Loading...
05/13/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA 4:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 13, 1986 I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. MAC Report to the Governor B. Joint Position Paper on Aircraft Noise III. OLD BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Resolution (Botcher /Gardebring) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. North Eagan Corridor Monitoring Program B. Airport Relocation V. DISTRIBUTION A. Islip Noise Budget B. Hourly Runway Limits C. Eagan Chronicle Article VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BARER AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: MAY 9, 1986 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MAY 13, 1986 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, May 13, 1986, at 4:30 p.m. Please note the change from the usual Thursday meeting time due to scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be at the Eagan Municipal Center in Conference Rooms A and B. Please contact John 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 April 10, 1986, is enclosed for your review. These minutes, subject to any change require approval by the Committee. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. MAC Report to the Governor -- Enclosed in your packet you will find two items for your review. The first is the draft of the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Abatement program prepared by the Implementation Committee appointed by MAC and forwarded to the Governor on May 1. The final report was substantially the same as that you see, with the exception of one amendment. That amendment relates to the second item in your packets, the memorandum from Walter Rockenstein reporting on the Implementation Committee's report to the MAC. As you will note, at the top of the second page, the Committee specifically excluded the procedures to improve compliance with the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor. Chairman Glumack of the MAC recognized this omission and insisted that the MAC replace an item in the report which became Item 16 of the short term noise abatement elements to be added on page 12. This item has been assumed as a priority by the MAC staff and is described more fully below. Member Mirick and I were present at the MAC meeting at which the vote was taken on this matter and will answer questions concerning the draft report. B. Joint Position Paper on Aircraft Noise -- Enclosed in your packets you will find a copy of the revised Joint Position Paper on aircraft noise as it was approved by the five participating cities. Several of the sections were modified or removed due to local objections, but it has been made clear that this document does not purport to be the complete position of all participating cities and that individual cities or groups of them may pursue particular interests on their own. City staff is in the process of coordinating a letter for the signature of all five mayors to cover the distribution of the Position Paper to local regional and state decision makers and the media. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Resolution -- Enclosed for your review are three items. The first is the draft resolution on the extension of Runway 4/22 as requested by the Airport Noise Committee. It would be appropriate for the Committee to review the draft language and recommend any changes which need to be made to it. Also in your packet you will find two items of correspondence related to this issue. The first is a letter from Air Traffic Manager Robert Botcher, which comes in response to the staff inquiry concerning the southerly turn from Runway 22. MAC staff has mentioned on several occasions that the FAA is in the position to approve the southerly departure if it is a part of the Runway 4/22 extension. Staff requests for clarification on this matter from Mr. Botcher, since any approvals in anticipation of the runway extension would be contrary to the best interests of the southern portion of the City of Eagan. As you will note, Mr. Botcher does not respond to that question but reiterates the MAC's recommendations and decisions to date. Staff will continue to monitor this matter. Also in your packets you will find a response from Metropolitan Council Chairwoman Sandra Gardebring thanking Mayor Blomquist for her support in the Met Council's recent decision to withold capital improvement funds for the extension of Runway 4/22 until the airport completes its noise abatement planning process. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the draft resolution on the Runway 4/22 extension and forward such document to the City Council for its review. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. North Eagan Corridor Monitoring Program -- Representatives of the Airport Noise Committee, City Council and City staff have been in contact with representatives of the Metropolitan Airports Commission for purposes of discussing the land use implications of both the runway extension and use of the Eagan- Mendota Heights flight corridor. In response to the City's repeated requests that the MAC review the compliance of aircraft with the north Eagan corridor, MAC staff has assumed as a priority a monitoring program for the summer of 1986. They will locate in -turns from the airport, in the field on a regular full -time basis to determine the extent to which aircraft are maintaining a heading north of Country Home Heights and other residential areas in Eagan. The MAC is not able to locate staff here on a 24 hour a day basis but the hours of monitoring will be substantial and continuous from early May through August or September. A copy of the proposed project description and a matrix for aircraft monitoring is enclosed for your review. Staff has been in touch with the MAC to implement this project and will be available to answer questions on the project's design. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve /deny or recommend improvements to the aircraft flight track monitoring program proposed by the MAC for the north Eagan air corridor and direct such decision to the City Council for its review. B. Airport Relocation -- The MAC has in the past and continues to consider the potential for relocating the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. As many of the Committee members may remember, considerable time and effort was spent on such proposal in the late 1960's and early 1970's with a site in Ham Lake, Minnesota being the most likely candidate. The project was turned down by the MAC at that time for a variety of reasons relating both to its cost and the diverse interests of the Metropolitan community. Since that time, the cost of replicating the current facility has risen dramatically, though a review of such a possibility continues to be carried out. MASAC considered relocation of the airport as one of the possible elements for the Part 150 study, but chose not to include it in the final recommendations to the Airports Commission. The airport does have two search areas at which it is considering locating a second major airport. The first of these is at Airlake in Lakeville and the second is in the western metro area near Lake Minnetonka. The latter is the preferred location and was referred to in MAC planning as Search Area B. While staff was unable to locate printed material concerning this item, MAC has placed the cost of building a major new airport at roughly $15 billion. Moreover, they have projected the implementation phase of such a decision to span roughly 15 years. This would mean that such a facility would be operational no sooner than the year 2000 if it were to receive all evironmental and locational approvals this year. This is the same time period in which it is anticipated that Stage 3 aircraft will come to dominate the airline fleet, thereby reducing the impact of even the worst of the current flight patterns. Moreover, the MAC has indicated that the likelihood that all operations would be shifted to a new facility is very slight. A more likely scenario is that.a major reliever airport would be developed on the western edge of the City and the capacity of the entire metropolitan airport's system would be expanded rather than maintained at its current level. One possible offshoot of a major reliever at a remote location would be the portential for the MAC to limit the flights at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International, due to the availability of an operational alternative within the same community. The potential for this to occur depends entirely upon the scale of the facility they might develop in Search Area B and the predisposition of the MAC to use such strategies. It should be borne in mind, that the City of Eagan as a whole has a mixed interest in the location of the airport. Certainly the residential community most affected by aircraft noise finds this location to be detrimental and would encourage any change which would minimize the impacts within the residential areas. However, much of the commercial and industrial development of the area, particularly the growing service industry portion depends upon the proximity of the airport and other transportation facilities for their livelihood. Likewise, many employees of the airport, its facilities and airlines live within the City and do so because of the convenience of airport access. Therefore, the issue of airport location is one that requires consideration of both types of interests. Staff will be available to discuss this item further with Committee members. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Not at this time. V. DISTRIBUTION A. Islip Noise Budget -- Enclosed in your packets you will find a summary of the Islep noise budget which had been recommended by the City of Eagan to MAC as a model for its noise budget ordinance. As you will note, the MAC is pursuing this option and it would appear that the Eagan Airport Noise Committee continues to have an impact on the decision making process at the MAC. B. Hourly Runway Limits -- Enclosed in your packet you will find the FAA's summary of the maximum operational limits for each of the current runway configurations and the ideal mix of flights to achieve such limits. As noted, these are for the current configurations and do not take into account the extension of Runway 4/22. If that runway extension were completed, the left middle configuration would be able to accomodate approximately 20 to 25 additional takeoffs on the cross wind runway. C. Eagan Chronicle Article -- Enclosed in your packet you will find a copy of an Eagan Chronicle Article from April 20, 1986, regarding the Airport Noise Position Paper. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Committee will adjourn at or before 6:00 p.m. IUD Ad nistrative Assistant cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator Dale Runkle, City Planner Paul Hauge, City Attorney Enclosures JH /jh MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA APRIL 10, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Thursday, April 10, 1986, at the Eagan Municipal Center at 4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker, Dustin Mirick, Carolyn Braun, Joe Harrison, Carol Duzois, and John Gustin. Absent was Otto Leitner. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Upon motion by Mirick, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the March 11, 1986 were approved. MARCH 25, 1986 MASAC MEETING Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that Dustin Mirick had been appointed by the City Council to fill the Eagan MASAC alternate position and that Mr. Mirick had attended the March 25, 1986, MASAC meeting on behalf of Chairman Baker. Mr. Mirick reported that MASAC had passed the general recommendations of the Airport's consultant, with respect to the Part 150 Study. He further indicated that the voting tended to divide along airline vs. City lines on many votes, though south Minneapolis combined with the airlines on other matters. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that the Runway Use Complaint Summary given at the MASAC meeting revealed that 1/4 to 1/2 of all Minneapolis complaint calls were generated by 15 to 20 individuals. There was discussion concerning the possibility of community phone calling and it was determined that the importance of using the complaint numbers be presented in the City newsletter. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL VOTE ON AIRPORT CIP Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that Met Council Chairwoman Sandra Gardebring had taken position opposing the allocation of funds for the Runway 4/22 extension until the appropriate studies had been completed on its effect. He further stated that the Met Council Systems Committee had concurred with Chairwoman Gardebring and that the Met Council was meeting on the issue at the same time as this committee meeting. Mr. Gustin pointed out that the capital improvements program for the airport also included a $6,000,000 allocation for the Run -Up Suppressor. Chairman Baker indicated that the MAC did not intend to use that allocation but had included the allocation to meet the requirement of the state law regarding the structure. Mr. Harrison suggested that the airlines would not support the installation of a suppressor because of its affect on jet engines. Further discussion revealed that the run -up problem had been less serious over the past 6 months. Airport Noise Committee Minutes April 10, 1986 JOINT POSITION PAPER Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that four of the five cities had reported voting in favor of the largest part of the Joint Position Paper worked out by Staff members from Mendota Heights, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan and a representative of the Savage city council. He further indicated that the portions of the document which were opposed by particular cities would be removed from a final draft which would be forwarded under signatures of all communities to the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission, State and Federal legislators and other decision makers. The Committee expressed support of the remaining document and staff's plan to publicize it. RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that the Environmental Impact Study for the Runway 4/22 extension was in process and would come before the public for hearings during the summer and early fall of 1986. Members requested that the public hearings be well publicized to insure that Eagan residents were able to appear concerning this issue. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein also reviewed the resolutions of the cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington regarding the 4/22 extension. There was further discussion concerning the possibility that the runway extension and other airport plans, such as the shifting of general aviation aircraft to the reliever airports would tend to increase the capacity of the International Airport for turbo jet operations. It was suggested that the pending merger between Northwest Orient and Republic Airlines would reduce the total number of operations hubbing through the airport. Member Harrison disputed the reduction and indicated that the removal of competition between the two airlines would merely open the door to other airline operations. Mr. Gustin suggested that under the right conditions, the airport could not only land aircraft on the parallel runways but depart them on the parallels and the extended cross runway simultaneously. Mr. Mirick indicated that 2/3 of the airport departures go to the south, southeast and east, meaning that an increase in the use of Runway 4/22 would shift a larger amount of operations to the southern portion of Eagan. Chairman Baker left the meeting at 5:30 p.m. for another appointment and Mr. Harrison was appointed to act as Chairman in his place. After discussion, Mr. Harrison moved, Braun seconded, that a resolution be prepared in opposition to the Runway 4/22 extension for Committee consideration. Member Braun added that the resolution be drafted to reflect that the same rules apply to the airport that apply to the rest of the community. The motion passed with Braun, Gustin, Duzois and Harrison in favor; Mirick against. Airport Noise Committee Minutes April 10, 1986 MAY NEWSLETTER Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that the City newsletter would be prepared for release in early May and that an article will be prepared to publicize the airport noise complaint numbers and the rights and responsibilities of community residents bothered by airport noise. Mr. Mirick suggested that a MAC complaint form be included to show residents what should be reported when making a complaint. Mr. Mirick also suggested that another form of public information be prepared in the form of a map of the City showing flight paths, topography and the relationship of the airport of different parts of the City, such a map to be available at City Hall for resident review. FUTURE MEETINGS Acting Chairman Harrison suggested that the next agenda include an item concerning the relocation of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. He expressed further concern that deregulation would allow supersonic aircraft to operate through the airport and requested research on that matter. Members also suggested that the concept of a terminal tax and mental health impact of aircraft noise be placed on future agendas for discussion. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Braun, all in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Several members of the Committee remained to review the Metropolitan Airports Commission television program on airport noise. JDH Secretary 4/24/86 (2) 1 ( C 1 )tfr NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION INTRODUCTION The greatest challenge facing the Metropolitan Airports Commission today is the need to mitigate the environmental impact of air transportation on communities adjacent to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. These efforts must be a continuation of programs initiated by MAC in the early 1970's, following the advent of commercial jet aircraft. Throughout this period, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has been a leader in efforts to deal with aircraft noise issues. With the increased activity being generated in the deregulated airline environ- ment, aircraft noise problem has became an even greater problem than before. It is, therefore, imperative that the Metropolitan Airports Commission develop a cohesive and comprehensive program for dealing with all aspects of aircraft noise. This program must involve efforts to deal with aircraft noise at the source by working toward congressional and FAA action, working toward implemen- tation of additional operational techniques which may reduce the area of noise exposure, as well as dealing with land use issues in areas where operational changes cannot reduce noise levels. The past program developed by MAC is no longer adequate to deal with the problems facing aviation in a deregulated -1- environment. A comprehensive and aggressive approach by MAC is necessary to control aircraft noise impacts. Since the early 1980's, a series of analyses have been carried out regarding aircraft noise. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in the early 1980's, completed a Noise Abatement Operations Plan, which was intended to evaluate all operational techniques available to MAC to reduce the area of noise impact to the smallest possible size. The Metropolitan Airports Commission in 1985 expended upon this document and developed_ and adopted a 17 Point Noise Atte- nuation Program, which was forwarded to Governor Perpich in January, 1986. Also in January, 1986, a report of a Task Force on Airport Noise, established by Governor Perpich in October, 1985, was completed and made public. In March, 1986, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council took action on a series of operational recommendations related to preparation of an FAR Part 150 Study for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Each of the above mentioned studies included a series of recommendations with regard to program for control of aircraft noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. In some cases, significant overlap occured between the proposed recommendations; in addition, each of the studies included elements that were discreet in terms of impact and application. In an attempt to synthe- size each of these analyses, Raymond G. Glumack, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, created the Airport Noise Implementation Working Group in March, 1986. The task of this group was to evaluate each of the previously completed studies, to identify areas of overlap between the various analyses, -2- and to develop a short term (1986) noise abatement program for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, as well as to provide long term recommendations with regard to attenuation of airport noise. The following Noise Abatement Program for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is based upon recommendations approved by the Airport Noise Implementation Working Group at a series of meetings during March and April, 1986. SHORT TERM NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM (1986) The short term measures may be categorized into three general groupings: A) measures aimed at noise sensitivity and cooperation, B) measures dealing with nighttime "quiet hours ", and C) operational and other measures. In the following discussion, the measure will be identified, a brief description of its purpose and impact will be provided, as well as a schedule with regard to ini- tiation and completion. Where efforts are already underway, this will be noted. A. Measures aimed at noise sensitivity and cooperation. Impiem. 1. Request that the FAA hold noise sensitivity sessions for all FAA air Group Rec. traffic controllers and request that FAA include noise sensitivity as part of on -going training requirements. Staff The Metropolitan Airports Commission has an on -going program of can - Comment munication with the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Air Traf- fic Control Tower and Minneapolis Center air traffic controllers to foster an awareness of noise sensitive areas adjacent to Minneapolis -St. -3- • Paul International Airport. This measure re- emphasizes the commitment of MAC to this program, and enlists the cooperation of the Federal Aviation Administration in exposing air traffic controllers to issues of noise sensitivity during on -going training programs. To date, all seven meetings have been held with Air Traffic Control Tower personnel. Meetings with controllers fran the Minneapolis Center will be scheduled prior to May 15, 1986. Implem. 2. Pilot sensitivity: develop a plan for implementation by May 1. Group Rec. Communicate through bulletins and meeting with pilots of the two here based carriers about the problem and the need to adhere to noise abate- ment procedures at MSP. Additional pilot sensitivity sessions will be held for pilots of all other airlines serving MSP, and corporate pilots through the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association. Request that user airlines continue, where in place, and implement, where not in place, noise sensitivity training programs for their pilots. Staff The intent of this measure is to expose pilots operating at Comment Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to the noise sensitive areas adjacent to the airport, and to the need to utilize noise abatement flight procedures to minimize off - airport impact. These sessions would focus not only upon flight procedures, but upon utilization of the pre- ferential runway system as a measure to reduce aircraft overflights of the most heavily developed areas adjacent to the airport. Both airline and corporate jet operators would be affected by this program. It is -4- expect that the program would be initiated on approximately May 1, 1986, and should be completed through regular airline training cycles by March 15, 1987. Implem. 3. Communicate with CEO's of airlines serving MSP 1) describing the noise Group Rec. problem at MSP, 2) list solutions being implemented and considered, 3) ask for cooperation, and 4) ask for suggestions. Staff This measure would be an attempt to communicate with the chief executive Comment officers of all airlines serving Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, highlighting efforts to deal with noise related issues. It is hoped that communication with the top levels of airline management will, through internal communication, make all airline operating personnel more sensitive to the magnitude of the noise problem, and to those measures being proposed that will require cooperation fran the airlines serving the airport. This action will be taken h mediately upon appro- val by the Commission, expected at a Special Meeting during April, 1986. B. Measures dealing with nighttime "quiet hours ". Implem. 4. Meet with charter, corporate, air express and air cargo operators Group Rec. regarding nighttime "quiet hours ". Negotiate with these operators to reduce operations during nighttime hours. The goal of the negotiations should be the rescheduling of flights to times outside the nighttime hours. -5- Si. r The focus of this proposal is to deal with those jet operations occuring Comment during the nighttime hours at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. It is anticipated that these efforts will lead to a reduction in operations during this time period, thereby minimizing sleep interruption. This effort will be initiated on May 1, 1986, and is anticipated for completion by August 1, 1986. Implem. 5. Negotiate a written understanding with the FAA Air Traffic Control Group Rec. Tower regarding implementation of a nighttime preferential runway system for all aircraft, subject to safety and weather conditions. Staff At the present time, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower implements a Comment preferential runway system at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport that minimizes over- fights of south Minneapolis and the Richfield-Bloomington area during the nighttime hours. This program has been successful due to cooperation of the air traffic control tower, and aircraft operating from the airport during this time period. The MAC will work with the tower to insure that the program is utilized whenever possible, and to strengthen the program to the maximum extent possible. This activity would be initiated on May 1, 1986, and completed by June 1, 1986. Implem. 6. Negotiate new and binding agreements with individual operators for firm Group Rec . limits on nighttime operations. If this cannot be achieved in six months, establish limits on nighttime operations by regulation. -6- St .: At present, a voluntary agreement is in place between the Metropolitan Comment Airports Commission and certain airlines regarding the number of flights that will be operated during the nighttime hours. Operations are substantially below the authorized number of flights, and a significant number of airlines are serving the airport in addition to those who entered into the previous agreement. This measure would reduce the number of allowable night flights, and would integrate those carriers who are not parties to the agreement into the negotiations. Should the airlines be unwilling to participate in this process, limits on night- time operations could be established by regulation after a 6 month period. These discussions would be initiated on June 1, 1986, and should be completed by December 1, 1986. IL_ _em. 7. Negotiate with individual operators a voluntary extension of the weekend Group Rec . nighttime "quiet hours" from the current 11 :00 p.m to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. If nighttime operations became regulated, accomplish this extension by regulation also. The extension would be applied in two phases - 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weekends immediately, and 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends in 1988. Operations by Stage 3 aircraft in the 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. timeframe would be permitted. Staff The intent of this measure is consistent with those specified above, Comment that of providing additional quiet time on weekends to allow residents adjacent to the airport an extended period without sleep interruption. - 7- A number of flights (31 on Saturday, 20 on Sunday) would be impacted by this procedure, and would need to be rescheduled by the airlines serving Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The process for implemen- tation of this measure would be initiated on June 1, 1986 and would be completed by December 1, 1986. Implem. 8. Enforce and optimize the MAC nighttime runup policy. Group Rec . Staff The existing MAC nighttime runup policy has been very effective in Comment dealing with aircraft maintenance runups during the night hours. At present, very few night runups take place; this situation has markedly improved over the past 10 years. It is very important, however, to con- tinue to reinforce the MAC's position regarding restrictions on night runups to ensure that the present situation continues and that addi- tional runups do not occur. This recammendation will lead to a review of the existing runup policy, an analysis of its effectiveness, and implementation of any recommended changes or modifications. This action should be initiated by May 1, 1986, and completed by May 20, 1986. C. Operational and other measures. Implem. 9. Adopt a policy that any requests for additional corporate hangars at Group Rec . Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport be reviewed by the Operations and Environment Committee. Staff The MAC has the authority to review and approve construction of any Comment additional corporate hangars at Minneapolis -St. Paul International -8- Airport. These requests have typically been reviewed by the Commission's Planning and Physical Development Committee or Management Committee. Since additional corporate aviation has the potential for environmental impacts, either directly or indirectly, the Carmission's Operations and Environment Committee should also be involved in the review process to ensure full consideration of any environmental impacts. This action should be completed by August 1, 1986. Implem. 10. Push FAA in completing installation of the ILS at Airlake and immediately Group Rec. take necessary steps to ban instrument training flights at MSP when installation is complete. Staff At the present time, the FAA's instrument landing system at Airlake Cr wit Airport is completely installed with the exception of the glide slope antenna. The FAA is moving forward with installation of the glide slope, and presently estimates that the system will be operational by September, 1986. At the time the ILS is operational, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will enact an Ordinance prohibiting instrument training activities at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. A draft of this Ordinance has been prepared and was submitted to the Implementation Working Group for their consideration. Canpletion of this action is dependent upon FAA's September, 1986, date. Implem. 11. Canplete the Stage 3 Aircraft Incentive Study. Group Rec . Staff The Metropolitan Airports Commission has underway a study to evaluate Comment financial incentives that could be provided to airlines to increase - 9- acquisition of Stage 3 aircraft. The study was initiatet in response to Commission direction, and should be completed by July 1, 1986. Should recommendations from this study prove viable for MAC to implement, follow -on action would be necessary to put an appropriate procedure in place. Implem. 12. Develop and implement a comprehensive school insulation program. Group Rec . Staff A number of schools are located within noise impacted areas adjacent to Comment Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has completed a pilot project to insulate St. Kevins School, with significant benefits in terms of both interior noise reduction and fewer class interruptions. In addition, the school was able to derive significant energy benefits from the accoustical insulation program. This recommendation would establish an ongoing school insulation program in adjacent comnunties. The intent of the program would be to achieve similar results to the St. Kevin's project, i.e. to minimize classroom interruptions due to aircraft overflights and to reduce interior noise levels. This program was initiated through contact with the Minneapolis Public School System, and will be carried out over the next few years. Implem. 13. Take all necessary action to advance the FAA's installation of the MS Group Rec. on 11L fran the summer of 1987 to the summer of 1986. Staff The Federal Aviation Administration currently estimates that they will Comment be in a position to install a complete instrument landing system on -10- Runway 11L at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport by the summer of 1987. In order to provide the benefits of the instrument landing system on this runway as soon as possible, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will review with FAA potential mechanisms to expedite the installation of this facility by approximately one year. Alternatives available range fran outright acquisition by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to the development of a reimbursable agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for installation of this facility. Implem. 14. Complete the FAR Part 150 Study. Group Rec. Staff The Metropolitan Airports Commission is continuing development of the Comment Part 150 Noise Abatement Study for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This study procedure is a federally approved process for deve- loping noise abatement options at airports, and consists of a rigorous evaulation of all possible operational actions that could be taken to reduce off - airport noise levels, as well as a review of available land use modification techniques ing with remaining incompatible areas. This study is being carried out in conjunction with the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, and includes coordination with the airlines serving Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration, business aviation associations, the Airline Pilots Associations, as well as those communities adjacent to the airport. Through this effort, a coordinated program of noise abatement actions will be taken rather than a series of isolated activities which may not -11- be as effective. Specific programs that are developed through the Part 150 Study process are eligible for federal funding. It is anticipated that this study should be completed by October 1, 1986. Implem. 15. Increase the MAC's personnel in the Noise Abatement. Department to help Group Rec. implement the MAC Noise Abatement Policy. Staff It is anticipated that an increase of personnel in the Noise Abatement Comment Department would provide a number of benefits to both the MAC and to the community. The MAC could be more attuned to on -going airport operations with additional personnel available to monitor airport activities. This could increase coordination with the air traffic control tower in relation to runway assignments and use under a given set of wind and traffic demand conditions. The additional personnel should also allow the Commission to be more responsive to the community in terms of response to complaints, and increase the ability to provide information with regard to airport operations to the community. An initial review of a revised organization has been completed and will be reviewed by the Commission by May 15, 1986, for implementation by August 1, 1986. MC TERM NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM A. Reduce Stage 1 and 2 Aircraft Use at MSP. Implem. 1. A working group, responsible and reporting to MAC, made up of represen- Group Rec. tatives of MAC, MPCA, Met Council, FAA, SMACC, MBAA and MASAC, will eval- -12- uate the feasibility of implementing by ordinance at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport a noise budget for that facility. The evaluation should include an assessment of: 1) alter- native ways of determining the environmental capacity of the airport based on acceptable noise levels, 2) projected changes in traffic and number of operations at MSP, 3) methods of avoiding discrimination and undue restriction to new access at MSP. The working group shall take into account the Part 150 Study as adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The working group shall proceed on the following schedule: November 1, 1986 - completion of draft ordinance; April 1, 1987 - consideration by MAC of draft ordinance; June 15, 1987 - pilot implementation of ordinance, if adopted by MAC. The purpose of the noise budget is to establish a limit on environmental Comment impact at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The noise budget would establish acceptable noise levels for activity at the airport, and then portions of this aggregate level would be allocated to various carriers who would be free to determine the type of operation they would conduct within the constraints of the noise limits. The focus of the noise budget would not be on limiting operations, but on limiting allowable noise levels, and allowing freedan and flexibility on the part of the airlines to deter- mine aircraft utilization. The initial step is an analysis of types of measures that could be used to define the "acceptable noise level ", con- sidering such factors as economic impacts, impact on competition within the Twin Cities market place, and all necessary legal issues with regard -13- to implementation of a measure of this type. Similar measures have been implemented at a limited number of airports throughout the country, however in no case has such a measure been implemented at a hub airport, or at an airport with the operational levels experienced at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. This action should be implemented by November 1, 1986 and completed by June 15, 1987. Implem. 2. Request that the FAA enforce the existing regulation on operating Group Rec. cutoff dates for Stage 1 aircraft, adopt a ban on further manufac- ture of Stage 2 aircraft, and ban import of new or used Stage 2 aircraft. Staff The Federal Aviation Administration, under the Fleet Noise Rule, has C ent established limitations on operation of Stage 1 aircraft within the United States. All parties interested in aircraft noise attenuation should be active in encouraging the Federal Aviation Administration to maintain the existing operational cutoff date for these aircraft. Further, the Federal Aviation Administration should be encouraged to adopt a ban on further manu- facture of Stage 2 aircraft and to ban import of new or used Stage 2 aircraft into the U.S. Fleet. The Federal Aviation Administration, in December, 1985, held public hearings regarding use of Stage 2 aircraft. As a result of these hearings, the Federal Aviation Administration will be developing a recatmendation to Congress by April, 1986. This acti- vity stated in 1977 and will be ongoing. Implem. 3. Support a new FAA regulation to ban operation of Stage 2 aircraft G' 'p Rec. after 1995. -14- SL 2 As a follow -on to the preceding measure, the FAA should be urged to eli- CarEnent urinate use of Stage 2 aircraft within the United States after 1995. This recatmendation was discussed at the FAA hearings in December, 1985, and received support from a number of sources. This request should also be addressed by the Federal Aviation Administration in their report to Congress. MAC acted initially on this point in 1983; it should be implemented by 1995. Implem. 4. Recamnend that the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower exempt the quietest Group Rec . Stage 3 aircraft fran noise abatement flight tracks. Staff In certain situations, the quieter Stage 3 aircraft could gain operational Comment benefits by being exempted fran noise abatement flight tracks. This would hold true in the area to the southeast of the airport where straight -in approaches and departures are required in order to minimize impacts on resi- dential areas in Eagan and Mendota Heights. It is hoped that the opera- tional benefits achieved by this action will encourage additional Stage 3 operations at the airport. Action on this measure should be initiated on August 1, 1986, and will be an ongoing effort. B. Increase Use of Preferential Runway System. Implem. 5. Extend Runway 4/22; displace the 22 takeoff threshold to the southwest of Group Rec. Runway 11L/29R; request that the FAA, on takeoffs on 22, use a noise abate- ment turn to the south for southerly and easterly bound aircraft; and request that the FAA test the use of an I -494 corridor for aircraft departing Runway -15- 4/22 westbound. The runway extension would be contingent upon the southerly turn agreement with the FAA. If rehabilitation of Runway 4/22 becomes necessary during the summer of 1987, and the extension issue has not been resolved, MAC should not be precluded fran undertaking the rehabi- litation project. The Metropolitan Council should consider the 4/22 extension after completion of the Federal environmental assessment and the operational portion of the FAR Part 150 Study, but because of the unavoidable and unanticipated delays in completion of the Airport Master Plan Update, the Metropoiltan Council should not condition its review of the 4/22 extension on completion of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Master Plan Update. To the maximum extent feasible, the extension, if approved, and /or the rehabiltation, should be carried out during the early spring and late fall. Staff The purpose of the extension of Runway 4/22 is to allow the re-establish- Comment ment of a preferential runway system at higher operating levels at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The extension of the runway to the southwest will allow simultaneous operations on Runway 22 to the south west of Runway 29R, and on Runway 29R. Use of a preferential run- way configuration in this mode should substantially increase the number of hour per day that preferential runways can be utilized, when weather conditions permit. An EA is currently being prepared for the proposed runway extension. This project was initiated with the EA in January, 1986, and should be completed by Fall, 1987. -16- Implem. 6. Evaluate a parallel runway 4/22 as part of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Group Rec . International Airport Master Plan Update. Staff The Metropolitan Airports Commission will proceed with an analysis of deve- Camlent lopment of a parallel Runway 4/22. This evaluation will consider the physical impacts of the runway, as well as review potential operating scenarios and subsequent environmental impacts. Such a runway would allow equal capability in all operating directions, and may allow the possibility of utilization of a rotational runway system which would be designed to insure that no area adjacent to the airport receives a disproportionate level of aircraft activity and subsequent noise expo- sure. This analysis should be completed by Summer 1987. In 7. Complete the St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field) development Group Rec. project, and encourage general aviation users to transfer activity from Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to St. Paul Downtown Airport. Staff The purpose of the St. Paul Airport project is to increase the attrac Comment tiveness of St. Paul Downtown Airport for corporate use, and to encourage corporate activity at that airport. The MAC is entering the third phase of a four -year project to provide a new 6,700' run- way and approximately 55 acres of hangar area. As the project nears completion, the Metropolitan Airports Commission will enter into an active program with general aviation users to transfer activity fran Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to St. Paul Downtown Airport. It is intended that this transfer of activity will reduce -17- hourly levels of operations at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, thereby allowing the potential for increased use of the preferential runway system. The St. Paul Downtown Airport project was initiated in Spring, 1983, and will be completed in late Sumner, 1987. Implem. 8. Accelerate the development of Anoka County - Blaine Airport and Airlake Group Rec . Airport as reliever airports, and encourage general aviation users to transfer activity from Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to Anoka County - Blaine and Airlake Airports. Staff The Metropolitan Airports Commission, in the early 1980's, developed a Comment Master Plan for Anoka County- Blaine Airport which projected the ability of this facility to accommodate additional levels of general aviation activity. Since that time, MAC has been limited fran carrying out this development due to the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement, and legal action by an adjacent community. The MAC has been carrying on an active program of discussion with communities adjacent to the airport in an effort to resolve outstanding issues, and anticipates that this will be accomplished during the summer of 1986. Following this resolution, development at Anoka County Airport will proceed. Since the MAC acquired Airlake Airport, a continuous program of develop- ment has been undertaken. As a result, substantial improve ments in available aeronautical facilities have been accomplished. The MAC intends to initiate a Master Plan for Airlake Airport during 1986, to be completed during 1987; the Master Plan will serve as a blue print for -18- future development at this airport. Activities at these airports were initiated in March, 1986, and should be completed by Fall, 1987. C. Flight Track and Other Measures. Implem. 9. Implement an automated, off - airport, 24 -hour a day, year- round Group Rec. (weather permitting) noise monitoring program; add operational moni- toring when technology is available. Staff As a result of this recommendation, the Metropolitan Airports Commission Comment would install a permanent off - airport noise monitoring system. A series of microphones would be installed at appropriate locations within the community feeding into computer equipment that would serve to record and aggregate noise levels at each monitoring location. The monitoring system would pro- vide a continuous indication of noise levels in the community, and would allow identification of variations in flight activity at particular loca- tions. This system should provide more complete coverage than the portable monitoring equipment currently in use. When the monitoring system can be tied in to the FAA terminal radar system, additional data would be available which would greatly enhance the usability of the noise moni- toring information. The implementation process was initiated in April, 1986. The initial phase of the system should be operational by September, 1987. The latter portion of the program will be an on -going effort. Implem. 10. Request that the Metropolitan Council require municipalities affected Group Rec. by their land use guidelines to conform to their comprehensive plans and adopt appropriate zoning ordinances. -19- St As an integral part of the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Comment Guide, the Metropolitan Council adopted a series of noise contours for all airports within the metropolitan system. In addition, a set of land use guidelines were established to define appropriate land uses for certain levels of noise exposure. This information was transmitted to all municipa- lities as part of the System Statements related to aviation. Communities should modify comprehensive plans as necessary to comply with the land use guidelines, and should adopt appropriate implementing ordinances to insure that the comprehensive plan designations are followed. The work could be initiated by May, 1986, and completed by Sumner, 1987. Implem. 11. Pursue the early installation by FAA of a microwave landing system at MSP. Group Rec. s f The Metropolitan Airports Commission should pursue the early installation Comment of a microwave landing system at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The benefits of the microwave landing system are significant when dealing with noise abatement flight tracks, by providing the ability to develop both curved and variable approach paths, as well as variable glide slopes. The Federal Aviation Administration has developed an implementation program for microwave facilities; the Metropolitan Airports Commission should pursue all possible actions to expedite this program to the maximum extent. This activity will be initiated in October, 1986, with full implementation by 1995. -20- MEMORANDUM TO: MASAC Members DATE: April 21, 1986 FROM: Walter Rockenstein, Chair RE: AIRPORT NOISE IMPLEMENTATION WORKING GROUP REPORTS TO MAC ON SHORT AND LONG TERM NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES The Airport Noise Implementation Working Group appointed by Metropolitan Airports Commission Chairperson Raymond Glumack has prepared two draft reports for presentation to the MAC. One report recommends short term noise abatement measures; the other long term noise abatement measures for use at MSP. Both drafts are attached to this memorandum for MASAC's review and comment at your April 22, 1986, meeting. While it was our intent originally to have MASAC's Executive Committee review these drafts at a time and place convenient to all MASAC members, favorable timing now permits MASAC to review both reports at a regular monthly meeting. The schedule for action on these two draft reports is as follows: April 22 - MASAC review and comment April 23 - MAC Operations and Environment Committee meeting to review both drafts, and then Airport Noise Implementation Working Group makes any revisions and acts to make reports final April 24 - MAC meets to act on the reports April 30 - Governor receives MAC noise abatement program As you can see, MASAC's comments will be considered immediately by the Working Group in completing both reports. Turning to the draft reports, you will note that many of the recommended measures are very similar or identical to those in MASAC's recommended Part 150 Program. This is no accident, since MASAC's Part 150 Program was one of the key documents used in developing the reports, especially the report on long term noise abatement measures. In fact only four MASAC measures find no parallel in the draft reports: #3 - differential noise fee; #6 - assignment of propeller aircraft to Runways 11L -29R when the preferential runway system is in use; #10 - tighten procedures relating to the "Eagan Corridor ": and #12 - enforce and optimize the nighttime run -up policy. Obviously the two draft reports contain more recommendations than are found in MASAC's Part 150 Program. This reflects the Working Group's effort to consider other recommendations placed before them by the MAC, SMAAC, Chairperson Glumack and the Governor's Airport Noise Task Force. Some of the recommendations are measures endorsed by MASAC in our earlier Noise Abatement Operations Plan. Please feel free to comment on any measure in either draft report. I look forward to presenting your comments to the Working Group on Wednesday. 0 U.S. Department of Transportation Airport Traffic Control Tower Federal Aviation 6311 - 34th Avenue South Administration Minneapolis, MN 55450 April 15, 1986 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant, City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. x 21199 Eaga N 55121 Dear t Hohenstein: Your } letter of March 26, 1986 speaks to southerly departures from runway 22. Your interest in this subject is in conjunction with the preferential runway system. As you know, MAC's proposal recommending implementation of the 180 depart- ure heading was denied by Les Case in October, 1985. At the November 26, 1985 MASAC meeting this decision was discussed in depth. Additionally at this meeting a motion was made and passed to refer the decision back to the MASAC operations committee for further deliberation. At a meeting of the committee the decision was made to basically table the topic pending further studies, traffic levels and recommendations. Extending the length of runway 22/4 has been discussed at numerous meet- ings and has been well publicized by the media. Within the past week an Airport Noise Implementation Working group dealing with the extension is- sue agreed to support the proposal. This entire package will be forwarded to the airport commissioners for further review and action. Included in this proposal is the call for an EIS and also the southerly turn issue. Additionally an amendment dealing with a 270 heading along the 1 -494 strip of Bloomington /Richfield was past on a split vote. Sincerely, A ` Hobert R. Botcher Air Traffic Manager, MSP ATCT 19 9ummr 1986 � 50 Years of Air Traffic Control Excellence -+ — A Standard for the World — 4o 0ita� 4 0 � 0 � M Council 300 Metro Square Building t Wll 0 � Seventh and Robert Streets . St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 April 14, 1986 ( . s T Telephone (612) 291 -6359 e; p:". P 'IN C% ' Honorable Bea Bloomquist, Mayor City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Dear Mayor Bloomquist: Thank you for you letter of support regarding airport capital improvements. The ability of the metropolitan area to effectively address the airport development /compatibility issue is strengthened when those affected are united in their approach to dealing with the problem. As you are aware, I have been less than satisfied with the Metropolitan Airports Commission's progress in dealing with one of the most critical problems facing our region today. I agree with you that the MAC must broaden its focus of concern with regard to the Runway 4/22 extension. One of the prime reasons for the Council's action to withhold approval of Runway 4/22 is that the project has significant implications on the land use, operational, environmental and physical functions at and around the airport. All of these must be fully analyzed, discussed and reviewed before construction is considered. I am not convinced that the environmental impact statement for the project will provide answers complete enough to make the decision to build. The responsible agencies can not afford to make any mistakes with a project involving an issue as sensitive as the airport, and in this instance the laws of the State of Minnesota have entrusted the Metropolitan Council with specific responsibilities. I look forward to having the opportunity to review the environmental impact statement for Runway 4/22 and hope that it will begin to answer some of the questions that you have raised. (V) Sincerely, — ? ' LtLA4N— ' Sandra S. Gar ;;ebri g Chair cc: Governor Rudy Perpich Ray Glumack, Metropolitan Airport Commission Jeff Hamiel, Metropolitan Airport Commission Staff Darrell Westlander, Metropolitan 'irports Commission Staff State Senator Howard Knutson State Representative Art Seaberg U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz U.S. Representative Bill Frenzel Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Steve King, City of Burnsville Mary Martin, Metropolitan Council Member All members of the Eagen Airport Noise Committee SSG:mc An Equal Opportunity Ernpiover NORTH EAGAN AIRCRAFT NOISE PROJECT 1986 Goal To closely monitor compliance with Eagan departure corridor. Determine if jet aircraft departing runways 11L and 11R are staying to the north of residential areas in Country Home Heights, Highview Park. Method Record flight tracks of jet aircraft over an extended period of time May through August of 1986. Place MAC personnel at key locations in the North Eagan area and in Airport Control Tower to track jet departures. Report preliminary findings July 1986 and final report to MASAC and City Council September 1986. Actions If compliance is not consistent, recommend to FAA and Airlines appropriate corrective actions. • asomm omommaimmi d emanselanamissigions. /WA DAT E TIME AIRLINE MRGR<R TYPE DErmrv4E A0.E1 11111011111111111011111111111111! HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN 8. BERGENDOFF April 14, 1986 Mr. Nigel D. Finney Director of Planning & Engineering Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue, South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Re: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Part 150 Study Dear Nigel: Attached is a description of the "Islip" noise budget, together with an evaluation sheet, for distribution to MASAC as discussed with Darrel Westlander, April 11th 1986. - Yours very truly, HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF C-Cr F. Roy Madgwick FRM/ j ed cc: R. kman Evan Futterman Jack Corbett Architects Engineers Planners 1500 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22311, 703 998 -3200 Partners James F Finn PE. Paul L Heineman PE. Gerard F Fox PE. Browning Crow PE. Charles T Henmgan PE. Edgar B. Johnson PE. Daniel J Watkins PE. Daniel J Spigai PE. John L Cotton PE. Francis X Hall PE. Robert S. Coma PE. Donald A Dupes PE. William Love AIA. Robert D Miller PE. JamesL Tuttle. Jr PE. Hugh E Scharr PE. Cary C Goodman AIA. Gordon H Slaney. Jr PE Associates Daniel J Appel PE. Robert W Richards PE. Don R Ort PE. Frederick H Slerbenz PE. Robert B Kollmar PE. Kendall T Lincoln CPA Jack P Shedd PE. Roberts W Smithem PE. Jack C Thompson PE. Richard D Beckman PE. Harry D Bertossa PE. Ralph E Robison PE Cecil P Counts PE Stephen G Goddard PE. Harvey K Hammond. Jr PE. Stanley I. Mast PE. Robert W Anzia PE. Walter Sharko PE. James 0 Russell PE. Ross L Jensen AIA. Frank T. Lamm PE. Aiexander F Silady PE. John W Wight PE. Thomas K Dyer PE. Ronald W Aarons AIA. H Jerome Butler PE. Blaise M Carnere PE. Michael P Ingardia PE. Bernard L. Prince PE. Stephen B. Quinn PE. Saul A Jacobs PE. James A Smith Ronald F Turner AIA. C. Frank Harscher. III, Ewing H Miller FAIA. Douglas C Myhre PE Offices Alexandria. VA. Atlanta. GA Austin. TX. Baton Rouge. LA. Boston. MA. Casper. WY. Charleston. SC Charleston. WV Chicago IL. Cleveland. OH. Dallas. TX. Denver CO Fairfield NJ Houston TX, Indianapolis. IN. Kansas City. MO. Lexington. KY, Lexington. MA. Los Angeles. CA Miami. FL. Milwaukee. WI. Minneapolis. MN. Newark. DE. New York. NY Orlando, FL. Overland Park. KS. Philadelphia, PA. Phoenix. AZ. Raleigh NC. Seattle. WA. Tampa. FL. Tulsa. OK. Penang. Malaysia Notes on Long Island - McArthur Airport ( "Islip ") Noise Budget Measure' 1. Summary of Measure The measure was implemented by the town of Islip as an interim action to respond to growing community concern for potential measures in airline activity. It is intended to be a temporary measure pending more detailed analysis and evaluation of alternative means of controlling noise to be developed in an FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program study. The approach is to define a total area of Ldn 65 contour which is tolerated by the community, and to assign permitted numbers of operations to the various users of the airport so that the total area is not exceeded. A procedure called the Area Equivalent Method (AEM) was selected to calculate areas affected by Ldn 65. The AEM is a quick means of calculation of the total area in the Ldn 65 contour, in square miles, though lacking in precision and the identification of where in the airport vicinity the noise impacts occur. The extent of the Ldn 65 noise contour in April 1985, 3.28 square miles, was selected as a "reasonable" limit, based upon the history of community complaint. - The different users of the airport are then authorized to make a specified amount of noise such that the total of all noise does not create an Ldn 65 contour larger than 3.28 square miles in area. General aviation and commuter operations are permitted to create an Ldn 65 contour of 2.12 square miles, and the air carriers, both incumbent and new entries, have together been assigned a similar area. The total of these two noise budgets, when aggregated, is 3.28 square miles. - The Town of Islip selected operations of the DC9 -30 as the typical turbojet air carrier aircraft and assigned number of operations based on the noise characteristics of this aircraft. - The allocation to air carriers was broken down into protected and discretionary allocations. The measure first protects 75 percent of the operations of the incumbent carriers, and allocates to each carrier a "noise budget," expressed in square miles of Ldn 65 contour, proportional to the number of flights operated by that carrier at the base date of April 1985. Each incumbent carrier is allocated his proportional share of total noise with a minimum noise budget sufficient for two flights each day, this being considered the minimum level of activity to maintain service. ' Reference is "Long Island - McArthur Airport, Interim Environmental Management Plan," September 16, 1985. Second, the measure assigns the discretionary 25 percent of the air carriers allocation to new entrants, again providing a minimum budget expressed in square miles of Ldn 65 sufficient for two flights per day. Any unused balance of the discretionary assignment is allocated to incumbents through a lottery system. The allocation process is intended to be reviewed and updated every 18 months. There are provisions for continuing adjustments to the allocations to account for over -use or under -use of budgeted noise allocations by individual users. 2. Comments on the Measure The level of operations at Islip in July 1985 was very small compared with that at MSP, being (approximately): Air Carriers B- 727 -100 and 200 11 flights per day DC9 -30 4 flights per day B- 737 -200 1 flight per day MD -80 2 flights per day Business Jet Aircraft 8 flights per day Commuter Aircraft 37 flights per day Propellor Aircraft, Light Twins/ Single- Engine 369 flights per day The Islip proposal is not directly applicable to Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, in its specifics. A regulation along the same lines, but tailored to the characteristics of MSP and its vicinity areas, and to the detailed noise abatement objectives would be required. Among the questions to be addressed in drafting a suitable regulation would be: o The number of carriers o Large differences in the size of aircraft in the mix (What is the "unit" aircraft ?) o Use of MSP by military aircraft (can be restricted ?) o Seasonal fluctuation in air carrier activity levels (can you still reduce the budget of a carrier if part of that budget remains unused for 90 days ?) The Islip model addresses the total area of Ldn 65 which each carrier is permitted to make, but not the location of the noise. The distribution of the noise is a key concern in the MSP situation. The FAA has taken an "its all right for now" attitude on the technique, pending completion of a Part 150 Study, but has expressed concern on the statistical /analytical justification and other aspects of the measure. The agency has indicated concern about "freezing" noise levels at the April 1985 levels, and strong opposition to future reduction in overall noise levels. Measure No. 23A. ESTABLISH A "NOISE BUDGET" FOR INDIVIDUAL USER GROUPS (THE "ISLIP MODEL) The technique consists of defining a maximum area for the Ldn 65 contour, and allocation to Description: individual airlines and user groups a maximum area of Ldn 65 which each is allowed to make, such that the total noise does not exceed the overall maximum permitted. Provisions are made for entry of new users and for periodic adjustments to respond to changes in demand. The specifics of the Islip Model are described in the attached notes; these specifics could not be applied to MSP. A regulation tailored to the MSP situation would be required. Net Change The regulation would place a lid on the total amount of noise produced at the airport. The lid could be set at any selected level, or changed over time. The permitted level would be estab- in Community lished in the course of drafting a regulation to reflect MSP traffic and the characteristics of Noise and its vicinity area. The location of the noise impacts would not be controlled by the regulation, Overflight but this factor could be addressed through other measures discussed in the program. Airport and No effect, beyond restricting traffic levels. The extent of the reduction, as for the noise ATC benefits, would depend upon where the permitted noise level is established. Operational Considerations Effect On The ability of the airlines to accelerate purchase of Stage III aircraft which would allow them to Aircraft operate within the noise limits while maintaining service, is limited. The result would be less perators service and adverse effects on the HQ /maintenance functions of NW and RC at MSP. Effect On Probable loss of service as traffic is constrained. Quality of Air Service Capital Costs Of None to the airport. Major costs to the airlines to the extent that they are able to purchase Implementation Stage III aircraft in an attempt to maintain service. Implementation Factors An ordinance establishing the rule would be required, following drafting of a regulation suitable for MSP. Legal Implications There are legal questions with respect to the Islip Model which have yet to be tested in the courts. These appear to be less severe than for most comparable restrictive measures. Conclusion The effects on the airlines would be serious, assuming that the "Ldn 65 areas" are set at levels which would involve restricting activity levels or accelerated purchase of Stage III aircraft. The technique is currently operative (though at an airport very different from MSP). MSP HOURLY RUNWAY LIMITS (arrivals & departures) ' LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 60 -66 40 -60 VFR 60 -66 40 -60 IFR 42 -45 23 -35 IFR 42 -45 35 -40 41444P. ''ss44k LANDINGS TAKEOFFS \ LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 60 -66 20 VFR 30 -32 23 -32 IFR 42 -48 20 IFR 24 -28 20 i / ' /\ LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 32 30 VFR 32 30 IFR 24 -30 25 -30 IFR 24 -30 25 -30 /go asp �. Ckv. tv.; • draft sir ort noise Cit p paper by Dorothy Casserly c "It's something these com- The paper does not address A position paper on aircraft munities gave quite a bit of specific issues such as runway noise has been adopted by four thought to. They're asking that extensions, but is a broader cities south of the Minnesota their residential areas and statement about noise abate - River, and a fifth is expected to planning be considered," he ment, he said. - ratify the paper soon. said. - The paper says the MAC Burnsville, Eagan, Savage The paper was prepared by should emphasize the 18 and Mendota Heights city staffs of the five cities, who recommendations for noise councils have endorsed the said a single paper from abatement made early this paper that urges the several communities would year by the Governor's Task Metropolitan Airports Com- have greater impact on Force on Airport Noise. -- mission (MAC) to proceed decision- makers associated The paper calls for incen- quickly with noise abatement with aircraft noise abatement. tives to reduce noisy Stage 1 measures. When it's approved by all ci- and II planes at the airport, .a The Inver Grove Heights Ci ty councils, it will be sent to geographical balance on ty Council has asked Robert Gov. Rudy Perpich, the MASAC membership among 1 Pollock, its representative on Metropolitan Council, the air- communities that suffer air- the Metropolitan . Aircraft ports commission and MASAC, craft noise and limiting expan- Sound Abatement Council Hohenstein said. - sion of the airport until noise (MASAC), to review the paper. The statement requests a- abatement procedures are The council is likely to approve higher level of accountablility agreed upon. it at its next meeting, said from the airports commission, It seeks reduction of Loretta Garrity, city clerk. ;:' a body that is appointed by the cumulative noise levels, not "This is an effort to show the governor and doesn't respond dispersal of it to new areas. common interest of- com -. to the electorate, he said. "Dispersion only masks air- munities on this side of the "MAC should take into ac- craft noise and does not reduce river because Dakota County count its neighbors and go it," the report said. "Disper- absorbs a. large portion of the through some of the same pro- sion also tends to set communi- noise," said Jon Hohenstein,, cedures cities have to," he ty against community, and . administrative assistant in said "It's difficult to deal with • therefore is counterproductive Eagan P- r ti , the airport.";: , .y :: to the development of a coor- dinated, regional effort."