REPORT
John Hohenstein presented the information regarding the recommendation of
the Governor's Task Force and the information supplied in the packet,
including the revisions to the Task Force's recommendations which did contain
a provision for compliance with the Eagan departure corridor, the Logan
Airport Noise Budget Plan, and the Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff
evaluation of potential noise abatement measures. It was explained that the
Logan Airport Noise Budget may not be workable, since Logan does not service a
Hub carrier while the Minneapolis /St. Paul Airport serves two such carriers.
It was pointed out that in 1978, the airport handled 280,000 flights moving 11
million people, while 375,000 flights were required in 1985 for 11 million
people.
NOISE MONITOR DEMONSTRATION
John Hohenstein advised the Committee that it was not possible to give a
demonstration of the noise monitor. However, the same type of monitor is used
by the Pollution Control Agency, which can be observed upon request.
GLUMACK PROPOSAL
The committee next reviewed the proposal by MAC to extend Runway 22 by
2,700 feet to the southwest. This would prevent the need for aircraft on that
runway to cross the path of aircraft using the northeasterly of the two
• intersecting parallel runways. The proposal has created a great amount of
concern in Bloomington and Richfield. It appears that a EIS would be required
for such a capital improvement. The City of Eagan has asked that the 180
turn be treated separately from the issue of the extension of the runway.
1
Airport Noise Committee Minutes
January 16, 1986
MEMBERSHIP
• The members present indicated their desire to continue on the Airport
Noise Committee and recommended that Otto Leightner, Dustin Myrick and Brad
Farnham be considered by the Council as potential new members. Staff was •
still awaiting responses to written inquiries regarding continuing membership
to members that were not present at this meeting.
N.O.I.S.E. CORRESPONDENCE
The committee expressed its appreciation in the apparent technical
expertise of the N.O.I.S.E. Organization.
METRO MONITOR ARTICLE
The Metro Monitor article was presented without comment.
COUNTY BOARD ARTICLE
The committee applauded the decision of the County Board to deny pull tabs
to MAC, even though it did not relate directly to the airport noise problem,
but appeared to be an expression of the Board's frustration with the lack of
response from MAC to the airport noise issue.
NORTH EAGAN DEPARTURE CORRIDORS
John Hohenstein indicated that in spite of the tower rules and agreement
with Eagan (that flights would follow a 105 heading) that flights are
actually flying up to 115 ° . Mr. Leightner indicated that he had spent a
morning with a tower control person who indicated that the tower seldom used
the 105 heading and avoided Mendota Heights at almost all costs because of
the number of calls that would come in to the tower from the apparently
organized neighborhood telephoning complaint system if flights were even near
that area. It appeared that these telephone calls which were having an impact -
were to the tower number #726 -9255. The individual indicated to Mr. Leightner
•
• that they literally would cause all flights to go over Eagan and would fan at
will, south of the Eagan corridor. Further, Mr. Leightner was advised that
the localizer of the southerly parallel runway was much further south than
originally indicated to representatives of this committee or the City. The
committee agreed that the only apparent effective method for causing the
airport to reroute its flights was by organized telephone call -in, which does
not appear to be occurring in Eagan.
2
Airport Noise Committee Minutes
January 16, 1986
ADJOURNMENT
Gustin moved, Braun seconaed the motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:00
p.m. All voted in favor.
DGK •
Secretary
•
•
3
•
•
MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIR TRAFFIC COUNT REPORT •
SUMMER 1985
Report to MASAC
Summary
The Noise Abatement Department completed an aircraft traffic count
project during 1985 in response to questions about runway use at MSP.
Each month MASAC has presented figures showing the time that each runway
was in use (active runway), but data on actual aircraft count and the
associated percentages have not been available. The attached tables and
charts present the results of the 1985 summer traf�
eresn uct
from June through September. Table 3 is of part
it shows the comparison of time use and aircraft count by runway.
Major Findings
1. From June through Septembei for the time period 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., the parallel runways were used almost exclusively. 87% of
takeoffs and 95% of landings took place on the parallel runways.
2. There were more takeoffs and landings over the South
Minneapolis /north Richfield area than the time figures indicated.
Departures on runways 29L and 29R accounted for 27% of the time but 39%
of the aircraft.
3. The split between the parallel runways was almost equal during 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; 3712 aircraft departed 11L while 3621 aircraft
departed 11R.
4 During the summer of 1985, runway 4/22 was used much less than
either parallel runway and the use decreased from the summer of 1984.
5. Wind vector analysis showed that the winds drove the runway use.
When winds were fran the southeast, most planes landed and departed on
11L and 11R.
TABLE 1
AIR TRAFFIC COUNT
Summary of Hours Sampled
June 17 - September 10, 1985
TIME NUMBER OF HOURS SAMPLE PERCENTAGE
7:00 - 8:00 AM 21 24%
8:00 - 9:00 39 45%
9:00 - 10:00 38 44%
10:00 - 11:00 41 48%
. 11:00 - 12:00 27 31%
12:00 - 1:00 PM 28 33%
1:00 - 2:00 34 40%
2:00 - 3:00 42 49%
3:00 - 4:00 40 47%
4:00 - 5:00 32 37%
5:00 - 6:00 31 36%
6:00 - 7:00 37 43%
7:00 - 8:00 38 44%
8:00 - 9:00 14 16%
TOTAL 462
•
C
N
< •.
a. 6 =
j O W =
:= co
= .
0 O W
O
Mr < s
-_►` z
d s
N _
f•
dP
O�
H �
a
z
Z i .S1 C �
\ a...a.m. .
Qr \c,
7 U
1.k. .. r1
Lh. ri 4.
•
ao
1 04 <
CC
N �j • _
\ 4 La. •
4, sii
1 9 .
N = a
• # •
14t c
go
me
Z •
_ n
0
SPAY arkoca,
L � TABLE 2
IS
MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIR TRAFFIC COUNT
June 17, 1985 to September 10, 1985
Selected Dates and Hours
ARRIVALS RUNWAYS
Type of Aircraft 11L 11R 29L 29R 04 22 Total
B727 (28 1) 584 1108 1169 597 143 37 3638
DC9 (33 1) 1348 620 700 1427 143 23 4261
B747 ( 1 1) 3 62 58 6 4 1 134
DC10 ( 4 1) 46 174 168 57 28 6 479
Military ( 1 %) 44 16 22 40 3 0 125
Other Jets ( 3 %) 104 131 147 94 31 4 511
Props (30 1) 1052 1068 684 741 181 107 3833
TOTAL 3231 3119 2940 2953 495 169 12907
PERCENTAGE 25.03% 24.17% 22.78% 22.88% 3.84% 1.31% 100.00%
•
DEPARTURES •
B727 (27 %) ° 811 -1237 1152 562 43 296 4101
DC9 (31 %) 1385 985 678 1294 45 426 4813
B747 ( 1 %) 12 76 59 4 1 10 162
DC10 ( 4 1) 117 208 209 51 4 32 621
Military ( 1 %) 74 15 18 46 0 35 188
Other Jets ( 4 %) 143 151 156 122 8 59 639
Props (32 1) 1211 968 842 776 321 740 4858
TOTAL 3712 3621 3124 2849 424 1595 15305
PERCENTAGE 24.25% 23.66% 20.41% 18.61% 2.77% 10.29% 100.00%
. �
4
( .
» �
/ •
��
tfk NgOm 0ONCOm
�al n� qN ~q
§ o / er er
§
'
=
cd »
• \ M RS
g ®1 § /q N� ®q
R \ q 1 / .. f l
r o
2 § § § § tr
% - t 2 C2 C
tn
' / / 0 7 ¢ .t3 ƒ
\ % tr \ \ § / \
Q ® m =C'CI C = ¥2
§ x ns = Q II' In k \ k k
I = Q • , = c • Q
0 Rae a2cta)
2
>I �/ qq
2
§ a a a
= c7% ,--t g q
q
b
0
A,
e ' •
•
CN
IC4 ae
IC • gra,.
61
CLI < 1.•
go .O.
a
I=
= ,... =
c = <
..i 0
< <
es
z
— es
.
2 ...........
, .... . • . ,
I la.
/ 4444%%. 1 .40.0%.444044%%.
.....
o— >4 Crl
GC (1 4-1
0 3 0 4111k
cc Z do
'4 tr)
— • 4 At rn
et oN
= cuo
t7' 0
C It in
Z I—
= < CU 0
1 11■ 41 .
0 2
‘., gc in w
kw co 00 •
... = ■—i 0
Li. •■• eN
tr. . — •. .
<
- cc = r .,..)
1... 4 c cn
cc • 'a
..1 P.
on .... z
•••• iz 2 ,.,.. ...
tn .•••• g .
.....
o
CL 4.4 4.1 A MI
4 4.4
tar
2 8 4g
• .
: .
2 .. c — 0 •
ro .,..,
in 2
-
aMi 6
CS ITO •
G. t
4C Z
MA t 0 At as
Z .
Z
N
Z . 111 1; WI
N
r-i
o OSE .
'pm •roc-av
1
.... c ,
AP
L-s-
,...-1
o \
v N
1
O
H
V .
Y
H
c «.
w a O c�
o Z If1 �,.) _W Z
v C W ti ~
o
= 01 11110 la ‘Q
. eh; .o
f�
aio O
c ' ram a
a c O
ac a g
I 4 4 I I P I N \ . . • . . . . : % .. • . '
C WO
Hf �. 7
2 U
y W co aO
z ,,- —
Q J fa C Ca
Cl-
N C W =
N • V
O
O U1 $4 Y
Z 8
Z pp
— E3 co
LA 2
a. O 0
qv
Z l
1111.4111 en
Z
SWO gr•OCZ,
`'
i ,-1 da
en to
1 ac
L
44 O CO MI N C =
W = .. r ") _
C = < = N A
W C C di L v
V ~ W W 0 (C 0 E--
0 in 0 =
Mt = m E W. 0
�■ Z 0 it 0 ar
III j(14,:zw.. W L N L C
= 0 L .0 d Pm. c. E p, E C, Ifit N 1i = = Z -
dP
co
•
H d.
O
O (El
- 3
c
c a �4 do
•
< � °�
C
'Pi
= c (
W `
(.) = Lfl O
— m - a � `•
Q J •
cc a ..+0 00
< M_ CJ) C ,--1 W Z cs
N �
I" v 0
C w y4 m
1-64 W dp
= X N
• h
VI
IA 2
WED
0
4 O
IP do
c/43 • -
2
z
_ dp
. co
N
srpir MV1
DRAFT
POSITION PAPER
I. The Governor's Task force on Airport Noise recommendations
should become integral to MAC's noise abatement plans.
The Task Force compiled a list of eighteen recommendations
to address the issue of airport noise. Although the
Governor has chosen to hold this report in abeyance until
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has been
allowed to prepare its report on noise abatement
strategies, the Task Force recommendations retain their
validity. The MAC has recommended or is studying numerous
elements of the Task Force report in its own 17 -Point Plan
and in the F.A.R. Part 150 Study. Due to the significance
accorded them by representatives of the community, the MAC
should emphasize the Task Force recommendations as a part
of its noise abatement strategy.
II. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) must come to
regard the control and minimization of aircraft noise as a
public interest that is as important as the promotion of
air traffic and commerce. Acceptance of this overriding
principle is especially important now that Governor
Perpich has designated the MAC as the lead state agency
for the control of aircraft noise. Past MAC performance,
however, suggests that noise abatement has been retreated
as a secondary, 'housekeeping' concern. The current
landing fees schedule and determinant criteria are
examples of this tendency. Fees are set with reference to
an agreed list of objective operational factors, but the
'noise' performance of the Airport's users is not a part
of this formula. Perhaps, the statutory authority,
duties, and responsibilities of the MAC, MPCA and other
state agencies need amendment; to more clearly express the
importance of aircraft noise abatement.
III. The specter of economic harm should not be automatically
raised and asserted to undermine the feasibility of
proposed noise abatement measures. Too often, the
possibility of lost jobs, or, economic damage to the
Airport and its users is injected into the public debate
without credible supporting evidence. The result is that
the viability of the most direct and assertive noise
control proposals comes into question, and the public
discussion shifts to easier and less financially intrusive
noise abatement methods (such as operational measures that
disperse, rather than reduce, aircraft noise). As a
protector of the public interest in peace and quiet, the
MAC must more aggressively develop concrete and
comprehensive information on the economic consequences of
individual abatement proposals. To undertake this role,
the MAC needs to assume a clearer, "arm's length" position
vis -a -vis the economic interests of Airport users.
Perhaps, state statutes should also place a burden of
proof on aircraft operators to demonstrate that individual
noise control proposals would cause them unreasonable
1
economic hardship.
IV. Neither the specter of legal action nor the possibility
of a litigation setback should be automatically raised and
asserted to undermine the feasibility of proposed noise
abatement measures. Like the fear of economic harm, a
fear of legal ramifications is also injected continuously
into the public debate on aircraft noise abatement, and
timidity results. In the past, the MAC has too
conveniently invoked the federal regulatory power over
Interstate Commerce as an absolute barrier to local noise
control efforts. If the MAC is to serve as a protector of
the public interest in peace and quiet, it must be willing
to aggressively push for solutions, even if legal issues
must be confronted along the way. Perhaps, state statutes
need to clarify or establish a relationship between the
MAC and the State Attorney General that empowers the
latter to litigate a legitimate role for programs of local
aircraft noise regulation and reduction.
V. Local programs of aircraft noise regulation and reduction
must be accompanied by coordinated and concurrent national
efforts. At a minimum, local Airports which choose to
implement substantive noise abatement programs must be
assured that they will not incur positions of undue
economic disadvantage in the national marketplace.
Although the past efforts of the MAC in national forums
are to be applauded, the City of Burnsville has also
suggested to Congressman Frenzel that a national 'blue -
ribbon' panel be established to work on the aircraft noise
issue. The panel could provide linkage between local
programs while also addressing aspects of the issue that
are federal in scope or in solution. To encourage
national attention, state and local officials need to
impress federal legislators with the need and local demand
for action.
VI. National efforts must focus on reductions of aircraft
noise at its source. Specific means to achieve this end
are the reduction of the intensity and quantity of noise
events. Noise event intensity can be reduced through the
encouragement of Stage III technology aircraft and
strictly enforced bans on Stage I and II aircraft
manufacture and operations. Only a combination of
positive incentives and careful regulation can bring this
about in a timely manner. Limitation of noise event
quantity can be achieved through limited federal re-
regulation to prevent shifts of local advantage. Such
efforts can serve to augment local operational efforts for
noise abatement.
VII. The evaluation and use of aircraft noise abatement
measures should be consistent with existing, long -term
metropolitan planning processes. The MAC should not
encourage the establishment of new air traffic corridors
over existing residential neghborhoods that were developed
in accordance with mandatory metropolitan plans. The
MAC's support for use of a new 180 heading procedure for
2
Runway 22 departures (which shifts planes to routes over
Ere - existing Burnsville and Eagan residential areas),
violates this principle and should be withdrawn. In
contrast, a proposed routing of Runway 22 departures over
the commercial - industrial sectors that line westbound I-
494, near the airport, may be excellent examples of how
noise abatement concerns and land use considerations
should mesh. Strict adherence to the Eagan corridor,
(with its underlying compatible land uses), for the
parallel runways provides another example of consistency
between land use and air traffic.
VIII. The MAC should apply a portion of its noise abatement
resources to the compilation of a deatiled, statistically
accurate data base of operations and noise information
for the general public. Communities lack the resources
to compile such data bases, giving the MAC and the
airline industry a monopoly on airport noise information.
The MAC should dedicate itself to timely and comprehensive
monitoring and study of noise issues. Monthly operations
summaries, noise monitoring results, engine run -up
occurance data and other pertinent information must be
readily accesible to the communities to allow a rational
understanding of and studied approach to airport noise
planning issues.
IX. Measures that would reduce cumulative noise levels should
be preferred over measures that merely disperse or shift
aircraft noise. Dispersion only masks aircraft noise and
does not reduce it. In essence, it multiplies the number
of people subjected to aircraft noise. Dispersion also
tends to set community against community and therefore is
counterproductive to the development of a coordinated,
regional effort. Dispersion, as an abatement technique,
can be recognized whenever its proponents begin to speak
about shifting some of the noise to ill - defined "less
populated areas ". Put more bluntly, the procedure
involves the partial shifting of noise from south
Minneapolis, Bloomington and Richfield to the 100,000+
residents of Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Inver
Grove Heights and Savage.
X. If dispersion methods must be used, they should be clearly
recognized as processes for the allocation of adverse
environmental impacts among communities. Fundamental
fairness requires that affected communities have full and
proportionate participation and decisionmaking power in
these allocations. In more concrete terms, this means
that the MAC, and especially its noise advisory group
(MASAC), must have a membership that is geographically
balanced among communities that suffer aircraft noise.
Also, the MAC should never support changes in the
dispersion of aircraft noise without first engaging in
public hearing and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
processes. In this way, the MAC merely commits itself to
the same procedural standards that cities must observe
when proposing to significantly impact their residents and
property owners.
3
XI. The MAC should be encouraged to exercise its taxing and
other revenue generating resources in support of noise
abatement. These funds could be used for retrofitting
residential sound insulation; "buyouts" of homes suffering
the worst noise impacts; and, to financially supplement
new development near the Airport that must incur
additional costs in offsetting noise problems. These
measures would produce immediate benefits for the
Airport's neighbors and would help bridge the timespan
until the quieter Stage III aircraft are commonplace.
They are also preferable to dispersion as a noise control
technique because their relief is constant and effective,
even if air traffic increases in future years.
XII. Aircraft noise should be clearly recognized as a
detrimental by- product of profitable business activity.
Primary responsibility for paying for the control of the
noise should therefore lie with the key beneficiaries of
that business activity; the users of the Airport.
differential landing fees, 'time -of -day' rates, and other
noise performance criteria should be essential mechanisms
for addressing noise concerns. At the same time,
expansion at the Airport should be limited until a
mutually agreed program for aircraft noise control is
established. In short, the regulatory focus should be
enhancing on the abatement performance of aircraft
operators, and not on increasing the accommodation of
aircraft noise by the Airport's residential neighbors.
4
G l i
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 6`e.'
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saintn Paul, Minnesota 55101 'I
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 13, 1986
TO: Members of Governor's Task Force on Airport Noise
FROM: Connie Kozlak and Bill Lester
SUBJECT: Final Report to Governor Perpich
Attached is the final report of the Task Force as adopted on January 9. If it
contains any misinterpretations of the committee's deliberations that day
please call and inform Connie (291 -6346) or Bill (291 -6630) by January 21. The
Chair would like to deliver the final report to the Governor as soon as
possible and we would also like to have it available for the public.
Also attached for your information is a letter received after the last meeting.
attach.
/dpf
•
•
•
REPORT OF THE
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON AIRPORT NOISE
Adopted January 9, 1986
c
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the communities surrounding the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (MSP) have been seriously impacted by noise generated by
the aircraft using the airport. In the past few years, the problem has become
acute. This is principally because of increased aircraft operations resulting
from Congress' decision in 1978 to deregulate the airline industry. At the
time of deregulation, there were 9 airlines annually flying about 11 million
passengers in and out of the airport. That was done with about 220,000
landings and takeoffs. Today, there are 3 airlines flying the same number of
passengers; however, the landings and takeoffs have increased to 370,000. Many
of the airlines operating at MSP are using older aircraft that are very noisy.
One measure of the seriousness of the problem is the dramatic increase in
citizen complaints. In July 1985, there were 1,252 complaints as contrasted
with 823 in July of the prior year. Finding effective solutions to this
problem is complicated by the fragmentation of authority over aircraft and
airport operations at the federal, state, regional and local levels.
In October, 1985 Governor Perpich authorized this interagency task force
chaired by Sandra Gardebring of the Metropolitan Council. Members, who are
listed in Appendix A, included representatives of the Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), State Planning Agency, legislators, Department of Transportation and
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as well as local units of government and
citizens of the area. The specific charge of the task force was to evaluate
potential solutions available at both the federal and state level to the
problem of aircraft noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and to
recommend specific proposals to the Governor for both short- and long -term
solutions to the problems of airport noise.
The task force met eight times between October, 1985 and January, 1986.
Perspectives on the problem were presented by MAC, MPCA, the Metropolitan
Council, the airline industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state
legislators and other interested groups such as the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC) and South Metropolitan Airports Action Council
(SMAAC). A presentation was heard on the legal constraints and fragmentation
of authority between various levels of government. Since airport noise is a
problem in many metropolitan areas around the country, solutions being tried in
other cities were also examined. A list of 49 possible solutions were prepared
and examined by the task force. This list was pared to the options presented
in this paper. Emphasis was placed on controlling operations and noise levels
rather than adding capacity to the airport.
The basic premises of the Task Force in evaluating the range of solutions to
the airport noise problem were as follows:
1. Short -term noise reduction should be the primary goal of the Task
Force.
2. Initiatives offering long -term relief are equally important and should
be recommended, but are no longer sufficient in light of the current
problem.
3. Legal questions should be considered, but should not be determinative
of the recommended course of action.
1
4. Noise abatement is a multi - jurisdictional responsibility.
5. Noise reduction in one neighborhood should not be accomplished at the
expense of another.
Assuming short -term noise reduction as a primary goal the task force did not
consider construction of a new airport. A new airport has not been sited in
the United States since the late 60's. Further, with the passage of the
National Environmental Protection Act in the early 70's, the possibility of
such a siting would at the very least be a long -term solution to the problem
if it could be done at all. While not completely ruling out this option, it
was felt that the task force's best efforts should be directed elsewhere.
Background
Much work has already been done on the issue of airport noise by several
agencies and groups. In 1969 the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
(MASAC) was created as an advisory group by MAC. This was the country's first
successful attempt at bringing together industry representatives, citizens and
the airport operator to develop noise abatement strategies. These strategies
included creation of a .preferential runway system to channel traffic over the
Minnesota River and an industrial - commercial area of Eagan, voluntary nighttime
restrictions on flights, and reduction of noise from engine runups.
These were significant steps which contained airport noise at a tolerable level
for several years. However, there has been a dramatic increase in airline
traffic into the Twin Cities since the airline industry was deregulated in
1978. The traffic levels have substantially increased the duration of noise in
affected areas and have decreased the amount of time the preferential runway
system can be used. Deregulation has also allowed new carriers to enter the
marketplace, often by purchasing used aircraft to avoid the substantial
investments required for new planes. Prior to 1978 the used aircraft market in
the U.S. was relatively inactive; now, however, retirement of an older, noisier
airplane by one carrier does not often remove the plane from the national
fleet.
During the summer of 1985 aircraft noise reached crisis proportions. A record
number of complaints was received by the airport and citizens organizations,
notably the South Metropolitan Airports Action Council (SMAAC) renewed their
efforts to curtail noise.
In addition to the work of this task force there are currently some special
local efforts to deal with the problem. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
held public hearings on November 19 and 20 on proposed noise rules which would
restrict the amount of noise emanating from aircraft using the airport.
MAC is currently completing a voluntary Part 150 Study which has been
underway for 2 years. The Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program prescribes the procedures and methodology for preparation
of airport noise exposure maps and an airport noise compatibility program.
Several of the recommendations in this report are also contained in the Part
150 Study, such as a noise budget, differential landing fees and a night
curfew. The Part 150 Study will also seek to establish the environmental
capacity of MSP. Defining the airports environmental capacity will help shape
the implementation of, and provide a legal basis for, many of the
recommendations which follow.
2
•
MAC Chairman, Ray Glumack, has proposed a 16 -point program for dealing with the
noise, some of which are included in this report.
Task Force Recommendations
The following recommendations are organized in sections according to the time
frame of their noise improvement. Within each section there is no implied
•
priority for individual strategies; they are all intended for implementation as
a package. Immediate action on the recommendations in Sections 2 -3 is needed
even though actual noise reduction will occur at a later date.
Recommendation 2 of Section 2, to work out a phased compliance schedule between
MAC and MPCA to result in the reduction of airport noise, should be
highlighted. This is a key recommendation since many of the other
recommendations can be implemented as elements of this compliance schedule.
These negotiations should begin immediately with a report made to the Governor
by June 1 on their progress. This task force should also be re- convened to
review this progress.
For each recommendation, the agencies with primary jurisdiction and secondary
responsibility are identified as well as a suggested procedure for carrying out
the recommendation.
SECTION 1 - TARGET: OPEN WINDOW SEASON
1. Noise Budget -- Using the Logan Airport (Boston) Model, begin immediately
to determine aggregate noise level in 1984 and issue an order to the
airlines not to exceed this level. Airlines would be free to decide within
this budget which planes to use and when (within 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. time
frame). However, all would be bound by an allocated ceiling based on 1984
noise levels. After this initial single season rollback, ceilings would be
structured in succeeding years to allow noise improvements each year.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would establish the noise level and begin
meetings with the 34 airlines to inform them of the ceiling and to discuss
appropriate mechanisms to stay within the noise budget. The compliance
schedule would also be negotiated with the airlines. Potential sanctions
include loss of terminal space, loss of gates, others. MPCA could make
implementation of a noise budget part of a compliance schedule to meet its
standards (see Section 2, Strategy 2).
2. Limitations on corporate and private general aviation operations at
Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport. No new facilities for
general aviation (such as corporate hangars) would be approved at MSP and
incentives would be provided for non - essential users of MSP to move to
satellite airports.
General aviation planes are relatively quiet. However, since the
Preferential Runway System is dependent on the total number of aircraft
operations and because even environmentally sound aircraft contribute to
that total, they can have the effect of limiting the use of the
Preferential Runway System. Combining this recommendation with other
3
attempts to limit noisy commercial flights, such as the noise budget,
should insure that reducing general aviation flights does not merely open
space for more commercial flights.
A program of legal limitations at MSP and incentives to move to other
airports could be implemented. Current efforts such as the installation of
an instrument landing system at Airlake Airport and upgrading of St. Paul
Downtown Airport are continuing and should show results soon. Further
development of all reliever airports should continue into the future. A
minimum landing fee at MSP, regardless of weight, could be imposed
immediately as an incentive to land elsewhere. MAC should actively
advertise and promote general aviation use of its other airports.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council, Legislature
Compliance Procedure -- Policy decision to disapprove a request for new
facilities at MSP would be made at the Commission level; Metro Council
Policy Plan encourages development of reliever airports. The Council also
oversees airport development through reviews of EIS's, master plans and
MAC's capital improvement budget. This also may fall under proposed
legislation to restrict expansion of airport. MAC would be responsible for
creating incentives for general aviation to move to satellite airports.
3. Ban all training flights by ordinance, to take effect next summer when
Airlake instrumentation is complete.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would adopt ordinance.
4. Strict enforcement of noise abatement operation procedures and noise
sensitivity training for pilots and air traffic controllers.
Primary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, FAA, Congress
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure -- the Metropolitan Airports Commission would become
more proactive and begin immediate meetings with the airlines and FAA,
employer of the controllers, to determine appropriate compliance methods.
5. MAC should establish an aggressive 24 hour noise monitoring program at the
airport to become more proactive on the noise issue.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure - MAC should act immediately to establish 24 hour
monitoring by people, not. machines, for compliance with noise abatement
procedures. People could quickly respond and point out problems to the
control tower for correction.
4
6. Differential landing fees based on noise level of individual aircraft, with
lower fees for quieter planes.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Legislature (noise
tax)
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would begin immediately to develop a process
to significantly increase landing fees for noisier aircraft. Fees for
major carriers could be increased in 1989 when contracts expire, although
the contracts may not be binding if a nuisance or pollutant is created
allowing the fee structure to be changed sooner. Monies derived from this
procedure could be dedicated to noise abatement activities. Fees have to
be high enough to be a significant disincentive for noisier planes to use
the airport. An alternative method would be setting a "noise tax" for take-
offs and landings.
7. Additional nighttime restrictions (11 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekdays, 8 a.m.
weekends) on all but Stage III aircraft.* There is currently a voluntary
nighttime restriction honored by the airlines which keeps flights at a low
level. However, there is a possibility the number of flights may grow,
especially among general aviation such as cargo and charter flights.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure -- Immediate MAC action to set policy ban based on FAA
Part 36 regulations which certify the sound levels of various planes.
8. Limit expansion of MSP facilities until noise abatement program is adopted.
Primary Agency -- Minnesota Legislature. Rep. Ken Nelson and Sen. Mike
Freeman are introducing bills which would limit expansion of MSP
facilities unless such projects are consistent with noise abatement goals.
Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (as part of a compliance procedure)
Compliance Procedure -- If the Legislature does not limit expansion, MAC
could voluntarily refuse to expand the airport.
SECTION 2: MEDIUM RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS (2 -5 YEARS)
1. Prepare for litigation involving the FAA with regard to the airport
operator's authority to regulate the number of flights at MSP based on
environmental capacity considerations.
Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
Airports Commission, or other agency with standing.
Compliance Procedure -- Research is currently being conducted on relevant
legal issues.
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
5
•
2. Work out a phased compliance schedule between MAC and MPCA to result in the
reduction of airport noise. This may incorporate noise reduction
techniques such as differential landing fees, noise budgets or land use
(compatibility guidelines.
Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
Airports Commission
Seconda ry Agency -- Metropolitan Council
Compliance Procedure -- Work on this agreement should begin immediately,
with the agencies reporting to the Governor and this task force by June 1
on their progress.
I
13. Accelerate development of reliever airports to better serve general
aviation. Improvements to St. Paul Downtown and Airlake are almost
completed but ongoing improvements and amenities to the other airports will
be needed to divert further traffic from MSP.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Council and possibly state Legislature
for change in current law regarding reliever airport improvement.
1 Compliance Procedure -- Metropolitan Council should provide direction in
its Aviation Policy Plan. The draft plan recommends an additional minor
airport in western Hennepin County. MAC should continue improvements to
other airports.
4. Add an instrument landing system (ILS) to Runway 11L to allow better
utilization and more precise higher approaches to this runway.
Responsible Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan
Airports Commission _
Compliance Procedure -- At the request of Congressman Martin Sabo funding
for this improvement is included in the current transportation bill.
5. The Part 150 study currently being undertaken by MAC (with FAA, airline and
local government participation) should be completed. This study is looking
at the environmental capacity of the airport and will identify ways to
curtail noise. Upon completion of this study, MAC will be eligible for
federal funds to assist in a noise abatement program.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration
Compliance Procedure -- This study should be completed as soon as possible
and submitted to the FAA. The study includes several options, some of
which are recommended by this task force; however, the task force has not
reviewed or endorsed the complete study.
\6. Adopt ban on further manufacture of Stage II aircraft and the import of new
or used Stage II planes from other countries.* .
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
6
•
Primary Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly congressional action.
7. Adopt a ban on any further extension of the Stage I operating cutoff date
of January 1, 1988.*
Primary Agencies -- Congress, FAA
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly Congressional action.
Locally, MAC has adopted an ordinance cutting off use of MSP Airport by
most Stage I aircraft already and will ban all remaining Stage I aircraft
after January 1, 1988.
8. Adoption and enforcement of Metropolitan Council's Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines by all affected municipalities to prevent development of vacant
land into noise sensitive uses.
Primary Agencies -- Municipalities, Metropolitan Council
Compliance Procedure -- Those municipalities which have not incorporated
these guidelines into their comprehensive plans and zoning should do so
immediately. Metropolitan Council should enforce Metropolitan Land
Planning Act. Airport and FAA must maintain flight patterns upon which
these land uses are based.
9. Coordinated soundproofing plan where sound insulation is provided to
schools and public buildings, and to homes on a voluntary basis, with full
cost (depending on building location) provided by MAC or another designated
agency.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- MAC and Minneapolis should complete pilot
insulation program as soon as possible and MAC should institute a
continuing comprehensive plan of insulation in all affected municipalities
funded through a differential landing fee, jet fuel tax or other sources.
This insulation plan should be based on the F.A.R. Part 150 Study now being
prepared.
SECTION 3: POST -1990
1. A ban on operation of Stage II aircraft should be adopted to be implemented
by 1995.
Primary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying by members of Task Force,
possible Congressional action.
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
7
•
SECTION 4: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Solutions identified in this section have been discussed by the Task Force and
are passed forward without specific recommendation or endorsement. Some are
actions already underway; others have not been endorsed by the Task Force due
to a lack of information on their noise benefits. It is possible they should
be considered after further information becomes available.
1. Implement extension of Runway 4/22. Completion of the environmental impact
statement for this extension would provide the information needed to fully
assess its potential for noise abatement and its economic impact.
2. Installation of a Microwave Landing System will allow curved and variable
approach paths, as well as varied glide slopes. Actual benefit to noise
levels requires further study.
3. Implementation of long -term comprehensive airport plans at all system
airports by 1990.
4. Limited acquisition of homes in highest noise areas, preferably on a
voluntary basis, by MAC or another agency, possibly with money from a Noise
Abatement Trust Fund established with differential landing fees.
5. Tax reduction plan for houses impacted by aircraft noise. This has
implications of selling airlines a license to make noise. The money that
would be needed to reduce taxes may be better spent on actual reduction of
noise.
6. Stricter compliance with Eagan departure corridor and three -mile turn rule
would obtain maximum acoustical benefits from runway 11L and 11R. This is
an operating procedure (part of the "preferential runway system ") which
previously had great benefits by concentrating aircraft approaches and
departures over an industrial /commercial area of Eagan, rather than
residential areas which surround the airport in most other directions.
However, with increased traffic in recent years, these procedures decrease
the amount of time runways 11L and 11R can be used, and increase the amount
of traffic departing over South Minneapolis, where planes can turn and be
fanned out sooner than three miles.
7. MAC has passed, and is promoting among others, a resolution favoring
limited re- regulation of the aviation industry to control noise (i.e.,
limiting the number of flights between two points); Minneapolis has also
passed a similar resolution.
NOISE1
8
•
Appendix A
AIRPORT NOISE 7A.TX FORCE MEMBERS
•
Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Mr. Raymond Glumack
Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Airports Comm.
•
300 Metro Square Building Rm. 301 Terminal Building
St. Paul, Mn. 55101 St. Paul, Mn. 57111
291 -6452 726 -1892
Rem. Wesley Skoglund Sen. Michael Freeman
507 State Office Bldg. 303 State Capitol
• St. Paul, Mn. 55175 St. Paul, Mn. 5 5155
721 -1515 h 869 -1114 h
.296 -4330 o 296 -9307 c
Or. Larry Foote Mr. Tom Kalitowski
Mn. 0eoartment of Transportation Executive Director
Transportation Building Mn. Pollution Control Agency
St. Paul, Mn. 55155 1935 W County Road B2
•
296 -3000 Roseville, Mn. 55113
296 - 7373
Mr. Rick Jellinger
5157 - 13th Avenue South Mr. Joe Sizer
'linneacolis, Mn. 55417 Mn. State Planning Agency
824 -1509 100 Caoi -tal Square Building
St. Paul, Mn. 55701
Mr. Steve Cramer 297 -2997
307 City Hall
Minneacoiis, Mn. 55415 Mr. Don Caderholm
342 -2211 o 6214 - 5th Avenue South
Richfield, Mn. 55
Ms. Sue McCloskey 866 -9185
387 Macalester Stret
St. Paul, Mn. 55705 Mr. Leon Cook
944 -5710 5016 - 13th Avenue South
Mayor Sea 9lcmcuist Minneaaoiis, Mn. 55417
332 o
City of Eagan 823-2692 h
3830 Pilot Knao Road
P. 0. Box 21199 Mr. Burton Josecn (alternate)
Eagan, MN 55121 Metroco i i tan A i r;cr _s Comm.
454 -8100 Rm. 301 Terminal Building
St. Paul, Mn. 55111
- 9
•
Appendix B
Definition of Terms
Stage I, II, III -
The FAA Part 36 regulation defines three generations of commercial jet
aircraft according to design noise levels. The oldest, noisiest jets such
as are referred to as Stage I. Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC -8.
Stage II aircraft are slightly less noisy planes whose designs were
approved after 1969. These include 747's, DC -10's, and other planes re-
designed to comply with these regulations such as newer 727's, and DC -9's.
The newest jets, Stage III, are those complying with the latest FAA design
standards. These include 757's, 767's, 737 -300's A -300 Airbus and DC -9
super 80's, which produce half the noise of a Stage II plane.
Preferential Runway System (PRS)
The Preferential Runway System is a system of runway use at Minneapolis /St.
Paul International Airport (MSP) designed to reduce aircraft noise over the
most densely populated areas near the airport. The program orginated in May,
1968. In recent years, it has only been used for a limited number of hours per
- day due to the large increase in the number of aircraft operations at MSP.
The map and explanation below are from MASAC's Airport Fact Sheet 102.
The Runway System at the
Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport
MINNEAPOLIS � ST. PAUL
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
..11L 22
29R
11R
RICHFIELD 4 O
MENDOTA
MSP TERMINAL
1-494 29L . J j
380' MINNESOTA RIVER
40° BLOOMINGTON
290° Under the Preferential
Runway System the following
270' 90' NOTE: Airport runways are normally runways are given tint priority
for takeoff and landing:
numbered according to compass
° 110 headings. EAGAN TAKEOFF LANDING
220 tn. and R 290 and R
1130) 22 4
29L and R ill and R
4 22
The runway system at the Minneapolis /St. the PRS is not being used, planes arriving on 111
Paul International Airport is comprised of six and 11R fly over areas of South Minneapolis. Run -
separate runways. 111. and 11R and 29L and 29R ways 29L and 29R run southeast to northwest.
are called a parallel system. This refers to their Under the PRS, arriving planes are directed to use
relative parallel positions. Runways 4 and 22, these runways. This way planes approach Min -
which run at an angle to the other runways. are neapolis/ St. Paul International Airport over the
positioned this way to allow for changing wind open areas to the southeast. When the PRS is not
direction. Each runway can be used for both in effect. planes departing on 29L and 29R fly over
takeoffs and landings, yet. in an attempt to max- noise sensitive areas of South Minneapolis. Run -
imize noise relief, the PRS designates each run- way 4, running from southwest to northeast, is
way a priority function; i.e. either takeoff or land- commonly used for arriving aircraft. Approaching
ing. For example. the map shows that runways I1L planes fly over areas of Richfield and Bloom -
and 11R run from the northwest to the southeast. ington. It is seldom used for departing aircraft.
When the PRS is in effect. priority is given these In contrast. runway 22 is used for departing planes
runways for departing planes. This takes them (taking the aircraft towards the southwest) and
over areas to the southeast of the airport. When seldom used for arriving planes.
;Z Alef.
EN
'1.I tt city of ecigan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199
BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN• MINNESOTA 55121
Mayor
PHONE. (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A. SMITH
VIC ELLISON
THEODORE WACHTER •
Council Members
FEBRUARY 24, 19 8 6 THOMAS HEDGES
City Administrator
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
City Clerk
GOVERNOR RUDY PERPICH
ROOM 130 -
STATE CAPITOL
ST PAUL MN 55155
Re: Airport Noise Task Force Decision
Dear Governor Perpich:
I write to express the extreme dismay felt by the City of Eagan
concerning your decision to not implement the Governor's Task
Force on Airport Noise report. As a member of the Task Force, I
can speak to the considerable time and effort which was applied
by every member of the group in preparing a list of realistic and
workable noise abatement strategies that would help all of the
airport's neighbors. To dismiss it out of hand shows a disregard •
for the public process that you put into action.
I understand that you wish to give the Metropolitan Airports
Commission another chance to pursue substantive noise abatement
alternatives. I am less certain than you are of their enhanced
appreciation of the noise situation, but as you have chosen this
course, it is essential that the MAC be held accountable in this
matter. I would encourage you to adhere to the May 1 deadline
for the MAC's detailed report on its strategy. MAC's commitment
to this deadline will be indicative of its commitment to this
issue in general. If the deadline is ignored and substantive
• improvement is not pursued, I would strongly encourage your
reconsideration of the Task Force report and the MPCA role in
noise abatement.
I do appreciate Chairman Glumack's statement that Task Force and
MAC recommendations be implemented together as a strategy for
noise abatement. I am less pleased by the Chairman's effort to
form a new group including some Task Force members to implement
• this strategy. I say this because the Task Force was a balanced
group with representation from all around the airport. To date,
Chairman Glumack's new committee's membership has focused on
•
south Minneapolis only. Too great a focus on one end of a runway
• will tend to result in solutions being found at the other end.
Real airport noise abatement can only come through a balanced
consideration of all airport neighbors.
THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
GOVERNOR RUDY PERPICH
• PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
For this reason, I reiterate my request that you hold firm on
your request for MAC's May 1 report. Moreover, I urge you to
continue to monitor the MAC'S attempts to address the noise
issue, so that noise can be substantively abated, not shifted
from community to community. Thank you for your kind
consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Bea Blomquist
Mayor
BB /JH /jh
.‘.
nu city of czagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor
PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN .
' JAMES A. SMITH
VIC ELLISON
THEODORE WACHTER
FEBRUARY 24, 19 8 6 Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
RAYMOND G GLUMACK City Administrator
CHAIRMAN - METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION EUGENCVtyCOkERBEKE
6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450.
Re: Noise Abatement Implementation Committee
Dear Chairman Glumack:
I read with considerable interest the recent newspaper article
describing MAC's decision to pursue implementation of elements of
the Governor's Task Force report along with the MAC's noise
abatement proposals. I strongly encourage this as the Task
Force's efforts to cope with the region's aircraft noise issues
should not go unnoticed.
I was interested also by the MAC's decision to entrust such
implementation to a committee including community residents. I
wish to make a suggestion in that regard. I realize that it is
your stated intent to address the noise situation for south
Minneapolis and I noticed that a SMAAC member is part of the
committee. I would ask that you include also a community
representative from a city in Dakota County. I believe such a
balance is necessary because it is important that noise
strategies focus on substantive abatement, not simply noise
shifting.
The Governor has reiterated his support of the MAC in this issue.
I look forward to your efforts in this regard and offer the
assistance of the City of Eagan in bringing about meaningful
steps toward noise abatement in the near future.
Sincerely,
Bea Blomquist
Mayor
BB /JH /jh
cc: Governor Perpich
Sandra Gardebring
Kevin Frazell
Steve King
THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
I GAN'T BELIEVE e rr;_
►r / -
PERPCH .
oUR REcom ... OR NI
—
i►' 1 1 N , TRq L • 6.
- � .10 CUr A� B TcHP � , � ` \ . v .
�� Hv� HIH6 4:
Jg :-j, . di, f e b _ r
,l, , �;,' N ib ; , " ,, a 41 _ \
,j \� it 'C, _ ` � / 1 I ��,%�'./�� -A tit �
i\
. �J
\ ,, i / ,- ,,„ Al h.
Lir
link
1 1 lk - el" ;? ,' mul : :.„.S\r,,..,' ' ' -)-dyi4
„ wimomploor .. : -. _ _ 4 I , . ; A )t 4 \ k ' \ 1 Q ;' - i ' i ' -
,. _ „„,‘,. \\ 7 ,, ,., ,,, it,,
.„...-,"\ -7/-
•--1,7:-..,-.:=,-:0:, , 0 , e-- t4 . _ ________,__ ,-*_ •,\%,Nr'lle&-,-,'A),1 14;fie,
MP
P t - :i I 6 i f .
i,NAr ' - - , ! moon, &mato wo5FAFEF2.
.\\ ., -‘ OAT i *I
0
0
FACT SHEET
MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FIELD
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
Intercontinental Airport
3100 acres owned (approx. 3000 acres of other public owned land_ lies
adjacent to the airport)
Runways
NW /SE (29L -11R) 200' x 10,000' Bituminous Overlay
NW /SE (29R -11L) 150' x 8,200' Concrete
NE /SW (4 -22) 150' x 8,250' Concrete (1000' Displaced Threshold
at NE end)
Landing Aids -
Control Tower (FAA)
ASR
HIRL - All Runways
ILS - Rwy 4, 11R, 22, 29L (Cat II), 29R
NDB Approach - Rwy 4, 29L, 29R
LOC Back Course - Rwy 11L
REIL - Rwy 11L
VASI - Rwy 11L
RVR - Rwy 4, 29L, 11R
ALS - Rwys 4(SSALR); 11R (N7LSR); 22 (MALSR);.29L (ALSF -1, TDZ /CL);
DF
VOT
DME
Low level wind -shear alert system
SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Eleven (11) Airlines - American, Braniff, Eastern, Flying Tigers, Northwest
Ozark, Republic, Texas International, United, USAir
and Western
Main Base for two Airlines - Northwest and Republic
Service Hangars - Western Airlines and Braniff International
✓ •
•
Services & Facilities
Cont'd.
Cargo Facilities - All airlines are accarodated in the cargo locations
along 34th Avenue South
Six Commuter Airlines - Air Wisconsin, Lakeland, Lake State, Mesaba, Midwest
and Mississippi Valley
HHH International Charter Terminal (Page Airways) - U.S. Customs for inbound
charters and international flights
Commercial Operators for General Aviation
Page Airways
Burlington Northern Airmotive
J
FACT SHEET
SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT
(HOLMAN FIELD)
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
540 acres
Runways (Bituminous)
NW-SE (12 -30) 150' x 5,400' (5,120' Displaced Length for Landings
on Runway 12)
E -W (8 -26) 100' x 3,650'
N -S (16 -34) 100' x 4,500' (3,700' Displaced Length for Landings
on Runway 16)
Landing Aids
Control Tower (FAA) -
Medium Intensity Runway Lights (Rwy 8 -26)
High Intensity Runway Lights (Rwy 12 -30)
VASI (Rwy 12 -30) 26
Localizer (Ray 30)
NDB (Rwy 30)
Interim Microwave Landing System (IMLS) (Rwy 30)
REIL (Rwy 30)
Beacon and Lighted Wind Cone
SERVICE AND FACILITTFS
Offices of the Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics U.S. Customs & Immigration
Army National Guard Hangar U.S. Army Reserve
Home Base for Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Aircraft
Commercial Ooeratcrs for General Aviation
Instrtmient Flight Training
Wings, Incorporated
Sanborn Aviation, Inc.
Sundance Aviation
Pilot Training Center
Mandrake Airplanes
St. Paul Downtown Airport
Cont'd.
Other Facilities
Administration Building
Skychef Restaurant
Sea Plane Dock
Rental Cars
Full Service Aircraft Maintenance
Offices of Minnesota Highway Patrol
Aero Space Aviation Supply Co.
Office of Team Police -City of St. Paul
LOCATIa
Approximately 11 miles from downtown St. Paul (3 minutes driving time)
Industrial development areas of the St. Paul Port Authority lie adjacent
to the airport:
Riverview Industrial Park on West side of airport
Northport Industrial Park on North side
Southport Barge Channel on South side
•
•
r •
FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
560 acres
Runway (Bituminous)
E -W (9L -27R) 75' x 3,600'
(9R -27L) 75' x 3,900'
N-S (18 -36) 75' x 2,695'
Landing Aids
High Intensity Runway Lights - 9RW27L - 18/36
Medium Intensity Lights - 18/36
TOR •
Control Tower (FAA)
Beacon
Lighted Wind Cone
VOR - Rwy 9P/36
ATIS
VASI - Rwy 36
REIL - Rwy 36
MALSR - 9R
ISMS - 9R
:SERVICE AND FACILITIES
Commercial Operators:
Aircraft Sales, Inc.
Modern Aero
Beech Aero Center
Elliot Flying Service, Inc.
American Aviation
Thunderbird Aviation
FTC (Flight Transportation Corp.)
Basco
•
•
•
ANOKA COUNTY-BLAINE ALPPOPC
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
1,900 acres
Runways (Bituminous)
)
N-S Runway (17 -35) 100' x 4,855'
E -W Runway ( 8 -26) 75' x 3,200'
Landing Aids
Mediums Intensity Rwy Lights - 17/35 & 8/26
Lighted Wind Cone
Lighted Wind Tee
VOR Rwy 8
Beacon
Control Tower (Weekend . operation)
UNICCM - 122.8
SERVIC S AND FACILITIES
Commercial Operators:
Aero Flite Service Aircraft Electronics
U of M Flight School Skyline Flite, Inc.
Aero Tech., Inc. North Star School of Aviation
Lindee Air Midland Aviation
MNC Assoc. Thunderbolt Aviation
•
CRYSTAL AIRPORT
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
433 acres
Runways (Bituminous)
NE -SW (5L-23R) 75' x 2,500' (400' displaced threshold each end)
NW-SE (13L -3LR) 75' x 3,250'
NW -SE (13R -31L) 75' x 3,250'
One landing strip 2,500' x 200' (NE -SW)
Landing Aids
Medium Intensity Runway Lights - (Runways 31R -13L & 23R -5L)
Control Tower (FAQ)
VOR - A
Beacon
Lighted Wind Cone
ATIS
VASI - Runway 13L, 31R, 5L
REIL - 13L
SERVICE AND FACILITIES
Commercial Operators:
Bolduc Aviation, Inc. Thunderbird Aviation Crystal Shamrock
Maxwell Aircraft Service Flying Scotchman North Hennepin Flying Clu'.
Crystal Skyways Ford Aviation
•
•
_._ LAKE ELMO AIRPORT
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
6 4 0 acres
Runways (Bituminous)
NW-SE Runway (13 -31) 75' x 2,850'
NE-SW Runway ( 3 -21) 75' x 2,502'
Landing Aids SERVICE AND FACILITIES:
Medium Intensity Lights - Rwy 13 -31 Ccorrercial Operators:
Beacon Ed Mayer Flight, Inc.
Elmo Aero, Inc.
Lighted Wind Tee Reese Aviation
Lighted Wind Cone
NDB -A •
UNICCM - 122.8
F ACT SHEET
AIRLAKE AIRPORT
PHYSICAL STATISTICS
565 acres
Runway (Bituminous)
Nig-SE (11 -29) 75' x 4100' (400' Displaced Length for Landings
on 29)
Landing Aids
Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL)
Runway End Identification Lights (REILS) Runway 11
VASI (Runway 11)
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System w /Reils (MALSR) Runway 29
Instrument Landing System (ILS) to be Operational on Runway 29 in
late 1984
SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Cannercial Operators:
Dagnon Aviation
•
ry'
8
/ N
11 I
--�Z� W
311319+• YI
tl
` ; :11/011 711Y1 y
.., i hi
■
.... e.. " ........ ) . i . 1 1 ' "sok 41 .'111 11111Li ,:-='_:::-.:_--:--.--: . •
.:.ii I/ . N .1,4 IS t
02 Cr
,,..,,,- / 4/ , w .
1 CC
''''''-", 4,••,, ":',- 4 , \ ;
-_-.../ ,,? N i i - - --"t.cz,,. ........, , - '.9 .. i
i
,,..
t 1 IL
L / ' art �� ` . /.... 1 \
. / ' 's • * .. ' ,i/ ';, ' af 7 C. :,: , , i: r / ' _
41 /1. \ , „ ,,, . .._.. .... _
L ■ .
) ( 9 . ,"/:"../ : -- : LI ;
71� _sue •
;,
,I, ! Q u fi ' /; ; .`_ ■ j � g ` ; �/ \
II l L , �J i _i ", 1 -/ S
p o
l • , \i:;: j, (4ib (.- )(--zr ‘ o 0,- ',/ /, o Ei _ i N
�I ;. i ce + a; ; < . 0
I ill / ill i cy , t °.� + ' `'I J - .!I :
! f _f �_ 4 _ I
�'a �' .. /- 1 1 fie "r 'i •
II
I I , t fi ' ° " \., �\.. III
µ id
; f Tom_ s 9a! \ (A *- \\ \ r/ ss,
• III
- - . AI
.: h
•• » i \ :\ is
L ,,, ______„,.____,
....__________,
_____,
r 4
1. cr
\ `
•
\ t7\ 3 S
W
\ o m
O.s a
• )\
co
I. 1 •, 0 \ , -\..
\ • •
i 12 ... - - s I i! v ,...s, \--‹ N k; , ,
ea /,. \ \ \\\�
4 ....... / ... It \\‘`,..?-:;- \\\.
1
k.
Ilik It-''... : i s'.:1, 's.,'''‘, ‘,,,,,, \\,., T \___,,, \ __ \ ____ 7 __: ''''', iii \ \\\ . -,
t. ; *:\ `, -sv. .,,,„.;,' \
s � a °a \ „\„,
__...._ ...,,,.._:: : .., ,..,,,!:,
....„,„..\,,, s„.... •
\ \' 11- I I 1 ;1 \
t
• \ . Q 0. \ ` . \\ • \\\\`l
• %, •.,, 4 2_7 2 . :. 111:1 7 c \
'. ' * \ N 7 .... : ° ' '' : ..' ' 1 11'. '
9 I 1 a . -- a 2 AA** ' t, \ ‘
-.y++`` , . V 1 \ 1\1! 41' s---- \ ED
,.•.. . 7 a c ...........,. .
f •
• ,.
•11(/ . t :., ) Np.----/y :::„
....• '' I--
. ,
----• k 1 h , a - - --....,\ z .-- < S
....„...= io ,, 1 .,.: • --
_,----- s ---- - • • t' ThF • .--,- r ' -:,,,, ,) „/ . /-„Z--- § il
eilett _1 D
VI. . ---‘" ''f '-'----, ' ' ' • '''g ..", /," 1,0
?„, • i ; ,------. - ...m. • 1
.0 CO it
.-- . ''. " -f"
, . 3 •,!,, .,...,... ...,, , - --C.------ - / //< E
‘, ‘ 1,::„.1,, 45•1:1 >.
( \, ri 17 \ ‘ /
.7 •-•.:;:, • •
1 • ' (7V /7-----
, /
M Yri/i/
it
u.
3
'I': . ‘ Z) \ ( I/
g ,
3, 133933 _J
.4 ( :3
,...:_(. C. I .1
Nook 3nwl
o ...;
t -) .--,. 1!.; --• biL• i
, _, g . •, ,c
, tir
— _
—,..• 11 1 ., , ---r- 7- --,;. ---
,-- ''' _ __,X
/, a
; , - .4' -•,:,,, „_____ F. ' ) ' ' ._ ,',-
, „....,........_ ,.„
\ '',‘, ' : . - 2.t: l". 0! = ,,, .-,, •_ „,,,/, , ,„, , // • ?
; giii i s , ••.„ ' \''N. e 0 ,..,./
,,I,
...: '‘,, \■ 'Va; ist - ' ' 1"11
r______ i i ,
1111 -,:: s(reli 3 ::
-r. 1
i --.,_ , .,
' .-• ( D
i 8 le i al, ' _'•---, IA I
- - --
z i6,,.\1■ ,..,, s ')/,,, liti;
, ,, .,
g I 1 _ ' e'' i,
••• '. ----, _
,, • , , 4 „
ct I ) ,,--' ' \ ' I • ' Co;;t1;- ‘--- '-lirMi------ '-------
00 f , :: ,, tz , Awohnit Jivint 1
11--- " _______.. ".- az n Kt,
snow se s_as_,-;-2- • ,•■_.,-%
,--.:::...? trainv - --- -
Ch -
C
ii ' ---,---- ' 11 - h ;....,•„, III c t, -- -z ,, r . , -----___ ....< I nk\V ) ' ._._._________
_ • 0, , , .. ----_______ .:: I! i 1 7---- - - - _ ‘., ,„/,
.,..,... 0z ....... hf :• -
- II ; l• \ . .r 1 , , ( 7,-
i e..,, „„•,. F
!: ----_--: il -- ____ ;,- 1 L-0-: , 1 1 r • -- - , ‘-, i ______ _IJI "1 if/
• ' i ,4::::::::: .!,
° ' ft.„-v,...... -
. t $.0 ,,,.....--....-3.43 i VA, . ; II . • ' „..- - ' / ...N.,...?, ., \ • , if” ...,
'-' , „:"..',-/ /•.034 • t .TaSEti-
A% C.:7:ti , •,,,_VF•
co , . • , ,t. 1 , ., 7 ,----„---- , • 1
, 1/4 • ' / .•"""••••-,..... : • 1• ' - ; 1 ' ' \ .--' I
. 1 / /
):._._._._ ., ; ii ,.. ,., 1 ...- • / , ,,,,\ \ , \ • .?,•/,• .....„ 7
,f 1 --..... --..., I. 1 ill ,I ,• , ., ; , I \ ■
/ - ----t":__•■■' ill 1
1 i 1? ,._ il i ! - , •:',/,,i ; 7 P , p i ,....._ , ■ )j ; ) ; ,! I [I „,.... ,..- z, 1,
,...-/ / .1 i t: ' l :I
7 f • r_____ i.f,IF:,-
... , ,,--7 N •
'' / , I , • , '1, 1 I 1/11 ,14 .,,,, r., /7-2 >--.,/..-- ',
41..cy,,,
,,z \--,•■ ,
. 1 . : 1 1 rims
-/ , . • i ;- 1 :3 -
7 ,, , ,././/,1
_ ,
•
, sq L 1, /■,.,-0. 2 v •a , i Si
,.,:..:.: _____,;
te 1
,.; 1 :?; zv ---
, *,-,•,/ , J
: i....,/ a,' CY .'., •, --- Kc -- 7- , - 4 . . I, • „: . Uri '-' :
' 61-1,.. .z.: "'
' - , z.t,
.:, ./.
.i.
•4• is,./ ,I • , ! / ---- =- , ,-4 a ;.!
.... ,, .11 c2/
-*.Tre Q7
/ / • / 1
' i / ' r _ - Vy,<_1,_ ->"-----.
,
/• / / _ .
! ,•- _ :_...--_--- ..9ii- .‘..._
i ,_____.` .-:_--_____ ,. •- _---. :..., --
- -, ---2,/ - 1, 7 " ---)N.___-- / -- -
1
,- ; -- ''
La ,J -- ‘ 1 e,,,.',
_J ,-) . '-‘,
'
---
- _S i I ' , r ,.- " .c ,J1
.
..
1
I ' \ . S" ) i)
1 . 1
xl. . ou 40003 .. 7 ri---,■______ , ;., 1 ,),,,.s i ..,, ,.:.,.;za_........,.....
! , ,,,_-___--=',..-, -___ ,,
( I 1
I r 1 - - ' i - jr -----1
m .
._.
' - . V \ • . \ _ ..... c__....s. (71: .,., , ,
8
.< P
S ON 3n tl, W Q J
CC
■ N.tlON 3� y 6
o d N e,
u
U
O
f
/° tl71N37 NAlvOOtli
N ..Y
v' r. ridi 0 :'
v tYYN]YO
••L u
-3n• vva ' / t
ii ,/' v
_ j �, — _ — _ 'w,0 is C` "1:. "
LIIII QQ p ` �' 34 p 1 0 y a � ��
.MYA � ` +P '
} ; i � l o ll 11 4''' ''''' ''''' Z I.Li:: ,
n• a.0 s. \\ \ �t ��� ^
• 1 •
s .', -1 .
111310 .
.lv F Ti - __ b- _. -.ew _...__ .- -: - -": g
2 (1
Itni ''''1, ' 1 \fi P -/ OP \ w • sm. 3 • .-.I\''4, • ®• \ I [
4�® a Y 1 2 's ' \\
I L:ii
2 4,§V 3 11.2 " Ca , j
k., �f i
1 ,,, 0 I fr ,
g : -o- ,...,',,, , .4k# ..:1) --,,,,,---
.8' ; - .-7 ..-,- . --,..., .....,— \ , - ,% .," ,,, , 001, .Q „:„.......„,..........
/ o T S c's•P / a '
w •, ^ / ' yam )nY 00010 1 1� \ \l / 'i � : � -
wv 3'N `� C , -.
_ 7 ! ''''
•° 4 c ,y «.�� "�) do 4 4 `, ,
v ‘• j ' " i I. ___ r
j r s �
�% 1
�C .
CC
O
CI—
'
CC
I' v N Q
6.5
4 i 6 1 1 2 1 2�. r
m c
APPROACH ZONES \ /
CO
Z p••
VI
C9
O <
o I 7 - - -- 7 MATE
I
°
` CLEAR ZONE
e0O � t-2 _a 00002 }ol'C 1750' Q
IN FEET SCALE ET WA I
WON., I «[.0 Cal IIICIRT m S
,, 79' C 31 CLEAR O
\ 1■ ' _ u
104 Nl AVE. - ` < T ----- Z
Itl \ x(11 OA-
i' ;o> t '!
1 \ CLEAR ZONE \) \ u t i
500 • 1,700'• 1.000 C \' ` f 1 \
1
c LE V1� _ 0 ELEV -
I i — 9085 I i
• 1 1 \�. I1 1
1 N
I I I I I H I II . 11
t 2
e.o I 1 I II 1 1 11 IOIN A VE. I =
N I 34 r `
_' W.
V - w j N / I I ,I 1 1 —ROADS , 22 23 d
G ' J O , 20 ° ° 1 ' 4 1 I SCHEDULED 21 LL22
O I � - 2" 2E/31 / - I 1 500 FOR FUTURE ry > t
A: 1 7501' 1350 ) 1 I ABANDONMENT.
VIN
iR
AL i
I I : W
� ` L I R /'� l I I I PARCELS TO II 1'6'2 V I / L -1 100.1 yl11� BE ACQUIRED
__ ____ - - $p - - j I 1 i 1 I I _____ I
- --
I' _ 14 - - - - i1 ICI 1 EXISTING
N x
` ____J1 ��ll 1 L Z I
—�_ —. $ L rT Y T- 500 • ELEV
I I — V 9M.9 i 1 1 1 rR 1i 1 . i • : l • ...• 20 . s _ u +r 9C90 / 1
SO CLEAR -- — - -- TT DESIGN GLIDE ANGLE 50:1 -
DE31GN
CLEAR GLIDE ANGLE 165 1 CLEAR ZONE GLIDE AN GLE 50:1 I I NS -- ULTIMATE'/ • 7 TES , R W V, NO 2 I i 50 . ( - CLEAR G110E ANGLE 95 10
.12 i 11 I I ry Erlw � ' I r/ 1I I
OVER MAC . ROLE -
z ` 50 13 ABOVE AO AD f •' • I,ODD B
•00 I O 'I
4 J zo•n o•cHw I III 1 1 E EV�I
. S —_ -- • ELEV 9051 11 ' 1 r� C I
. 3E OdA1 LE - ���
! CLEAR _ •• * • ,E LEV 902.9 • ECISTING E -w Rwr. 9091 . 909p 1 � -
L - -- rw1 i NG 1 .00 GOO I 0E91GNI GLIOE JA' 7
—�� 4 11 CN GLI DE ANGLE 3•'. I - I -- 'ULTIMATE E-w - c. ELEV CLEARI Gl1 0E ANGLE 1.. 1
_ I - Y - 2. I h 11 1 9090113 /, � OVER MAIL ROLE
_-C LF'eA"G IOE ANGLE 12S: it
` ' - TNRE SHOD 1GH - L � R J J G J — -_
TO '5 ABOvE ROAD 1 B "GAS LI - -- NE „ I 1 _ �G 1 �
I r • G
C L AR ZONE �, ST 1r�A G p Ax
E. C E
ONTROL TOWER. .. 12 ° 500. 000.800 1 O I /
— �, ----1-4,i==-8.,
.- �, —..� -� 1 I m I o zo 1 uipo•cH s u+El =. I
BUILDING' AREA - X50 JSC I r
J it :�° 1 yj I
Z O — 1 . \ .• .— r..1 200 ° ' �!
' V \'' r.. 1 II r l . .S I P 1 I? $1 h ; 1 i G I 97 � Gi
$Q� I -trek � iII II 1 $i I A Uo /
iux %V, 11 . II ;1 i , r_ -1 ELEV906� I; i ��� • /
• I 1 � JI r � ! 100 29
I � < ' ' ' '' . 1 I, I n I _ 7310.13 W; I
on 1 1 � I
i �! L •
i o' 91 I Y
+c,`__ - __- CLEA ZONE I �/ I I = � E — � �I I It a€1 Q N ���I I W
• s _ 300'• 1,700 .I.000' u1 . n 1 • —I I u I i 1 ' I I s 1
` O : � �ON1 C —3II I •y 1 zI = 0 ., 1 w
3 ON ' --1 11 11 WI ° I ELEO M 59
'L 89 AVE. 11 I 1R AvE N E I J
-_ -09I ___ III' 90906 _�;I �1
�v� .J ------::---.Z.:-.2..2.-('-.!,. X11 —w ...35 i5.e ' 11 r• E 1
1 : �S " 111 . 1 -1„ 1 i I k •I%`' `'` ,'4P- '.\ ;1111! = o CLEAR 2 0NE 1
1
O
- ` ` 111 11 �._ .I 19. a �. . I 1 2po0'C1730' ; //
d to ' 8 I1 III: !I 1 1 ' VILLAGE OF BLAINE
< 1N AVE. , - _ _ ` Q CLEAR ZONE 91!--Vi /i.,,__________<._
_ _ 1 , 1 500::, ^00.7 ' v
V _ .1'1' 1 \ X 1 zo r o•cH UR
. u w R„, ~I I w FAIRWAY w ` ` 7 Y:. `• • ` ` . • I
cc ' 1 rc-::: \ �I �1 1 7 I
I I J N M 3�3A N - Iu Z' ,• 3233 - . i - -�.�: a , \ N 1 F i 0 \ 11 !' `I < : i n y •, •� '0 Bloc. e� ` � LINE � V I�g eh 1
L 1 11 I :� _ _ ° _ _ — �I
-
/--r 11 II I 1 .,..� L i'• M ear AvE
I 11 ,1 _/I1 � \ t 1 COUNT( R0A0 %
� 126 CLEAR I i {� -S1' CLEAfI APPROACH ZONES W0 Q• VILLA 6 OF 1 • 1 , P Mas ROLE -2• CLEAR Q 6 1 5 � ; I ' •N
SPRING LAKE PARK ! R A M S E Y s " R C 0 U N T Y II
1
LATITUDE A3 0R' - LONGITUDE 93e- 12' -33'
• ..
_. •
. •
§ i•.'
r; R •—
•..
o •-
< ..
>-
Cr
%. ILI tO
fg W
8 Ne
5
.., .,..-
..-/-
. .\. \-) ,....? ...
,
i d 0
NiL
\ / °
--' --- / g
--- II r-, : t•
ti •,-----\2_...
• • ;! •;::- (-'
id& . • A /
, i›,tril -.,-...:•s, Vi
I WilligiL
3n.0 tiblebe I____I
7 -7. .-- - -----,--- - -- i - -.---
---. -....-z-
1 - ••., ''s ' - • i , s : ,
Z) \'',,, ' ‘■ • I II n
• I g I ,r. / '''. '-I'L(i ■■
I k I • K -\ i• x • •, ,..--Ji ,;L 1,: Z../ ,/ ..%,„
'--- .: • ' - e-I5 •••/ / ,
\ II II•,. ' 2'4. ''''‘,: Ns',,,---,L---'—c\. /;;;\-----. * I 1 / 1, -:-RrI.-
,..,:. A s --,,,,.._ ,f , : N, (' N , ,,.. •) i z \ . !.' , 11
11 __,-;.,••
\ ',.. ( ' •:`,-c'•••• ---- , — ''' ' s.' -',.*'-i \ ' CV
,/ ----,„ ,, N ) r• _ -- ••,,.:,-- ...., ..... ---- .. N sz \ .._. ‘ --. - /
' ''./ \ ‘4° :;;` • ,,, '
FLI
/(
7 •
:
1 I
!,.
•
. .--/ N'x'. 7 /'■1
r-'-'-• •
( -• -1K1 \ \ il : _
i — . - < \s /
k( i. ,...\-.,
,. ,, ;
• , - ,,, .7-7,1,
. , ,,/ -`.,,.. , -'''s -A- ,4')- .) ,
.,, , :\ ,
.., , ...\ ... .., ..,.. \, ,.:---_ e--
.... .., -././ , ..,..
'' ,i-oz ; , i,':1 •••
- • . \,,e;.- "```,::: 0,.• ' / /4 ..i_
•,,- 1 "15
a r ; '4 . i :' 1 X \ ''•\ - 4) ' ...., s/ ' // 1 / \ 1 '' V 4
1 - A • ,.,>,
...--/ k \ •ei. ..,..._./, , ' ,,_./,/,
e \ Fb• i )
‘‘"- „:.: z ,- ' _zi - ,-
' .•-'... ',..P r N _k ; ) .:. •%.4. , 4 L. - "' - - ---
, ....,4 ,:.., ,, .i:.• ..4 • ...
L ...• \ 1
.: ;•,. /- : .„,..ch, b , s ‘ / , ..,,,
z_
1 : = • - , _ 4 / ' .,4;*,/..,7P ,., L---,...._
: / '... ,71 I % / ' - • '' 1 ''' • s •
zi ,,:,;., ili II. __ 4t• .,...4:.- ‘, ,,, "k,>;( `,./ ".' --, %
.:.‘ MEMO ..' ,,/,// ‘ . .•.; 1 ' '' '', 0 '' ''/‘ # / <- - I y-
. , ', =MB 0 '-' dr,' . %-- -4*: . 4-' X ,• • . / .. " : \„1 I
r;
; •P - -,_ .0. / / / A e• ''S .3 1.7. -\--, ' : \ I . $ ! , __.,-'''-'..)
\V, V i / ;. 0/ r 0 '.: \ / I .-;' 2 .! ". ,i/
--- I-'
' \ / /- /
set •■•• sr ' ' '.',A .00 :
/ I I:',,w.•:::____2 C
,!•:■F.f: 2 „------/ /-
A .0,_ , ,. ,, \. _,..,.;. .: ,••■' i :
. 8:' '' >(\-=.- - ,4•'''%,`.' C
, ( _7
1
.,-- - - --
\------i:•: '.■ \ \ > Z'' z 4 ' N''\ \ .N 8,10
.11:. • - / ;) 41,1,, ' . ‘ '..11 4,1 &• \ 1/2 ....--- -
- r N,7 sr \, • ,,
. rq p , • •
.11 ,-,----
G. avOti Aler101 -- -- - — - - - — 1 ."T ------'----- : -----•------
/‘ _-, /
„/
/
.. 1 - • .7, W-tc . . ,.1 ,7
X .. ":;,” / 7 Ili f: : ----------) 1 .e
/ X
r -• - 7 // \ t? ,.• e - ;
• '
•
/
---„ ••• \ \ ,''
-............, 1, h I /
, 1 ,
• I ----'
,..-
I-
6 •
: t 0
i
w
42
.• 1% I i : i i tt :4 1 1. ti 7 rn
1 i.113.41 •iit
! 111 1 Z 11
i ti 11
' ;
1 1 •,;•?.. •
.i:c1,:i: 1,00- '.'1. =V i::
..-,„::.1•;,,,,!, .s.... :14 ;o2
:a: :•:•
CL C IO
2 : 2s 4 , ••.,1 .i. :!: ;;a: ;1i-4 :i- :., m
. ., ' 1; :-.1 1•iF. ■;-",i:i : i 0 i'• :,
1 , -1 i i
7 7: EeV 1 1
':', ii.
. p.. .
•r• :1i
-- - g
e ra ••• ..-%..,- .; !
Z ,1.L- : :•- .• 11: i.t
- ..;1 '''''';=" 2 ; 2 i
I' i li Ilittill E 111=1 ! 1 ' ill I ..7.,4:
!is! s8!..:
II: ...!: .. 1 fi; !7 " --•1 2V; .:2:'•
11 i!::: -"- " I i ,•: iiiE ,” i • tc 0
r> hag 8 -•" lav
rill; ;N I ::,:!ri r. ,,,,_ ....,... •- 1- i g
.1..a..::,., • : .
■ - : ; ..•. . t, 7/ .4!
, i, ii 0 :. •••1 i i i'•E, I ..—, ..
_ 13 • •
t"....."'" 3 • : a
; V .'• a ; t. a
t ..
1 Vccis-!:
. •-•
/
v 1
1
/ / ,:yit
I -3,
k g i..0. ....,
,., 4,4:....Y":•1
,,,. .
1 / i
., ''• 1 I g '
/ .i..■
ri2
2 , •-•• 1
I. O il • ..... — / flt• •
1. t
:, I / %. •,,T___,L .
...., / ?..g...:-.-,..
-----. ..!:
..: , :: / gawili..." !I . / . I - J1 ,
0 ,,,,Z '. 4 ..:! .t...:,...
:, . . 7
A
/ / i R---.„,... /
At 22.11;,:..1 --- 2A WV., / • •-•■ • ..
^.. .—. , I •••••••.... 7
p • - A ••• i
/ , •-• .T p:.'.
---•)--------i-----=:= .;:'.: \ , F --„_ ‘ .- •I• •,?"'-', '
1 f"...... I -____I .•:-•-•e \ I 1...... • /
.1 .k
‘4,-
■!., ;/ ..ii ,
- e I V - -
, 1 1 1 1 -
1 ', \ •-.. , . .
i \ I i ir - - --e.... :..- -
1 4 , / '...■.„ ', , a
% 1 t \ / • i , 417 i I ..--- -..... ,.„ . s.. %
• i // ? :.., ,
I 11 0 1‘ 1 7 — . i 7. 11 --- ...... - .„
— --
■ , II.
0 I ! 1 i LW* : 1 1, -,
v17; / , „./// 1
E, EJ 11 0 '.. t -. - 4 // i , ■ .. E L -_,..... ,
,_._,.. ______. .----, i ; 2 \ 1.1 1 // ... `.: --., --"•■ 22
1 -'1-1/1 i g , ; i .: ,\
I '2 2: • • • \ ,.....11 f—
1 / / / /
IL: / •
. . ' . ' `' .1 , - •
:). ---
.._____—_,,, --- --- 1 , .0 • -0 .. / '
I' ll --------------- L -- - c :,' / -
n
! / l• i
IX ( / I N at • .
0 1 '
', // I
1 1
N. c ./ 1 / : 'e
'.. / , ! t,',1 • -v., 4., •
. . i
!..•
. ..>
.‘P•
trre•
, , , , c 4. \ , \ •
1 ' ■ , 1 \
I II 4/ I f
- - - -‘ ,:iri: ,
1:,1, 4:4 .i 1 it 1 i,„
- ,
3 ' ' " / --,-,
. 1 'i "--• dffit/ ', / -- - ' "
i. r 11 -41`.%.K/F eaat
i • __ __ i • .... t......!
--
. ,
/) 11171!j111141 Ilf ill /; .1 1 ( l i I 1
, ■-.,,Pli 1. 1 , / /
..4": / 1;4 i!!! '
Itlii LIE I ' /
/
, ------
...• I I /
I /
..?,...:,..,.... ......
,..,...„..,... . ,
....1$ . 1 1
, /
_.
, 1 / ,t-FizA I
I .7: ...„,..,
k 3
A
Y
. -__.......,• .. ....
1
. ..
•
10
I
I
QT - ON.O nN N nON S ONO Mn S LC) - n.O O 2 N N N COO O N M NO N ON - cOO n
n 0 T co 0 0 0 N n M N- 2 n- f■ O N O C O N ON - N N N N O o��0- CO O M N 0
MN S N MMn- MLA2 0 CO M2 ON CO <1 ON .7 N N N MM2 N NS NO IT NO S LA 61 N S 1
fa O n o ON N - LAO N S n n N S M ON O1 N— n 0 N- 01 CO M n 0 N 2 N N ON N n CJ Cq 1
FI OM NI ON NO LA CO LA N O n N -NO N O O N O CT es. n ..4 CO O M
Q ■ MNN LAN .O n OTO - M NOOOCO O N NO M M0 NO M0 0 O — n co MM ON 01
~ • • _ _ • • NNN MMSNLANNNO
VI
00 O10
CC
S 1
2
1-
2 I
G SO-1. .O 022.0 CO O N O O CO CO O 2 O N N N N N N S CO N O N NO O 2 CO NO O
0- - O O O O NO O M CO ON N N M -NO N O - OS LA O-7 M ifs NO S- O CO N NON - CT
LY - 2 .0 N O- 2- ON CO N LA N CO OT n 01 --7 - 0 OT 2 2 N 2 n 2 .• 0 M CO 0 M M N - 01 I G < <
O 0O NO OT N 1....0 ONN LAN NO r∎ O1 LA ON - O O O M LAN .00 - NO N S Mn- ONO n LA.° M N
O L n- n 0 n --7 SCal M ONO 0 OTSS— M0 M MnN 0 M0 -0 N0 ^n N I
2 L - - - - - - --- N N N N N N M N 2 NNNNN so S ..
G 1- 1
N -
- 1 1
G
-
CC I
c-
G A I CO NO M .:
O. N- NO rm.= co - -2 N. CO MOT CO Al ■ NSO N M M- 0 c N MnOOO - ?O O - N ON CO
O10 OT OS n2 nO ■ MC) M OO nN.O n0 I ON 1 NO N O O O I� NO 2n ON CO N
O NS - OT •O - 2.M0120- 710O MM n0 nn22 N -n MS 1 _
• • N M n _ • 4.0 N - CO -7 ONO MONO ON ONO ON.0 MO -N -SS NMNO - O N nNM -NN n- C1N M M S -
1 -O -N0 000 .... M CO NN NNO- n -2SOO N - -S -O Nnes. M OTO 0 c r nN n
• - N2SS N.O .O r•-• co 01 -- -7 -7.0 nNO O1 -SO N - COS -Nn M .O nM n n MS
• Al N N MSS N N N N .O NO N0 n n n ON CO 1 n CO CO
Z
2 1
G 01.0 nOO N n - -O —N N 01.0 M LOCO eN ..? . - CO 0 N - ON NO •J n201 ON O1 r- M
N nO2n 01.0 —M N M Ol NN- 0 20 N NO n N 0 n N n 2 N O NO S N C NN
to 2 n0 01 O -2 O e1 ON N. M— NOO - - O N -CO O1 NS MSS -- nON n M 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
= LD .O S.O N - MN N O NNNO - M — ON n2 NO co NO ON en. NO CO ON -.Tr 0 NO O N Ti
01 ON CO CO S CO n NMnNO - O O - 0? MO - O10 NS O N-7 MMOI ON NO CO O S I c
O 0
-N N N MMMS NN .O.O OD CO 0101 ONO - N N.O N N O nO1 N0.0 ONNN- L1
1-
4.1 _
' - N N N N M M M M M S- N -. I
N
1- 1
CC
0 N O N MO N nM ONO - NN2S O n0 - - - NO.O AS -I -2 - OS N2 MOO O
C .0 S O 02O ONO ON -7 -NO NO 0 0 NO N NO N. TA ON N n Mn- NS - MM nO - O'+ I
O Al M- O1Nn0 OT ON NO N n O1 O1 CD ON N O NOTN N N N M- NNNO -7 2.0.0- y 1 j < < <
G J W 0 ON O1 0 2 n 0 M 2 N n 0 M 2 n -7 0 ON N 0 .O N M S- CO NO N- CO 0 N M CO N CO NO NO t - CC G - 14.1
? . MNC7 N MN nn ON - OT 0 0 ON n LA NO 01,0.0 n ON N - M- LA N N N N NCO M N 1
1- V 1- - ■
- 2 2 0
J - W < 1
O G N 0-
L d J tel
O CC G 0 0 1 •
CC K/ O.
1- m 7 t
W S W _
2 G 2 S MI
n NNOO MOO NCO 0 0 nN N MOT CO.00O 0 n2 NO ON LA N MM ONO nNNO n N ON VD 0
M O-7 MCAO NO O1 — n.O N - OTN. NO nn.02 Nn.O OS N O O nMnS CM 00 N I - NO
• U NS 010 O MO O.O.O 01 N 2 N NO1 NO O NO O ON LAN NO N NCO ONO ND n0 M M en CO • - M CO N CD LIN en
• S -1 ¢ N NO O N2O O 01N- nNn -N M N MNnNS OO - O1nN OT nM N0 01 O 1 O l•-• L.0 -
A . 3 • - N N N N MN MSS NN n n0 CO CO ON 0 N 2 N0 OS n N n 01 - MS As 01 CA n M CO 0 M
2 ■ - - - -N N N N N N MM M M MMSS I MSS
G = 1
N !
1
j N
1 1
J
0 C
C. I
G
W
= O N N CO ON n N CO NO CO M -O O -O MO N O T NO NMS OM ...7 M - NO N MO - M 1
■ 2 O - NO N ON NNO - - N OT - nNO NNN Al M S LA Am NO NMS n NOO cr N �,r1
2 ONS M NO N NO NO2 M NN2 ON N S CO CO O MN CAMS S CO n- 0 -2 S NO 2 N 1
fa M N S NO M co M n 2 ON -- N N O N- 0 N O .O N M NO O1 M OT -.1 S N CO N N N N N
• 01.0 ONO nMn A. LA MO NOO- O O- O ?SO - O1- MN ON n .O 20101 N c - 01 1
O -N NN MMM2N NO 00 0 MO101 O - N N.O - UMW v7 0 CM MN NO - OO
I - • -
- ■ - N N N N Al N M M M M 2 S S 3
■ i
1
N O N MO N N. MO10 - NNSS O nO -NO - - .O.O NS -2 - COS NS f " N O 00 1
L S 0 0 0 '0 0 nN O1N- nMn- NS - M MnO - n OT
C Al M- 01Nn 0 QN OI NO N N. CT O1 O C10 N O NONN N N N M NN NO NO - NS
< G G
J 0 ON OTO2 N. co MS N n O • M2 nS 001 N O NON M2 -O N - OO N MO NO NO NO 1 2 22
< L MN CO N IA Nrs O1- ONO O ON nn N 01N0 .O r ON N -• M- N - S N N n 01 c0 r„
.0 ■ -- N N N N- N M N 1
-1-
Cg
CC 1
. G
I 1
• 1a • c1 O M
• d O NO NO1 NO en ON NO nO NO ..7 SO - MM ON NO cc N 01N. N NMO1C CO CD -NO CO - M.0 O S O
N- N NO S O1 CO n N ONO N C ON ON O ON N NO ON 2 N MCA on - S n 0 N 01 N co 01 0 0 M - S NO
.p— MMO NNNO2 nN NN01 MN r∎nN f-- - -NNNN NOIO ON n 1 . .
• N SMNO - .O O1 O N- - M 02 N -NNN MMN 01N -nnN NS N 01M O1SO 01 N NO
1 N0 0 MM n0 0NO NCO NO - N MN M N nNS ON n0 ON -4 S N N O1 M- N CO M.0 1 CA ...1
M
- N N N N MM M-72 NN es. n0 COO ON NS LAN 02 NO N - N en v7 O n - . •
vl - -- - MI en 1 M S
S
-
• 1
1 - N M
1- S LA .O n O ON — N M S N .0 N.00 ON O- N ens N NO n 0 0 0 - N AM-7 N NO n CO 01 O OD O OO
M SS SSSS NN N N N N N N N NNO NO NO NO.O.0 NO.0.0 nnn nnnn n nn eO O1 n C1
L OT 7.1 L1 O1 01 CM ON ON OT ON ON ON 01 ON CN 01 ON C1 ON 01 01 ON 01 01 C1 01 01 01 C1 ON ON 01 O O1 C1 01 C 1 — — —
Y *
•
R ' N TC ON NO CO ON A • NON- JLO -.00 C m N N NO 0 • TA Tdd 00 ION- J A S N
0 N L. Om ON A •ON FIN hJ NCd NLO TJ C1 G'N NC QN -- AJ O.O - FR TAO .0 N - A O so
' 1O N TC TN J O NO Tm S T d mm hJ h 0 C
j L NS NdC NC -m ON NONANC O - NOS N.0 OOSNO ON -A OL ON -T TS N A
C - Ip N eN Nm.00 ON N N N- ONC O - - � A ON ON RN N • • N.O NO m C
� 00 CO N N
feL
M L O. N - T N N N N N N -- N fV N N N N N N N N N N fV N N N N N
L L V
<
N
W
T- O O 1 N 0 N 0 , 43 d - N D .o N N T • • N 1.11%t) 0 N A O N N N 01 4 - 0 T CO O N 0 1
N O N S h-
►. CO N C NN.GO O NN.0 0 .O -CON NO ON - NA -dC 0 ON - S N J
C Ip O NNON TT N NNmJ O NO T -J A- TQ1.0 hA N.O N N.O - -N N O 3
O. 0 <m TNNO NAN N N --TNJ CO 0 ON CO Tm AN - (La C .0 .D N N LAS -J N .0 T
W H •- CO d ON CO N N LA N d N .O h m 0 C A .O co ON ON N T d T O O. 0- 0 0- N • T L V
O
0
2
A LA ONA TN T0J A- Ad -m LAN N Od.0 ND TTm Ad mS ATAN h ON O .0
Q LAN CO N - O ON ea T - ONNN T • .T T 01m LAT 0 ON LAN TON ifs TN ATC CO N en 0 Q1
>•.- A ON CO LD ON N - N -NO 0100 NJ.Od 0110 N NS - TON - N LA T N N. IN - O
• A A d ON 01
C ON 0 <S ea CC I N .D.0 01 - T -dC - -d d NO ACSLD ON LAN N 0
d 10 - TC
C 0 • -h -hNN T ea ea TJ TS N NS T N N N ea C•0 N
< J 2 -
2
C
> ••
< C .O LO - N N N N LO N A O ON N S d m -- N - 0 O N J - C -- O ONO -d 0 • LAN A N
1Q N ON ON 0 - � .7 � - - 0 - 7 - 0 N- 0 N • ON ON - CS LAN A C 01 1 ON TN N N -
•
.0 J -O O T - - h
J L. • T Ids 1O T S - O ON d N T T N T ON d O A S O h N ON S m- T NO A T N S N J O -
N
- CC • • CO TO N • NO NT O CO - - NO NO .0 NTACIO O A- LA TO T A NC A- -J Cr, h .O
_ _� 2 • N N TT • • • UN NO NO h.0 NSd LIN LO OD CO CO hAC CO CC ONO -O ON Cr '
N
I .
C ON RN RN ON [V NO O N T O NJd N O mJ ON r... ON O O O O LIN r NO
O CO O - ` ON O
C - co - T N 0 N r • A .O N N NO T J 0 T CO A N 0' N 0 T N- CO CO C N.O .0 0 .O
•
N A • RN LO OS ON N.D Nd N . C1 .O 0 h . • ONTA A -N ON -- ONNN LOO • •
W 2 C 0 • J -O NO.O.O cc O AO N T ONO OS 01 T CO S CO N N d NO CO UN .0 ON h .0.0.0.0 Np N N
2 -O r SNANC Oso N.O O. h CO C m A A LA N2 N Sd TTTT - -
< W - -
H C
2 < <
• • C 0.
O < W W
O. J 0.
O C 0
C W O
N C i- 2 ACC ONNNLOCC O LAO OSC N ONN AmmJ N ANA
W 2 W <0. O NO S A A S O T T ON S N N T O ON N J N A ON - .0 - N N
< < N R < ATN -NNS- N0NO.O 0m mNNO NA ..... NC
- 4=6: J 2 • O A N S O T CO N- N T r...0 O ON .O J O N O LO N A A O -
- Q: < Z - CO , 12 .O TN ....... TN ..... N - - N
0. G Q - 0 0 0 0 N N O C 0 S' 0. ‘
- co m co N.O O%D O 0 f. N O
'N
s - _ N C9 - - ON N N 0 O NO . .
- CO UN d O.A .00 .0O .O N N u1
N C L
1 < U NN0. N AND 0 CO C •N CO NNOC- NO -T NN
N • L CO d CO d N O Nd t7. CO N TO N N NAm 01 nn NO hOm-
- O . s o, N SC ONN 01CC N ONO ATON - C .0 TNONN -
0 - W . Q TTN - NO CI NO CO S NO N.0 ON - ON ONOC C Nd •
O. 26, 2 - N .. d d N N T T N -- N
<
• W <
2
2
2
••• p0 J ON Q
ON ' 0 10 .0 r . C N O. ON . • T T O m N O O I. - TS A O- 01 ONO T T O LO AC CO O C t
• UN ON �A
- .7 '0 '0 O - '0 ON ONO - ON ON 01.2 ‚0 0 � .7 . 0 '0 1 '. '. - -L
... T -000- - A .0.O 0 N TT 0d N NON0- N NN0 - S 010 A - N•O - h
O - N TTTSd TTdd NN .O AANO .O 0 .O Am O- N- N- TN N TT NJ - - Q
_
V O C d A d T S m N O C T- d m 0. C O O1 J N N T- NO O m 01 ON .O S A ON N A h O O. A
J L O N A C T O A CO N N- O. N C T N en .0 -- N O ONO ON cr d c0 N m - .O N- N .O e „?..,
so mC Td - .0.O O>ONTNJ 0.0 - d NNT C.N0 N0 T0NJ 0C 0 NCdC N NS N O N
< L . D O NNC 0 0 1 1 '. � .0 - NNA ... TN Jm-- AT.ONO N TT N - TJ T N N
1p -- NN - -NN NN TT TTI!'1 TTTTd N set .O 61'10 ,0 •12 .O NO .O .O .O AA AC
a .
WV
WO
O
W
S
u
N N CT PR. O C. S . I ON N.0 S .O O 0 CO N T N J .O. . T N. 4 • 0 S J O -NO O ' NO S O N-. T N.0 - .O N0 J
ON O. N d N O T •-• S 0 CO ea .0 h C N S 0 T C h •••• O A N - T
IQ NO hN • 01d S Cr, co NdJ O Nm N TT O N. .0 ••••L CO ONO -.O -Jm NO ."•.0 Cr O. - CO C
` .D O N0 .
N =_ N co 0 N- m N N N ........... N N .O N .0 N .0 .0 .O O . O A RI N N
- ••• - j A A C
LI J NNO A C ON 0 - N Td N.0 Am 01 0 - N 0 .7 NNO Am Q1 - N Td N.O AC Cr O - - M
o C-.0.7..7.7.71'. N N N N N N N NN.O.ONO.0'10.0.0.0.0 C C
✓ ON ON C1 ON CN CN ON ON O1 ON ON ON ON ON ON 01 ON ON ON ON CN CN ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON CN QN ON ON
0
- T m MLA hSS JS - CC CO ...see CO O N hhS CO -.0 - r 014 T M0 TS N Oru CM T T S
• - OWOh.ONNhJMMhM- hONSNCOTTV1h LA.OMOm M.OTh - .00 -ON -
2 0 N m h LA V1 T N h M N .0 h h- m O - - N'1 - S T N- T O S N CC .0 .O ■ 0 0
0 NNNM - OT0000 MV1h.O- LV- hO12MO1S- NNT.OMTM " ^NS m0 -- N
e.g. N N N Cu N T S -7,0 T O O .740 N N N - -- - -
TO O Tu1O.0 O LA O cu .7 -J CO22 M- T a% f... M LA LA -.41 CO CO h .0 m
10 1 I 1 1 m cm-7 h- r NO 0 -- ON -7 O O N - h J h.O T O M N .O m S N - - 0 m C
1 1 1 1- T LA O- h O1 O N N h h m N- m V1 74 N l!1 S V1 T CO .O O cm= O T .
O 1 1 1 1
♦.. MtAhLAJ MM.00SI Tm -- -%.0 VD N N TM LA LAW LAUD mm mmCp ms C h h h .
N
2
O
1 -
w.
3 I- T M c u 0' .O h CO m .0 O h .O h •0 N .0 LA h N O1 O1 O1 O1 .0 u� - .
h O V' S LA
= 1 J r - CO N CO O O1 I., m M .O 1"∎ ( O1 V1 CO J ! - . co .O N T f∎ 0 1 - , -- V1 s° r...--.1- O M N
C 7 C 1 1 1 1 - N O N T h 01 h L A CO COS 01 . 0 0 N OM 01-7 S m 01 M N- S 0 . 0 S S 2 u1 N N
W 1 1 1 1- N T N - - - IV M M M LA LA LA h CO T rm.: O LA T- T M N m M.O .O N- O- m N
CC - - NN NMN TJ S 2 .S SV1 JS M 2
LL
C
2 Oh - S.O h O T h CO m m T.O h LA N N T h -NS O m h0 h .... m - .... M
0 ... .o M C1CS- 0 - -.0.0 TO1mm Tm - N - .O O N 0S S Out 0.. 1. J C 1
L� 1 1 1 1 O 1....-7 m -- O1 O N h M T N m LAS LA V1 -- h- .O LA V1 .O LA • .O M- .O m .O h .O O .O p
N O 1 1 1 1 NMSNN^ N TS LAS.0 V1 LAm m O MS T.O T -TMm O O1 - -S M -- O.
- - - N N MN TM. MSS 1 ..1 5 M M M M
s
0
O
u
N
H
C
O
a 1-
cc
- - Tm.O hN h.OSm N -LAOO TTMSm NN O1 MMS TT hO0.0.0 0 -..0 N
< - m LA LA T N T O h. 0 LA LA h N M N V1 S- N S NCO O S 0 T .O .O T
O .O N M S O M m 1,0 0 0
W .O m N h T- .O V1 .O h h .0 h V1 m M h h .0 O m h T O O T M .O N h ^- T M N
2M= O ' • •
< W W F' - -- N N N N N N M M T M. S S V 1 .O .O h h m m T T V 1.0 h .0 N
1-w
O VL
-11.,...7 2
O < O
O. z 1
C < N
I.- W N N _ •
W C W N - NS T COO hON
ON Mhm -hm O CD TTM hCO- Mh T . O - T- -N m
X W C W r, r.... MM V1- TO J - - r.. r... Tm.O - -S en 03 h Les T N COS MN r4 VD O S 01 TN - O O O
C a C C M-.7 .0 CO T O N N Cu M es •412 h .0 CO N S T h T T m O M-7 .O S- N CO O. - N -
W 2 X 04. O .
O< W X N N N N N. M J MSS ? M M M M-
< - W
0.w.
1-1 C
170.- ...
2W < <
7.0=
<
N C
7. CO c4 CO _ � 0 0 _ P 0 ' 0 ' 0 O hS 2
N < mm40m Mm V1 T LASLA N h CO T O O1 O101 M 01.0 -m cc v3 MO1 h J Vlm 4.'4.0 V- O O
W NM.O COOO S M J S J T T CO T O N J m O m CO O LA 171,43 m -h -1.1 -- -
W W . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0
1 • N N N N M M T M J J J S N M M M^
a
W
2
S
N V1 N .O Jr 0 m - - N .T S T h LA - h .0 V1? m- J 01,-7 h N M LA .O N T TS 'P4 O V\ M s ,
M S N- S CO M O M h- T V1 T h N - O- O V1 cc-7 M L11 - T N CO LA M m ^ .O N - CO T M N 01
LIC 0 J CO Mm O - LA hm - h T.O N hMO LAO V1 CM= S MT 010 .0 T ,,, NM LA O m N
O
1- - N - N N TTMTMJ MSJS LA LI1 UMW hm 0 U T N OS T S UM C.. Th S V1 S 5 J -
- N 1.'1M TM M MSS
N
Z
0 h- MJ- 7 LASTh TTONNT.O TmhNmTNMTNO hOM -- h0 -7,0 CO T
1- MSm hT0 0101.0 - Tm -J.O MMTN TTTLALAOSS ThNmm - .Cm O h .O O
s - • 7 C - ..Om- SSV1hC]m TTNN.0T.0T- LAMN.0ONV1NT.0JOSLA Jm MM 0
W O • • N N N N N N M M S LA m LA h LA h .O h h 01 T V1 M M M S S
_ N N N N N N N N
C
LAS TN M.O ThN LALALATVIMN - LA.O.O - 01.0 O NJ T- LATN.O Nh ..0N .D T LA h
• Om N hTN -MO C1V1.OmM.O hhNhLAS 0 hO - LAhQ1m 00 MLAO SO m LA LA a7
Lr "mhT- SV1V1mm O- m ^TN.OLAh- SNhTT.Om O01M.OVILAO hN1 N.0 O Al
W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 NN- N- NNNN1+11'.1SJhSLASh.Ohhm ON OM P4- N
N N N N N N N Cy
1 . Stll.O hm TO -NMS V 1.0 hm O10 -NMS LA.O hm T0- NMSV1.0h WC` O- N M
10 S S S S S S V1 V1 LA Ln LA LA L.f1 LA LA LA .0 .0 .O .0 .O .O .O .0 .O .O h h h h h 1\ h h =cow_
i N T 7 7 T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T O 71 ...........g'
- e. M.0 N r.O1 M
• N Or•.6n t'P BP d CNN VN - CAO
W 22 • • Vt - m M • • O r • • • O1 .D - •
Zt -
J O Q MN
ZW W NNSNSS r� Cl .OSM 1 V - _S
2 0 W ++ ++ 1 1 1 1+ 1 ++ I+ + 1 1 1 +
W CC
C.
01
to N .O I -mom - n r� M I� O S Q • OC V\ S
S r� - vD S N N
J I t!1 M1S .D M . N 1A Q\ M V\.0 1Lt • .D 01 .
= C)
6 .^S.O N.O -01OCJ 1A
I.- 01 V1 V1 - Q1 01 O S - S
O O1 -S O V1M O't O -CO M.0 -CJ S.0 O.0 e.1 01
F- 1 NM-TM -- 00010- O - - - Q•W
s
W
Y
Q 0
J 0
y 0
-� - .
Q 0
N
it
# 00000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y O
I 0000000000000
<-4 00000000000 V1V1t+10 V10 00 O
-16/ M1V,CO01--- 00 010010
0
N
N
2 it i•
Y > 00000000000000
u <I- 000 00 000000000000 00 p
Y
N N O_ 5 . CD
2 2 Q 0 O1 O1 V' VD n cm ,0 S N C .D V\ Cr, C V1 t S ,
0 0
- 0_
2 CC
Q - Q
Q t
1.- 2 J S ONC) -.ON 0101. N�0 00 OS
< .0 .O N I` Cl V\ - Vt O .0 - .D O
J - N F O 1 " 1 - I� N N N N.- N O .0 SO= r� 00 S V\ M
02 N
4.0 Y S V1 01 N V\ N O N1 S- V1 I VD O N •1 S M\.0
p 2 N M1S M1.0 M.C) V1S N I �.O O O m0D V1 N M1
21- W -- N N N N N
I...<
W CC
2W
0.
JO
a - t
6 U. n M 03 ,0
Q V1 O M. N aD O N S V1 -
F.= C7 r'■.0 .0 M1 01 O'1 V1 h S .D N N .0 S r, N - .0
2 W 2 0 S T.O M1 -r".0 N N.Dr
Q - } CD .O S V1 O .D O - O e0 - .0 m en.0 d S CO S V1.0
N Q J J - O tM I S 0 N 01 S r. N ij .O N S S- T S .D
I WW NNM1TSSM1NNNNNNNNNN N
I S 0
0
D.
Q
W e
z
■ .0 - .O O1 V1.O to I.. N 01 I∎.O .0 - - .O V\ O1 C)
2 2 N N N .0 Cl M1 V1 - 0 1� N- O S N I O O-
Q .D V1 - .0 .O - - f : S S LL W N,O V1 C) N M1 4L1 -
J N O S I� N NCO 01 O- 0 0 C) .O V1 S S
O N - .0 Im I - S V 1 1"1 S S S S V1 Ml 0 N 01
2
Z it
Q tA.00- M1r M1S ^ 00. 0 - .0 Nom. -
I_ aC01- ..1�SO.0- maD 01 -a0
02 M1S Vt01- O. -CD.O
22 .001.000--.0 01- I∎0101■ M.M1S NS N1
3 < N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r
2
u
W S I1 '0 r-C 01 0 - N 01S ri m 01 0 - N M1
< .0.0.0.0.0.0 r�r. r� w C)OOC)
W 01 01 01 01 01 01 Q1 Q1 Q1 T 01 T Q1 01 01 01 01 0' 01Q1
D-
a
t
•
1-
LL
Q CV
U U1 CO S IN CM -7 MIS LA O0 T O1 O 0 C v3 - LA O N.O Iv0 Q\N 0110 N NOO.0- CO
Q CC LA S 1.n Ul 11110 10 t\ t\ CO CO 01 01 01 O O — M S 1.11 - S M M M S 111 .O CO La CO ON 01
CO —
6
F-
LA- N
Q F-
zz •
U O
CC 0- 0 1 10 .31.n 6000 O N OS N1C m N — LAOS —r�O 01 —n —co
C 0 N f\ N Q1 S UN 10 -- 0 0 M S N. N 01-7 10 M— LA CO M N 01 LA
Q Q 10 10 10 I t\ 03 I , CO 01 O — M M M N N — N N S 1.1110 10 f\ m N. 03 . .
•
Q
•
fO Q
1- N
LL F-
Q C
C O
1 U d
C C U1NS 10 M10 —10.0 LA 1� 01N— 0103 --10 MS r.O — O NOD — Lit
r�01- I — Q\ 10 CO N _3. N 010 -5 01T — MOD 0110- I� -10 O
Q Q N N M - 1 — LA 1.11 V0 10 I� CO S CO O1 Q1 — N N N N — — — M - 1./1 10 10 N. N N
Q Q
< M O— 01 0 t\
N. - 7 O O N S M 17 17 - 7 u 1 c•1 O S S M N. - 111 - 0 — O � O S U 0 10 M 0
F- 10 CO CO f�1p f�S 1010 0 f\ S 1.l1 t■ n CO � - M -10S 10 LA CO LA 10 111 us I,
O N
2 H
O_ 2
N Q • -- 0-- Q101 NSr\10 VD M \ \ M s
- C
110 tr-•cr• 000r
• J • LA LA SS MM MS SS LC% 0 N.0 N. CO N. N. CO .0 CO LA <O 10 1.11
E W Q
CO
O S
U = J •
to toN M N t\ rte- N— M .0 CO LA 10-- 01 01 r•••• -1010
N U — 10 10 N. W m CO r-
1 - 1 S
C 0
O J
CC 3 Q •
— 0 0 0 - -- 010 LA- MS 10 - e. — 010 01 0101 r-.
- S 1.11 LA LA M M M - - - LA — LA LA 1O 10 LA ID N. 10 f\ m 0
Q - 0
1
<
J C Q O1m N MN LAO — M- 0 00 — IA CO CO 01 M10
O LJ F- UN U % UN 1.1 1.A LA M 111 S — M — MI LA LA 10 10 10 01 N 01 O Al Q1 .-. N 0 lA 1O M N N
C. C 0 10 0 0 I 10 I 0 10 CO N— N N— N N M N N N N N
CC CC Q
H Q
W 0 S •
X W J J
N O — LAUI LA LA LA LA 111 LA10 — N N — O 010 MM 10 N.S10 LASS- -co 01
J
< S 2 — -- 1 — 1 MMMMMN MN N MS- 10 .0101010.010 1.11 LA 10
CO
O.
•
Q 100 N N 10 0 C 0 MS CO N...7 .7 0 LA -- LA
• 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 00 O — N N NMM— LC1 - MLA 1.+I -10- 01O CO
- V LA LA LA 1 LA I LA LA 0110 10 03 N —
Q
N
1
N W
O J
0. C
W Q
' 2
Y = U1 U1 N. 1 0 U. • MS . • MN 01 N. 0 IN. 01— LAS LA CO LA La M0 0 0 000
10 J — — M 1 MMM —S-S -S 1\ m Q1O - -- s 111 LA r,hN M
J W N N CV Cy
Y Z 0 N 1.n 1 0 •0 ONN — 01N 01n0 01N MM 01S — 0110 0 1010S N MOS N-
0 O NN N S 1 e CO 01— Nf•1- N- SSf\ON 01 N 010%— MLA COS 11110 CO 1010
Z p N N - N LV N N M M M M M M
Q
J
N O S L1 10 10 01 — 0110 0 0 CO 0 M 0 111 0 s � 10 — S 01 01 U1-7 0 N LA I� r� r. N
CC N N U\ 1 N. CO Q1 N. CO aD OOm 0—M 10 LA MS LAS S IO O r. -01MN N
S -- •- — 1 N N— N CV N N N N N N N N N N N M N M N M M
Z
—
} 0 O — N 0 10 LA rs N O 1.0 — S — 10 0 10 ^ N f\ LA N M 0 O CO r•-. O - m
J J N. CO O 1 N 1 LA 01 N N LA — r� 10 — S r m 1.
LA n— S A CD — O N U S CO m O — 10
U. U — — — — N N N N M N M M r S LA LA M - ..7 111 UN to LA 1.A 10 V7 U
• C
C < — N MS N10 I OO 01 0 — N M- LA10 r�LO O1 0 — N MS 1.1110 r� co Q1 0 — N cos
L S
O y A LA MI MI U1 U1 111 lA LA 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 n f\ r-. r� rC r� t\ N. N. r' 1.70 m co CO CO
Y 01 Q1 01 Cr, O• O1 CA Cr O1 01 01 Q1 ON Cr 01 ON 01 01 01 01 Cr, Cr ON Q1 Q■ 01 01 Q1 01 O1 0• Q1 Cr1 O1
•
•
AIR .,
, :
RT FACT SHEET 105
Th FAA N
Ab atemen t R egu l a ti ons
„, • , . . -
This pamphlet explains federal laws and Federal Aviation Administration
rules and regulations regarding aircraft noise abatement. It covers actions
taken through June, 1985..
Introduction
The problem of reducing aircraft extended this regulatory power and control in matters of safety, operating
noise has become a far - reaching designated compliance dates for and air traffic rules and the assign -
issue. Today, efforts to control the meeting the FAA noise standards. ment and use of airspace. Operators
noise around our nation's airports Other FAA rules address noise are also subject to two important
frequently involve officials on all abatement flying procedures and the legal restrictions: first, they may take
governmental levels, airport owners responsibilities of airport operators no action that "imposes an undue
and managers, aircraft operators and and local communities in developing burden on interstate or foreign
local residents. Many major U.S. noise control programs and com- commerce;" second, they may not
airports now have some type of patible land use plans. "unjustly discriminate between
aircraft noise abatement program. The FAA left responsibility for different categories of airport users"
Most noise abatement specialists developing and enforcing noise For this reason, compliance with
recognize, however, that the long- programs using FAA guidelines to noise abatement procedures is largely
term solution is to control noise at individual airport operators. Several voluntary, requiring the cooperation
the source —the jet engine. New court cases had defined the local of the airlines and the FAA air
technology has enabled aircraft airport proprietor as the party legally traffic controllers.
manufacturers to produce signi- responsible for noise; thus, in the Such local limitations make
ficantly quieter jet engines and to Twin Cities the responsibility falls to federal restrictions on jet engine
limit noise from older aircraft by the Metropolitan Airports Commis- noise all the more important. This
installing new engines or by using sion (MAC) which owns and operates pamphlet explains the laws and
"hush kits" on the existing engines. seven airports in the seven - county regulations that have had the greatest
Source noise reduction, however, metropolitan area. The MAC has impact on reducing noise levels,
requires federal action. The primary developed 17 noise abatement particularly those rules regarding
authority over all U.S. civil aviation is policies and procedures since 1969 source noise.
the Federal Aviation Administration. for the Minneapolis /St. Paul Inter -
The FAA is responsible for ensuring national Airport. (Fact Sheet 103
the safety and efficiency of the entire details these policies.)
air transportation system; for this Although the MAC has devel- ,
reason it retains final authority in all oped these policies and procedures, Att \I.'t
noise abatement decisions. the airport operators do not have *AWN
The first significant FAA noise unlimited authority to impose the -_ ill �I
regulation, adopted in 1969, sets restrictions. The FAA preempts local
specific noise level limits that re- _ I 11
-2:- quired modifying some jet engines - •
and replacing the oldest and noisiest wEf = 1�1 — i•111
aircraft. Subsequent regulation . , .0Aiijp g i w _ . ,i Ii '1
luc aan OD aoo oniare e, =111 11ttt �lf..�r .sir
�4
. —
__� ii=_....:,.cr�_., .. A. _ __ _ _ i— . . �_ ;
MASAC MAC -A" ,,;
Mep Metropolitan
I Airports
\ Aircra olitan Sound t
Abatement Council Commission
The Federal
Aviation
Administration
Congress created the "Federal phased out, primarily awarded Protection Agency and local planners
Aviation Agency" under the Federal routes, approved fares and deter- to guide land development around
Aviation Act of 1958. In 1967 the mined the adequacy of air carrier major airports toward uses compat-
Department of Transportation ab- service. The FAA has authority in all ible with frequent loud noise. The
sorbed the FAA, which took its matters of safety. One of its most second approach is aimed at re-
present name. On all safety issues well -known functions is running the ducing noise at the source, the
the FAA remains autonomous and its air traffic control centers and naviga- jet engine.
decisions are "administratively final." tional aids that regulate traffic flow FAA noise regulations apply to all
Appeals on FAA decisions go to the along the country's airways. The civil aircraft flown in to and out of
courts or the National Transportation agency also issues various Federal U.S. airports, whether of U.S. or
Safety Board. Aviation Regulations, or FARs, re- foreign registry and engaged in either
While U.S. airlines remain highly garding the use of airspace. Another domestic or foreign service. These
competitive, routes, fares, aircraft important FAA responsibility is regulations do not apply to military
design and manufacture, and many certification of aircraft, air carriers, or government aircraft. The Inter -
operating practices are either shaped pilots and airports. national Civil Aviation Organization
by the federal government or are The FAA takes two approaches has issued international noise stan-
federally regulated. Two agencies to noise control. One is through dards roughly equivalent to FAA
have historically regulated U.S. civil compatible land use planning, in requirements but with slightly
aviation: the Civil Aeronautics Board which the agency works closely with different compliance dates.
(CAB) and the FAA. The CAB, now both the national Environmental
FAR Part 36
In 1969 the FAA took its first extended the noise standards to wide- bodied jets such as the 727,
major step in controlling aircraft include smaller, propeller- driven most DC9s, DC10s and 747s. Stage
noise by adopting Federal Aviation airplanes and most supersonic III or "quiet" jets are the new
Regulation Part 36. Approved by transports or SSTs.) technology L1011s, MD80s, 757s,
Congress, Part 36 gave the FAA broad Part 36 identifies three "stages" 767s and other modern designs.
noise abatement authority and also in which jet aircraft must meet To illustrate the relative impact of
established the jet engine noise designated noise standards, either aircraft noise at the three stages, the
standards that have been the basis of through modification or replacement. diagram shows the noise contours or
all subsequent actions to reduce Later rulings specify the compliance "footprints" of three jet airplanes —
source noise. dates for various categories and types the 707 representing Stage I, the
Part 36 froze noise levels for of aircraft. Stage I jets are the oldest Stage II 727 and the Stage III 757. A
all civil aviation turbojets at then- and noisiest —DC8s, 707s, early 727s 1973 amendment to Part 36 required
existing levels. It also required new and 737s. Stage II includes all older all jet aircraft manufactured after
aircraft to be markedly quieter than aircraft that have been modified to December 1, 1973 to meet Stage II
older jets. (Subsequent amendments meet noise standards and some noise standards.
Fleet Compliance Rules
In 1976 the FAA began the 707s, DC8s, 727s and 737s made application was submitted after
mandatory retirement or modification prior to 1973 —to meet Stage II or November 5, 1975.
of Stage I airplanes by adding Stage III noise standards by January The original compliance dates
subpart E to FAR Part 91, which 1, 1985. This effectively grounded drew considerable opposition.
addresses aircraft operating rules. The most DC8s and 707s. (Two U.S. Opponents argued that replacing or
regulation set interim dates by which airports, Bangor International, Maine, modifying all Stage I aircraft in the
different aircraft must reach Stage II and Miami International, received time allowed was prohibitively
noise levels, with January 1, 1985 Congressional approval allowing expensive and impossible to accomp-
the final cutoff. The ruling initially some non - complying DC8s and 707s lish. As a result, Congress altered the
applied to domestic operations only, to use these airports.) schedule somewhat in 1979, per -
but in 1980 it was amended to cover Most stringent of all are the mitting certain exemptions and
all civil aircraft with U.S. destinations. Stage III noise standards. These allowing later compliance dates.
The fleet compliance rules standards apply to transport cate-
required older Stage I airplanes— gory aircraft where type certificate
2
Y
Aviation Safety
and Noise
Abatement Act
The Aviation Safety and Noise replacing noisy airplanes with new January 1, 1985.
Abatement Act (ASNA), passed by technology jets. A "service to small commu-
Congress in 1979, had important However, the ASNA Act also nities" exemption allows twin- engine
implications for noise abatement. changed some earlier compliance airplanes seating 100 or fewer
The :ASNA Act authorized several dates for meeting Stage II or Stage 111 passengers (DC9s and 737s) to fly
new FAA noise provisions. First, it noise standards. Exceptions to the until January 1, 1988.
expanded the January 1, 1985 fleet compliance rules included: A "foreign service" exception
deadline to include U.S. aircraft A new technology incentive" permitted U.S. air carriers to keep in
engaged in international service and allowed Stage I twin - engine jets service a number of Stage 1 aircraft
also roreign operators serving U.S. (mostly DC9s and 737s) to continue equal to their percentage of inter-
destinations. It also strengthened the operating until January 1, 1986, if national flights. Thus if 25 percent
IAA's noise policy by giving the scheduled for replacement by Stage of an airline's service was inter-
agency control in setting criteria III airplanes. U.S. operators must national, it could keep 25 percent of
for airport noise abatement pro- have an FAA - approved replacement its fleet at Stage 1 noise levels until
grants. The Act provided assistance plan, with a binding contract for January 1, 1985.
to airport operators in preparing delivery before the deadline. The
and implementing noise programs cutoff for three- and four- engine
through federal grants -in -aid and also .airplanes under this exemption was
offered incentives to airlines for moved back from January 1, 1983, to
Source Reduction: The Long Term Solution
Comparison of STAGE 1, STAGE II and STAGE 111
Aircraft Noise
Three Generations of Noise Impact
CONTOUR AREA
IN SQUARE MILES
STAGE I C 9.0
Boeing 707
STAGE I I > 6.9
Boeing 727 `r
STAGE III - ) 1.2
Boeing 757
f hr i ( - 1 1 r 1r lr - 11 - 1
MILES 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES
DISTANCE FROM LANDING I DISTANCE FROM START OF TAKEOFF
1 hf chart above gives a comparison of the noise contours, or guidelines. The footprints show the area affected by a noise level of
"footprints "" or aircraft representing stage I, Stage II and Stage III 85 dB(A). Source: The Boeing Company.
3
FAR Part 150
To meet provisions of the ASNA However, airport operators are The airport operator does not
Act, the FAA in 1981 adopted FAR expected to "take the lead" in local have unlimited authority to control
Part 150, which prescribed the rules noise control planning. what types of aircraft use the airport
for airport operators in developing The operator may submit a or to enforce curfews and other
noise abatement programs. The "noise exposure map" to the FAA, restrictions. As noted, the federal
ASNA Act gave the FAA authority to showing noise - affected areas and government preempts local control
approve airport noise programs. Part non - compatible land uses around in areas of airspace use and manage -
150 detailed the FAA's responsibilities the airport. After that a specific ment, air traffic control and flight
in establishing a single set of criteria noise program, detailing the noise safety. However, legal responsibility
for measuring airport noise, deter- abatement policies and flying pro- and liability for noise abatement rests
mining noise- exposed areas and cedures to be put into effect, may be with the airport operator.
identifying compatible land uses. submitted for FAA approval.
Update
Many airlines are fully compliant exemptions at Miami International and "service to small communities"
with Part 36 noise standards already. Airport in Florida and Bangor Inter- sections of the ASNA Act of 1979.
In some cases airlines have re- national Airport in Maine. Stage I Besides MinneapolisiSt. Paul, as
engined older airplanes or replaced aircratt could operate at both airports of mid -1985 only two other air -
them with Stage II or Stage III jets. provided their operators had con- ports —Los Angeles International and
Other methods of compliance have tracts with deposits on "hush kits." New York Kennedy —had passed
included reducing an aircraft's take- At the end of December, 1984, the such ordinances.
off weight to less than 75,000 FAA granted some limited exemp- Representatives of the MAC and
pounds and adjusting the flap setting tions which allowed Stage I aircraft the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
to bring down the noise levels. to fly to other U.S. airports. As of Abatement Council (MASAC) recently
There have been several recent July 1985, some 93 aircraft were appeared before the U.S. House
changes in federal noise control affected by these rulings. Subcommittee on Aviation to urge
laws. Four - engine Stage I turbojets The Metropolitan Airports Com- no further FAA or Department of
(mostly DC8s and 707s) were to be mission has taken action to restrict Transportation exemptions to Stage I
prohibited from operating in the the operation of Stage I aircraft noise rules. Currently the MAC and
United States after January 1, 1985. locally. On May 20, 1985, the MAC MASAC are working to ensure that
However, in October, 1984, at the passed an ordinance banning all the federal noise rules will be
end of the congressional session, takeoffs and landings of Stage I civil enforced on schedule, specifically
the U.S. Congress approved an aircraft from Wold- Chamberlain the January 1, 1988 deadline for
amendment sponsored by Senators Field. Stage I airplanes may use Stage I small- community exemptions.
Paula Hawkins and Lawton Chiles of Wold - Chamberlain if they comply
Florida which allowed limited with the "new- technology incentive"
j
4 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, 6040 28th Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55450
AIRPORT FACT SHEET 106
The 'New Generation'
Aircraft
This pamphlet gives an overview of the "Stage 3" or "Qu
aircraft now serving Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
Introduction
Noise reduction at Minneapolis- runway system, which regulates the the most effective Tong -term noise
St. Paul International Airport is a high direction and frequency of arriving and reduction must come from the main
priority for the Metropolitan Airports departing flights in an attempt to route source of aircraft noise —the jet engine.
Commission (MAC). In the last 25 the flights over less- populated areas The development of fan jets in the mid-
years, the dramatic increase in the whenever weather and traffic conditions '60s greatly reduced aircraft noise.
number of jet aircraft has brought the allow. Another method is a voluntary Now, new technology has led to a
problem of aircraft noise to many of the night curfew which limits operations generation of "quiet" jets —the "Stage
neighborhoods surrounding the airport. between 11 PM and 6 AM (as of 3" jets which comply to the latest noise
The problem has intensified since 1978 October 1, 1985, there were just five standards of Federal Aviation
when the airline industry was scheduled passenger flights during Regulation (FAR) Part 36, issued by the
deregulated. Since that time, the these hours). Other noise- reduction Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
number of takeoffs and landings at the strategies include take -off profiles that Northwest Airlines and Republic
Minneapolis -St. Paul airport has grown get aircraft to higher altitudes earlier, Airlines have each purchased new
from 780 a day to 1,100 a day during while still over airport property and Stage 3 aircraft. Northwest has ordered
the summer of 1985. sound- proofing projects to insulate area 30 Boeing 757s, and 10 Boeing
In the past several years, the MAC residences from noise. 747 -400s. The 757 is shown below.
has developed several methods of These procedures were successful Republic has 8 MD -80s and has
easing the impact of aircraft noise. One in lowering the noise levels experienced ordered 6 Boeing 757s with an option to
such method is use of a preferential by many airport neighbors. However, purchase 6 more. The addition of these
l j J j
•MIME +
BOEING 757 MD -80
MASAC MAC
Metropolitan Metropolitan
Aircraft Sound Airports
Abatement Council Commission .} °°
new quiet aircraft at Minneapolis- Minneapolis -St. Paul International with three engines range, by weight,
St. Paul International Airport will greatly Airport.) from 104 EPNdB to 89 EPNdB; and
increase the percentage of Stage 3 Examples of Stage 2 aircraft are craft with fewer than three engines have
aircraft at our airport. 727s and most DC9s. These planes limits of 101 EPNdB for the heaviest
FAR Part 36 identifies three make up the bulk of the U.S. domestic planes and 89 EPNdB for the lightest.
"stages" describing aircraft noise (See fleet. The 89 EPNdB figure is considerably
Airport Fact Sheet 105.) The Stage 1 According to FAA policy, all new less than the lowest noise levels
aircraft have the most liberal noise turbojets certified and manufactured produced by Stage 2 (100 EPNdB) and
limits, while Stage 2 and Stage 3 after 1976 must meet Stage 3 noise Stage 1 (106 EPNdB) aircraft.
planes meet progressively stiffer standards, the most stringent guidelines The following chart shows aircraft
guidelines. yet. Stage 3 takeoff noise limits vary meeting Stage 3 limits. The Stage 3
Stage 1 jets —DC8s, 707s, and with an aircraft's weight and number of planes most frequently using
BAC 1 -11s are the oldest and noisiest. engines. Airplanes with more than 3 Minneapolis -St. Paul International
(In May 1985, the MAC passed an engines range from the upper limit of Airport are the MD -80 series, flown by
ordinance which bans takeoffs and 106 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Republic; the DC -10, flown by
landings of Stage 1 civil aircraft not level in decibels) for the heaviest craft Northwest; and the Boeing 757, flown
meeting federal noise standards from to 89 EPNdB for the lightest; airplanes by both Republic and Northwest.
STAGE III AIRCRAFT
AIRLINES SERVING
AIRCRAFT NUMBER AND TYPE ENGINES MSP USING AIRCRAFT
BOEING 757 (2) Rolls -Royce RB 211 -535C Republic, Eastem
(2) Pratt & Whitney PW 2037 Northwest, Delta
BOEING 767 (2) General Electric CF6 -80A United, American, Delta
(2) Pratt & Whitney JT9D -7R4
BOEING 747 -200A (4) Pratt & Whitney JT9D -70 Northwest
BOEING 747 -400 (4) Pratt & Whitney AW4000 Northwest (on order)
DC-8 (Retrofitted) (4) CFM56 (General Electric) United, Transamerica
DC -9 MD-80 Series (2) Pratt & Whitney JT8D -209 Republic, American,
(2) Pratt & Whitney JT8D -217A Continental, TWA,
(2) Pratt & Whitney JT8D -219 Frontier, Ozark
DC -10 (3) Pratt & Whitney JT9D -20 Northwest, United
(3) General Electric CF6-6D
Lockheed L -1011 Tristar Series (3) Rolls -Royce RB 211 -22B Delta, Eastem, TWA
(3) Rolls -Royce RB 211 -524B
Fokker 100 (2) Rolls -Royce Tay USAir (on order)
Airbus A -300 Series (2) Pratt & Whitney PW4000 Eastern
(2) International Aero Engines V2500
(2) General Electric CF6 -50C2
2
4
What makes
these aircraft
quieter?
Noise generated by a jet engine is must be reduced substantially to populated areas much more quickly
most apparent during an aircraft's significantly lower the noise level. This after takeoff.
takeoff and landing. Takeoff noise led to the development of the "high- While takeoff noise is dominated by
differs from that produced in the landing bypass ratio fanjet," the characteristic the roar of the exhaust gases, the
approach; the two sounds originate engine of Stage 3 planes. landing approach phase of a jetliner is
from different sources within the engine. Most of the thrust of this engine is marked by a "screaming" or "siren"
Takeoff noise is dominated by the obtained from a "bypassed" portion of sound emanating from the engine's fan
"roar" of the high- temperature exhaust air generated by a large fan in the and compressor. This sound has been
gases which leave the engine's turbine engine. To produce a given amount of reduced in Stage 3 engines by reducing
and tailpipe at high velocities to mix thrust, the high- bypass ratio turbofan the rotating speed of the engine's fan,
with colder outside air. This deep accelerates a larger mass of air at a lining the fan exhaust ducts with sound -
rumble and roar is difficult to muffle, lower speed than a low- bypass ratio deadening material, and making other
and is responsible for a large portion of turbofan. Lower jet velocities generally adjustments to the fan mechanism.
the noise produced by older turbojets produce lower noise levels. The accompanying chart shows
and earlier fanjets. Noise reduction in Stage 3 aircraft noise "footprint" comparisons of a
Manufacturers of Stage 3 aircraft also comes from these crafts' steeper Stage 2 aircraft—the Boeing 727— and
engines decided that the amount and rates of ascent on takeoff. This ascent two different Stage 3 aircraft —the
velocity of the hot turbine- discharge air rate gets the plane higher over MD -80 and the Boeing 757.
Comparison of STAGE 11 and STAGE 111
Aircraft Noise
CONTOUR AREA
IN SCARE MILES
STAGER f �---\.
. Boeing 727 -_______ 6.9
- --,l
STAGE III te- 2.5
McDonnell Douglas MD -80 `
STAGE III _ ) 1.2
Boeing 757
r ir ir - 1 r -- ir — ter — ter - - 1
MILES 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES
DISTANCE FROM LANDING DISTANCE FROM START OF TAKEOFF
The chart above gives a comparison of the noise contours, or The footprints show the area affected by a noise level of 85 dB(A).
"footprints" of aircraft representing Stage II and Stage III guidelines. Source: The Boeing Company.
3
Conclusion
It seems likely that the number of than 40 %, according to recent Stage 2 aircraft in production.
departures and arrivals at Minneapolis- projections. Several plans have been proposed
St. Paul International Airport will never Growth in Stage 3 usage will which would provide incentives to
revert to pre - deregulation levels, substantially reduce noise output. airlines to order more Stage 3 aircraft.
although the recently announced However, a massive transition to the Possible incentives are also being
merger of the area's two busiest quieter jets is being hindered for studied by the FAA, following MAC
airlines— Northwest and Republic— several reasons, the most important of recommendations. The MAC is
could result in a noticeable drop -off of which is expense. It currently costs considering levying higher landing fees
total flights. approximately $25 million to purchase on Stage 2 planes to discourage their
Consequently, increased use of an MD -80; between $40 million and $44 use at the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport.
Stage 3 aircraft clearly represents the million for a 757 -200; between $50 However, in the absence of strong
best method of alleviating the noise million and $58 million for a 767 -200; action at the national level by the FAA
problem encountered in communities between $59 million and $71 million for requiring the use of the new, quieter
surrounding the airport. a 767 -300, and between $100 million jets, and without considerable economic
Currently, about 20% of turbojet and $120 million for a 747 -400. inducements, it is unlikely that all the
departures from Minneapolis -St. Paul Furthermore, aircraft makers also have airlines can or will quickly move towards
International Airport are Stage 3 aircraft. a great deal invested in the construction a large -scale conversion to Stage 3
By 1990, this figure will rise to more processes used for the few remaining aircraft.
4 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, 6040 28th Ave. so., Minneapolis, MN 55450