Loading...
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