Loading...
12/10/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 10, 1986 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND MINUTES II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. FAR Part 150 Study III. OLD. BUSINESS A. Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor 1. Review of Correspondence 2. MASAC Position - January 27, 1987 B. Airport Relocation Study IV. NEW BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Noise Budget Working Group Report B. Airport Operations and Complaint Summary VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER AND ALL AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1986 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR DECEMBER 10, 1986 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center, Conference Rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Wednesday. I. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee meeting of November 12, 1986, is enclosed on pages / for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. FAR Part 150 Study -- Enclosed on pages 3 --// are copies of three letters relative to the screening of the Part 150 Study documents. The letters address the preliminary screening of land use measures, the screening of operational measures as they pertain to the study and the corrective land use elements as recommended by the Eagan City Council. In addition, the City has requested that the Airport's consultant, HNTB undertake a series of differential contour analyses to determine the impact of a left turn modification on departure. The Part 150 Study documents clearly indicate that a portion of the noise compatible corridor is being under utilized and that it could be better utilized without extending the 65 dB contour into Mendota Heights through a left turn procedure. A map showing the relationship of the contour to the edges of the residential development in Mendota Heights is enclosed on page • III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor 1. Review of Correspondence -- Enclosed on pages /3_g you will find three items of correspondence for your review. The first on pages f ¥J'/ is a letter from Tim Anderson indicating his representation that all traffic should stay north of 110 was in error. Next, on page /5 _ is the latest correspondence from Representative Bill Frenzel who has been monitoring the airport noise issue and has been copied on much of our correspondence. His interest in the issue has resulted in the correspondence found on page /6 from Doug Powers. Apparently, Mr. Powers has abdicated a responsibility to the FAA regional office because of Representative Frenzel's interest in the matter. It should be noted that we have involved our legislative delegation in this matter in the past and have not seen this FAA policy invoked prior to this time. Therefore, we can only assume that this particular line of inquiry has raised more than the usual concern at the local FAA. 2. MASAC Position - January 27, 1987 -- The City's alternate member to MASAC, Dustin Mirick, reported that MASAC Chairman Walter Rockenstein announced that the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor will be an agenda item at the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. He indicated that all parties concerned should be present to represent their interests in the matter. Staff has contacted the city of Mendota Heights in this matter and will attempt to approach it in a concerted manner rather than a fragmented one. It has been staff's opinion in the past that Chairman Rockenstein is genuine in his intent to address this issue and that he is not involved in an attempt to manipulate it to the advantage of the MAC. Committee members have expressed concern that MASAC has been less than sympathetic to certain Eagan interests in the past and that this meeting should be approached with caution. Nevertheless, the issue will be before MASAC and staff intends to present a concerted front as it approaches this issue. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend staff direction in preparation for the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. B. Airport Relocation Study -- In informal action taken at its December 2, 1986 meeting, the Eagan City Council heard the Airport Noise Committee recommendation that it endorse the Metropolitan Council Airport Relocation Study. While the Council sympathized with the Committee's position, it declined to take action for the following reasons. It was the Council's position that an endorsement of the study could be misinterpreted by the business community to mean that the Council supports the relocation itself. While the Council agreed that the information from the study will be of interest to the City, it did not feel it appropriate to take a position at this time. The study will be undertaken regardless of the City's position and a consideration of the results may suggest a position in the future. IV. NEW BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Noise Budget Working Group Report -- Enclosed for your review on pages 22_34.3 is the report and recommendations of the Noise Budget Working Group with attached statements by Steve Kramer and Dave Koehser, MAC staff, and the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association. The MAC has received the report and is considering its recommendation. The staff will be available to review the concepts of the budget with the Committee. B. Airport Operations and Complaints Summary -- Enclosed on pages X3-37 you will find the MASAC Airport Operations and Complaints Summary for the month of October, 1986. As you can see, the runways to the southeast of the airport are in use 45.5% of the time for landings and 67% of the time for departures. This results in an operational result of 43.5% of all landings and 65% of all takeoffs. Further review of the document will reveal that Eagan had 70 complaints for the month of October placing them second in total number behind the city of Minneapolis which had in excess of 650 complaints in the same month. VI. ADJOURNMENT The Committee will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m. A inistrative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Attorney Hauge J DH/ j eh MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE Eagan, Minnesota November 12, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Wednesday, November 12, 1986 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker, John Gustin, Carol Dozois, Carolyn Braun, Dustin Mirick, Joe Harrison. Absent was Otto Leitner. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Mirick indicated a correction in the minutes of October 2, 1986 Airport Noise Committee meeting. That change being on the second page, second paragraph, eighth line, where the term DME was corrected from directional measuring equipment to distance measuring equipment. With that correction, the minutes of the October 2, 1986 meeting were approved by acclamation. RUNWAY 4/22 EXTENSION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that the runway extension continues to be promoted by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission. He stated that the Environmental Impact Statement for the extension had not been completed to date and that the airport has given no timetable for its completion. Therefore, public review of environmental issues will come in the future. AIRPORT RELOCATION STUDY The packet information was introduced and Member Harrison expressed his concern that the airport relocation study be seriously considered due to the impact of the current airport on residential areas on all sides. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein indicated that an airport relocation study had been approved by the Metropolitan Council and would be undertaken in the near future. Harrison raised the concern that major airlines may be pursuing authorization for supersonic aircraft to operate out of additional airports in the United States. He indicated that such a move on the part of Northwest Airlines would likely require that the aircraft use Minneapolis /St. Paul International as a service and operations base. Harrison indicated that such operations would raise the importance a second airport. Hohenstein indicated that the City has been generally supportive of the study at a staff level. He further stated that relocation raises some significant issues for the Eagan business community, because certain segments of the community require quick access to the airport. He said this should not proclude residential Eagan from pursuing its interests, but require that the City Council attempt to balance the interest of the residential and business communities. On motion by Gustin, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, the committee recommended that the Eagan City Council go on record favoring the Metropolitan Council's airport relocation study. EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported on correspondence between the City and FAA tower chief Doug Powers. He further reviewed a 1974 operational order which showed that the left turn procedure was standard in the tower procedures at least back to that time. Hohenstein also distributed the City staff's response to Mr. Powers which was reviewed and discussed by the committee. The committee expressed general support of the correspondence and positions represented by the staff to date. They indicated that those positions are consistent with the resolutions and positions taken by the committee during the course of its deliberations. STAGE II AND STAGE III NOISE COMPARISONS Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed the comparisons between Stage II and Stage III noise generation prepared by Dave Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He stated that the studies performed by Mr. Kelso indicated that Stage III aircraft are substantially quieter than Stage II aircraft on take -off but that the noise levels of the two aircraft were comparable on landing. Hohenstein explained that the ten decible difference between Stage II and Stage III aircraft represented one -half of the noise of the noisier aircraft. Hohenstein then reviewed the way in which sound is measured and the impact of the Logarithmic Decible Scale on noise comparisons. Because of the way noise energy is transferred, he stated that it would require eight Stage III aircraft to produce the same noise energy produced by one Stage II aircraft. As more Stage III aircraft are introduced into the fleet, the overall noise environment should improve substantially. ADJOURNMENT On motion by Gustin, seconded by Harrison, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.. Date Chairperson Secretary Pk TJ 11I (( city of eacjan 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 THOMAS HEDGES November 4, 1986 City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk MR WILLIAM WILKE HOWARD, NEEDLES, TAMMEN AND BERGENDOFF 1500 NORTH BEAUREGARDE STREET ALEXANDRIA VA 22311 Re: Preliminary Screening of Land Use Measures Dear Bill: In reviewing the preliminary screening matrix which you provided at the last technical review meeting, I noticed exclusions of several items upon which the City commented. To clarify the City's position, I offer the following comments. 1) Zoning Performance Standards - The City has expressed general support of zoning performance standards within the context of the model ordinance under consideration by the Metropolitan Council. The City has expressed general support of the performance standards as outlined in the Part 150 documents as well. 2) Public Information Program - The City is in favor of any effort to adequately inform its residents of airport noise expectations. We have made an effort to do that in the past and continue to do so now. Our only qualifications to that standard have been when procedures do not correspond with the expectations that went into long -term land use planning. As you know,. we are negotiating a reestablishment of appropriate standards which correspond with ground side expectations. Due to the nature of the corridor, an adequate public information program is definitely applicable to the City of Eagan. 3) Sound Proofing of Public Buildings - While I am unaware of any Eagan public buildings within the current noise contours, the City is generally supportive of such efforts. THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / 3 William Wilke November 4, 1986 Page Two 4) Corrective Measures - I have requested specific action on the part of the City Council to recommend their preferences among the acquisition of developed property, purchase assurance, sound proofing of private residences and the purchase of avigational easements. Action on this item is expected by the end of the week and a letter covering the Council's preferences will be forwarded to you. With this letter I merely wish to clarify the City's position on the land use measures discussed. I felt we had touched on these issues in our earlier comments, but this clarification should be sufficient to make up for any ommission to date. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant JDH /jeh • 4 , ' Pi' ; " IC�t db) oF eagan 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 November 13, 1986 THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk EVAN FUTTERMAN HOWARD, NEEDLES, TAMMEN, & BERGENDOFF 1500 N BEAUREGARD ST ALEXANDRIA, VA 22311 Re: Screening Potential Noise Abatement Measures Dear Evan: In reviewing my correspondence to your office of November 5, 1986, I realize that I used an outdated document in preparing my response. The notes I had taken for the correspondence came both from the recommended noise abatement program included in the July 3, 1986 draft of the Part 150 plan and an initial screening document from October 22, 1985. If the format proved confusing, it is because I structured the notes after the earlier document and failed to cross reference with the current recommendations in dictating the letter. I apologize for this error and hope it doesn't cause too much confusion. The arguments made are no less valid from the standpoint of the City of Eagan, however. Therefore, I will attempt to reiterate them within the format of the recommended Noise Abatement Program in the July draft. I. Reduce the number of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft Generally, the City of Eagan has supported this objective as the most logical way to reduce aircraft noise, that being at its source. The City offers specific, though not exclusive, comments on the following: A. Exempt the quietest Stage 3 aircraft from noise abatement flight tracks - -The City strongly opposes this element since it unfairly affects Eagan and Mendota Heights which have made the most effective efforts toward providing noise compatible land uses which relate to noise abatement flight tracks. Even quiet aircraft can generate intolerable noise levels at close range. Moreover, Stage 3 aircraft are no quieter than Stage 2 aircraft on approach and this measure would also eliminate the four mile final for landings in the THE LONE OAK TREE.. THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY EVAN FUTTERMAN NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE TWO Eagan- Mendota Heights area. This measure is nothing but a phased elimination of FAA use of the noise compatible corridor. Such procedure would open broad new areas to significant noise impact while having no operational affect on the way in which noisier Stage 2 aircraft would operate. The benefit of this procedure is entirely operational and has no noise abatement benefit. B. Negotiate with the airlines a user fee to be levied on landings by Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft, with revenues to be used for noise compatibility programs - -As the City has suggested in the past, a differential landing fee will be an important means of promoting Stage 3 aircraft operations at the airport. The provision of an economic element within the decision to fly noisy 4 aircraft will, in the long -term, accelerate airline decisions to pursue alternative fleets. In the meantime, the dedication of such revenues for noise compatibility programs is a logical and worthwhile objective. II. Increase the use of the preferential runway system Despite its early reluctance, the City of Eagan has long supported the use of the preferential runway system to concentrate aircraft in noise compatible areas. This assumes, however, that such operations are within parameters which insure the maximization of the noise absorbing capacity of certain land uses. The City has insisted that environmental review be undertaken whenever questions of noise compatibility arise. Specific, though not exclusive, comments are provided on the following elements: A. Relocate Runway 4/22 to the south of Runway 11L -29R -- The City has reserved its right to respond to this element until such time as the full Environmental Impact Statement is available. In advance of that environmental review, however, the City can reiterate its explicit opposition to the Cedar Avenue departure as a critical element of this noise abatement strategy. The City has repeatedly requested that the environmental impact statement treat as alternates the runway extension and the extension plus Cedar Avenue procedure. The reason for the City's opposition to this procedure is that it unfairly concentrates traffic to the southeast of the airport in traditional residential neighborhoods, many of which are in the City of Eagan. Under certain scenarios, therefore, residents in northern Eagan would have have to tolerate landing or departure noise while residents in southern EVAN FUTTERMAN NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE THREE Eagan receive simultaneous departure noise. While the use of noise compatible corridors is a procedure the City strongly supports, it does not support a concentration of traffic along only those corridors which impact Eagan and its neighbors. B. Reduce general aviation activities by providing incentives to relocate at other airports - -While this procedure offers certain operational benefits, the reduction of the number of less noisy operations from the total operational mix does not logically lead to noise abatement. In the absence of other operational controls to minimize air carrier noise impacts, the benefit of this objective is dubious. III. Restrict night operations 4 While the City of Eagan encourages controls on night operations, it is uncertain of the level of compliance possible or the legality of a mandatory ban. Therefore, the City has long supported the use of noise compatible procedures for nighttime operations. With respect to operations in the area of Eagan and Mendota Heights, the City has repeatedly suggested that the middle of the corridor at or about 105 magnetic be utilized during nighttime hours or whenever low levels of traffic permit. Concentrations of departures at or about this heading result in a noise envelope which splits the corridor equally and minimizes impacts at federally recognized levels on established residential neighborhoods of both cities. In addition to such procedures, the City would strongly encourage the application of differential landing fees to nighttime operations of any kind. Once again, such fees do not eliminate the possibility of operating at such times, but reduces the frequency of use through an economic disincentive. Such an element should be reinserted as an integral part of nighttime operational restrictions in the recommended strategy. IV. Flight tracks and other measures The City of Eagan strongly supports the use of fight track modification as a means of noise abatement. The City has long planned for such procedures in the northern part of the community. Specific, though not exhaustive, comments are provided for the following elements: A. Obtain FAA agreement to implement the Cedar Avenue procedure for aircraft departing Runway 22 -- Again, the City reserves the right to respond to the Environmental Impact Statement when it is completed. Nonetheless, in the absence of clear evidence to support the validity EVAN FUTTERMAN NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE FOUR of this procedure and its environmental soundness, the City will not endorse it. B. Tighten up procedures for keeping aircraft departing from Runway 11L and 11R to the Eagan corridor - -As is apparent from the application of the integrated noise model to the current departure tracks, current operations do not optimize use of the noise compatible corridor. The 65 decibel noise envelope includes large portions of certain Eagan neighborhoods while failing to include all of the corridor's noise capacity in the I -494 - Trunk Highway 149 area. The City of Eagan strongly supports the study of concentrations of traffic along different flight tracks within the context of the integrated noise model. The work currently underway by the airport's consultant will A likely demonstrate a substantial benefit would accrue from the direction of the largest number of departures toward the middle of the corridor. Until the beginning of the Part 150 review process, a left turn departure procedure was a well recognized noise abatement procedure for the Eagan- Mendota Heights area. As you will recall, the City's request for this element was based on the long standing practice of defining the corridor along the 105 headings. Shortly after the City made this request to MASAC, the FAA undertook to change its Operational Order from 105 to runway heading. That change was ultimately instituted as a general policy of the tower in early 1986. Under the circumstances, it is not sufficient for the study to concentrate on the newly defined corridor procedures. The City's original re was for compliance with the noise compatible 105 procedure and we reiterate that expectation as an outcome of the study. C. Test use of the I -494 corridor for aircraft departing Runway 22 - -This procedure should be considered in concert with other channelization studies as a means of reducing overflight of incompatible areas. However, like all corridors, it is essential that operational standards be applied which insure that aircraft use the corridors in the most noise compatible fashion. As with other flight track procedures, this should require an environmental review before implementation. D. Enforce and optimize MAC nighttime run up policy - -The Eagan neighborhoods adjacent to the river valley strongly support improved enforcement of the run up policy. In addition, the City would recommend the implementation of a fine structure to assist in the 11 • EVAN FUTTERMAN NOVEMBER 13, 1986 PAGE FIVE enforcement of the policy. Once again, the introduction of an economic element will provide a disincentive to air carriers conducting engine tests at inappropriate times. E. Improve the monitoring and enforcement of all noise abatement measures - -As the proprietor of a polluting industry, the MAC bears an obligation to its neighbors to reduce adverse affects of that industry. If the airport's pollution were measured in parts per million as opposed to decibels, strict and specific standards would apply for its control. The noise impact of the air carrier industry is no less harmful and far more insidious than many other forms of pollution. Therefore, the MAC, FAA, and all parties bearing on the airport noise situation should combine efforts to limit noise exposure and impacts, and means need to be provided to allow that enforcement. Once again, I apologize for mixing my resources in my previous correspondence. I hope that this letter clarifies the City's position on various operational measures under consideration. As has been mentioned several times through the letter, this correspondence is not intended to be exhaustive and the City reserves its right to comment further as the process continues. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions about these matters, please contact me. Sincerely yours, n Hohenstein Administrative Assistant JH /mc cc: Senator Rudy Boschwitz Senator David Durenberger Representative Bill Frenzel Sandra Gardebring, Metropolitan Council Ray Glumack, MAC Walter Rockenstein, MASAC Doug Powers, FAA Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Steve King, City of Burnsville • II ItI city of ccigcan 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 November 21, 1986 Council Members THOMAS HEDGES ON Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE MR MARK RYAN City Clerk METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 Re: Corrective Elements of the FAR Part 150 Study Dear Mark: In official action taken on November 18, 1986, the Eagan City Council defined three of the corrective elements proposed under the Part 150 Study for further review with respect to noise impacted areas within Eagan. Their approval of these elements for further study was not without significant debate. The Council, in taking its action, reiterated strongly that the highest priority be placed on the reinstatement of noise- compat- ible operational standards for departures in the Eagan- Mendota Heights area. The City Council clearly asserts that the noise compatible planning and zoning which has occurred and continues to occur in the area is based upon understandings with the airport and the Metropolitan Council that air traffic would optimize the noise absorbing capacity of this area through flight track modifications for departures at or about 105 degrees magnetic. Any deviation from that procedure is contrary to well established agreements and understandings between the various agencies of the airport and the City Council. In those areas in which operational procedures cannot be used to minimize the adverse effects of noise, the City Council would consider the following three strategies, listed in order of priority: 1. Soundproof Private Residences 2. Acquire Developed Property 3. Purchase Assurance Program The Council would consider these alternatives with several qualifications. First, that primary consideration for ap- plication of the strategies be within schools and public build- ings. Second, that none of the strategies be implemented in a piecemeal fashion such that the integrity of remaining neighbor- hoods is diminished. Third, that specific consideration be given THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY /0 Mark Ryan November 21, 1986 Page Two to isolated residential pockets which are designated commercial or industrial use in the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan. Fourth, that any application of the acquisition or purchase assurance strategies be subject to review and approval by the Eagan City Council to insure that they are applied in the best interest of the City as a whole. In addition, the City Council requested a definition of all funding sources which are anticipated for application to these corrective strategies and the amount aniticipated from each. A specific response to this inquiry is requested. The Council appreciates this opportunity to respond to the Part 150 Study. The Council recognizes the regional importance of this issue and Eagan's part in it. The City has already gone to great lengths to accommodate the airport. The City Council expects the airport to honor the representations and intent of the corridor agreements and to do its part in effecting meaning- ful noise abatement. If you have any questions about this correspondence, please contact me. A specific response is requested, particularly to the matter of funding sources and magnitude. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, li ‘ot. 1- 41 1 ‘''' on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant JDH /jeh 11 1 . 0 LL 1. U D 1 0 ] }. O C 1 -• 0 lo _ U (D 0 0 w "' Q) •O 0 — Li) o 1• .. o . T J in ' 41 , :k9 • .hers - i� , 3 ' .�4 1 i ski ° , �' I . ' —El E a a , _ - • 7 ' , ....! ��,••� lira ', L) .1::2 ! :: : ` } �,' , I Iii .. , � • /kifiri •fs "co-4 f ° 2 ' S j- g z .1.. f .:0:, , 1 ; .. ..... ..lb 1 c r , ,... i.. • "444,4 - el:ltlil:: �.-� 14 j i 1 1 1 a1 j co a. II . . a ` . I 1 11..11 �tnl�`1 I � � it i } 1 I \° 1 11.11 rl:• . T .ter I �r..11..�.,.r \ ' 1 ' , . • f OIIIa 1 r .4 /.1. -1 i i 1 ,_ L1 O '71 III 1 r111h2 Z 1�1�,. : ' ' . ! (: • - i r A' ie 2+ 111 1I` I111►i r -, 10‘.'A• . I r \i. i liun...rl h:. - :. _ • r`` a r.r. 1 fl r � .. � •!1e :, . II ) r I •� illifil.11..h w:. — . p. ''. , . L . 1., , • • ...1 ��1 ' 1311_ c _ < ,1 ullrnl A IIIILI""� �': �' • J 1 ' . — Il • I ` I . ii uy: ■..rlllllllllliiull ,4- . ' ., � ' 1 I • ' (• 1 ` ,! • ! b X11 r 1P3o.uU11fiermii111 111111 ° E . • I {: �� c,-- I' - 1 rr.1.r111 11111 ll1 11 1 1 r '•. _ ',I.I r.. ' � • ■ • r It , na.YUlrlig m r • . 1� _ I T z,� I. � . � , �'`N ,! 1 1 . � . - l' 6 ; f �. - ` �` � .i. It, iH1rertIR -� ll u.!�py� ft 111 1111.11= If e i t _ • ._ I • - C � •1e. "1�o•11111111111111 N�1��� :� ' - i..lrr►11111111 Ilr r rt `._ 1- S . '': : t _ 1 .. o irrrr YUli:...11 H 11rr m ..1 1 ru ' r r ./_ I it, , r • iiiiii: !! q� ' a '� I 6 " i >f 4 , ► , ' i ;Ifni , ![ ,.r f v • C 1111111 �l1il r � f �' ,' _ ' • • 1 ' / 1 t- C 11'�11r11 /11111111 III r • T J.� ..��i *1 ®• -�mo. .�� -•� : • •I J 1� ■ 1. %:. ` ;. ', n- 2. •J•r_ ` "_ .. mom . - ...... 0 �i�� jF,C, tlt1� I � 1 . Q ����� !r. a. 513 e + g ' - a 1 ' ......... , ......... a " — _ E k ri 1 1 i :1 , l '� t I �• 3 I - -- \y Ire •01 . -- - -- ' . 4: • 1 " '" / • I ` y _ :. ....,,1 . . .L.r um— = = = :ii a! . .- • ! r - . . ' AI 1.1 � / 1 1 \ > a I i , � C L 1 X' 22 .... -- mr.s.vagand a...Li; ' d - - . .. i. 4 . ' ; 1 . I. - 1 r. • 7 , - T 5‘ V , \ II " 1 ii .1. 47 ; 2724 . 2 2iii 11 § 2 ' 11 11" . igli - _ _ .; . ...,. '. i 1- - •,'-f... I - -- ,„--,---'--" - kr:- ri m._.„'Ir Ai., ,.,'-' i \ ,,,,'1 ' .■,1, i'\, t‘ f • ._ ysf-- ..'3-g- Dr Tel i t t- I - - - r ft 2 ar�� l ���1FTf G W I i .2.,J2i....y..C_ - - rr � (.1 � Q7itif l:i�r . ..all EE=== =r._--' = cl r a 11 111 I ' .: _ 1 inlirl.etigkib. 11' • Q. .e= 3 6srscii -rittc ` _ , i 1 i.1 • a �'I • - E.' �� � � e • t=ai le , r. In =gi 3 _ - T � - /, -h . fig''''' , 'r • C 'till - r IF 1 ` . - _ 1 1 ° s_ try 1- '. 1 f ry l 1: ` - L_. ^� ' _ _ 1 1 11 I I 1: I' •� ll ,�- -•. 1 1 2 C in , . -1 Il. .� • � / 1 r lil' ` 1 1 ii . ^ � 2 � l^ �IYi r 1 a J ♦1 y ! . t Itti ottaedad p Mtsuo1p As • clituett pad • METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION k . P. O. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 -1892 November 20, 1986 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Adninistrative Assistant City of Eager. 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Jon: I received your letter dated October 22, 1986 as well as your letter of September 25, and will do my best to get to the heart of the matter as I see it. When we met in your offices on September 4, it was my understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was still issuing "runway heading" departure instructions to aircraft using Runway 11R. It was at that meeting and confirmed afterward by me, that I discovered the "runway heading" was no longer being used (at least not regularly) and that FAA Air Traffic Control Tower personnel had gone to issuing departure headings in degrees (i.e. 115 °, 110 °, etc.). At that time I was also of the opinion that if a pilot were issued a "runway heading" instruction on departure from Runway 11R, he would stay on a 110 heading. This, however, is also not universally true since I asked a pilot what he would do, and he stated that he would maintain a heading of 116 °. Consequently, neither my opinion of what heading was being issued nor my assumption of what heading a pilot would hold appears to be based upon fact. Nonetheless, it is still the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) position that any aircraft departing Runway 11R remaining on or north of the extended centerline of the runway is complying with the intent of our noise abatement procedure for departures in that direction. Whether the FAA instructs pilots to use "runway heading," 115 °, 110 °, or a combination of these headings and others is, in my opinion, a moot issue as long as the aircraft does not fly to the south of centerline prior to the three (3) mile turn point. Further, I do not believe that this stated position of the MAC is inconsistent with that of which we have always been proponents. Additionally, I do not believe that the procedures currently being used by the FAA to keep aircraft in OFFICE LOCATION -6040 28th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA- MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT /•3 •3 • Mr. Jon Hohenstein -2- November 20, 1986 the corridor (which is still their intention) deviates substantially from any other procedure they have used over the years for the same purpose -- maintaining the corridor. Whether or not the FAA has gone from a 105 heading to a "runway" heading to a 115° could very well be irrelevant if, in fact, the intention and the result is to ensure adequate aircraft movement (runway departure capacity) while maintaining the corridor. I think you will admit that we have made progress in keeping aircraft from residential areas in northern Eagan by bringing to the FAA's attention evidence of the unintentional overfights. I also think that this is evidence of our willingness to work with you and the FAA to resolve problems of this nature. I cannot, however, promise that more can be done than has been done, only that we will continue to monitor the situation and continue to work with the FAA to ensure compliance with our stated objectives. I hope this letter does not serve to further obfuscate the facts in this matter, but if I have not been clear or addressed the issue with which you are con- cerned, please let me know. Also, I apologize for not responding earlier to your September letter, but time catches up with me all too often in this position. I will do better in the future. Cordially, Tim ' erson Airport Director TA /tl / 4/ BILL FRENZEL MINNESOTA OFFICE: THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA ROOM 445 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH WASHINGTON OFFICE: BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 - 1326 1026 LONGWORTH BUILDING r (�Q� (�y`p 612- 881 -4800 202 - 225 -2871 Congreili '; of the niteb 'tatel.I Q� 3ou9e of Repre5entatibeo I, aSjington, MC 20515 -2303 November 21, 1986 Mr. Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Hohenstein: Thank you for your letter and the accompanying background information concerning Eagan's compatible use corridor to the southeast of MSP International. I appreciate your continued efforts to keep me informed of Eagan's efforts and needs in air noise abatement. Air traffic Manager Douglas Powers, of MSP, has forwarded my letter to the FAA's Regional Office in Des Plaines, Illinois, in accordance with FAA policy. He sent me the enclosed acknowledgment of my letter on the subject. I will advise you of the FAA's response as soon as I receive it. In the meantime, I appreciate your continued efforts, and look forward to our future cooperation in this matter. Yours ver truly, ( ''Y ( T)iaw d ‘Jklove N sotwo Bill Frenzel Member of Congress BF:dj ` " THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS 1 12 ) U.S. Department ofTransportation Air Traffic Control Tower Federal Aviation 6311 - 34th Avenue South Administration Minneapolis, MN 55450 November 25, 1986 • Mr. Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Hohenstein: Normally it is our policy to respond directly to our users and local com- munities on issues of a local nature, after coordination with appropriate FAA offices. It is also regional policy that all congressional type of inquiries be an- swered by Paul Bohr, FAA Regional Director. In this particular case, since your inquiry was not only directed to me but also to congressional interests, the regional office has decided that it would be suitable for them to an- swer these correspondence through the appropriate congressman. Therefore, I have forwarded your correspondence, together with background material, to the regional office so that they may prepare this response. They should be responding to the appropriate congressman by the end of the first week in December. I imagine then you could expect a response from your congressman shortly thereafter. As always, you are invited to contact me should you have any further questions. Sinceerely j / DouglF. Powers Air Traffic Manager agr Ivan 50 Years of Alr Traffic Control Excellence f — A Standard for the World — MEMORANDUM TO: Operations & Environmental Committee • FROM: Thomas W. Anderson General Counsel DATE: November 7, 1986 SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NOISE BUDGET WORKING GROUP Enclosed is the Report and Recommendations of the Noise Budget Working Group established by MAC in April, 1986. The Report recommends that MAC adopt a "noise budget" setting a cap on total aircraft noise by scheduled air carriers effective June 15, 1987. The Report reflects the views of a majority of Group members. (k complete list of Working Group members is attached.) Separate statements have also been included from Minneapolis Councilman Steven Cramer and Dave Koehser and from MAC staff represen- tatives, Nigel Finney and myself. All members of the Working Group have been invited by Chairperso Ashley to attend the Committee meeting to discuss the Report and recommended action. TWA /sjp Attachments (4) 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOISE BUDGET WORKING GROUP I. Introduction In April, 1986, the Metropolitan Airports Commission adopted a 27 -point program to address aircraft noise problems at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. A central element of this program was the establishment of a ten - member Working Group to "...evaluate the feasibility of implementing by ordinance at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport a noise budget for that facility. The evaluation should include an assessment of: 1) alternative ways of deter- mining 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, and 4) impacts on interstate commerce, air service, and competition. 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 draf4' ordinance; April 1, 1987 - consideration by MAC of draft ordinance; June 15, 1987 - pilot implementation of ordi- nance, if adopted by MAC." The Working Group has held 20 meetings beginning in June, 1986, to fully consider all aspects of the noise problem at MSP and to develop recommendations on the form of the noise reduction mecha- nism that would be most appropriate for implementation at MSP. Further, the Working Group with the assistance of a technical consultant provided by the Commission examined data, (compiled prior to the Northwest Airlines acquisition of Republic Airlines! suggesting that aircraft noise levels at MSP would continue to rise until approximately 1990 and stay above current levels through 1996 ", unless some noise reduction mechanism was adopted. Finally, the Working Group analyzed the results of a public opi- nion survey of MSP area residents concerning their sensitivity to various levels and types of aircraft noise. The Working Group and its consultant considered in detail some sixteen possible "noise budget" mechanisms for limiting aircraft noise at MSP. The Group sent its representatives to study aircraft noise reducing mechanisms already in place at Logan - 2 - 5 International Airport (Boston, MA), MacArthur Airport (Islip, NY), and Santa Ana- Orange County Airport and Burbank - Pasadena - Glendale Airport (CA). The Working Group received reports on these site visits in August, 1986. II. Objectives Before selecting a noise budget alternative, the Working Group adopted a statement of objectives to be accomplished in a noise reduction program: A. Overall Noise Reduction. To reduce the total aggregate noise energy produced by air carrier aircraft at the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport to levels being experienced in 1984. B. Distributional rIquity. To increase the daytime (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) use of the Preferential Runway Systeml to an annual average of five to six hours a day. In adopting a noise budget which accomplishes Objectives 1 and 2: alternatives should be measured against the following con- siderations: - flexibility for airlines /users - efficiency of airline operations - economic impact III. Recommendations A. A phased noise budget' concept, setting a cap on total aircraft noise by 'scheduled air carriers initially at 124.1: EPNdB and ultimately at 124.11 EPNdB, is recommended from some 16 alternative noise redaction mechanisms that were analyzed by the Working Group for possible implementation at MSP. The initial reduction, which is based upon 1984 twelve -month average noise levels, would be implemented on June 15,•1987 and represents an 18% reduction in total nois from August 1986 noise levels. The second step, which is based on January - June 1984 noise levels, would be imple- mented on June 15, 1990 and represents a 22% reduction in total noise from August 1986 levels. MAC should equitably- . 1 The Preferential Runway System (PRS) is defined as the followin= two operating configurations: (1) arrivals on Runways 29L and 29R, and departures on Runway 22; and (2) arrivals on Runway 4 lcl - 3 - allocate shares of total noise to incumbent and new entrant airlines. The initial cap on noise at MSP is set low enough to offer all communities currently impacted by nois, a substantial reduction in noise exposure from the August, 1986 baseline level. The noise.budget should be reviewed and evaluated annually, including an assessment of progress toward achieving Objective 2 ('Distributional Equity') through the 1987 -1992 timeframe. If significant annual progress toward meeting Objective 2 is not evident, addi- tional remedial measures should be implemented as early as June, 1988, and annually thereafter. The annual review and evaluation should take into account actual experience with any measures which will impact use of the PRS, for example, extension of Runway 4/22 or imposition of differential landing fees. 1. General Approach The Working Group initially identified a list of 16 possible "variations" on a noise budget: Alternative 1: Establish annual goals for maximum per- centages of Stage II operations by any air carrier. Alternative 2: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) for all air carriers. Alternative 3: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) for all air carriers. klternative 4: Establish a total daily noise energy level for the airport; allocate energy among existing and future carriers. and departures on Runways 11L and 11R. Although the Working Group accepted this definition for the purpose of analyzing alternative proposals and reaching a recommendation for MAC con- sideration, the Grout) recognized that the PRS as defined redirects very little aircraft traffic to the northeast, where departures and arrivals are already minimal. The Working Group recommends that the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Counci:_ (MASAC) examine ways to rectify this inequity through modifica- tions to the ?RS. Specific suggestions addressing this issue should be developed for consideration by MAC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). - 4 - Alternative 5: Establish a limit_ on total daily Stage II overations. Alternative 1A: Establish annual goals for maximum oer - centages of Stage II overations and establish an hourly slot system to per- mit more balanced use of the parallel runways and the Preferential Runway System. Alternative 1B: Establish annual goals for maximum per- centages of Stage II operations and establish a daily slot system. Alternative 1C: Establish annual goals for maximum per- centages of Stage II operations and improve PRS caoacity through an exten- sion of Runway 4/22. Alternative 2A: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and establish an hourly slot system. Alternative 2B: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and limit total daily overations. Alternative 2C: Establish an annual noise per seat index (NPSI) and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 3A: Establish an annual noise oer flight index (NPFI) and establish an hourly slot system. Alternative 3B: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) and establish daily slot system. Alternative 3C: Establish an annual noise per flight index (NPFI) and improve PRS caoacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 4C: Establish a total daily noise energy level for the Airport, allocate energy among air carriers and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. Alternative 5C: Establish a limit on total daily Stage II operations and improve PRS capacity through an extension of Runway 4/22. - 5 - After considerable debate and analysis of these alternatives, general concensus formed that a noise budget setting a ceiling _.1 total noise energy and equitably allocating that total energy to incumbent and new entrant airlines serving MSP was the preferred alternative for achieving the Group's objectives. The advantages of the pure "noise budget" approach were seen as: - Direct regulation of total noise energy generated at the Airport. - Strong incentive for air carriers to utilize quieter Stage III aircraft. - Less direct interference with airline scheduling and operations, thereby increasing airline flexibility and minimizing impacts on air commerce. kir carriers would be free to "budget" their noise allocations between more operations of quieter aircraft or fewer operations of noisier aircraft. - Less administrative burden to MAC. 2. Level of Noise Reduction A majority of group members recommends that MAC set an initial ^ar: on MSP noise at an average daily noise energy level of 124.30 EPNdB effective June 15, 1987 and an ultimate cap of 124.11 EPNdB as of June 15, 1990. This noise level is established based upon an assessment of noise levels in 1984, which was identified through the Group's public opinion survey as a time period during which a large number of metropolitan area residents experienced a substantial worsening of conditions. In addition, the Governor's Task Force on Aircraft Noise recommended that MAC establish a noise budget based upon "aggregate noise levels in 1984." A reduction in average daily noise levels to 124.30 EPNdB is equivalent to approximately an 18% reduction in total noise energy from levels experienced in August, 1986; a reduction to 124.11 EPNdB is equivalent to approximately a 22% reduction from August, 1986 noise levels. The initial energy reduction would require nearly a 30% cut in _ Stage II aircraft operations from August, 1986 operating levels, assuming that all flights would be switched to Stage III 2 EPNdB is "effective perceived noise level." The perceived n Be level (PNL) is the actual noise level adjusted to account for the fact that the higher frequency part of the noise spectrum is the 6 _ aircraft. In addition to the cuts in Stage II operations required to reduce total noise energy, the rule would require additional cuts from • air carriers presently serving MSP ( "incumbent carriers ") in order to create a pool for new entrant carriers. Because no scheduled air carrier was willing to participate in the Working Group's activities, it was difficult to assess the precise impact of the Group's proposal on any particular air carrier. Assessment of the impact upon Northwest Airlines, the airport's largest user, was also made more difficult by Northwest's merger with Republic Airlines. On October 1, 1986, Northwest reduced its total aircraft operations at the Airport by 18 %, reflecting efficiencies from its merger with Republic as well as seasonal schedule adjustments. Under the proposed ordi- nance, Northwest would initially be required to cut as many as 42 daily aircraft operations from its current schedule. In addi- tion, all other incumbent air carriers would be required to cut approximately 48 daily operations. These estimates for required cuts in operations described above assume no replacement of noisy aircraft with quieter aircraft. 3. Annual Review The Working Group recognizes the importance of the Preferential Runway System (PRS) as a mechanism for distributing noise equitably throughout the area and urges FAA to utilize the PRS during any hours of the day when numbers of aircraft operations allow its use. While the "noise budget" alternative selected does not guarantee or mandate use of the PRS during a certain number of hours per day, the Working Group concluded that the "noise budget" could permit some increased use of PRS in the short and middle term in the event air carriers are unable imme- diately to substitute a substantial number of quiet technology aircraft. However, because achievement of Objective 2 cannot in any way be guaranteed, the Working Group recommends that the primary-contributor to an individual's perception of the noisi- ness of a sound. The effective perceived noise level is obtained by integrating the tone- corrected PNL over the period of a singlce event. introducing considerations of frequency and duration. FPNdB has been used for many years as a measure of aircraft noise. 3 See footnote 1. . �3 - 7 - noise budget be reviewed and evaluated annually to assess progress toward achieving increased "distributional equity" through use of the PPS and recommends further that additional remedial action be taken by MAC if the objective of "Distributional Equity" is not achieved. B. MAC should announce a schedule for reviewing the Noise Budget proposal developed by the Working Group so that the views of the scheduled airlines, other aviation users, surrounding communities and the 0.S. Department of Transportation can be obtained. A p r eliminary public hearing should be held in January, 1987, on the Working Group's recommended approach and draft ordinance, in advance of adoption of a final noise budget ordinance. As noted, the Working Group's efforts to develop a noise budget ordinance have been made more difficult by the unwillingness of the scheduled airlines to participate in the Working Group's activities. In addition, the FAA chose to monitor the Working Group's activities rather than to participate fully in the deve- lopment of the Group's recommendations. Finally, the views of other airport users and all surrounding communities have not yet been solicited on the Noise Budget concept under consideration. The Working Group thus recommends that MAC announce its schedule for considering the noise budget concept the Group has develop(` and that MAC conduct two public hearings between now and April , 1987: a first public hearing to receive community, aviation industry and, hopefully, U.S. Department of Transportation com- ments on the noise budget approach of the Working Group; and a • second public hearing on the overall Part 150 Aircraft Noise Compatibility Program, including the final version of a noise budget as part of that comprehensive submission. The Working Group is currently in the process of drafting a detailed outline and draft ordinance specifying the precise mechanisms which should be utilized by MAC. It is expected that the draft ordinance, together with a comprehensive report setting out all supporting documentation, will be submitted to MAC within the next three to four weeks. • C. MAC should include the Noise Budget ordinance in its compre- hensive Part 150 Aircraft Noise Compatibility cProgram being t readied for submission to FAA. A final p g on the comprehensive Part 150 program should be held not later_ than April, 1987. The Working Group would not that MAC'S decision to con - duct two public hearings on the noise budget approach and then on the overall Part 150 program should delay either process. One' r - 8 - the recommended scenario, MAC could both act on the noise budget ordinance and submit its comprehensive Part 150 Program to FAA by April, 1987. November 7, 1986 NOISE BUDGET WORKING GROUP MEMBERS . • Jocelyn Olson Bill Lester Special Assistant Attorney General Metropolitan Council Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 300 Metro Square Bldg. 520 Lafayette Road 7th & Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 296 -7343 (612) 291 -6630 Dave Kelso John Harrington Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Metropolitan Council 520 Lafayette Road 300 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55155 7th & Robert Street (612) 296 -7372 St. Paul, MN 55101 David M. Woodrow Thomas Anderson Director of Aviation General Counsel 3M - Aviation Dept. Bldg. 670 -01 M Ai Commission 690 Bayfield Street St. Paul, MN 55107 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (612) 778 -5800 (612) 726 -8138 Nigel Finney Councilman Steve Cramer Ni g 307 City Hall Director of Airport Development Minneapolis, MN 55417 Metropolitan Airports Commission (612) 348 -2211 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Bill Nimmo (612) 726 -8128 Dayton Hudson Corporation Priebe 777 Nicollet Mali, 14th Floor Don n Priebe Minneapolis, MN 55402 Richfield, MN 55423 (612) 370 -6477 (612) 869 -8186 David Koehser 5740 - 10th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 (612) 823 -7242 Roy Madgwick Evan Futterman Howard, Needles, Tammen, Bergendoff Howard, Ne T vnen, Bergendoff 1500 N. Beauregard Street Alexandria, Virginia 22133 Alexandria, Virginia 22133 (703) 998 -3200 (703) 998 -3200 Frank Benson Jack Corbett _ Federal Aviation Administration Spiegel & McDiarmid Airports District Office 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. 6301 34th Avenue South Washington, D.C. 20005 -4798 Minneapolis, MN 55450 (202) 879 -4023 (612) 725 -3346 a(.0 STATEMENT BY STEVE CRAMER AND DAVE KOEHSER • Minneapolis Council Member Steve Cramer was one of the two representatives from MASAC sharing a vote that represented the citizen side of MASAC Dave Koehler was the SMAAC respresentative on the Noise Budget Working Group. • This statement is not a dissent from the final report, but rather an affirmation of Section III (3). It is the view of the Working Group members living in Minneapolis that Objectives One and Two - an overall cap on noise energy and equitable distribution of that noise - are of equal importance. While this document deals primarily with Objective One, we want to emphasize our support for the report hinges on the annual evaluation process in Section III (3): This recommended process reauires further action if the effect of the noise budget falls short of achieving Objective Two. needed adjustments can take many forms; e.g., removal of general aviation from the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport, enhancement of the preferential runway system, or other techniques. To prompt a thorough review of what avenues might be employed to achieve Objective Two, the Working Group is forwarding to MASAC a request to explore options for better air traffic disbursement. MAC must be prepared to take further action at the time of the first noise budget evaluation and every year thereafter to insure that Objective Two is met. During the Working Group deliberations, the representatives from Minneapolis argued that implementation of a "slot" system, coupled with a fleet mix rule (exemplified in Options lA or 1B) would more closely achieve Objectite Two than the recommended alternative. We would like to urge that tf -- during the course of public hearings - data is provided that suggests .a slot system would be superior, that the subject of slots combined . with a fleet mix rule be re- examined by the MAC. Finally, we agree that the FAA should be consulted about the noise budget. However, the decision to implement the noise budget should be . made independent from and prior to any formal FAA review and comment on the MAC Part 150 Plan. MAC Staff Report - Noise Budget Ordinance Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport The Noise Budget Working Group, has recommended the adoption of an Ordinance which would establish a noise energy limit for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The proposed noise budget was adopted by a 6 -4 vote with MAC staff, the Minnesota Business Aircraft Association and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council user representative voting against its adoption. There are three concerns with the proposal adopted by the Noise Budget Working Group: 1) the method by which noise will be controlled, 2) the extent of the reduction in noise below the August, 1986 base period, and 3) the inability of the proposed rule to achieve "distributional equity ". 1. METHOD OF NOISE CONTROL A major focus of the Noise Budget Working Group was the evaluation of alter- native methods of controlling noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. The Working Group developed an initial list of 16 alternative approaches, however based on extensive analysis completed over a series of approximately 20 meetings, these alternatives were reduced to a choice between the adoption of a mechanism that would limit the amount of aircraft noise (noise energy limit) or a mechanism that would limit the number of aircraft operations (aircraft slots). Each option has differing administrative, legal, and opera- tional implications. The consensus of the Group was that a limit on total noise energy, and the allocation of that energy to incumbent and new airlines serving MSP, would be preferable to the "aircraft slot" approach that would have the MAC control and limit all aircraft operations on either an hourlyhorndail basis as an indirect means of controlling aircraft noise. P energy concept was preferred over the slot approach because the imposition by MAC of noise energy limits may be less susceptable to a legal challenge than would MAC efforts to control aircraft operations. While the legal risk was only one factor considered, the importance of avoiding unnecessary delays in imple- menting a noise reduction mechanism was given considerable weight. Further, consistent with the Airline Deregulation Act, the carriers would be free under this approach to allocate their noise energy between more operations of quieter aircraft or fewer ofarathenairlinesstoroperatefquieterraircraft .in fact, be considerable incentives 2. LEVEL OF NOISE CONTROL the The second component of the action take� Working for Group initial levels of noise energy reduction. The ecortmendaton on June 15, 1987, is a noise energy level 18% below that of August 1986. In order to achieve a reduction in airport noise energy of this magnitude, a cutback from August, 1986 activity levels of 130 operations (or 65 flights) by aircraft of average noise levels would be required. In addition, it is necessary to set aside a pool of noise energy to allow new entrant airlines to initiate service to the Twin Cities; to incorporate this pool, a total of 160 operations (80 flights) by aircraft of average noise levels would have ;ZCI • w to be cut from the incumbent air carriers August 1986 schedule. The Northwest /Republic merger, effective on October 1, 1986, has moved toward these cuts. The proposed noise energy limit would require a further cut of 42 daily Northwest operations and a reduction of 48 daily operations by other airlines. The numbers provided above are for aircraft of average noise levels, and assume no replacement of the noisier aircraft with quiet aircraft. The proposed reduc- tion of 160 operations is significant based upon data provided to the Working Group with regard to the ability of airlines replace noisier aircraft with quiet aircraft. For example, Northwest Airlines does not have a sufficient number of quieter Stage III aircraft of an appropriate size to replace noisier DC -9 operations, nor does the airline have enough MD80 aircraft to effectively replace 8 -727 operations. United Airlines is presently in a similar position with no Stage III aircraft smaller than a 8-767 to replace B -727 and 8- 737 -200 operations. Given this inability to replace Stage II operations with equivalent Stage III operations, an immediate substantial loss in air service to MSP could be anticipated, with a resultant negative effect on economic development for the entire State. In addition to the immediate impacts, the extent of the cut and the lack of alternative aircraft would also preclude the airlines' ability to develop additional service in future years. Such actions seem inconsistent with Statewide efforts to attract job producing business, both national and inter- national, to Minnesota. The majority proposal also presents a greater potential for litigation challenging the Ordinance as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. The Governor's Task Force on Aircraft Noise, in its report published in 1985, endorsed the adoption of a noise budget for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport based upon "....aggregate noise levels in 1984....". As an active participant in the Governor's Task Force, it is the impression of MAC that the intent of this section of the report was to establish noise levels similar to those experienced during the open window season in 1984. The proposal adopted by the majority of the Working Group is in direct contrast to this approach. The action taken by the Metropolitan Airports Commission in April, 1986, to recommend an evaluation of the feasiblity of a noise budget, was based upon the assumptions inherent in the recommendation from the Governor's Task Force. Had this approach been followed, the recommendation would have been for a rollback to the noise levels of August, 1984, which would have produced an 11% reduction in noise energy from the August, 1986, base period. 3. DISTRIBUTIONAL EQUITY In addition to the above concerns relating to the rule as adopted by the majority of the Working Group, it is important to recognize that the proposed rule does not move toward accomplishing the second objective adopted by the Group, that of increasing daytime use of the preferential runway system (PRS). In fact, the Noise Budget approach as adopted by the Working Group may serve to decrease PRS use over time as more quiet aircraft are substituted for noisier aircraft. Under this situation, it is necessary to focus on ways of increasing the capability of the preferential runway system. The'proposed extension to Runway 4/22 would provide an increase of between 20 and 30 operations an hour to the capacity of the preferential runway system, and could move substantially toward achievement the distributional equity. The Working Group recognized tY the Noise Budget would not provide the desired increase in PRS use, however failed to specifically endorse any proposal to meet the objective. SUMMARY Based on the above factors, MAC staff endorses the concept of a noise energy limit as the appropriate noise budget mechanism, and suggests that an 11% reduction in total noise energy from August, 1986 levels be eva- luated by the Commission as an alternative to the proposal of the Working Group. This initial rollback would be consistent with the intent of the Governor's Task Force on aircraft noise, would provide a meaningful reduction in noise exposure to the community, and would stand a higher probablity of suc- cessfully withstanding legal challenges. MAC staff also recommends a second step cutback to average annual noise levels of 1984 be accomplished in June, 1990. This action would provide an additional level of noise reduction for the community over the ensuing three -year time period. Finally, MAC staff recom- mends that the Runway 4/22 extension be integrated into the Noise Budget process to allow the achievement of the second objective, increased day -time use of of the preferential runway system. 11/7/86 • STATEMENT BY MINNESOTA BUSINESS AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION AND METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL . USER REPRESENTATIVE Noise budget working group members Bill Nimmo and David Woodrow cast two of the four votes against adoption of the proposed noise budget. Nimmo represents the Minnesota Business Aircraft Associ- ation. Woodrow is the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council User Representative. Although both working group members favor noise reduction steps, they voted against the majority proposal for the following reasons: 1. A reduction in airport noise energy of the magnitude proposed by the six member working group majority is too severe for a major hub airport such as Minneapolis -St. Paul. In order to achieve a reduction in airport noise energy of this magnitude, an immediate elimination of approximately 160 operations would be required: (Please see Section 2 of the MAC Staff Report submitted by the MAC working group members voting against adoption of the ordinance). Furthermore, the working group did not evaluate the number of additional reductions which would be required in order to meet the second objective (distributional equity). 2. The working group did not consider the ultimate effects that the majority proposal would have upon passenger service. Specif- ically, potential problems such as schedule readjustments, pas- senger seat shortages and increased airline ticket prices were not addressed. 3. The working group did not consider the effects which such a se- vere noise reduction would have upon the local economy. Effects upon the state employment level and also upon interstate commerce should have been studied. 4. The majority proposal neither accounts for seasonal variation= in flight scheduling required to meet the travel needs of the region nor addresses the likelihood of a growing regional economy. 5. The.majority proposal presents a very significant potential for litigation challenging the ordinance based on an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. 6. A noise budget imposing restrictions as severe as those proposed by the working group majority is not feasible or necessary in and h we e of bee taken that been point noise and will b reduction plan. • ' y 3 kiD . . '�vrL a vG) � o IC p U dA C L > X. y C U 0 1. 2 I 1 Ul 0 Illi . IA Ai 76. C 0 .1, 0 111 0 m 0 W m to !, tO u M * t O Q 0 dF Z t - ) M jl� N • C N r.'■ E 0 111 . aay Se pa, >+ >4 o M� ��� en - to ,--I 0 N N N oO �O CO M 0 M M 'b L11 —I '..1 ,.I N e>' z In M N O M N O •.i t11 N M rn co O N ' rn N N In �-1 r0 H N to r-I Z t L� Z C 4 02 �pn0� O a - y�..J� iad p, N b 0 O� (d a" b M .i 1.) EL ,..4 i 1-A 0 • to 0 rCI 1 § 04 ri , : - i I 0 q 64 wr:i 33 SCHEDULED AIR CARRIER AND COMMUTER OPERATION SUMMARY DEPARTURES HOURLY % TOTAL CARRIER COMMUTER ___] RUNWAYS USE OF RUNWAYS SCHEDULED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS OPERATIONS 04 0.5 55 ( 0.5 %) 35 20 22 9.5 791 ( 8.5 %) 500 291 11 67.0 6055 (65.0 %) 4544 1511 29 23.0 2420 (26.0 %) 1321 9_099 E 1 TOTAL DEPARTURES 9321 (100.0 %) 6400 2921 - ARRIVALS HOURLY % TOTAL CARRIER COMMUTER RUNWAYS USE OF RUNWAYS SCHEDULED D Afl RAFT OPERATIONS OPERATIONS 04 17.5 164 ( 1.9 %) 119 45 22 1.5 52 ( 0.1 %) 42 10 11 35.5 5047 (54.5 %) 4033 1014 29 45.5_ 4058 (43.5 %) 2206 1852 TOTAL ARRIVALS 9321 (100.0 %) 6400 2921 4 OCTOBER, 1986 POISE COMPIAINIlS by lid 4akvoffi • City Landing Takeoff Apple Valley 1 6 Bloomington 4 39 Brooklyn Park 0 1 Burnsville 1 28 Eagan 10 60 Edina 3 28 Falcon Heights 0 1 Hopkins 0 1 ' Inver Grove Heights 7 35 Mendota Heights 8 51 Minneapolis 316 342 Minnetonka 1 0 Richfield 13 54 Robbinsdale 1 0 Plymouth 1 0 St. Louis Park 26 1 St. Paul 5 12 South St. Paul 1 0 Sunfish Lake 0 2 West St. Paul 2 0 TOTAL 400 661 3S OCTOffi2, 1986 NOISE COMPLAINTS Category and Time of Day During October the following complaints were recorded: Category Number Percentage Excessive Noise 626 56.8 Activity Interruption 181 16.4 Nighttime Restrictions 105 9.5 Run -up 8 .7 Low Flying Aircraft 90 8.2 Structural Disturbance 48 4.4 Helicopter 5 .4 Secondary Airports 29 2.6 Ground Noise 11 1.0 TOTAL 1103 100.0% Time Number 2400 -0559 42 0600 -1159 279 1200 -1559 138 1600 -1959 243 2000 -2359 401 CAP 0 1103 `3 (10 1 1. 1 1 1 I- 1 r-1 I 1 1 1 I r--1 r-1 I r1 N r1 I I .-1 I I 1 r-1 1 1 0 �7Z+ rl C CO d o ,- 1 • 1 I I I I 1 I I r - - 1 —I 1 I r♦ d M N I N I 4 I l rl M I -I N N . g t l . I do 4 1.....4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 -1 4 4 4 1 4 .-4 .-4 .--1 4 4 4 4 --1 4 I 4 ,i.r) "cr • 1 i • • 1 t71 M 1 01 N N .--1 N I I 1 CV ff r1 I I N I 1 r-I 1 1 Ul .-1 M r-1 C) 1 •z1' .--1 r1 CO V b .54 A `m3 4 L c'�'UINN --IMM 1 r1 1 N I rlrl V'cocr 1 1 M10r1 0• N {( CO do . I I I I I I N I N I I I I I I I 1 I 1 r1 I '-1 I I I I r� l I •-1 I CO Q Is. ij 0'0 ICI. MMr4N01r ♦Nr11.ONN(-IrIMMrlr - IC'MN IO NN I I V1 r1 f' rl lt7 U ._1 ri Q r-1 01 t C U 110CNMU'1N01COl0'C hr'. r r - crin) - �Nu Om osc1 1 Mlf1 . e!' r1 r-1 o cPr1tf1Mr- 00 '1 r--1if1M01r-I N NO 1O tf1r♦ l0rrn NO30l.nrn M01M 10 CO r_1 NNNrl MN.--INrINr- Ir1N(-INr- INr1NN V N Nr1r-1r-INrlr1 N • 7Qr 10 vz In W 0 . as c"'100 If) MIS¢ i' r1Mh 0U1O00 r -101c1'U101Q101OtOONrlCOMMc' VTN M 0 . i i 'I"V'tflNrlr N 'r-INN - iMMUIUIt- CMNMMMMN 0 • r-1 _ . • P r-I NMc' tn�ON0001O r-1NMQ' tfl 1 Ot� 0 0 Cr) 0∎ -INM V Ul1OtN 0001Or-I 110 (5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co Q r-I r1 - r-1 r1 . -I r'1 r'1 (-I r1 N N N N N N N N N N M M (� 32 .