Loading...
03/11/1987 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH 11, 1987 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Citizens League Airport Committee B. Metropolitan Council Airport Adequacy Study III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Update IV. NEW BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN DUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: MARCH 6, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR MARCH 11, 987 I. MINUTES Enclosed on pages 1-73 is a copy of the minutes of the Airport Noise Committee meeting for February 4, 1987. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. In addition, City Councilmember Vic Ellison raised a question about the Airport Noise Committee minutes of November 12, 1986. The pertinent section is included on page 1 1 for your review. He expressed concern that the first sentence of the last paragraph could be construed to mean that the City is in favor of relocating the airport. Since the purpose of the study is to determine the adequacy of the present plant to meet future needs, it is recommended that the minutes be amended such that the first sentence of the last paragraph of the exhibit on page _5r_ be changed to "Hohenstein indicated that the City should have input into any study of airport adequacy, but that relocation of the airport would raise more difficult issues." It would be appropriate to take action on the amendment of these minutes as well. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Citizens League Airport Committee Enclosed on pages S1' you will find the charge and proposed issues to be undertaken by the Citizens League Airport Committee. City staff has membership to the League and is sitting on this Committee. The general thrust of the Committee is to leave vested interests at the door and to attempt to pursue an overall solution for the region in a positive constructive forum. Therefore, staff will not be representing the City of Eagan per se but will serve as liason to the Airport Noise Committee in matters raised by the Citizens League. Please review the outline and share any insights you may have in the matter. B. Metropolitan Airport Adequacy Study The Metropolitan Council has reconsidered its original recommendation that certain cities and angencies participate in the financial responsibility for its long -term airport adequacy study. The Council has passed a budget amendment, earmarking a total of $120,000 to begin the study over the next nine months, with additional funding being budgeted for 1988 for such work as will extend into the new year. It should be emphasized that this study is intended to determine plant adequacy and is not intended to be a study of relocation. Staff is yet to receive an official notification of this change nor an invitation to participate in the study itself. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor Update Staff will update the Committee on progress and activity in the Corridor issue. The only significant new issue is the FAA regulations found on pages which require environmental impact documentation for new and revised air traffic control procedures which routinely route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet above ground level. It is apparent that this regulation was not followed by the FAA in undertaking the change of the corridor procedures over the last two years. The planning consultants of Eagan and Mendota Heights are in the process of preparing a base map showing compatible land uses which will be used to show a differential impact of placing noise contours in different locations. If staff makes any further progress between now and Wednesday's meeting, distribution of such information will be made at that time. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: No action is required at this time. IV. NEW BUSINESS * DISTRIBUTION Although Distribution did not appear on the agenda distributed to the press, Tom Baker has provided the Wall Street Journal article found on page 3. The article is unsettling because of the FAA perception that local officials will not provide compatible land use for the absorption of noise. This clearly is not the case in Eagan and Mendota Heights. In addition, please note the portion of the article which suggests that airport operators grant the FAA veto power over possible noise rules in exchange for a prolonged phase out of Stage II aircraft. This likewise limits local control while placing no burden on the industry. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m. ' Adginistrative Assistant cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Dale C. Runkle, City Planner Paul H. Hauge, City Attorney Enclosures JDH/jeh Subject To Approval MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE Eagan, Minnesota February 4, 1987 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Wednesday, February 4, 1987 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman John Gustin, Carolyn Braun, Tom Baker and Gary Campbell. Absent were Carol Dozois, Otto Leitner, Dustin Mirick and Joe Harrison. Also present were Tom Hedges, City Administrator; Aaron Hedges and Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant. MINUTES Upon motion by Baker, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the January 14, 1987 Airport Noise Committee meeting were approved. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS Administrative Assistant Hohenstein formally introduced Gary Campbell as the newest member of the Airport Noise Committee, having been appointed by the City Council at its organizational meeting in January. He then introduced City Administrator Tom Hedges who reviewed the following items. Hedges indicated that Otto Leitner, Dustin Mirick and Gary Campbell had been appointed to the Airport Noise Committee as regular members and that Joe Harrison had been appointed as an alternate member. He further indicated that the City Council had determined that the Committee should elect its own officers and that the group could choose to merely ratify the recommendation made at its last meeting. He stated further that the group should consider electing a vice chairperson. Upon motion by Baker, seconded by Gustin, all members voting in favor, John Gustin was elected as Airport Noise Committee Chair and, there being one nomination, Carolyn Braun was likewise elected Vice Chairperson. Hedges next reviewed the Eagan City Council policies for commissions and committees. He stated that those policies were prepared to provide continuity among the various advisory groups of the Council and to delineate some general expectations. He said that the policies were generally those to which the Council itself adhered. Those policies were as follows: 1. Any commission /committee member who choses to abstain on any issue must state his or her reasons for the abstention in the official commission /committee minutes. 2. City funds, unless budgeted within a specific departmental budget of the City, cannot be allocated for any purposes, including special studies, conference attendance, capital expenditures or any related activity without approval by the City Council. This also includes special studies or reports whereby expenses are covered by the City's escrow policy. 1 1 3. The City Council will be notified of each and every special commission /committee meeting through notification by the City Administrator. A special meeting requires one week's notification and the specific purpose which is noticed to the City Council by the commission /committees through the City Administrator. Any special commission /committee meeting can only be called by a minimum of three members. 4. Whenever possible, special meetings with City staff called by the chairperson or member of commission /committee will be announced to the entire commission /committee. The purpose of the meeting is to be defined. Gustin asked if City Administrator Hedges could make a brief statement of policy from the City Council concerning the Airport Noise Committee. Hedges stated that the City has a long history of concern for Airport Noise. The Airport Noise Committee was formed to respond to the 180 turn experiment and the effects of deregulation. He stated that the Council relies on the Airport Noise Committee to monitor the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Federal Aviation Administration and other airport noise bodies. He stated further that there would be a need in the near future to do some strategic planning to define a focus for the group in the future. Baker indicated that it appears that the City is approaching a culmination point with the Part 150 Study, the corridor issue, the noise budget and other issues. Hedges said that this could serve as a punctuation point for certain of the Committee's activities and that it might be appropriate to meet with the City Council in the future to define other needs. At this point Hedges and Hedges excused themselves from the meeting. NOISE BUDGET ORDINANCE COMMENT Hohenstein reviewed the comments made concerning the Noise Budget Ordinance. He indicated that written comments had been forwarded to the MAC to compliment the oral comment made by Chairman Gustin at the Noise Budget public hearing. He further indicated that it was his impression that the response of the industry was not to the possibility of a budget at Minneapolis /St. Paul itself, but on its impact around the nation as other airports would adopt similar ordinances. No action was taken on this matter. FAR PART 150 STUDY Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reviewed staff comments prepared on behalf of the Committee and the Council on the land use portion of the Part 150 Study. He indicated that the MAC would like to finalize the study and forward it to the FAA by April. Baker indicated that he was not certain that this schedule could be met. No action was taken on this item. EAGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR Hohenstein reviewed the progress made with the city of Mendota Heights regarding the meeting held between the cities on the afternoon of the 4th. He stated that there was a general discussion about the history of the corridor, but that the group had focused most on the need to reestablish equitable standards for both sides of the corridor. Tom Baker said that the meeting was enlightening, especially in terms of the prospective given on the 2 MAC and MASAC decisions of 1984. Hohenstein stated that the planning consultants for both cities would work together to develop a base map showing the land use patterns in the corridor and how both current flight tracks and noise contours related to that area. He also said that the two cities would meet again in the near future to review those maps and further consider a course of action. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by acclamation at 8:58 p.m. JDH Date Chairperson Secretary 3 3 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. enstein indicated that the City has been generally supportive of the study at a staff level. He further stated_._that< =ref ocation 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. CITIZENS LEAGUE 708 South 3rd Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 338 -0791 AIR TRANSPORTATION AND THE METROPOLITAN AREA The committee shall work to achieve a consensus on how the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area will continue to provide adequate facilities for national and international air traffic while providing a livable environment for its citizens. The committee should evaluate: * The role of the main airport in the physical, social and economic development of the metropolitan area. * The physical capacity of the present airport, including the potential for construction of additional runway and terminal capacity. * The potential for persuading or requiring corporate aircraft and other smaller planes to divert to satellite airports. * The "environmental" capacity of the airport, in terms of acceptable noise levels, and the likelihood that various approaches to easing noise levels can be realized, including such approaches as (a) holding down the number of flights, (b) moving to quieter aircraft, (c) greater use of preferential runways, and (d) purchase and removal of dwellings in locations with the greatest noise levels and resale of the land for more compatible uses, such as industry. * The likelihood that in the long run fewer airlines - -using larger, quieter aircraft- -will replace the large number of newcomer airlines- -using smaller, noiser aircraft that have appeared under deregulation. * The need for and cost of a new airport: to replace the existing airport, to relieve the existing airport, or to serve as "insurance" in case air traffic and noise exceed projections, including issues related to Ifinding a site for a new airport. * The effects that a new airport might have on existing and new development in the metropolitan area, including the issue of the dependence of certain businesses and industries on the airport at its current location. Background Air commerce is projected to grow steadily, nationally and worldwide. Consequently, to obtain its share of economic growth the Twin Cities area needs airport facilities that make it possible for visitors to arrive and depart with ease. The system of airports that serves the Twin Cities area (including Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and its satellite airports in the metropolitan area) is the fifth largest airport system in the nation. It also is becoming one of the more congested systems. Delays for incoming and departing passengers at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport are increasing, as a result of rapid growth in operations (takeoffs and landings) in recent years. The number of takeoffs and landings has increased from 490 a day in 1977 to.more than 1,100 in 1986. The airport has enough to provide terminal capacity for more than twice as many passengers as the 14 million accommodated annually now. Although existing terminal facilities are reaching capacity for passengers and airplanes, long -term plans of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) call for a second terminal across the runway to the north of the existing terminal. MAC officials anticipate that growth in passengers can be accommodated at the existing airport, if (a) airlines use higher- capacity airplanes, (b) corporate aircraft are diverted to St. Paul Downtown Airport and other smaller airports in the metropolitan area, and (c) the • northeast - southwest runway that sends planes over St. Paul and Bloomington- Richfield, is extended by 2,500 feet for a total length of 10,000 feet. However, in the years since airline deregulation has gone into effect, more flights with fewer passengers have been the rule. Owners of corporate and other private aircraft are opposed to moving from the main airport. Some public officials in Bloomington and Richfield are leading the opposition to runway extension. Meanwhile the problem of noise has become particularly acute. To illustrate: since 1977 the amount of time each day that residents near the airport experience severe noise levels (above a certain noise threshold as measured in decibels) has more than doubled .iri many locations and, in some locations, more than tripled. Some Minneapolis city officials, experiencing a big increase in complaints about airport noise, are opposing any physical expansion at the airport and are recommending a new airport at a site further from the population. The current daily volume of operations is about 38 higher than a level that the chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC; considers to be the maximum for tolerable noise (about 800 operations a day). If nothing is done, by 1990 the amount of time each clay that residents experience severe noise will be double what it is today, according to consultants for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, as the daily volume of takeoffs and landings grows to about 1,400. The consultants portray the noise problem as diminishing considerably between 1990 and 2000, even if nothing is done. They project that by the year 2000, even as daily volume increases to more than 1,500 takeoffs and landings, noise will decrease to 1977 levels, because they expect newer, quieter airplanes will replace older, noisier airplanes. Critics disagree. They claim the physical capacity of the airport will be exhausted at the present site, regardless of what is done about noise. They also disagree that larger, quieter planes will be used to the extent projected by MAC consultants. An advisory committee to the MAC is working on development of a noise "budget" ordinance. One option being evaluated would allocate a specific amount of noise among the airlines, which then would have to devise their own methods of living within the budgeted amount. In 1987 the Metropolitan Council is planning to conduct a study of the feasibility of constructing a new airport. 7 CITIZENS LEAGUE 708 South 3rd Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 338 -0791 - TO: Airports Committee FROM: Staff SUBJ: Airport Issues /Preliminary Schedule of Committee Activity MAIN QUESTION: How will the Twin Cities area meet its air transportation needs in the future while providing a livable environment around airport facilities? Issues that need to be understood by committee members before answering this question: 1) Physical Capacity of Airport Facilities- - Likely growth in air traffic demand. The FAA expects International Airport to reach its operating capacity around the turn of the century. Metro Council projects MSP will have sufficient capacity by 2003, assuming the forecasted increase in general aviation demand will be absorbed by the reliever airports in the system. Space limitations at current MSP site may limit its expansion. 2) Environment Around Airport Facilities- - A. Extent of Noise Problems -- - -What is an acceptable level of noise, or how much is too much? - -How much of the residential area is exposed to intolerable noise and what is the impact on those residences? - -Cost of mitigating noise vs. cost of limiting capacity? -- Distributional equity of air traffic? - -How soon can noise be mitigated? - -Many residents around facilities believe MAC could do much more than it has. B. Methods to Combat Noise- - Although the MAC recognizes the noise problem and has approved noise abatement measures, it feels the FAA has tied its hands on implementing some of these measures. Other measures (e.g., voluntary banning of night flights) require cooperation of airlines. -- Preferential runway system - - Banning training flights from MSP - -Use of reliever airports - -Noise budget - - Buyout of properties under flight path -- Extending runway 4/22 - - Prohibiting GA aircraft at International (Continued) 7 -2- - -Heed for a second airport. The FAA believes the metro area will need a new major airport around the turn of the century. The Metro Council's forecasted plan for airports by 2003 includes a new airport in west central Hennepin County for general aviation. - - -Costs and environmental impacts of these various methods; who will bear these costs? 3) Economic Impacts- - Air transportation facilities are important to both the state and metropolitan economy, with particular impacts on the local economy near the airport. -- Impact of airlines industry on economy -- Impact on firms which rely heavily on airport to conduct business -- Economic impact of noise control methods on both the airlines industry and the community as a whole 4) Other Airports- - Other cities afflicted with aircraft noise problem have varied ways of dealing or not dealing with the problem. For example, Boston and Denver have instituted noise budgets. Orange County, CA allows only the quietest aircraft. Denver is proposing huge second major airport. St. Louis proposes combination of acquiring affected neighborhoods, acoustically treating others, rezoning undeveloped land, enforcing some aircraft operating guidelines. Schedule of Activity for Airports Committee General Timetable I. Orientation February 27 -- Introduction to committee process by CL President; Charge from Board of Directors; Introduction of committee members; Overview of airport issues by chair and staff March 5 -- Management of Facilities: A. Jeff Hamiel, MAC executive director. Explain: Twin Cities air transportation facilities; how the system will accommodate expected increase in future operations. B. Doug Powers, MSP Control Tower Manager March 12 -- Tour of MSP International Airport. (May need second date to accomodate all committee members.) Ct -3- March 19 -- Air Carriers Perspective: A. Scheduled Airlines B. Cargo Airlines C. General Aviation. March 26 -- Economic perspective of how air transportation needs will be met: A. David Braslau, Braslau Associates. What would happen if airport was not there; air commerce impacts on the regional and state economy. B. Response from panel of Chambers, of Commerce from St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington- Richfield, Dakota Co. April 2 -- Major Users Perspectives on Future Air Transportation: A. Companies, e.g., IDS, 3M B: Travel Agencies April 9 -- Environmental perspective of how air transportation needs can be met: A. Minneapolis City Council; Richfield B. Community groups C. MASAC D. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency April 16 -- Governmental Perspective on meeting air transportation needs: A. Hal Greenwood, MAC Chair B. Steve Keefe, Metro Council C. Franklin Benson, FAA Mpls District Office April 23 -- What can we learn from other airports' experiences II. Additional Resource People as Heeded- - April 16, 23, and 30 III. Committee Debate (with additional input as needed) May 7 and 21 June 4 and 18 July 2, 16 and 30 August 13 and 27 September 3, 10, and 17 ir 12/21/83 1050.1D Appendix 3 �' '44- I APPENDIX 3. AIR TRAFFIC I! 1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES. f a. Regional Offices. Responsibility for environmental assessment and � preparation of EISs and FONSIs may be delegated to field facilities or retained within the regional office, with assistance from the field "ro facilities. Regional offices and field facilities shall provide input to an environmental assessment when requested by Air Traffic Service (AAT) or t other services. t b. Headquarters. The office originating the proposed systemwide action is responsible for making environmental assessments and preparing o t FONSIs or EISs. Input may be requested from regional offices and field facilities for an action originating within headquarters. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OR FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. After completion of the environmental assessment (including noise 1 analyses), the responsible official will determine whether the proposed procedure will require an EIS or FONSI or is categorically excluded. z- 3. ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES. The following actions are subject to environmental assessment and preparation i of an EIS or FONSI. a. New or revised air traffic control procedures which routinely route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. 4 b. Special use airspace if the floor of the proposed area is below 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL or if supersonic flight is anticipated at any altitude. This airspace shall not be designated, established or modified until: f f (1) The notice (NPRM or non —rule circular) contains a statement supplied by the requesting or using agency that they will serve as lead agency for purposes of compliance with NEPA; ( j (2) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which ,I comments on the environmental aspects can be addressed (applicable only if 1 an EIS is to be filed by the requesting agency); ,j (3) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the t requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which comments on any land use problems can be addressed (applicable only if " special use airspace extends to the surface); and Page 1 1U5U.1.1) 12/21/83 Appendix 3 (4) The rule, determination, or other publication of the airspace action contains a statement, supplied by the requesting agency, that the requirements of NEPA have been met. c. The provisions of paragraph b. (1) through (4).are not applicable to special use airspace actions if minor adjustments are made such as raising the altitudes or if a change is made in the designation of the controlling or using agency. 4. CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED ACTIONS. a. Determination under FAR Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace" and determinations under FAR Part 157, "Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation of Airports." b. Procedural actions to the extent covered by a previously filed EIS or FONSI, when environmental circumstances have not changed. c. Actions taken under FAR Part 71, "Designation of Federal Airways, Area Low Routes, Controlled Airspace and Reporting Points." d. Actions taken under FAR Part 75, "Establishment of Jet Routes and Area High Routes"; FAR Part 99, "Security Control of Air Traffic "; FAR Part 101, "Moored Balloons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets and Unmanned Free Balloons "; and FAR Part 105, "Parachute Jumping." e. Establishment or modification of Terminal Control Areas (TCA) or Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSA). f. Procedural actions dictated by emergency determinations. g. Procedural actions requested by users on a test basis to determine the effectiveness of new technology and measurement of possible impacts on the environment. h. New procedures that routinely route aircraft over non -noise sensitive areas. i. Establishment of helicopter tracks that channel helicopter activity over major thoroughfares. 4 ;r y : Page 2 ,,__.._ — ...,. :...: , '« ,, >.,_, ww. A44- " '"k",',-"' Y/ "h}�{Y80^ 11 x[7(17 PIbVi Ru t 4k .d'i ', ri{ .. 58 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1987 POLITICS AND POLICY Rising Outcry About Noise at Busy Airports P its Operators, Local Residents Against FAA, Airlines By LAURIE MCGINLEY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Noise Characteristics of U.S. Commercial Aircraft WASHINGTON —The clamor over air- port noise is rising like a jet airliner on CLASSIFICATION STAGE 1' STAGE 2 STAGE 3 takeoff. Description Noisiest Less noisy Quietest From Boston to Burbank, communities • Exa mp les Older, unmodified 727s; 737 -200s; older 737 -300s; newer 747s; upset by the high - decibel racket brought of Aircraft DC9s; 737 -100s; 747s; some DC9s; 757s; 767s; DC10s; by the air - travel boom are insisting that BAC111s modified 707s; DC8s MD-80s airports impose stringent "noise budgets" and require quieter aircraft. But increas- Percentage ingly, local residents and airport operators of fleet, 1985 8.5% 72.8% 18.7% find themselves pitted against the airline Percentage industry and the Federal Aviation Admin- of fleet, 1990' 0 57.5% 42.5 %. 1slratl0It Which argue that an emerging 'Banned, except by exemption, as of Jan. 1, 1985. Exemptions expire Jan. 1, 1988. patchworl of parochial rules threatens to 'Most recent data available. • create gridlock in the sky. Projected; assumes no change in current ta or regulation. soasna F lde al Aviation Adwiaia ration Thrust into the fray will be the new Congress, which faces a host of airport is- the many residents pushing for sues during action to reauthorize the avia- among still constitute the majority of the fleet, 10 tion trust fund, due to expire Sept. 30. In tough new noise rules. When planes take ,pr 20 years hence. an effort to resolve their differences over off, he says, "the noise is so loud that all ;In return, the airport operators would noise rules, the airlines and the airport op- conversation inside the house ceases. You ,agree to submit proposed noise rules to the erators have begun meeting. The issue is can't hear the television, you can't hear i FAA for possible vetoes. In addition, they so contentious and complicated, however, the stereo, you can't hear your kids across may agree to avoid imposing rules on . that many believe Congress must be the fi- the table." 'Stage. 3 aircraft, which are the quietest . now nal arbiter. But airline and FAA officials contend %Pl My such a agreement between the air For many lawmakers, negotiating a that the proliferation of rules jeopardizes truce may prove politically tricky. Many the national nature of the air transporta- lines and airport operators could be writ - local communities and airport operators tion system. The system is being ren- ten into the congressional Legislation reau- say the government should ban noisier air- dered asunder by a multitude of local regu- thorizing the aviation trust fund. The trust craft, perhaps by 1995 or 2000 —an action lations," contends Clark Onstad, a vice fund, which is financed by ticket and fuel • the carriers say would cost them billions of president of Texas Air Corp. The net ef- taxes, helps pay for FAA operations and dollars. feet is that it is becoming very difficult provides grants to airports. Some have Stance of Airlines for carriers to schedule." suggested that airport operators, as a con - dition of accepting the grants, agree to The airlines, for their part, believe the E. Tazewell Ellett, chief counsel of the' give up some authority in making noise FAA should become more aggressive in . FAA, contends that noise sometimes be- rules blocking noise regulations before they are i comes a problem because shortsighted lo- But the knotty question of liability could imposed. That approach is anathema to cal officials allow land development to oc - torpedo any compromise. The White House many local residents, who don't want Un- ■ cur nearly adjacent to airport borders. ' Office of Management and Budget histori- cle Sam dictating Local noise rules. In addi- When Dallas -Fort Worth International Air - cally has opposed the government's assum- lion, airport operators, because they are port opened in 1974, he says, it was "so far i liability for noise-related damages. legally liable for noise - related damages, out nobody would have dreamed of noise That position enrages many airport opera - are unwilling to give up their authority to problems." Today, much of the land tors, who say if the government wants to set the rules, unless they can also rid around the airport has been developed, set the rules, it must assume some or all of themselves of liability. and noise complaints are soaring. the liability. In the meantime, the battle over noise Airport noise isn't a new problem, but it Government officials, complains Mr. is getting louder: has worsened in recent years as airline de- Turpen of San Francisco International, —San Francisco International Airport regulation spawned a surge in flightk, often "want to have their cake and eat it too. has sued the FAA for withholding $8 mil- concentrated at major hub airports. A They want carriers to have free and unre- lion in federal grants. The FAA's action prime example is Minneapolis -St. Paul In- stricted access to national airports, but was in response to the airport's barring of ternational Airport. The average number they want local proprietors to pay the a freight carrier it deemed too noisy —a of takeoffs and landings rose to about 1,100 price in terms of lawsuits and liability." step the federal agency contends was dis- a day in 1986 from 726 in 1981, while noise criminatory and illegal. Replies Lou Tur- complaints soared to 15,000 in 1986 from pen, the airport manager: "The FAA is 600 in 1980. just trying to bully me." As a result, some of the noise-abate- -In Denver, planned restrictions to ment procedures that worked before are ease noise at newly expanded Stapleton In- inadequate now. Air- traffic controllers in ternational Airport also have drawn FAA Minneapolis used to direct planes away fire. Airport officials say that if the FAA from runways that required approaches tries to dictate noise policy, they'll simply over heavily populated areas. But because build a proposed, new $L4 billion airport of the sharp increase in traffic, controllers • without federal funds —and without federal now must use all the runways. input. Rules to Avoid Lawsuits -At the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport, Many airports have imposed new noise officials have banned training flights for rules to avoid lawsuits from irate neigh - private pilots to reduce noise, but FAA bors. Under current law, airport operators controllers have refused to enforce it, ac- may set regulations that are reasonable, cording to Thomas Anderson, the airport don't discriminate against a particular commission's general counsel. The airport, carrier or user, and don't place an undue also is considering a noise budget, a con- burden on interstate commerce. If the troversial step that would reduce noise by FAA and the airlines don't like the rules, 18% and impose noise quotas among vari- they can take the airport to court, but that ous carriers. Airlines that switch to quieter is often a lengthy, expensive process. aircraft would be permitted an increase in Despite the difficult issues, some in the their operations. FAA officials, aviation community remain optimistic that proposal less, remain concerned that the proposal a compromise is possible. Few believe it could reduce air - carrier activity substan will come in the form of a federal noise ally. ' rule, which is viewed as too rigid to work. 'Can't Hear Your Kids' But, ,under one passible alternative, the Walter Rockenstein, whose home is is airlines would agree to stop using Stage 2 an affluent section of Minneapolis, is aircraft, which are the noisier planes that