03/25/1987 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN
AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
WEDNES,RA Y -- 3 , �s [ TO
MARCH ,le'
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 -3 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 ovember 12, 1986.
The pertinent section is included on page y 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 _ 51 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 S 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 IL- L1 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 13. 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.
A.jinistrative Assistant
cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator
Dale C. Runkle, City Planner
Paul H. Hauge, City Attorney
Enclosures
J DH/ j eh
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
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-
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.
o enstein indicated that the City has been generally
supportive of the study at a staff level. He further stated tha
= - retocatbh - 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.
�7`
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 finding 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 an 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'percent 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 Bernie', 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.)
1
-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 Needed- -
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
k�O
i
.4 12/21/83 1050.1D
ki
Appendix 3
Y
APPENDIX 3. AIR TRAFFIC
1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
r 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
y facilities. Regional offices and field facilities shall provide input to
x an environmental assessment when requested by Air Traffic Service (AAT) or
, other services.
> b. Headquarters. The office originating the proposed systemwide
action is responsible for making environmental assessments and preparing
'
1 the 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
t analyses), the responsible official will determine whether the proposed
procedure will require an EIS or FONSI or is categorically excluded.
.3. ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES. The
following actions are subject to environmental assessment and preparation
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.
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:
(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;
(2) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the
requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which
comments on the environmental aspects can be addressed (applicable only if
an EIS is to be filed by the requesting agency);
(3) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the
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
1
i
Page 1
1 �
lu)U. 11.)
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.
•
• Te-
x.�r.
Page 2
_....: ......... ,. .... 1re. ' 1)r.. -" rj N'iY ip!a
. r
58 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1987 •
POLITICS AND POLICY .
Rising Outcry About Noise at Busy Airports Pits
Operators, Local Residents Against FAA Airlines
• By LAURIE MCGINI.EY p 1n Ch �p ■Q+ ,
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Noise aracteristics 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 , Ex pies 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; DCSa 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.b %.
lstratiolt, which argue that an emerging Banned, except by exemption, as of Jan 1,1985. Exemptions expire Jan. 1, 1988.
patchwor: • of parochial rules threatens to 'Most recent data available.
create gridlock in the sky. , assumes no change in current law or regulation. Soarer: 'Waal A.iatioeAd iairrati
Thrust into the fray will be th new
Congress, which faces a host of airport is-
sues during action to reauthorize the avia- among the many residents pushing for 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 at 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 t FAA for possible vetoes. In addition, they
so contentious and complicated, however, the stereo, you can't hear your kids across way agree to avoid imposing rules qn;
that many believe Congress must be the fi• the table." 'Stage: 3 aircraft, which_ are - the quietest:
nal arbiter. But airline and FAA officials contend `+Agnes.now available.
For many lawmakers, negotiating a that the proliferation of rules jeopardizes Any such agreement between the air -
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-
• • The airlines, for their part, believe the E. Tazewell Ellett. chief counsel of the' ` gi of accepting the gra, agree e • give up some authority in making noisse
FAA should become more aggressive in i FAA, contends that noise sometimes be ^ rules.
blocking noise regulations before they are i Comes a problem because.shortsighted 14- • But the knotty question of liability could'
imposed. That approach is anathema to cal officials allow land development to (C- torpedo any compromise. The White House
many local residents, who don't want Un- 1cur nearly , adjacent W . 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-
tion, airport operators, because they are port opened in 1974, he says, it was "so far ing 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,; t set the Hiles, 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 $1.4 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
• their operations. FAA officials, neverthe• Despite the difficult issues, some in the
less, remain concerned that the proposal aviation community remain optimistic that
could reduce air - carrier activity substan a compromise is possible. Few believe it
• tially. will come in the form of a federal noise
• 'Can't Hear Your Kids' But, which is viewed as too rigid to work.
But, ,under one possible alternative, the
. Walter Rockenstein, whose home is In airlines would agree to stop using Stage 2
an • affluent section of Minneapolis, is - aircraft, which are the noisier planes that
.... .v l., al .,°. O O U^ O N C
a. � u E E U >,> c
o y g u u ra o
N o� v a'., V 4.9EM;
T eax .c) ii: i. o
CC "2 � oy "°°E c m
o
c^ • C
CC 2 -y° o �cEaJp E a L.
<If W H C.. a e ° E> 4a
u. 1 1 . a ° 5� a c i ° ° u �i �+` E :,
} a `�°, cea �i`3.9 o
Q 0 oc OC'c; ul3,� E
Ili Jed uoeac o� qq ° u
$� �e a3E3 ' y 0j V ilI l ib! V J .Q y C. 'C /// A . E A . C 8 .o
Ote 0 > ...)
} ti o a. a, ;d ; 65 t C
/ ge t e0 a' ,4 c.J .� W y y
7 ea
'd p O A BC B .d. , L. 14 O a
c gvF . n '� ^ wo .. .G
tu � � v y �� o o tl� B
° •0 'D aaa "
00 a � ct t5J '6a E A ai
„ i , =
c 'E'r'v � co'.' O • Q e/1 u �
vv�' g Et 4, Ny.� qy+
to 5' - is O. t4 G a%�'�
C
'C .H d F"• , 7-. ^�"' y i� m U om �aU is
N � q �C
, • q u'n P„ y L . U C • o O E v 2 C E •
ea : TN e0 a pp ' , N �J O •Cj. t0 C
0 M CI el) •-a C ........ 71 .... = 11 0 $.g-0. 4 ,0
a U ° = al t •^ E- O °•d y Ea J
to NN>a' C as 2 g:".. C {.
y J O .. O w{f
ebW�'o rR
r
E 53eea.a�...t. °e ,...1
2 g � . i I4 .. � 9 0 y a..f -M,ea E ea ao 0„,,,)
d c�c
C C r ^. c y u•. ...
.y ,,D C
cel 130 O y C � n w E w • y el O
N Q • .O .-..y at w u= 4 •'ti y
y O J C .. . B la • t g j
z � u7 . 9^ aou
d d l
to
u c E'g c 4 `� Eve E Q-. 8> E
D s ° ea 19E� Ty
Q N � y O OO o • c y C ro " ▪ :;
ea . re • S � 'C d O b y N 7 •
7
ON 10 c1" . y y ;-5, ea y 2Z.c. O ' 4 Jo O
• y p O
9 L. U g { r ,— c,,e ea fa P R'e b y
W � 4' caaa.c E x >.. - a . y a,
tilD 2c� =E. E
r N . c '= E a a) C °' i , a' x
u.� ° u v o o c �i ' e q "� u
B Y^• O c A O c O C c U C E
a E.a c.oP a 0 , 3 a) c E :Eea Ge, a)
v�U ea.' E a8 °_ a E
8 Tn ., oado ua'a'v 7 XI rl =ea !;! ,4u,, —y, c
0 ' e �pp ao U y o •-..) C) c �: X y U Cry N
M� Z y E c ° o . c s a'
N d O 11. O ° .
o E y .a . 0 2 .c
N 41 . E .6 .2 o .., y C v C..' .�. ea 0) I.
C
y Q .0 .. B . y O 0 a
- . a'
p o
O U a �3 c 3 e ayCjs .. E `2.dev'. �
d) ,,m C L o L c 'b . E d 2 ea ro ta
...1 PI fA %n n. „., r : c r E4.
Certain Airlines Get Antitrust Immunity
To Align Schedules Curb Flight Delays
O
By LAURIE MCGINLEY criticized the idea, saying the talks
staff Reporter Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL wouldn't reduce delays much, but they
WASHINGTON — Transportation Secre- agreed to cooperate if the department
tary Elizabeth Dole granted antitrust im- granted antitrust immunity.
munity to airlines serving Chicago's
O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield airports so Industry officials contend that Mrs.
they can jointly set schedules in an effort Dole retreated from her plan to hold talks
to curb flight delays. - for airlines serving all 13 airports because
of 4ndustry and political pressure. But her
Mrs. Dole's action paves the way for 25 aides scoff at that idea.
to 30 carriers to meet here Monday, ac-
cording to Edward Faberman, deputy The department never intended to in-
chief counsel of the Federal Aviation Ad- clude all 13 airports in the scheduling
ministration, which will oversee the talks. talks, but did want data pertaining to them
Mrs. Dole contends that serious scheduling all, in order to get a better grip on the de-
problems at the two airports require re- lay problem, one aide said. Others said
scheduling flights from extremely busy new data provided by the carriers con -
times to less congested hours. vinced the secretary that there wasn't a
The Transportation Department secre serious scheduling problem at many of the
tary also granted "conditional immunity" airports.
to carriers serving five other airports— Of the 13 airports included in the origi-
Dallas -Fort Worth, Boston, Denver, Phila- nal proposal for scheduling talks, six were
delphia and Newark, N.J. But she said dropped entirely. They are: Minneapolis -
joint scheduling talks may not be neces- St, Paul; LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy
sary, and directed the carriers involved to airports in New York; San Francisco; St.
submit their summer schedules to the FAA Louis, and Dulles, outside Washington. The
by tomorrow. The agency is to announce at department said that talks weren't needed
Monday's meeting whether schedule now, but that it would reconsider its deci-
changes are needed at those airports to re- sion if delays worsened.
duce delays. For years, the New York -area airports
Some Transportation Department offi- have led the nation in delays. But in recent
cials said talks among carriers at the five weeks, delays have declined, partly be-
airports probably won't be necessary. cause of the FAA's new East Coast plan,
They said that improved air - traffic control which streamlined air- traffic control pro -
procedures and schedule changes resulting cedures.
from mergers have diminished the likeli-
hood of Jan. 28, Mrs. Dole On Ja CORRECTIONS AND
n. 28, s. Dole proposed granting
antitrust immunity to airlines operating at AMPLIFICATIONS
the nation's 13 busiest airports. Flight de-
lays, she noted, had become "a serious MIDLAND BANK PLC said it made to-
problem causing substantial inconvenience tal provisions for bad and doubtful debts
to large numbers of travelers." in 1986 of $567.6 million, of which $58.8 mil -
But her proposal sparked considerable lion related to Crocker National Bank,
opposition. The Justice Department, the which Midland sold last year. The figures,
White House Office of Management and which are converted at the pound's current
Budget and the Federal Trade Commission rate, were misstated in a previous edi-
all opposed the discussions. Airlines also tion.
a-
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: MARCH 16, 1987
SUBJECT: POSTPONEMENT OF MARCH 11 AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING
Because of time conflicts, several of you indicated that you were
unable to attend the Airport Noise Committee meeting on Wednesday,
March 11. Because we would have lacked quorum in the absence of
those members who had contacted me, I consulted with Chairman Gustin
and determined that it would be best to postpone the meeting for two
weeks to Wednesday evening, March 25. We will consider the same
items of business at that time. Please let me know if there is any
problem with that schedule. Thank you for your kind attention to
this matter.
Ad nistrative Assistant
JDH /jeh