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 .