HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/1995 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA
• REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING
April 11, 1995
7:00 P.M.
L ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
IL APPROVAL OF MINS
IIL OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 150 Federal Program Modifications
B. Northern Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration
C- Establish Commission Subcommittees and Schedule
—V.
STAFF -REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report
B. Part 150 Program Update
C. Runway 4/22 Update
D. MASAC Meeting of March 28, 1995
VL
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
VII.
INFORMATIVE
VHL
FUTURE AGENDA
UL
NEXT MEETING -Tuesday, May 99 1995
NEXT MASAC MEETING - Tuesday, April 25, 1995
X.
ADJOURNMENT
0
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that allpersons have equal access to its programs,
service; activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex; disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to
public assistance Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance
notice of at least 96 hours If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will
attempt to provide such aid
MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT
• RELATIONS COMMISSION
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: APRIL 6, 1995
SUBJEC1% EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 11,
1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday,
April 11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center Council Chambers. Please
contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603 if you will be unable to attend this meeting.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the commission.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the March 14, 1995 meeting are enclosed on pages ap through _j_L for
your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the
commission.
• III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Please refer to your dual track airport planning notebooks previously distributed with
respect to this item. Also, please bring the notebook with you to Tuesday's meeting.
Enclosed without page number you will find a set of dividers for that notebook to assist in
your use of the item. Also enclosed without page number is an updated table of contents.
Please replace the previous table of contents. Also enclosed for insertion in the notebook
on page I-71, an excerpt from the Star Tribune concerning increases in air travel world wide.
Next enclosed are pages I-72 through I-73, a comparison of 20 airports scattered throughout
the country broken out by distance from the center of the city, 65 LDN population, airport
size, runway ends and other statistics. Next enclosed and marked I-74 are statistics provided
by Lois Monson concerning the market area for the airport in the Twin Cities. Finally,
enclosed on pages IV -2 through IV -3 is a copy of an article from the Star Tribune regarding
the detached runways proposal. Staff is also pursuing information relative to the Kansas
City airport which was requested at the March meeting.
Because certain information is still being compiled or prepared by various agencies, staff
would encourage the commission to review three items in particular. These are the new
airport comprehensive plan AED in section II, the MSP long term comprehensive plan AED
• in section III and the estimates of magnitude of economic development at the airport site
in section VI. These items give an overview of the environmental and economic impact of
the airport and can be the basis of some initial discussion of these issues.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: This information is being provided for
background and discussion purposes. No specific action is requested at this time. Any
appropriate direction for follow-up information should be communicated to staff at
Tuesday's meeting.'
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 150 Program Modifications—
Enclosed on pages _IL through _ILI L is a copy of an airport noise report article concerning
an FAA proposal to modify the Part 150 pro to discourage new home building in the
65 DNL contour. Also enclosed on pages ough a copy of a memorandum
from the airport requesting that the cities consider comments in this regard.
In particular, the FAA is proposing to no longer fund "new non -compatible land uses" in
Part 150 programs. Under the proposal, an effective date would be identified after which
new incompatible land uses would not be eligible for funding assistance. A summary of the
alternative proposals being considered is outlined on the last page of the airport noise
report article. The FAA is considering a qualification for in -fill development and the City
may wish to make comments on the general policy or the in -fill aspect only.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend a City position relative
to Federal modifications of the Part 150 noise abatement program relative to new non-
compatible uses. •
B. Northern Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration --
Staff has previously distributed a memorandum to the commission relative to the
participation of Chair Todd and staff in a preliminary meeting with the cities of Mendota
Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish Lake regarding collaboration between the
communities in northern Dakota County. The group reviewed a list of 16 possible areas for
discussion or collaboration by the cities. At the meeting, it was suggested that all items
remain on the group's agenda although a certain of them would be less likely to be resolved
than others. It was suggested that these are exactly the kinds of issues that we should be
discussing with one another rather than conflicting about.
A copy of the list discussed at the meeting is enclosed on page m0for your review. It
was suggested that the cities could reach some agreement on 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16
while items 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14 would be retained for further discussion. A 17th item
concerning the expansion of the ANOMS system was also identified as a possible area of
collaboration. The cities have been asked to identify their top five priorities for
collaboration prior to the next meeting of the group which is on April 19.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To rate the top five areas for
collaboration from among those listed.
• C. Establish Commission Subcommittees and Schedule—
Commission members Todd, Cooper, Staricha, Soderling, Schlax and White participated in
a workshop meeting on March 28, to discuss approaches to small group work for the
commission. This was an initiative developed at the commission retreat and recommended
for further action at the last commiccion— meeting. The members discussed several
parameters for the subgroups including the fact that they would work through the
Commission and make recommendations to the commission much as the commission does
with the City Council. The subgroups would communicate by a white paper or memo to the
full Commission which would be distributed with the commission packet in the week
preceding the meeting. These reports would be expanded upon by verbal reports at the
Commission meeting by Committee members. Further, while members will be asked to
volunteer for specific committees and Commit to participating in their discussion, the
Committee meetings are not exclusive and every member of the Commission can participate
in any Committee. Finally, the Committees are expected to meet in a more informal
workshop format. All meetings of public bodies will be noticed and are open to the public.
Members brainstormed a number of areas which can be reviewed in closer detail by the
Committees. It was suggested that the specific topics Could be categorized into two broader
areas and that subcommittees be formed to review those broader areas. The first of these
areas would be Current Operations and the second would be Long Term Planning. The
Current Operations subcommittee would consider such things as corridor compliance,
departure and approach profiles and the Part 150 program. The Long Term Planning
subcommittee would discuss topics such as the dual track airport planning process, the
appropriateness of the 65 DNL contour, alternative relief measures such as taxreliefand
economic impacts of airport alternatives. It is the recommendation of the members present
that the commission consider formally creating subcommittees for Current Operations and
Long Term Planning as described and with a preliminary schedule of monthly meetings be
established for each group.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To establish subcommittees foi Current
Operations and Long Term Planning and to schedule meetings for each.
V. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—
MAC staff is is the process of preparing the report which shows down range tracks of
corridor compliant aircraft Staff hopes to have this in time to distribute with the packet
or at Tuesday's meeting Additional analysis of the tracking will be ovided t
commission when it becomes available. In addition, enclosed on pagesUZough
are the gate penetration analyses for January and February of this year. You will note t
there appears to be an extremely low percentage of violations of the policy boundary to the
north, while gate penetrations to the south range from 9 - 10% of all operations to the
southwest of the airport. Because this analysis covers both of the runways and no violations
were found from the north runway in January or February, this actually represents
3
approximately 18 - 20% of the traffic on the south runway operating south of the localizer.
Staff has begun to receive a number of complaints again from a variety of locations •
indicating that the weekends are among the worst times for corridor violations. The
commission may wish to consider recommending further analysis of these observations.
Knowing the MAC staff schedule, it may be some time before we would receive this
information but it would be appropriate to consider such a request.
B. Part 150 Program Update—
Kathy Larson is forwarding a current status report for the Part 150 program for review by
the comma *on. That will be distributed vinthe packet or at Tuesday's meeting In
addition, enclogLon pages 3( through is the latest Part 150 update and on pages
through is the background infotron provided to the City Council regarding
afski s Addition. For"those of you who were not at the workshop, the Council has
decided to move forward with sound insulation improvements in these areas despite the fact
that they are not conforming uses in their current zoning.
C. Runway 4/22 Update—
The MAC has agreed to move forward with the 4/22 project but they are waiting for a
record of decision in its regard. City staff met with Richfield Manager Jim Prosser to
discuss that City's lawsuit concernipg runway 4/ a transcript of the notes concerning this
meeting is enclosed on pagesOthrough for your review. The City Council
approved the commission's recommendation to consider the issues and costs associated with •
this matter. The City of Richfield is currently anticipating costs in excess of $200,000 to
pursue this lawsuit. Full partnership on the part of the City of Eagan would then exceed
$70,000. Richfield is suggesting other alternatives which are noted at the end of the meeting
notes, short of full partnership. If the City is not full partner, however, the lawsuit would
be run by others.
D. MASAC Meeting of March 28, 1995—
Enclosed on pages -through � are excerpts from the MASAC packet. Residents
of the eastern neigh orhoods of Eagan were present at the meeting and addressed MASAC
with our concerns and were extremely frustrated with MASAC's responses. In addition,
there. is an update concerning the runway 4/22 extension. Mike Schlax was present for the
majority of the meeting and will provide a verbal update to the commission in its regard.
Because of winds, the February operations were. predominantly from the southeast toward
the northwest. As a consequence, complaints in Eagan dropped somewhat from recent
months.
VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Any visitors wishing to address the commission may do so at this time.
C�
4
is VII. INFORMATIVE
The following commission items are enclosed for commission review:
1. Vie concerning Northwest's purchase of Stage III aircraft is enclosed on pages
2. Enclosed on pages through 4? is correspondence covering the voluntary airline
agreement recommended modifications to the methodology. Few of these community
_ recommendations were included but it was the feeling of the Operations Committee and
MASAC that an agreement was necessary even if not all conditions could be agreed to.
3. Enclosed on pages through '72is a copy of the retreat summary and a
breakdown of the commission retreat evaluations. The City Council is very appreciative
of the work done by the commissions in this regard and members who participated in
the joint meeting may wish to comment on their interaction with the City Council.
4. Enclosed on pages23throughw7_J( is a copy of the City of Bloomington's airport
policies. The commission may wish to follow a similar format for policy statements
originating from the subcommittees.
5. Enclosed on pages tthrough 77is the current membership of the Metropolitan
. Airports Commission. Northern Dakota County is now represented by Edward Fiore of
Monarch Corporation who is a resident of Apple Valley.
VIII. FUTURE AGENDA
Any agenda items to be considered for future meetings should be noted at this time. The
commission has pending issues to deal with, alternatives departure profiles and meetings
with SMAC on common issues.
IX. NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be on Tuesday,
May 9, 1995 at Blackhawk Middle School. The next MASAC meeting will be Tuesday,
April 25, 1995 at the MAC building.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 pm., unless extended by a majority vote of the
members present to complete business pending before the commission.
Ass' ant to the City Administrator
•
0
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, March
14,1995 at 7:00 p.rrL Present were Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Pat Todd, Bob Cooper, SteveSodeding,
Lance Starlcha and akemate, Jane Vanderpoel. Absent was Lois Monson. Also present was Assistant to
the City Administrator Hohensteln.
AGENDA
With an addition under New Business of C. Goal Setting for Subgroups there was a motion
by Schhm seconded by Stadcha, all members voting In favor, the agenda was approved as presented.,
MINUTES
The February 14,1995 minutes were reviewed and corrections made to page 6 of the packet
(page one of the minutes), to the beginning of the last paragraph which should read,'During the discussion,
Cooper questioned...." On page 9 (page 4 of the minutes) paragraph sbc, second sentence should read,
'Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by ScNax ...... the meeting was extended... '
Upon motion by Vanderpoel, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, the minutes •
of the February 14, 1995 meeting, were approved as amended.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Hohenstein informed commission members that the Information he has provided to them
as part of the packet Is background Information on a number of Issues. He also distributed a Draft Outline
of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Recommendation to the Legislature produced by the MAC and
Met Council. Hohenstein stated that the deadline for the decision on the dual track planning process fres
been moved to November, 1995. He reminded commission members that although this Is an wdenslon that
the dual track process should still be a high priority before the commission. He continued to describe the
sections numbered I through VII and that these documents will be added to as Information becomes
available.
Soderling asked for more information regarding the Rosemount alternative and why It was
rejected. Hohenstein stated that the Rosemount site Is similar to site aitemadves for the Dakota County
airport He stated that there was Interest In the Hastings site farther from dense population. The Rosemount
option was discussed at an earlier date. This alternative was not supported because, first it would be an
inconvenient way to run business and, second, having to travel to distant terminals would be. difficult.
There was further discussion regarding the packet of Information. Todd asked If Section
I, page 11 addresses potentially purchasing land, not necessarily relocating but having the land available
so that the option could be there. Hohenstein replied that having a site set aside may be prudent until it •
ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995
• Page 2
•
became unfeasible to further expand the current site. He stated that it was Important to keep in mind that
even though it's referred to as dual track, the outcome could be a hybrid of the options.
Todd referred to pages 113 -115 which referred to future activity levels in the year 2020. She
asked whether they were addressing current issues. Hohensteln responded that capacity enhancement is
referring to larger regions, not the airport Itself.
Schlax commented that this would be a good time to discuss MAC action on proposal #6 -
the article in the Star Tribune -'approval of 4/22 extension and proposal 6 - building a terminal west of the
present terminal. He stated they are being told by Northwest that they shouldn't build the west terminal.
They are concerned about political agendas Involved In.this decision. Hohensteln responded that the
commission and council have opposed a new terminal site In the past The MAC vote was to Identify
alternative 6 as the position taken in the past on the runways.
Cooper. asked how the lawsuit between MAC _ and the city of Richfield was going.
Hohensteln stated that he had spoken with Richfield and they are very serious about pursuing the lawsuit
Their position is that If the runway needs to be built then build it for use while others are under construction,
but not for the purpose of sending more traffic over Richfield. Cooper asked If there were any cost figures
available for Eagan If It were to join the lawsuit Hohensteln replied that Richfield estimates the lawsuit will
Incur tens of thousands of dollars.
Cooper stated that Eagan has been riding the fence on this Issue and that if extension 4/22
Is built it would cause serious noise problems. Consequently, the additional air traffic over Eagan would
result in more noise complaints. Cooper suggested that Eagan becoming involved In the lawsuit or take
a stronger stand where the extension is concerned. Hohensteln said that he can explore the costs of joining
the lawsult..He stated that the City Council did object to the extension of 4/22 but has taken no position
on the lawsuit Schlax stated that joining the lawsuit would give Eagan some leverage. it may be a way
to get a guarantee from the MAC to hold planes on course for three miles from 4/22 before turning.
Cooper commented that there will be even more noise with the 4/22 extension and there
Is still nothing to keep the planes from turning at the end of the corridor, consequently, he would like to see
a stronger stand taken by Eagan.
Hohensteln stated that it the Airport Relations Commission would like to take an action or
continue discussion on this Issue, they could do so.
Todd commented that there were mixed messages on the 4/22 extension from the public.
She stated that it was Important to communicate why they oppose the 4/22 extension and the community
should be made aware of the commission's position. She stated that MASAC was of the opinion that Eagan
would benefit from the 4/22 extension and she believes that should be publicized. Hohensteln agreed that
this was something that could be addressed with the media
Cooper was of the opinion that the press should not be contacted until the commission has
more facts and a stronger position before commenting to the public.
Stadcha stated that a strong stand against the 4/22 extension needs to be taken but that
Eagan should not be Involved in the lawsuit
7
ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995
Page 3
Hohensteln stated that Richfield's purpose for the lawsuit Is to say that the runway does not
reduce noise, it Just relocates the Impacts. Sodeding stated that Richfield and Bloomington are okay with
the runway but not flight tracks. Hohensteln stated that the Airport Relations Commission and City have
taken a position against the 4/22 extenslon. Schlax stated that this should have the highest profile and that
MAC Just Isn't paying attention. He commented that by Joining the lawsuit Eagan could get more Involved
In negotiating which would result In a higher profile.
White commented that joining the lawsuit may be counter productive. He stated that since
Richfield and Bloomington want traffic lessened, this would result In more traffic over Eagan. Hohensteln
replied that it would be possible to pursue a lawsuit separately, not the same one as Richfield and
Bloomington since our Interests would be different. Soder ing commented that the Interests would not be
that different and it would benefit Eagan to encourage reduced use of runway 4/22. 1
Upon motion by Stadcha, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, it was
recommended that Issues and costs be Investigated as to Joining the Richfield/Bloomington lawsuit.
Schlax commented that MAC should be notified of the possibility of Eagan joining the
lawsuit. Hohensteln stated that the Issues should be explored and a policy recommendation made to take
before the City Council.
•
Staricha amended his previous motion stating that the commission should ask the City
Council that they make public the option of joining the lawsuit, second was made by Sodeding, all members •
voted in favor.
There was discussion regarding the building of a new airport and various airports around
the country. Cooper stated that the Kansas City airport closely resembled the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport.
He commented that he had been in and out of that airportmany times and noticed there wasn't much
development around IL White stated that he would like to know why Kansas City has not developed the
area around their airport.
Hohensteln commented that there Is concern that relocating the airport in Dakota County
will cause traffic restrictions such as those south of the river when traffic backs up during rush hour. Schlax
asked if Dakota County Is restricted with the three bridges. Hohensteln stated that 35W and Cedar are
bottlenecks. The concern Is that If the airport is relocated, it would become a major traffic generator. If the
river were restricted, things would slow down, theoretically becoming a barrier. The problem with bridges
Is that they restrict traffic and there are not as many aftemate routes.
NEW BUSINESS
A. MAC Noise Methodology—
Hohensteln discussed the proposed MAC Noise Methodology Program to measure noise
Impacts by counting and reduction of Stage 11 aircraft. Hohensteln stated that he has submitted comments
to the MAC stating that it Is okay to count and reduce Stage II aircraft but they will need something more
after the year 2000. Also, Stage 111 aircraft create noise events also and that reaction to noise Is an Individual
hem, people are affected differently. Hohensteln also stated that this measuring system Is not Intended to
replace ANOMS or contouring, that it will be used in conjunction with the other noise measuring methods.
This system would be reporting quarterly rather than monthly as the ANOMS data is reported. There were •
41
ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995
Page 4
comments made by commission members stating that it was Important that the reporting be monthly and
not quarterly.
A motion was made by Schlax to approve the MAC Noise Methodology Program with a
sbc month review and then submit Information to the MAC as to the commission's position on the program,
at that time. The motion died for lack of a second.
Hohenstein stated that the previous method was based on nolle levels measured in 1986
and 1987. These are used as benchmarks for significant nolse Impact. The daily average nolse energy was
measured using different types of aircraft and they were expected to most the target noise levels. This was
used until 1.992 when the agreements with the airlines expired.
Todd asked Hohenstein whether Northwest had requested an extension on the
Implementation of the Stage III aircraft time line. Hohenstein replied that they haven't and that the airlines
are, in fact, arguing agalnst waivers at this time line because they can meet the 1994 guidelines and it Is a
means of self-preservation. Hohenstein stated that the action required Is to either accept the comments or
add to them.
Upon motion by Staricha, seconded by Sodeding, all members voting In favor, the
comments were adopted.
• B. Alternative Departure Profiles—
Hohenstein reviewed the Item. Schlax stated that he would like to have Mark Salmon attend
an Airport Relations Commission meeting to discuss alternative departure profiles. Hohenstein stated mat
he would like the discussion.to Include timing of the thrust of aircraft
Upon motion by Sodeding, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, it was deckled
to postpone discussion on this item until Mr. Salmen could be present
C. Subgroup Goal Setting—
Hohenstein commented that one of the outcomes of the retreat was to use more in-depth
methods for discussing commission Item_ s. He stated that one way would be to use sub -groups In work
sessions. Because of the Incidence of hems recurring before the commission, ad-hoc, standing or task
committees could be formed to discuss the topics In depth
Schlax stated that he would like to see several Issues brought to a dose. Stadcha saki that
he would like to see. two or three subcommittees each discussing one Issue. For example, the dual track
planning process for one committee, the corridor for another and runway 4/22 as a third.
After discussion, a motion was made by Schlax for the commission to meet as a committee
of the whole at a workshop meeting to discuss the subgroup process, SodedIng seconded, all members
voted In favor.
After further discussion, It was decided to hold the workshop on March 28, 190 from 6:00
• to 7:00 p.m
ni
ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995
Page 5
STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—
Hohenstein Informed the committee that there was no compliance activity report for January
and he will include it In the ne)d packet He went on to say that percentages are Improving marginally but
there are still frustrated citizens In eastern Eagan who are affected by overflights. He stated that a request
was approved by MASAC to provide a report on three mile compliance within the corridor.
Soderling stated that the ANOM$ data Is not dear and he doesn't like the way the data Is
presented. Hohensteln responded that the MASAC Is reducing the Information In order to save on paper.
Sodeding stated he would like a report on the total number of flights, compliant and non-compliant.
Hohensteln responded that he wasn'tsure if that would be a monthly report but he would push for that
B. Part 150 Update—
Hohensteln updated the commission on the Part 150 process. He stated that he's still
receiving comments from residents unhappy because they were not included in the sound Insulating. He
said that those who have had the sound Insulating done are very pleased with the results. Hohensteln went
on to say that the Kollofsky Addition will be Included In the program In 1995. He stated that there Is an
ordinance that states that buildings on properties zoned commercial cannot be Improved. He does not
believe that will affect the Kollofsky Addition homes. Staricha stated that he would like background
Information concerning this situation. •
C. Runway 4/22 Update—
Hohensteln Informed the commission that the MAC has voted to proceed with the Runway
4/22 endension and that Richfield and Bloomington will continue with their lawsuit.
O. MASAC Meeting of March 7,1995—
Hohensteln referred the commission to a memo from Schlaz, who attended the meeting on
behalf of the commission.
ScNwc commented that the MAC Chairman was removed from his position. He asked if the
commission should actively seek a replacement other than a Minneapolis resident Hohensteln responded
that if the commission members have anyone In mind they should be aware that it is a political appointment
and, consequently, a republican seat
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors to be heard.
INFORMATIVE
Hohenstein reminded commission members of the Joint meeting with the City Council on March 28,
•
t C)
ARC Minutes for March 14, 1995
Page B
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by, seconded by, all members voting In favor, the meeting was adjourned at
9:00 p.m.
JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary
0
Airport Noise Report w -k --
A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technologleal developments
Volume 7, Number 6 March 22,1995
Policy Revision
FAA PROPOSES POLICY TO DISCOURAGE
NEW HOME BUILDING IN 65 DNL CONTOUR
The Federal Aviation Administration Manch 20 issued for public comment a
proposed revision of its policy on approval and funding of Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Program measures intended to discourage new home construction in
die 65 dB DNL noise contours around airports.
The proposed policy would bar the use of federal Pan 150 Program and Airport
? Improvement Program funds to buyout, relocate, soundproof, acquire easements,
and provide purchase assurance or transaction assistance of new noncompatible
development within airport noise contours after an effective date to be determined
The FAA said that its goal is to revise its funding policy within the parameters of
the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, but added that " Cuture
legislative initiatives should not bended out."
For the first time, the FAA would make a distinction between existing non-
compatible land uses around auports and new non -compatible land uses, and
between the "femedial" and 'preventive" land use measures it considers appropri-
ate for each category.
(Cantinued on p. 42)
Noise Standards
CAEP/3 PROPOSALS WILL THREATEN
LIFE OF AIRLINES, STUDY FOR ATA FINDS
Various proposals under consideration by the International Civil Aviation -
Organi2ation's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to
tighten international noise and emission standards for new aircraft designs will
have a'profound and life threatening impart" on the airline industry, a study done.
for the Air Transport Association concluded.
Tighter ICAO noise and emission stenderds would cost the world airlines from
$10 billion to $32 billion, depending on how stringent the final rules would be [see
table on page 471, according to the study, done by the Campbell Aviation Group,
Inc. (CAG) of Alexandria, VA, with assistance from Airline Capital Associates
and KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne.
However, CAG noted that its study is entirely "static" and does not consider the
impact of tighter ICAO standards on the 2,121 new Stage 3 aircraft on order that
will be delivered to the airlines in the new future and will not meet the tighter
certification standards. if this impact is considered, the cost to the airlines would
C be several times that defined, CAG said. _
Tighter ICAO noise and emiction standards also would have the effect of
reducing the value of each aircraft currently operated by the airlines by 15-19.9
(Continued on p. 43)
tbpyr4 ft 01993 by Abpmt Noir- Repm6 Aftma. Va. 22011
�a
In This Issue...
Polity ... FAA issues a
major policy proposal on
approval and funding of noise
mitigation projects aimed at
discouraging new home
construction in the 65 dB
DNL noise contour around
airports. For the first time,
the agency makes a distinc-
tion between existing and
new non -compatible develop-
ment around airports and the
land use measures appropri-
ate for each category - p. 41
Fleet Mix Rules ... FAA
also issues a policy statement
barring aircraft operators
from sharing Stage 3 air-
planes to meet Part 9 rule
requirements - p. 46
ICAO ... Tightening
international noise and
emission certification stan-
dards would be "life threaten-
ing" for the airlines, a study
for ATA concludes - p. 41
Part 150 Program... FAA
approves programs for two
Ft. Worth airports - p. 44
Sea -Tae ... Jury finds no
noise damages in test cases of
larger lawsuit - p. 45
Noise Grants ... FAA
announces awards to six
airports - p. 46
News Briefs ... p. 48
•
•
n
LJ
•
•
42 Airport Noise Report
Policy Revision, from p. 41
The agency wants airport operators to restrict their
consideration of remedial land use measures (buyout,
soundproofing, easements, purchase assurance, etc.) to
existing noncompatible development and to foetus preven-
tive land use measures (comprehensive planning, zoning,
subdivision regulations, building codes, real estate disclo-
sure. and acquisition of vacant land) on potentially new non-
compatible development
Many airport operators currently distinguish between '
existing and new non -compatible land uses on the noise
exposure maps they submit under the Part 150 program, the
FAA said Potentially new noncompatible land uses could
include (1) "areas currently undergoing residential or other
non -compatible construction; (2) areas zoned for residential
or other non -compatible development where construction
has not begun; and (3) area currently compatible but in
danger of being developed noncompatible within the time
Name covered by the airport's noise compatibility. pro-
gram."
Under the revised funding policy, airport operators would
not be limited to only applying the most commonly used
land use measures in their noise comparability programs.
"Local flexibility to recommend other measures, including
innovative measures under Part 150 would be retained
However, all land use measures applied to existing non-
compatible development must clearly be remedial and save
the goal of reducing existing non -compatible land uses.
Similarly, all land use measures applied to potential new
noncompatible development must clearly be preventive and
serve the goal of preventing the introduction of additional
non -compatible land uses;' the FAA explained in its notice.
The approval of remedial land use measures would be
limited to existing non -compatible development, and the
approval of preventive land use measures would be applied
to potential new noncompatible development However, the
FAA said it recognizes that there will be gray areas that call
have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For example,
it said "minor development on vacant lots within an
existing residential neighborhood, which clearly is not
extensive new non -compatible development, may for
practical purposes need to be treated with the same remedial
measure applied to the rest of the neighborhood." Another
example "would be a remedial situation in which noise from
an airport's operation has significantly increased, resulting
in new area that were compatible with initial conditions
becoming non -compatible." The FAA said that airport
operators would be responsible for making the case for
exceptions to the policy guidelines in their Part 150 submit-
tals. -
Funding Follows Part 150 Determinations
Federal funding of noise projects through the 123 percent
special ser -aside in the Airport Improvement Program would
follow the same policy as the FAA's Part 150 determina-
tions —medial funding for existing noncompatible
development and preventive funding for potential new non-
compatible development, the FAA explained in its notice.
The agency said it would apply the same type of funding
Policy to those few types of noise projects, such as sound-
proofing schools and health care facilities, that are eligible
for AIP funds under the noise set-aside without an approved
Part 150 program.
The impact of revising the FAA's policy on Part 150 land
use determinations and AIP funding would be to preclude
the use of the Part 150 program and AIP funds to remediate
new noncompatible development within the noise contours
of an airport after the effective date of such a policy," the
FAA explained "By precluding this option, while at the
same time emphasizing the array of preventive land use
measures that may be applied to potential new non -compat-
ible development. the FAA seeks to focus airport operators
and local governments more clearly on using these federal
Programs to the maximum extent to prevent non -compatible
development around airports, rather than attempting to
mitigate noise in such development after the fact," the
agency said.
Effective Date
The best way to implement the new policy, the FAA said,
is to select one date in the future to make it effective rather
than to set individual effective dates airport-by=airport "A
specific date would insure nationwide application on a
uniform basis and would provide a more timely implemen-
tation than prospective airport -by -airport implementation'
dates. A specific date would also eliminate any perceived
advantages in postponing new or updating Part 150 pro-
gram," the agency explained.
It said that the selection of a specific date could either be
(1) the date of issuance of a final policy revision following
evaluation of comments received on the proposal, or (2) a
date, 180 days to a year atter publication of the revised
policy, allowing some amount of transition time for airport
operators to accommodate previously approved Part 150
programs, recent Part 150 submissions, or those program
submissions under development
Since Part 150 is a voluntary program, each airport
operator has the discretion to make its own determinations
regarding the impact of a revised policy on its noise
compatibility program. If an impact is found, each operator
could determine whether to immediately amend its program
during the allowed transition period or to wait until the
program is otherwise updated. However, any remedial land
use measures for non -compatible development that are
allowed to occur within the area of an airport's noise
exposure maps after die effective date of a revived policy
would not be approved under Part 150 and would have to be
funded locally, since they would no longer be eligible for
ALP assistance from the noise ser -aside," the FAA said
The agency said that no remedial land use measures for
new noncompatible development that occur after the
Airport Ndee Report
1 2n
J
March 22,1995
effective date of the revised policy will be eligible for AEP
funding under the noise set-aside "regardless of previous
FAA determinations under Part 150, the status of an
individual Part 150 program, or whether the project is
eligible for AIP funding under the noise ser -aside without a
Part 150 program."
Alternative Proposals
The FAA said the, depending on the public comments
received on its proposal, it will consider several alternative
policy revisions. The agency also invited comment on the
following proposals:
• Retain the present policy of approving and funding under
Part 150 remedial land use measures without regard to the
date the non -compatible development occurs;
• Retain the present policy of approving and funding under
Part 150 remedial land use measures for those areas not
under the control of either the airport or the airport's
sponsor and for which the airport operator has taken earnest
but unsuccessful steps to persuade the controlling jurisdic-
tion to prevent the addition of new noncompatible develop-
ment New non -compatible development in areas under the
land use control jurisdiction of either the airport or the
airport operator would not be approved under Part 150 nor
be eligible for funding under the AIP;
• Retain the present policy only with respect to non-
compatible land uses that will remain within the DNL 65 dB
Ccontour after the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet; • Retain the present policy with respect to Part 150
approval, but eliminate federal funding eligibility for
remedial measures for new non -compatible development;
and
• Implement the proposed policy on an airport -by -airport
basis, selecting either the date of the FAA's acceptance of
an airport's noise exposure maps or the date of the FAA's
approval of an airport's noise compatibility program under
Part 150, and consider whether implementation of effective
date of policy should be retroactive or prospective.
Comments -Due April 19th
Public comment on the FAA's proposed policy revision
must be received by April 19. Comments should be mailed
in triplicate to the FAA, Office of Chief Counsel, Atm:
Rules Docket (AGC -10), Docket No. 28149, 8001ndepend-
ence Ave, SW, Room 915G, Washington, DC 20591.
The text of the FAA's proposed policy revision was
published in the March 20 Federal Register, beginning on
page 14701.
For further information on the notice, contact William
Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division (AEE -300), Office
of Environment and Energy, FAA, 900 Independence Ave,
SW Washington, DC 20591; tel: (202) 267-3553, FAX:
(202)267-5594.A
43
CAEP, from p. 41
percent, thestudy concluded.
The ICAO standards would only apply to future aircraft
designs and would not, by themselves, require airlines to
phaseout any of the Stage 3 aircraft in their fleet that cannot
meet the tighter standards. But, the ATA study group said in
the executive summary of its report that "many experts
believe that airports in Europe and in the United States will
act unilaterally, and in consort with each other in some
instances, to restrict or even prohibit the operations of
aucraft that do not comply with the CAEP/3 standards."
It is the economic impact of tighter ICAO standards on the
current Stage 3 fleet that the ATA study seeks to estimate. It
tried to do so in two different ways. One was to go to
financial institutions and ask them what would happen to the
value of aircraft in light of tighter standards or future
operating restrictions on current Stage 3 aircraft The
financial institutions said such action would reduce aircraft
values by 15-19.8 percent
The other way the ATA study group sought to look at the
impact of tighter noise and emission standards was to
estimate how airports would respond to them. The study
group surveyed scheduling personnel of U.S. airlines and
asked them how they thought airports would respond to
tighter ICAO standards in terms of imposing non -addition
rules, curfews, or other restrictions. From those responses,
the study group concluded that there would be a $10 billion
to $32 billion loss in cash flow to the airlines from tighter
ICAO rules. •
John Meenan, assistant counsel for ATA, said that the
technique of surveying airline personnel may seem very
self-serving to the airlines, but noted that the financial
impact data drawn from the survey matched that prepared
by a consultant for the European Commission. "So, we are
all in the same ball park," Meenan said. Airline scheduling
personnel already had the experience of watching how
airports responded when Stage 3 noise standards came into
effect and airports began restricting operations of Stage 2
aircraft. he said.
The CAG study demonstrates that making ICAO certifica-
tion standards more stringent will have the opposite effect of
that intended, Meenan said. Tighter standards will make it
more difficult for the airlines to buy new aircraft because it
will hurt them financially, he said. And, he stressed, the
airlines are already moving in the direction that ICAO is
considering. They want the quietest, cleanest aircraft they
can get, he said.
While the Airport Noise and Capacity Aa requires
airports to conduct stringent cosubenefit analysis and get
Federal Aviation Administration approval before imposing
noise restrictions on any Stage 3 aircraft, Meenan said that
such restrictions are not impossible under the act It would
be very difficult, he said, for the United States to continue to
be the "odd duck" if the rest of the world began restricting
current versions of Stage 3 aircraft that did not mea the .
tighter ICAO standards.
Avpat NearT
MEMORANDUM
DATE March 30, 1995
TO Part 150 Policy Advisory Committee
FROM Steve Vecchl, Manager Part 150 Programs (726-8133) U U
SUBJECT FAA [Docket No. 28149] 14 CFR Part 150
POLICY ON APPROVAL AND FUNDING OF PART 150
PROGRAM NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES
We are asking all PAC members to review and comment on the attached Federal Register
proposed policy and 'Request for Commenf.
Comments must be received on or before APRIL 19, 1995.
Comments must be mailed in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration
• Office of Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC -10)
Docket No. 28149,
800 Independence Ave. S.W. - Room 915G �..
Washington, DC 20591
For further information, contact:
SJVId
Attachments
William W. Albee, Policy & Regulatory Division (AEE -300)
Office of Environment and Energy
FAA
(Same Address as above)
Phone: (202) 267-5594
15 00,
S00,
Federal Register / VOL 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 201 1995 /.Proposed Rules 14701
toed In Kansas Cry. Minouri on Mush
7.1995. -
tdmyA.Armtr6eg. '
` AAh ftJt� tionSet�vlce. eDlmctuob,
. WR Do& 95-66811 Filed 3-17-95:9:45 amt
antal0 cone me,"
14 CFR Fart 150 -
JDodattlo.2'St481
po9cy an Approval and Funding of
Part 160 program Noise Mitigation
BAsaauras -
. AOEWr Federal Aviation
Administration. DOT.
Aunow Proposed paliey, request for :.
COMMBPL'. .
'SUMMARY: This notice requests
comments on a proposed dump in the
-Federal Aviation Administration's '
(FAA) policy concerning approval and
eligibility for Federal funding of certain
notes mitigation measuia
proposed policy would increase the
Incentives tax airport opemtma to .
prevent the development of now
novoompadble land uses amend
airports and assure the most cost
effective use of Federal funds silent an
woula more mearty m ng n,n Derwaqm
meenum that are appropriate for
application to existing noacompstible
developmsnt>tnd measures that are
appropriate for application to new
noncompatible development. This
differentiation between the use of
remedial measures for existing
noncompatible development and
preventive measures for new
noncompatible development is
necessary for the FAA to determine the
appropriate approval or disapproval of
actions on proposed land use measures
in an airpart's noise compoth llty
Pim
DATE6: rmm m most bs rscsivad an
of before April 19, 1995. .
ADORESS113: Comments an this notice
should be mailed, in triplicate, to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Chief Counsel. Atm.: Rules
Dodrot (AGC -SO), Docket No. 28149.
800 Independence Avenue SW.. Room
915G, Washington, DC 20591.
99mg.
aepeeted In Roome.ID. sad 5:00 pm,ederal holldayc. wish the FM to
acknowledge the receipt of their
tx�mts must submit with their
comments a pre -addressed. stamped
postcard on which the following
stat—t. is made: "Comments to
Docket No. 28149." The postcard will be
date-stamped by the FAA and retained
to the commenter.
FOR FURrMiER IRFORMATm tomer _
Mr. William W. Albae. Policy and
Regulatory Division (AEE -300), Office
of Envlmnment end Energy. FAA, Boo
Independence Avenue SW.. '
Washington. DC 20591; telephone (202)
267-3553. &r3lm41e (202) 267-5594.
6UPPLSM1DIfART EIF'ORYI TM" - -
Hacltgroand
The Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning Program (14 CFR part 150,
hereinafter referred to As vert 160 or the
part iso program) t
under the Aviation
Abatement Act of i
through 47509, hereinafter referred to as
ASNA): Toe part 150 propsm allows
airport operators to submit noise
exposure maps and a noise
compatibility program to the FAA
voluntarily. According to the ASNA, a
colas compatibility program sets forth
the measures that an airpon.. operator
ha -s Ween or has purposed for the
reduction of erdedag aoncompatlble
land uses and the prevention of
additional noncompatible land uses .
withinthe area covered by noise
m
The ASNA embodies strong concepts
of local initiative and flexibility. The
submission of noise exposure maps and
a noise compatibility program ts left to
the discretion of local airport operators.
Airport operators may also choose to
submit noise exposure maps without
preparing and submitting a noise
compatibility program. The types of
measures that airport operators may
include in a noise ca®patib{]i
program are not limited by the ASNA.
alllatituude w submit a broad aroperatorai ray of
measume-including innovative
measures -that respond to local needs
and circumstances.
The criteria for approval or
disapproval of measures submitted in a
ar
part 150 programe fat forth in the
ASNA. The ASNA directs the Federal
approval of a noise compatibiliry
Wprexcept for measures rsleting to
ocedures (i) If the program
measures do not create an undue burden
on interstate or foreign commerce; (2) if
the program measures are reasonably
consistent with the Ig of reducing
exiatiag noaeompatlble land uses and
preveaYag the Inttoductlon of
additional noccompatibls land uses;
and (3) if the programprovides for its
revisionlf necessitated by the
submission of a revised noise exposure
map. Failure to approve or disapprove
a noise compatibility program within
180 days, except for measures relating to •
flight procedures, is deemed to be an
approval under the ASNA. Finally, the
ASNA este forth broad eligibility •
criteria, consistent with the ASNA's
overall deference to local icldative and
flexibility. The FAA is authorized, but
not obligated, to fund projects via the
Airport Improvement Program (Aip) to
carry out measures In a noise
.compatibility pmgram that an not
disapproved by the FAA.
in establishing this new program.
which became embodied in FAR part
150, the ASNA did not change the legal
authority of elate and local governments
to control the noes of land within -their
(uriedictions. Public controls on the use
of land are commonly wwdsed by
zoning. Zoning is a rowel reserved to
Is an exercise of the police powers of the
states that designates the teres permitted
on each parcel of land. This power is ,
usually delegated in state enabling
legislation to local levels of government.
Neither the FAA nor any other agency
of the Federal govemment hes z aing
aotaodqq;. .
Many local land use control :
authorities (cities, counties. etc.) have
not adopted zoning ordinances or other
controls to orevem noncompatible
•
within -the nolee impact areas of
airports. An airport's noise impact area,
identified within noise contours an a
noise exposure map, may extend over a
number of different local jurisdictions
that individually control lead uses. For
example, at five airports nomtly
studied. noise contours overldd
portions o�ctr� twenty-five
t
While airport operators have included
measures in noise compatibility
'programs submitted underpert 150 to
prevent the development of new
noncompatible land uses through
zoning'and other controls Under the
authorities of appropriate local
Jurisdictions, stxass in implementing
these measures has been mixed A study
performed under contract to the FAA,
completed in January 1994. evaluated
sixteen airport ease studies for the
implementation of land use control
measures. This study found that of the
sixteen airports. six locations have
implemented the recommended zoning
manures, seven locations have not
implemented the recommended zoning
measures, and three are in the process
Of implementation
Another recent independent study
evaluated ten airports that have FAA
approved par 150 programs In place
and found that four locations have
•
10
0
14702 Federal Register /Val. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
prevented new noncompatible land use
development and six locations have not
prevented ouch new davelopmeaL At
the latter nix locations the study
reported that twenty-six nonntrpmt
sponsor Jurisdictions have approved
new noncompatible development and
twenty-sigbt nonairport sponsor
jurlsdictions and one airport sponsor
jurisdiction have vacant land that is
zoned to allow future noncompatible
development
Me
dent inddent study identified the
primary problem of allowing new '
noncompatible land uses near airports
to be in jurladictious that are different
from the airport sponsor's Jurisdiction. .
Two Is consistent with observations by
the FAA and with a previous General
Accounting Office (GAO) report that
observed that the ability of airport
operators to solve their noise problems
Is limited by their 1s& of control over
the ]and surrounding the airports and
the operator's dependence on local
communities and states to cooperate in
implementing land use control
messuzes such as zoning for compatible
The FAA's January 1994 study
explored factors that contribute to the
failure to implement land use controls
for noise purposes. A major factor is the
multiplicity of jurisdictions with land
use powers within airport noise impact
areas The greater the number of
diftareat jurisdictions, the greater the
probability that at least acme of them
wlltnot implement controls. Some
jurisdictions have not developed
cooperative relationships with the
airport operator, which impedes
appropriate land use compatibility
I Some jurisdictions are not
aware the affects of aircraft noise and
of the desirability of lend use controls.
131s appears to be caused by a lack of
ongoing education and communication
between the airport and the
jurisdictions. and to be worsened by
lack of=ntinulryry in local govemmeaL
Some juriedictlom do not perceive
land use controls as a priority bemuse
the amount of vacant fend available for
aoncompaUble development within the
airport noise impact area b small,
per MPS ConsUtuting only acinar
ddeevvelopment an dbperaed vacant lots,
or bemuse the eutrmt demand for
residential construction asst the �Tport
is low to nonexistent. In such areas land
use control cheap are not considered to
have the ability to substantially change
the number of residents affected by
noise. jurisdictions may also give noise
a low priority compered to the
economic advantages of developing
more residentalland or the need for
additional housing stock within a
eommuni : A zoning clump from '
residential to industrial or commercial
may not make economic sense if little
demand exists for this type of
development opportunity. Therefore. a
zoning cLenge b viewed ea limiting
development opportunities and
a+^�+�{•�+meg the opportunities for tax
revenues.
In some cases, compatible land use
zoning has met with organized public
opposition byproperty owners ung
that the proposed seeing Is a threat to .
private eroaertv rights. and that they
basie:Daing doetrtae demands that the
ladihdduual land percab be LiR with
viable economic value, Ls., be coned for
a use for which there Is reasonable.
demand and economic rshtra.
Otherwise, the courts may determine a
zoning change for compatibility to be a
"taking" of private property for public
use under the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution requiring jnst
One or moos of the lectors htaderiag
e$ective land »sa controls maybe of
auffident Importance to preclude some
jurbdietions from lollowing through on
the Lord true recommendation of an
airport's part 150 noise compatibility
program. When either an airport
sponsor's or a nonairport sponsor's
jurisdiction allows additional
noncompatible development within the
airport's noise impact area, it can result
in noise problems for the people who
move into the ares. This ran. in tum,
result in noise problems for the airport's
operator In the form of inverse
condemnation or noise nuisance
lawsuits. public opposition to the
expansion of the airport's capacity, and
local political pressure for airport
operational and capacity limitations to
reduce note. Some airport opemtors
have terse the position tLat they will
not provide any 8napdal assistsnca tu
mitigate aviation noise for new
aonrompatible development. Other
airport operators have determined that it
is a practice' aeeeasiry for them to
include at least some new residential
areas within their nobs assistance
to mitigate ache fmpaw that
twere unable to prevent in the first
place—particularly if they have airport
expansion plans. Over a relativelyy short
period of time. the distinctions 9:
between what Is "new" and what Is
"®dsdug" eesidentbl development with
respect to airport mise Issues.
Airport operators currently have the
local discretion to include new
noncompatible land uses, as well as
existing noncompatible land uses, .
within their part. 250 notes
17
compatibility programs and to
recommend that remedial land use
measures—usually either land
acquisition or noise insulation—be
applied to both situations. These
recommendations have been considered
to be approvable by the FAA under part
150. The part 150approval enables
noise mitigation measures to be eligible
for Federal funding althoughit does'not
guarantee that Federal funds be
Provided.
Proposed Change in Policy
At issue is whether the FAA should
revise itspartSSo dpproval policy and
its All? noise set aside funding policy so
as to approve and fund only .
preventative nolse mitigation measures
for now noncompatible land use
development The FAA's goal Is to have
a policy in place that provides airport
operators with the mommum possible
incentive available under the ASNA and
the part 130 program, and the FAA with
the maximum possible leverage to .
prevent the introduction of ttonel
aoaeompatmle development within an
airport s aofss contoua The FAA also
sears
to make the most cmte8aetive
use of limited Federal dollars that have
been at aside for projects to implement
part 150 programs. It b the FAA's intent
to revise its policy within the
parameters of the ASNA. but future
legislative initiatives should not be
ruled oaL
Discvdam
The continuing development of
noncompatible lead uses around
airports is not a new problem. The FAA.
airport operators, and the aviation
community as a whole have for some
years expended a great deal of effort to
deal whit the noise problems that are
fated Such development.
precipitated
W th respect to the part 150 program
and Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
noise grants, the FM'unsidered in the
19a9-1990 time frame whether to
disallow federal essistsnce for new
noneampatible development. The
choice posed at that time was either (1)
allow Federal funding for airport
operator recommendations in part 150
progeame that included new
ac --compatible land uses within the
parameters of land use measures ..
targeted for financial maisteaw from the
airport ios.gg. acquisition, noise
hasulaU®),nor (2) disallow all Federal
Lording for new noncompatible
development that lo®! jurisdictions fail
to control through zoning or other land
use caaaols. No other alternatives were
The FAA selected the first option—to
continue to allow Federal funds to be
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 2995 / proposed Rules . 14703
i:'. used to mitigate new noncompatible
development as well as existing
noncompatible development if the
w• ' airport operator so chose. Several factpees
?l ortedisdecision. One factor
lack of
authority by airport operouns to
prevert new noncom table
development is none�rpa ort spo----
jurisdictions,
orjnrisdi ons, although airport sponsors
beer the brunt of noise lawsuits. Intense
local opposition to an airport can be
detrimental to its capacity, especially If.
-my �p�sian of airport tadlltrea b
needed The FM also considered the
plight of local dtixens living with a
noise renpect tbat they may not have
fully understood at the time of hams
purchase. rand use noise mitigation
measures, fundedby the airport either
with at without Federal agairmeen may
be the only practical tool an airport
operator hes to mitigate noise impacts In
a community. The FM was hesitant to
denyy airport operators and the affected
publii: Federal help in this regard In
addition, the FM gave deference to the .
local initiative, the fleudbillty, and the
broad
busier � �� project fimdrng
Since this review in 19811-2(180. the
FM bas given exteadve addttlonel
consideration to the subject of
aonr�patlble hood uses arotmd '.
airports. La 1993, the FM established a
study group an Compatible land Use to
assist 1n the devalopment of a national
strategy to prevent and reduce
noncompatible land uses. Pending
review of recommendations form this
study group on future initiatives that
may require latdslation, the FM is
considering whether immediate modest
changes in part 150 policy and fundisg,
within the parameters of wdsting .
legislation, would be an appropriate
interim step. The proposal presented
here involves a more measured and
mull -faceted approach than the
proposal considered in 1989-1990.
A primary, criterion in the ASNA for
the FM's approval of measures in an
airport'sppart 150 noise compatibility
program b that the measures must be
reasonably consistent with abteintag the
goal of reducing erdsting noncompatible
land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional
noncompatible land uses. Until now.
the FM has applied this criterion as a
whole when issuing determinations
unA er part 150: that Is, if a measure
either reduces or prevents
noncompatible development, no matter
when that development occurs, it may
be approved as being reasonably
consistent No distinction has been
made by the FM between remedial
land use measures that reduce
noncompatible development and
proveative land use measures that - -
prevent noncompatible developmeat..-
Airport operators may. therefore..
recommend and receive FM approval
under pari 150 for remedial acquisition
or saoluonydpproofing of new reaidertlel ,
7be PM is now considering whether
it would be more prudent to distinguish
between (1) Land use measures that we
reasonably consistent with the of-.
reducing existing noncom hood
uses (l o remsdiel measures) and (2) "
land use measures that ere rumnably
consistent with the goal of P»�8
the intredudion of additional .
noocompatlbls.land uses O t6
preventive zmomdm). Using such a
tors would.
need to clearly Id fy within the area
covered by noiseexposure maps the
location of existing noncompatible land
uses versus the location of potentially
new noncompatible land uses. Many.
airport operators currently record this
distinction in tlisir mise map
submissions, when id 0.
noacot.tpetible Land uses.
new noncompatible lord uses
Include (1) arms correctly undergoing
resideatiel or other === lo
construction; (2) gamsconed for
residential or other noncompatible
development where construction has .
not Wi - nd fn areas currently
developed newianger of thin the
time (ramered s coves by the airport's
miss competi6m program.
7110 purpose of distlnguiahing
Between wdating and potential new
noncompatible development b for
airport operators to restrict their
consideration of remedial land use
measures to existing noncompatible
development and to focus preventive
land use measures on potentially new
noncompatible development. The most
commonly used remedial land use
measures are lend aequidtian and
relocation. noise insulation, easement
acquisition, purchase assurance. and
transaction assistance. The most .
commonly used preventive land use
measure are comprehensive planning
zoning. subdivision regulations.
easement n tion restricting
roncompatib a development revised
building codes for noise inanlation, and
real estate disclosure. Acquisition of
vacant land may alga be a proventive
land use measure. Often. combinations
of these measures are applied to assure
the maximum compatibility.
. In a revised FM policy, airport
operators would not be limited to
applying the most commonly used land
use measures in their noise
compatibility programa local fleodbllity
9
1
LTE
mend other measures. •
I innovative measures. under
would be retained. However,
ISO measures anolied to
Tana sees. Dt.,umy, an sena use
measures applied to potential new
900.
under part 180 would be consistent
under this policy. The FM's approval
of remedial land use measures would be
limited to existing narcompatible
development. Tho FM's approval of
preventive laud use measures would be
applied to potential new aancompatfble
development The FM recogm1zes; that
there will be gray areas which will have
to be addressed on a case-by-case beats
within these policy guideliow For
example, minor development on vacant
lots within an existing residential
neighborhoodwhich dearly Is not
extensive new roncomosubls
purposes need tobe treated with the
same remedial measure applied to the
rest of the neighborhood. Another
examplew ould be a remedial situation
In which noise from an airport's
operation has significantly increased.
ieeulytinngg in new groes that were
compatible with initial condition
becoming noncompatible. Airport
operators would be responsible for
making the case for exceptions to the
policy guidelines in their part 250 .
submittals.
Federal funding of noise projects
through the noise set aside of the
Airport improvement Program (AIP)
would follow the same policy as the
FM's part 150 determinations— .
remedial funding for wdsting
noncompatible development and
preventive funding for potential new
noncompatible development The FM'
would apply the same policy to those
few types of noise projects, such as
soundproofing of schools and health
care facilities, that are eligible for AIP
funds under the roles set aside without
anapproved part 250
The impact of a FM's
policy on part 280 lend use
determinations and AIP funding would
be to preclude the use of the part 150
program and AIP funds to remediate
new noncompatible development
within the notes contours of an airport
after the effective date of such a policy
revision. By precluding this option
while at the same time emphasising the
array of preventive land use measures .
•
•
J
•
•
14704 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules
that may be applied to potential new
noncompatible development, the FM
seeks to focus airport operators and
foal g wernnments more clearly an using
these Federal, programs to the maximum
extent to prevent noncompatible
development around airports rather
than attempting to mitigate noise In
such development atter the fact The
FAA has determined that such a policy
will better serve the public interest
Unlike the FAA's previous
abusideration of this Issue in 1989—
lead, Federal funding would be
available to assist airport operators in
dealing with new noncompatible
development that is not by
' -
successfully try tully controlled local
jurisdictions, so long as the airport's _
methods prevent the noncompat0xle
-development rather than mitigating it
after development has occurred. This
should be a more cast effective use of
limited Federal dollen since remedial
land sae measures generally cost more
for a given unit than preventive_
Kling a date to implement this
rvlaian, the FAA must balance
to implement a pernsivad
si Program cbange as repidly as
progiams One approach would be to
implement It on an =t -by -airport -
basis, selecting either the date of the
FM's acceptance of an aitpest's noise
exposure maps or the date of the FAA's
approval of an airport's noise
compatibility, program under part 150..
This approach would have the
advantage of directly tying this policy to
a point in time for which an airport
operator has defined. In a public
Freers. the size of thea�'part s noise .
impact area and has consulted with
local jurisdictions an measures to .
reduce and prevent noncompatible land
uses. There are. however. disadvantages
to this approach. Approximately 200 .
policy. This alternative would require
the FM and airport operators to review
previous part 150 maps and pro�ame
historically reconstructing which land
use development was "existing' at that
time and which development is "new" .
since then, to potentially withdrew
Previous FAA part 150 determinations
approving remedial measures for "naw"
development, and not issue new AIP
1'ans for any "new" development
(which by 1995 may have already been
built and in Place for a number of years
and be regarded locally as an Integral
Cof the airport's mitigation program
for existing development). There Is the
further practical consideration of :
benefits to be achieved. It may now be
too late to apply preventive land nes
measures to noncompatible land uses
that have been developed since an
airport's noise exposure maps have been
accepted or anise comps ry program
has been approved if remedial land use
measures are now determined not to be
applicable to such areas, the areas
would be left in limbo. having bad no
advance warning of a Fedscal policy .
Them are also disadvantages to
applying this policy revision .
prospectively an an airpmt-by-airport
basis as an airport either updates a -
previous part 150 program or corseletss
a first-time ppart Iso submission. Ths
major disadvanttaegges would be in the
timelfnees of Implementing the y�yey
revision end the universality of)ts - '.
coverage. Slum pari 130 is a voluntary
program. airport operators may select
their timing of entryfnto the program
and the timing of updates to previous
noise exposure m
compatibility piopams. The raault
would be a patchwork lmpplemantation.
with some airports ixpexat(n I under the
new policy regarding part 1.50 land use
measures and funding and other airy
nru,mtine under the old nollcv fur an
150 program.m me easy
Is80's Thus. eetipg either the noise
exposure map's acceptance date or the
naive compatibility programs
date for these airports, which ap
the great majority of wmmerdal service
airrots with poise problems, mesns
sither applying this policy revision
retroactively or applying it
prospectively at some future date as
each airports update their maps and
ctive application has been
which could present serious
lqd issues. Theis is also an equity
issue in applying new policy
retroactively. especially in view of the
FAA's reaffirmation of the 1989-1990
d number of years. An
d and counterproductive side
.d ba the postponement by
nets of updated noise exp
nolle eempatibtiiry Programs
to
updated pert 150 programa. The
selection of a specific date could either
be (1) the date of issuance of a final
policy revision following evaluation of
comments received an this proposal or
(2) a data. 150 days to a year after
publication of the revised policy,
allowing some amount of transition time
for airport operetors.m accommodate
previously approved pert 150 programs.'
recent part 150 submissions. or those
pre�g�apme or submissions corder.
a While the date of issuance of a policy
revision has the advantaltof timeliness.
this maybe outweigbed by the
disadvantage of too abrupt a transition
from one policy to another without
giving airport operators and local
communities a chanes to read. The
FM correctly antidpales Implementing
a transition period from the date of
Issuance of a policy revidan of at hrasl
180 days to avoid disrupting airport
operators' noise compatibility programs
that have yal�reaerdgyobean submitted m the
SAA and this � statutory review.
Provision for tbL o runt � an 180
additional margin beyond
days would allow airport operators -
adequete opportunity to amend
Previously completed nolse
compatibility
p tly underway. in cocanwltat on
With local priedictlons. to make the
approprlats adjistmante in remedial
endd preventive land use mmures In the
programs. The revision of land use
strategiessubmitted In a part 130
pregam cannot be accompliabed
overnight Accordingly, the FAA Is
seeking commant on bow long to extend
a transition period beyond the 180 days :
noted --to a possible maximum of an
additional le0 days. or 12 months from
the Aate of Issuance of the policy .
revision. An time frame implemented
airports will be established only after the careful
consideration of public comments an .
this proposaL
The potential future expenditure of
All? funds for projects
tible otto remediate new
noncomosure transition period is believed m bpusaft e during a
minimal, basad ul.,m the FM's review
of the sample of airports included in the
t FAA's recent study and in an
independent study. as well as genersl
CF= lmowledgent
have a robhan
uncontrolled noncompatible
devpalopaanL Among those that do have
a bbffeemm not all of them offer to .
C
remedial Hnaneial assistance for
the new development. ae sbowa in their
pan 150 submissions. Eben In those
cues where fiaandal assistance for
remediation is recommended for new
nouea®patible development. it is
eHeetive date for this policy revision
rather than to implement it based an an
individual airports part 150 activities,
either maps or program. A specific date
would insure nationwide application on
a uniform bests and would provide a
more timely implementation than
proapeetfva airport -by -airport
impfem vtatian data. A specific data
would also eliminate any perceived
advantages in postponing stew or
l9
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14705
generally limited in scope and
identified as a lower priority than
funding remediation for existing
no=ompatible developm L Ford=, .'
funding for such new "®compatible
development ma only be anticipated In
the latter years of an airport's part 150
pso�am when it may not be needed
because of shrinking noise contours
resulting from the national transition to
the este of Stage 3 abcrsh.
Siwe pert 250Isa voluntary program,
each airport operator has the diacetion
to make its own determinations
reaardina the impact of a revised policy
an_its nom compatibility program. If an
Impact is found, each operator could
determine whether to immediately
amend 'to program -during the allowed
transition period or to.wait until the
program Is otherwise updated. However,
any remedial lend use measures for
na"competible development that ere
allowed to occur within the area of an
airport's noise exposure maps after the
effective date of a revised policy would
not be approved under part150 and
would have to be fended locally, since
they would nolouger be eligible � AIP
ae/sldamnon fromthennoip
12 months from the date
e Set aside.
o "more mor e�
a revised policy), the FM will approve
under part 150 only remedial land use
measures for �d�ng noncompatible
development and a"1y preventive land
use measures in areas of potential new
noncompatible development. As of the
Sema data. criteria for determining AIP
eligibility under the noise set aside that
are consistent with this policy will be
applied by the FAA. Specifically, no
remedial lend use measures for new
noncompatible development that occur
after the effective date of the revised
"nice gsiet asido regardless ander
previous FM determioatiow under
part ISO, the statist of an individual
airport's pan 250 pro�am or whether
the project is eligible for A1P funding
under the noise set aside without a part
ISO pragrem.
Alternatives to the Proposed Polley
Depending on the eommenfs reosivad
In response to chis the FM
will consider several tsrnatives to the
prropcsad policy revision. as listed
below. All comments received an these
alternatives. as well as other
au
ggeatloas will I* considered prior to
the adoption of any polity revision
Comm@ats should focus or the son
mt to
which an alternative would assist in
preventing the development of new
noncompatible land uses around
airports and in assuring cost effective
on of Federal funds spent on land use
measures for noise purposes.
1. Retain the present policy of
approving and funding under part 150
remedial land use measures without
regard to the date the noncompatible
development occas.
3. Retain the pmeent policy of
approving and funding under part IS0
remedial ]red use measures for those
areas not under the control of Zither the
airport of the airport's sponaorend for
which the airport operator has taken
earnest but unsuccinful steps to
persuade the controlling halsdietion to
preventtbe addition of new
noncompatible developmaat New .
noncompatible -development in areas .
under the land use control Judsdletion
of either the airport or the airport . .
operator would not be approved under
part iso nor be eligible for hording
under the AIP.
3. Retain the present poltey only with
respect to noncompatible land uses that
will remain within the DNL 65 dB
contour after the transition to an all
Stage 3 fieet
4. Retain theraseat policy with .
respect to pert 160 approval, but
eliminate Federal funding eligibility for
remedial measures for new
aeaeompadble development
3.Implement
ctphoertproposed policy on
selectins
eltherith date of the Mss acceptance
of an afrp"rt'@ noise e.gwure me or
the date of the FM's approval of an
airport's "cies corepatibiBty Program
under pan iso. Includes tonslderetion
cf whether implementation should be
retroactive or prospective.
hued In WSahinglm. FIC on Much 14.
1995.
PmI R. Dyleman,
AccUt8 Daeetor of Environmanr and Energy.
IFR Dot. 95-6764 Filed 3-17-95: 6:45, ami
satse case 4"04"
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs SeM"e
19 CFR Part 134
RM 7615-ABSO
Country of Origin Meriting
Requirements for Watches
AMCY: Customs Service. Department
of Treasury.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Soria m: This document provides
advance notice of a proposal to amend
the Customs Regulations to prescribe
specific rules Miardlae the country of
origin marking o_f we
to ensurethat •
the marking is conspicuous and legible.
The purpose of this document is to
assist in determining whether a
rulemaking Is needed to ensure a
uniform standard for eonspicvous and
legible country of origin markl"g for
watches, and if needed, the contents of
that rulemaking
oATE6: Comments must be received on
or before May 4. 2995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments
(preferebl .in triplicate) may be
addressed to the Regulations Brawl,.
Office of Regulations and Rulings. U.S.
Customs Service, Franklin Court, 2301
Constitution Ave: NW., Washington.
DG 20229. Comments submitted may be '
Inspected at the Regulations Branch, '
Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. .
Customs Service. Franklin Court, 1099
14th Street, Suite 4000, Washington,
DC.
IN FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Burton Sehlissel. Speeial'CJasafficatien
and Marking Bream O@'ice of
Regulations and Rulings (202-692-
6990).
SUPPLEMEMART 91110MUTION:
Background
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, •
as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304). provides
that, unless excepted. every article of
foreign origin (or its container) Imported
Into the U.S. shall be marked In a
conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly,
and permanently u the nature of the
arti'ale (or to container) will permit. in
such manner as to indicate to the
ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the
Engllah name of the country of origin of
the atifcle. Part 134, Customs
Regulations (19 CFR part 134),
implements the country of origin
marling requirements and exceptions of
19 U.S.C. 2304. Under S 134.41(b).
Customs Regulations (19 CFR
134.41(6)), a country of arigia marldag
is considered conspicuous if the
ultimate purthsser in the United States
is able to find the narking easily and
read it without @train.
It has come to the attmtlon of the
Customs Service that over the years
watches have bean Imported into the
United States with very tiny country of
origin markings. Usually time markings
are in very small letters on the bottom
of the dial (face) of the watch. Generally.
these markin are exceptionally
difficult to find and reed. In fact. the
country of origin markings on many
watches are so tiny that a magnifying
91ass is needed in order to read them.
country of origin markings an watches •
which are to difficult to find and read
0-
e
VOL 12 No. 12 March 21,1995 GL f Page 111
DOT Inspector General apparently has questioned FAA's decision to allow the transfer of more than $50
million from the Los Angeles Department of Airports to the city's general fund. Rep. Frank Wolf (R Va.),
chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said last week he has reeved a
confidential letter to that effect from the IG's office. The DOT IG also has completed a draft report
questioning a number of expenditures from the airport fund.
Opening of the new. $4M million (US.) Zhuhai Airport in southern China has been postponed because of _
delays in constntction. The airport, which had been scheduled to open March 26, wilthave a single four -
kilometer —13,000 -foot — runway and is slated to be used initially for domestic operations only.
FAA Proposes Change In Airport Noise Funding Eligibility
FAA yesterday proposed to preclude the future use of the Part 150 noise compatibility program and
Airport Improvement Program funds to remediate new noncompatible development within the noise
contours of an airport. Ina March 20 Fodnd Rcgisternotice, the agency said that federal funding would be
available "to assist airport operators in dealing with new noncompatible development that is not being
successfully controlled by local jurisdictions, so long as the airport's methods prevent the noncompatible
development rather than mitigating it after development has occurred." FAA said the proposed policy
would increase the incentives for airport operators to prevent the development of new noncompatible land
uses around airports "and assure the moat cost effective use of federal funds spent on land use measures."
The final policy likely will not take effect for at least six months after it is issued "to avoid disrupting
airport operators' noise compatibility programs that have already been submitted to the FAA." The
effective date would be not more than one year after adoption of a revised policy, FAA said. Comments
on the proposed policy on the effective date issue are due April 19.
In the proposed policy, FAA said that beginning on the effective date, it will approve under Part 150
only remedial land use measures for existing noncompatible development and only preventive land use
measures in areas of potential newnen ompatibledevelopment. At the same time, FAA will apply criteria
for determining AIP eligibility under the noise set-aside that are consistent with the new policy. The
proposed new policy would allow funding for the most commonly used remedial and preventative land
measures and also provide local flexibility to recommend other measures.
. FAAsaidthat,dependingoncommentsreceivedontheproposal,itwillconsiderseveralaliernatives.
The agency, therefore, has requested comments on the following alternatives to the proposed policy:
(1) Retain the present policy of approving and funding under Part 150 remedial land use measures
without regard to the date the noncompatible development occurs,
(2) Retain the present policy of approving and funding under Part 150 remedial land use measures
for those areas not under the control of either the airport or the airport's sponsor and for which the airport
operator has taken earnest but unsuccessful steps to persuade the controlling jurisdiction to prevent the
addition of new noncompatible development New noncompatible development in areas under fir -land
use control jurisdiction of either the airport or the airport operator would not be approved (Continued)
AO KTa IWOGau.MN-W..armFZ00, W010- CtC.a700 4= EOfTORIAL UMOME 2M -MUM FAX =-6"M CIMCLIIATOMI• MM -
Awry YIwEAer. Mary Awv/AtaaM Erlar. it EFIFrOalw/8av Saar. FLpn aRMTT,epT Eimer. Yyq I�aPI001alal, Garr IOtYEawW
t) I OnOQO , e010wLPYtls7WNr. P tlYrO�FaET01T0AMY a W011 G 0 RO W a0 FP Ofd b sPNa,aMO.aMaLFMIF bG.1721 AwM�aO�M Pe,
E MF"ralLN.r. 100Wm.CNa lmoaxa0.ltEmwkamelar.kamW la cGn..Ia1Ptosid It EawalpYOoer, ArlablWwtprappinwwof
w"Vim
NID,VIO.; JwFF00bam.OMmllwrrrw OIIiFI Eu0aM OMIpr; Mtrr010 W. aCOrOr.. ill, Pw�lOwl NOQiT10pP�Olpplwr. NOwrl lanOFF. Eweullw Viq
PmWN . G*wwl CP l wd aFe rr.• Fmnk O. PWI&w. awlYr Vke PrwwFnl. T,wsury='W' N: MaOM 9alawamr, Em V=Prvs NK
ani PrmBmb as be COPrwOMTGIM0�ama.w Ole Alnvlal WAa Mara0.aF raa MPOddwFY0F 40So/mtlb�aYw ty an.
WMWR� 1ntrylamabVNV w(aF= ,--Lab Noww.
March 21,1995
112
Noise Funding (Cont.) – – -
under Part 150 nor be eligible for funding under the AMP;
(3) Retain the present policy only with respect to noncompatible land uses that will remain within d*
DNL 65 dB contour after the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet
(4) Retain the present policy with respect to Part 150 approval, but eliminate federal fundin&eligrbil-
t iiy for remedial measures for new noncompatible development;
(5) Implement the proposed policy on an airport -by -airport basis, selecting either the date of the FAA's
acceptance of an airport's noise exposure maps or the date of the FAA's approval of an airport's noise compatibility
program under Part 150. Includes consideration of whether implementation should be retroactive or prospective.
Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate, to FAA, Office of Chief Counsel, Attn . Rules
- Docket (AGC -10), Docket No. 28149, 800 Independence Avenue S.W., Room 915G, Washington, D.C. 20591.
For further information, contact William Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division (AEE -300), FAA Office of
Environment and Energy, at 202-267-3553, fax 202-267-5594. (FAA Docket 28149)•
FAA Cracks Down On Aircraft -Sharing To Meet Stage 3 Fleet Mix Rules
FAA issued a policy statement last week that prohibits two or more aircraft operators from counting
the same Stage 3 airplane in recording their compliance with noise regulations on fleet mixes The policy,
which took effect March 14 and applies to foreign as well as US6 organizations, is intended to prevent operators
from using "shared" Stage 3 aircraft to support the addition of Stage 2 aircraft to their fleets. Although the
policy statement is final, FAA said it will accept comments until Sept. 21.
. If "paperonly" compbance arrangements are allowed to continue, they "may easily result in an unacceptable
level of actual compliance and a large number of waiver applications," FAA said. The agency said such sharing
arrangements "directly contradict the intent and objectives" of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, and its policy,
published in the March 14 Faderal Register, is intended to "give all affected operators the awdmumn amount of
time to achieve compliance with the Dec. 31,1996, compliance date witlwutthe use of shared Stage 3 airplanes."
FAA said it has "only very recently become aware of these [sharing] arrangements and thea use for aom-
pliance" with the noise rule's phaseout periods for noisier aircraft. The arrangements showed up in an amlpsis
of compliance reports submitted for 1994, it said. The experience with the first interim compliance date has "
a serious concern involvirhg airplane mterdwge agreements and other arrangements that result in an individual
airplane being enumerated on the operations specifications of more than one operator" Under such arrangements, -
"a single Stage 3 airplane could be used to support the preserve of an almost limiHms number of Stage 2 airplanes."
FAA said the policy statement does not affect an operator's compliance with the Dec. 31,1994, require-
ments — if an operator used shared airplanes to comply in 1994, the compliance will be considered valid until
1996. After March 14, "an operator may not use any type of airplane -sharing agreement, regardless of the date
of the agreement, to increase the number of Stage 2 airplanes it operates," FAA said. (FAA Docket 28134)
Airport Groups Weigh In On Initial Rates And Charges Complaints
The two US. airport groups have approached DOT about precedents that could be established by early
decisions and rulings in two early rates and charges complaints filed at the department. Earlier this month,
the.Airports Council International -North America argued that DOT should not impose the bond or letter of
credit requirement where an airport claims a statutory exemption from the proceedings until the department
has determined that the exemption does not apply. The Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA) originally made
that argument, and ACI -NA last week asked permission to intervene in that complaint
Last week,- the American Association of Airport Executives said DOT should minimize the potential
-- cost and burden on airport operators by dismissing complaints early if DOT can determine that a eomplairnt
is outside its jurisdiction. AAAE's letter supported a motion to dismiss filed by the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, which argued that it is not disputed that the airport fees are imposed pursuant
to an existing agreement. Separately, PRPA and the City of Los Angeles last week filed a nerT to complaints
filed against them. (DOT Dockets 50176, 50178 & 50191) \
BAA plc last week announced the listing of its shares on -the Australian Stock Exchange following "the rising
miacstmanportstacimmAusbzlmafterdwgovemmenfsamwuuoenentofphmtopnvatizeitsownahpots." HAMEL
said it"iswokingclaselywithAMP and NSW StateSuper, two of the largestfinancial institutions in Australia
eonwone lm momw4" ■o.
• MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR MULTI -CITY COLLABORATION
1. Phase -Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft.
2. _Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations.
3. Composition of MAC Body - Accountability Issues.
4. MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of
Existing_ Airport.
S. Dual Track Airport Relocation to Hastings Site.
6. Remote Runway Development Option.
;i::
n.
7. FAA Airspace Usage Study.
• 8. FAA "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures.
9. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues.:
10. Non -Simultaneous Departure Procedures.
li. Runway 4-22 Extension Issue.
12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update
13. Noise Measurement Issues - Usefulness of Ldn65 Contour.
14. Equity of Current Runway Use System.
15. Adoption of Local Land Use Controls.
• 16. Sound Insulation of Air Noise Impacted Homes - FAA Part 150
Program.
a3
Mctropoli= Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
• Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
January 1995
0.7% (26) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 0950 (M)
Corridor Policy Boundary
0
0
Maieh 13,1995 S
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
January 1995
3708 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
... Carrier Jet Departures.CQJM
North of Proposed 0950 (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
25 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
O LEFT COUNT=1 (4.0%) RIGHT COUNT=24 (96.0%)
0
0
0
0
O
-----------------
D
1-
JQ
N
-----------------
. .• • ' '--------------------------
______ ______ _______ _
O
O___________
-----------
-6000 -40.00 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000
DEVIATION FR061 CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Mamb 13.1995 0
0
,n
u
•
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
January 1995
3708 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet -Departures
Z ... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.0%1
(North Side Before Three Miles)
1 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
0
LEFT COUNT=1 (100.0%) RIGHT COUNT=0 (0.07,)
0
o
Q
0
- N
J
Q
O
l
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4'000 6000
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Moa 13.1995 a 7
•
0
Metropolitan .Airports Commission
Minneapolis --St. Paul International Airport
January 1995
3708 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
B-00.... Carrier Jet Departures (&2 o l
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
330 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=O (0.07) RIGHT COUNT=330 (100.07)
0
-----------------
0
o . i+•
O
;
J p
QO 'r • v _ r ................
N
O
O
----------------- }----------------- {----------------- {_____-------------------------------
t
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 90 nn 4nnn A•r
DEVIATION F R 0 M CENTER OF GATE (ft
hbmh 19.1995 a I
M
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
January 1995
3708 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
I... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (0.1%1
(South Side Before Three Miles)
3 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=3 (100.0%) RIGHT COUNT=O. (0.07)
0
0
o
Q
a
0
W
D
O
O
N -
O
O
o ---------------
________________________i_ ---------- _------
--------------------------
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
DEVIATION F R 0 M CENTER OF GATE (f1)
Match 13.1995
30
0
0
Mevopolim Airports Commissio°
Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
-Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
February 1995
0.2%. (7) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 0950 (M)
Corridor Policy Boundary
Page 2 Aviation Noise Programs
•
0
0
•
0
Metrop&i= ALrWm Commissim
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
February 1995
2914 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
7... Carrier Jet Departures 2 0
North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E.
1 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=O (0.07) RIGHT COUNT=1 (100.07)
i
______________i________.________i__.____.__________}_________________f
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft
Aviation Programa
Page 3
0
•
W
t-
0
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
February 1995
2914 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
BY... Carrier Jet Departures (,M
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
284 TRACKS CROSSED P - GATE
LEFT COUNT=O (0.07.) RIGHT COUNT=284 (100.0%)
0
rwLatnav�
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (,ft
Avieam Noise Pmgrams
Page 5
,50
��HT GRE�v T �'%!h
7
cad-Fdo Ask
_j _ __ , r Y - Aaarezerr meso®err®rtzaamamlaaeAelamuoona.y::;:.
9
SOUND INSULATION
Effectivewfilithe :19%grainpMects,the
MetropolhanAirports commission Is s=W
insulating houses "Mock-by,MW In each city
based only on *wA nolle exposure levels.
agible Mocks are now prioritized within the
cities of Minneapolis, Richfield Bloomington,
Eagan and Mendota Heights using both the
certified 1996 DNL (day -night lewd) Noise
Contour and the Afrport Noise and operations
Monitoring 4stem (ANOMS) =W and
departureBight trackdata.
we deMoped this approach to the MSP
Pari l5OSotmdlnl onProgarabasedon
recommendations from the FAA," says Steve
Veochi, " manager of part 150 Programs.
Noise contour ranges for eligible blocks include
the DNL 75, 74, 73,72, 71, 70,69,68, 67,66 and
65 mocs.
"Eligible blocks in all cities were assigned 2
DNL mne based on The geographical location of
the block within the certified 1996 DNL noise
comomr," says Vetich 'Then, blocks within the
same Dn zone were
fiuther prioritized
usingANOMSactual
air carrier arrivid and
devarture fit& tracic
clam.,
d
BLOCK -BY -BLOCK IN EACH CITY
MAC APPROVES $14.5 MILLION BUDGET TO SOUND INSULATE
E; 1A El
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has
qpmved finding fora $14.5 million budget for
the MSP part l5OSomidinsul imPmpm.
During 1995, approximately 840 homes will be
sound insulated with The majority of the firoding
mining from MAC and the remainder from the
Federal Aviation Admaigradon (FAA).
ft is evident by the high Level of Maned
&ads - $14.5 mMon IN 1995 -then the MAC is
committed to the Pat 150 Sound Insulation
Ffograin on a leatterm basis," says Steve Vecchl,
1095
MAC notagetr of part 150 Propams
The makim protect, which began to
1992, is OPOCIed to soundproof SS MMY IRS 8,900
homes am MR Airport during the lifetime of the
program. To date, more thain 1,100 homes have
been sound imilatal with 840 homes on target
for 1995.
The part 150 program was designed bythe
FM to make neighborhoods nm airports more
compatibleviih airv6 noise The homes thin
will receive sound insulation thartrig this grant
3G
year inrhtde 495inMinneapolls,169holgich6eld,
62 In Bloomington, 55 in 132M and 59 in
Men" Heights.
The eligible homes readve a standard
modification package dim includes reconditioning
of editing windows, addition of eitterfor acoustic
storm windows, storm door MoMeMeUIS, wall
and 21fic basulatim, balling of room and attic
veins, and air conditioning, If the home does not MW
have it.
process produced a
city-speacmast
list of blocks
prioritized by noise
exposure, with homes
located within the DNL
75 in each city receiving 7ft bkd ofhomer in Rkbfl& wx being sound Lwdatad durii;gjm;uajy
first priority for sound
hasulAflon, followed by DNL 74, 73,72 and so on.
Ave. So., Richfield. 'lite prioritization process
Residents Interested in seeing where their
includes blocks containing both single and multi -
homes fall within the noise oomours can now take
hmoybmft
a look at the MAC Pin 150 program Prioritization
'The map gives people a better Wei of the
Map. A draft version of the ctilor-coded map will
priority placed on their location," says Vecchi.
be available for viewing at city offices or at the
-nte color coding starts from the noisiest arm in
Soundlosi on House, located at 6314 Standish
each CRY:.
MAC APPROVES $14.5 MILLION BUDGET TO SOUND INSULATE
E; 1A El
The Metropolitan Airports Commission has
qpmved finding fora $14.5 million budget for
the MSP part l5OSomidinsul imPmpm.
During 1995, approximately 840 homes will be
sound insulated with The majority of the firoding
mining from MAC and the remainder from the
Federal Aviation Admaigradon (FAA).
ft is evident by the high Level of Maned
&ads - $14.5 mMon IN 1995 -then the MAC is
committed to the Pat 150 Sound Insulation
Ffograin on a leatterm basis," says Steve Vecchl,
1095
MAC notagetr of part 150 Propams
The makim protect, which began to
1992, is OPOCIed to soundproof SS MMY IRS 8,900
homes am MR Airport during the lifetime of the
program. To date, more thain 1,100 homes have
been sound imilatal with 840 homes on target
for 1995.
The part 150 program was designed bythe
FM to make neighborhoods nm airports more
compatibleviih airv6 noise The homes thin
will receive sound insulation thartrig this grant
3G
year inrhtde 495inMinneapolls,169holgich6eld,
62 In Bloomington, 55 in 132M and 59 in
Men" Heights.
The eligible homes readve a standard
modification package dim includes reconditioning
of editing windows, addition of eitterfor acoustic
storm windows, storm door MoMeMeUIS, wall
and 21fic basulatim, balling of room and attic
veins, and air conditioning, If the home does not MW
have it.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q: iiorria the monad fonalation
A:8 for the MSP Pan 150 Sound
bsuladon Program coma from both national
(FAA) and local (MAC) fimdmg somnes.
Monal finding is provided by the PAA Part
150 fiord, based m conaibudons from all US
stdioa loci finding is provided by MAC
Ilootgh the PassmBer Faa1hy (barge (PPC),
based on a E3 mer fee on each passer
ticket. No federal, state or dry tan dam are
appropriated to ftmd this program.
Q. What modiBeffitons are done to
sound foudde a home?
A. Each home B truly unique and has
different misting conditions. A house visit is
conducted to determine the acoustical
modifications beg mated for each home.
Homes are treated as a whole package typical
modifications lorhde recmdidonfog of
windows and doors, acoustical storm windows
and doors, wall and attic insulation, baffling of
roof vents, sad cenuml mfr conditioning if it
does nes esLv.
Q. What is the Sound lila ion
Workshop?
A. On the first Wednesday of each
monk it meand a half hour workshop is held
to provide an overview of the sound insulation
program. This imides a discussion of the
noise reduction package and how it was
developed, as well as an esplaoatim of the
construction process. Approadarmeiy90
residents on priorities blocs schedudrad for
sound fastJatim are invited to each workshop.
This is the official start oftbe sound imailation
pronesfordhr• _..__. -t .
workshop, the L rpfor the
house inspection w,. Appointment is
scheduled. Once a person has been to the
workshop, the construction will ori within
the nect eight months. The construction itself
only takes 30 days.
Q: Does the part 150 Program
have a Construction Manager?
A. obtrimFeb. 1,MAChbedTom
Brown as the Part 150 fonwvttion Manager to
fmrher ensue quality control as more homes
are soundiavulated each year. This new
Position Wm enable MAC to become more
Involved in the mera0 management of the
Pim•
II'I""'11'11""'1111""1"III"'1'I"1'I"11••••1'1"1.1'1
OTST—ZZTSS NW NVE)V3
GH BONN 1O.1Id 0282
N131SN31-101-1 Nor 21W
NV9V3 d0 Ai13
Q: How many homes have been
A. The Part 150 Progrem began to
March 1992. As of Feb. 1,1995, 832 homes
located in the cities ad*mt to the MSY Airport
have received sound insulation The homes
include 533 to MimeapalK 169 in 18ch9eid,
78 in Bloomington, 18 in Fagan, and 34 in
Mendota Heights, Another 519 home In time
in cities are in dee design and construction
per•
The pace of sound insulation has
increased over the }cars. Ion the pfla year of - - -
1992,139 homes were completed In 1993,
243 homes were Insulated. By the end of grant
year 1994, 600 additional homes will be
complete (of which 450 are now complete.) Of
the 840 homes scheduled for 1995, 369 are
cmTeady in the ponces.
Pad 150 Community Monhor IS published by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to provide
Information on the Sound Insulation Program.
An Informational manual, "Part 150 Sound
Insulation Program Manual; Is available to
Interested homeowners. To request a copy of
the manual or for additional information on the
Part 150 Program, please call the Center for
Energy and Environment at 348.9397.
4LK..�� � T �._.. AAAA .�..._.....-. ... .. .. .. ....:.
iarmsenuakwwworn
,:_tel—I�-V r�htlw�Y1•. ''Y-1,41
-� ,4 _...
s61lTAVLWtl3d
- s
W'MOM11INI101
awd
�./YLIW Y 11
y f^T eve_ F zi
'aNnrow wing
t
+•.�e,a+e..+-.-xr-n-swa.�mwrsr-�e.a_s.
+-.-•�+�+r/
Q: How many homes have been
A. The Part 150 Progrem began to
March 1992. As of Feb. 1,1995, 832 homes
located in the cities ad*mt to the MSY Airport
have received sound insulation The homes
include 533 to MimeapalK 169 in 18ch9eid,
78 in Bloomington, 18 in Fagan, and 34 in
Mendota Heights, Another 519 home In time
in cities are in dee design and construction
per•
The pace of sound insulation has
increased over the }cars. Ion the pfla year of - - -
1992,139 homes were completed In 1993,
243 homes were Insulated. By the end of grant
year 1994, 600 additional homes will be
complete (of which 450 are now complete.) Of
the 840 homes scheduled for 1995, 369 are
cmTeady in the ponces.
Pad 150 Community Monhor IS published by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to provide
Information on the Sound Insulation Program.
An Informational manual, "Part 150 Sound
Insulation Program Manual; Is available to
Interested homeowners. To request a copy of
the manual or for additional information on the
Part 150 Program, please call the Center for
Energy and Environment at 348.9397.
4LK..�� � T �._.. AAAA .�..._.....-. ... .. .. .. ....:.
iarmsenuakwwworn
,:_tel—I�-V r�htlw�Y1•. ''Y-1,41
-� ,4 _...
MEMO •
city of eagan
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 16, 1995
SUBJECT: KOLLOFSKI'S ADDITION - SOUND INSULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Staff has identified a situation, of which the City Council should be aware, Involving the
Part 150 sound insulation improvements for homes in Kollofski's Addition located near the
former Airliner Motel on Highway 55. As the MAC is preparing to move forward with the
sound insulation improvements, we have determined that the homes in the area are non-
conforming uses in an area zoned PD -Commercial. As a consequence, the area causes
City policies to compete since the City has determined that noise impacted residences
should be sound insulated and that non -conforming uses should not be improved so as
to increase the property's value for that use.
The Council will recall that it conducted a review with the Airport Relations Commission
approximately a year ago regarding each area potentially eligible for the Part 150
program. Both bodies discussed the potential to buy, Insulate or simply not treat the
homes in the corridor area. The study areas were Kollofski's Addition, Blue Gentian
Road, the west side of Lexington Avenue and the McKee Addition. All of these areas are
guided to become commercial -industrial uses in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Of these,
only Kollofski's Addition is zoned to a commercial use which brings it under the non-
conforming use ordinance.
As a part of its deliberation last year, the Council was asked to consider future potential
redevelopment as one of the factors for each of the areas. The issue of improvements
to non -conforming uses was not specifically raised partially because the new ordinance
prohibiting such improvements was not considered or adopted until last November. By
that time the City Council had made a decision to sound insulate all potentially eligible
areas and applications had been distributed and were beginning to be returned. When
the MAC distributed its noise -based block prioritization list for use with 1995 allocations,
Blue Gentian, Kollofski's Addition and the west side of Lexington Avenue were among the
higher impacted areas and were prioritized ahead of the McKee Addition. As such, the
addresses were submitted to the MAC and the residents were informed of the program
selections for the year. In directing this action, the Council indicated that regardless of
0
0
• future redevelopment potentials, peoples' indoor living environments should be improved
until redevelopment actually occurs.
Prohibiting improvements to non -conforming uses has also been a priority for the City for
many years. This priority was clarified and formalized with the adoption of the non-
conforming use ordinance. The concept is simply that non -conforming uses prevent the
redevelopment of a property to its ultimate intended- use and that the presence of
incompatible uses in proximity will create nuisances for one or both. Rather than
encourage these uses to continue indefinitely, the City's ordinance only permits non-
conforming uses to be maintained, but not expanded or improved in a way which will
increase its financial value.
It is possible to differentiate between the types of improvements proposed under the Part
150 Program to make a current home more liveable and those which would expand the
home or enhance its quality beyond dealing with the noise nuisance. Staff would suggest
however that If the Council concurs with this differentiation and requests no changes in
the Part 150 eligibility list as submitted, it would be important for the City to make such
a finding formally indicating that the Part 150 activities are for sound attenuation purposes
only, making dear the Council's original intent, and that the non -conforming use
ordinance applies in all other respects to such properties. Then, neither the subject
homes nor other non -conforming uses could expand or Improve their property on the
basis of this decision.
• If the Council wishes to consider other options including modifying the use of Part 150
funds in the Kollofski's Addition or other residential areas in the corridor, an effort should
be made to involve the affected residents in the discussion. This is because of the high
level of public participation in the original decision and because of the expectations which
have been created for these homeowners over the past year. =
0
Unless directed to do otherwise by the City Council, staff is prepared to make a
determination that Part 150 sound insulation activities do not constitute an improvement
of the property under the non -conforming use ordinance and that the ordinance prohibits
any other improvements beyond those in the Part 150 program. If you have any
questions, please let us know.
cc: Peggy Reichert, Community Development Director
37
Runway 4/22 Lawsuit Jim Prosser
3/30/95 TLH
JDH
1. Bloomington has voted to pursue the lawsuit, but has not allocated funding.
2. Basic philosophy is that airport should stay and want partners to have common
philosophy.
3. Purpose of lawsuit - force arbitration. Believe there is an opportunity of a middle
ground.
— NWA wants longer international runway
— Airport needs reliever for 29/11 reconstruction, Richfield opposes redistributing
noise.
4. Have tried to work with MAC staff but they are allowing Richfield to rise or fall with
MAC Board on their own.
5. Now dealing with MC (Solem, Curt Johnson) who seems to understand housing issues.
MC may be supportive.
6. Encouraging others to work with MC on regional land use impact
— May meet Metro Significance criteria
— Chuck Dayton with Leonard Street is local council.
7. NWA doesn't support redistribution either because of cost mitigation.
8. Feels from Dayton's response that NWA believes there is a good case which could delay
project
9. Record of decision begins 30 day clock for Federal filing. MAC request to MC for
approval of expenditure will be signal to move quickly. MC staff will take 30 days to
review and 30 days for committee/Council review.
10. FAA is gathering more information on Richfield mitigation.
11. Litigation strategy is to require RGU to present clear and convincing analysis of impact
— Should do reviews of extension and noise mitigation separately.
— Extension was submitted as part of Part 150 as noise abatement and FAA rejected
it on that basis.
— Not providing noise data after 1996, because they claim it will never be worse.
— Average of 4 hours/day of use of 22, with extension 2 hours/day anyway. Within
five years the use will dwindle more.
,to
•
C�
C�
• _ $55 million doesn't cover actual mitigation
Minneapolis dilemma is that noise mitigation money' will shift to Richfield/
Bloomington for only 2 hours/day over five years.
— Want to pursue an initiative to clarify noise insulation benefit and potential
shrinkage of Part 150 in Minneapolis. 4000 reduction in Minneapolis 7000 add in
Richfield and Bloomington.
Want to get parties together to push for more Part 150 or noise abatement funds.
' — Make clear that reduction of noise contours will hurt Minneapolis by reducing Part
150 eligible area while noise impact will still be very serious far beyond the current
contours.
Time delay may force MAC to mediate.
— State law requires RGU to prove there is no reasonable and prudent alternative.
The reasonable and prudent alternative is to not redistribute noise. MAC is
probably counting on federal preemption.
Offers Steve Pflaum to talk or Dayton. Will send copy to us and Sheldon.
— Kathy Gaylord called Richfield to ask how to resolve this.
(312) 984-3641
Steve Pflaum for Jim Sheldon
Other Options
. — Interaction with MC
— Public Relations on the issue and meet with editorial boards
Push to mediation
— Lend name and nominal contribution
— Up to equal partners
0
AGENDA
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUN
General Meeting
MARCH 28,1995
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
L Call to Order, Rol Cao
L Approval of Minutes of Meeting March 7,1995
3. Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
L
Vi
7.
Perron Wishing to Address the Counel. !'-J"►+' :y_jQ�
Update an Runway 4/22 Extension Project - By Mark Ryan �16 4' 1 6T ��•�`""'
Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
BrleMg: Operations Committee - New Noire Management Methodolgy
Information Briellgg: GPS Capabilities
City of Bloomington Airport Policies
Report of MAC Commission Meeting March 20, 1995
Other Items Not on the Agenda
Adjournment .
Next Meeting: April 25, 1995
U
1 Y' IMMh\f
O
/Yum`Rom
•
= %
„ o
•�
m PO�
p
0 O
Nku-OPOLitan Airports Commissice
Operations and Complaint Summary
February 1995
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
. . . . ....... . .... . . . . . .•
'MAR RD&
01.1:�, M
04 196 12 62 0.4
22 74 05 601 39
11 4341 26.8 4722 .30.3
29 11601 71.5 10176 65A
MP February Fled Mix Percentage
Airport February'Complaint Summary
.. . . . . ... . . .
MP
e
giiq
749
AhWce
2
.A
Amb
0
4
SwV 2 615
56.8
61.1
57A
Stege 3 38.5
43.2
38.9
42.6
Airport February'Complaint Summary
- February Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
N
MP
532
749
AhWce
2
0
Amb
0
4
QYSW
I
146
Flying Gmid
5
6
Ldw Elmo
0
0
SL Pad
3
7
I
MI, I
FEE-
- February Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
AvindcnNdwftGg=$
%%4
9,
0
Pap I
N
703
731
Air Crier
306
305
GA
IN
146
Nfituy
7
6
Air Freight
42
34
ChMw
31
31
MI, I
AvindcnNdwftGg=$
%%4
9,
0
Pap I
E
•
0
Mem"btan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
February 1995
Complaint Summary by City
Page 2
�� Y �'�Arriwal
r=3�aWT•e �A 1ro_1.:Pyu'
H Departure
Total
up x
/
Eagan
36
85
121
16.43%
Filen Prairie
0
1
1
0.14%
Edina
1
4
5
0.68%
Golden Valley
0
1
1
0.14%
laver Grove Heights
40
110
150
20.37%
Mendota Heights
27
112
139
18.88%
Minneapolis
70
195
265
36.01%
Moundsview
0
1
1
1 0.14%
Plymouth
0
2
2
0.27%
Richfield
6
9
15
2.04%
Rosemount
0
1
1
0.14%
South St. Paul
1
0
1
0.14%
St. Louis Park
1
1
2
0.27%
St. Paul
10
20
30
4.08%
West St. Paul
1
1
2
0.27%
rT'otalr193�°
����_, `z
� �
X543 77777M77776777
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Avisdon Nabe Aegroms
r=3�aWT•e �A 1ro_1.:Pyu'
�_a�i
.�?s
00:00- 05:59
31
_
Excessive Noise
658
06:00-06:59
43
h "
Early/lAft
59
11
6
07:00- 11:59
�s.
179 Low Flying
12:00- 15:59
108 Structural Disturbance
16:00-19:59
109
4r
Helicopter
0
12
1
20:00 - 21:59
194 Ground Noise
22:00 - 22:59
55 Engine Run-up
23:00 - 23:59 1
30
Frequency
2
a:
Avisdon Nabe Aegroms
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report FebruaryJ995
M-
vW
.,yet
04
A
�114
1.1%
145
1.5%
IlL
A
1302
13.0%
1748
17.7%
IIR
A
1352
13.5%
1943
19.7%
22
A
33
03%
29
03%
29L
A
3835
38.3%
3238
32.8%
29R
A
3380
33.8%
2763-
28.0%
:oMbfid, Rr
uloq%gqg"�'
66-, M
04
tt
D
6
0.0%
35
0.4%
IIL
D
1291
13.8%
1726
19.3%
11R
D
1623
173%
2161
24.1%
22
D
346
3.7%
420
4.7%
29L
D
3401
36.3%
2595
29.0%
- 29R
D
7 11
27/111
28.9%
2023
22.5%
NI-)
;7A
TRU
77WT.....
0
Page 5
0
0
?AetrOPOULan Airports C®mivqeoo
Nighttime Carrier jet Operations
-4
10.
Pw Ax sa
fits
............ ...x A�
-Tib
1994,",
-,Vat,
F b
04
A
20
4.1.%
22
5.4%
11L
A
15
3.1%
31
7.6%
11R
A
10
2.1%
54
13.2%
22
A
0
0.0%
4
1.0%
29L
A
362
75.1%
210
51.3%
29R
A
75
15.6%
88
21.5%
04
D
2
19%
2
2.1%
11L
D
'33
32.0%
15
15.6%
11R
D
44
42.7%
53
55.2%
22
D
12
11.7%
10
10.4%
29L
D
11
10.7%
10 1
10.4%
29R
D
I
1.0%
6
Zbtsl Dep J�
M96
ild
.
X00%
Aviation Noise Progmas
L4 01
Pop 7
Metropolitan Airp= Commission
Carrier Jet Operations by Tj pe
February 1995
AircrafE �spe �
i`W Count �°
>�erc�nt`
B727H
173
0.9%
DC9H
519
2.7%
B707
0
0.0%
B733/4/5
1120
5.8%
B747
103
05%
B74F
3
0.0%
B757
1583
8.2%
B767
0
0.0%'
DA10
5
0.0%
DC10
916
4.7%
DC87
104
05%
EA32
1872
9.7%
FK10
715
3.7%
L1011
126
0.6%
MD11
3
0.0%
MD80
1027
5.3%
BA10
4
0.0%
BAll
3
0.0%
B727
3576
185%
B737
395
2.095
DC8
84
0.4%
DC86
38
0.2%
DC9
6977
36.0%
MU
48
03%
Pap 8 Avie6m Noise Ym o
0
42.6% Stage III
LJ
57.4% Stage H
E
MetopoUm Aupom C==s=
Remote Monitoring Site Locations
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
Flight Track Base Map
10000 1t�
/ ►J • FS/13
FS/21
.F 4 .
7Cvet a Heights
E . FS
F
O �
Aviedm Ndae ftaqs
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
February 1995
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RI%ff
a
Aviation Noise ftqpms
0
Pap 13
VI ffin MR g
SO
............ ..
E
1
Xer:xes Avetme & 41st Saw97=2
�70
1
0
2
Mmneapelia
Remont Avemse & 43rd Sam
2704
378
4
0
3
bfiflwaPolis
W Elmwood Sow & Belmont Averme
3125
M
29
0
4
hfitmespolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Street
2931
1278
4
0
5
Afianesporis
12th Asecos & 58th SUM
3180
1891
106
0
6
Vzonewdis
25th Avenue & 57th SUM
2837
1613
299
1
7
RhAfmid
Wentworth Ave & 641h Sam
161
31
1
0
8
hfinnevolis
langkIlow Avesme & Ord Street
143
14
0
0
9
SL Purl
Saratoga SUM & Hartford Amme
31
14
0
0
10
St. Paul
kasca Avenue & Bowdon Sum
30
is
5
0
11
St. Pad
Firm Sum & Scheftr Avenue
7
3
0
0
12
St. Pant
Man SUM & Rockwood Avenue
8
6
3
0
13
Mendota Heigha
Southeast and of Mabk-- Court
16
7
0
0
14
FAgn
First Street & McKM Street
3103
104
2
15
Mendota Heights
Calto Street & Lexington Avemm
143
31
0
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Vlas Igoe
2831
1803
37
0
17
Blommington
84th SUM & 4th Avenue
61
40
0 1
0
is
Ridfield
75th Sum & 17th Avenne
97
61
1
0
19
Bloomiligton
16th Avenue & gft Sum
14
12
0
0
20
R;arfwd
75th Street & 3rd Avenue
7
4
0
0
21
Badmn Avenot & 67th Street
91
23
0
0
22
Inver Ciroic Heights
Ana MaricTraff
1201
19
1
0
23
Meadow HAdis
Bad of Kendon Avenue
IM
61
0
0
24
Eagan
chapedne&WIrenLave
04
64
5
0
Aviation Noise ftqpms
0
Pap 13
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
February 1995
• Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Eat i RMT
0
Pap 14 Aviation Noise Programs
ren
ON I
F
I
Nkmeapolis
Xerm Avenue & 41st Sum
213
50
5
1
2
Uhnisspolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Suva
241
70
8
0
3
Mmnevolis
WElmwood Street &BehwwAvenue
1 940
233
23
1 0
4
NbEevolis
OaWmd Avenue & 49th Suet
1253
581
70
3
5
w1uneVolis
12th Avenue & 581h SUM
25M
1163
579
66
6
WbOBAPAS
251h Avenue & 57th SUM
4271
2731
1601
471
7
Pjcbfield
Wentworth Ave & 64th Suva
1492
533
161
4
a
w1mevolis
Laogffilow Avenue & 43rd Saw
704
263
35
0
9
SL Paul
Saratoga Sum & Hartford Avenue
30
5
0
0
10
Sc Paul
Itma Avenue & Bowdoin Suet
34
13
5
0
11
SL Paul
F= Saw & Sclteffer Avemse
22
6
3
0
12
SL Pad
Alton Suet & Podmood Avenue
37
15
3
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast and of Molucim Corot
335
223
11
0
14
E49M
FIM Street & McKee SUM
2942
1031
48
0
15
Mendotalgeigb
Cull— Street & I mington Avenue
2471
852
34
1
16
FAgw
Avalon Avenue & VUW Lim
3705 1
1420.
139
6
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
152
40
10
0
is
Richfield
75th SUM & 17111 Avenue
351
172
67
12
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Sum
260
133
34
2
20
RiMeld
75th Suet & 3rd Avenue
214
26
10
0
21
hrm Grove TWOU
Bwbffa Avenue & 671h SUM
983
113
1
0
22
laver Grove
Anne Made Thil
1434
178
6 -
0
23
M=dOtA Heights
End of Kendra Avenue
2971
1431
448
63
24
. Eagan
Chapel Lane & wren Lone
521
60
17
0
Pap 14 Aviation Noise Programs
Wvopoitfan A¢pmu Comz=sim
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota Heights
RMT#15: CuDon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
bP�.�(a5 , ys .N.�J'x.•b C i
@W�^ )Y'UR.�
a � �.,M1 .{xr* , n
'�• �p�y� /
C IiLY %At
y`C'�a/`�_�R�.
l,siiaz
. Fr•„ __: ur
n CtlV.Y.. ,.
0=119520:53:06
B727
96A
D
02x09195 2&W- 1
B727
959
D
02/1419517:4433
DC9
93.7
D
0207!951&1035
B727
910
- — D
=MM 12:29:42
B727
915
D
=119517-04.41
DC9
91A
D
02/18195 6:11:43
B727
913
D
02rA19520:16:40
8727
912
D
07116195 9:46:42
B727
91.1
D
M4419515:33:32
MD80
90.8
D
RMT#15: CuDon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
bP�.�(a5 , ys .N.�J'x.•b C i
@W�^ )Y'UR.�
a � �.,M1 .{xr* , n
'�• �p�y� /
C IiLY %At
y`C'�a/`�_�R�.
l,siiaz
. Fr•„ __: ur
n CtlV.Y.. ,.
01(1419517.44:11
B727
100.7
D
021141957:54:27
DO
96A
D
02/15195 052:36
B727
965
D
022519518:51:19
B727
962
D
O?A7A51450.08
B727
959
D
02/16)9514:40.06
B727
95.7
D
0281195 20:2537
B727
953
D
028519520.0027
B737
95.1
D
028119520.27:26
DC9
949
D
02/1419517:29:00
B727
94.8
D
Page 18 — — — — Aviadm NOise 1
RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St.
J
•
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Was Lane
�•W .G�k
N'S.L ya
] 9T911P.
T.iAlf6 x
MleWtl
2 !
0225195 7:27:13
B727
97.8
D
028519515:16.16
B727
97.7
D
0005195 637:15
B727
96.9
D
02126195 7:31:11
B727
96.8
D
02118195 8:4055
8727
96.6
D
02(14195 22:43:34
B727
962
D
02(2419516:2121
8727
96.0
D
02/17)9516:08:54
B727
959
D
028519518:01:15
DC9
95.7
D
0225195 6..0928
B727
95.6
D
•
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Was Lane
�•W .G�k
N'S.L ya
] 9T911P.
T.iAlf6 x
MleWtl
2 !
02(18195 9:49:00
B727
101.
D
07(17/9520:1559
B727
101A
D
0102195 85031
B727
100.8
D
0784195 20:44:28
B727
1005
D
02121)95 10-14-40
B727
1003
D
0712519517:13:15
B727
1002
D
07(18195 73643
B727
99.9
D
020119516:5356
B727
99.8
D
07(18195 907:47
B727
995
D
071AM 20:00:18
B727
99.0
D
0
0
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #21: Barbaka Ave. & 67th SL
Inver Grove Heights
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
-�.�-M, 41
. .... ....
UrI . ........
02(26/95145921
B727
903
D
02A419513:12.06
DC9
899
D
02/14/951005:56
B727
89.4
D
02/141951956:11
DC9
89.1
D
02AU95 2014-01
DC9
889
D
07!24/9518:4220
B727
99.0
D
0201195 18:24.19
B727
97.7
D
02/18195 7:03:45
B777
87A
D
OUM 14.40.55
B727
87.5
D
02f26)95 15:01:55
DC9
$7.5
D
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
-�.�-M, 41
. .... ....
NO,.
OZOAM 20.04.43
B727
104.5
D
02/17195195330
B727
104.3
D
02 lM 202532
8727
104.0
D
=1)9520,31:29
W27
103.9
D
0202/95 17.0933
B727
1032
D
02/18195 6:56:20
B727
103.8
D
020/95 202-40
B727
1035
D
00/181959:5455
B727
103A
D
OZWJ95 11:55:39
B727
1032
D
ID
0212V95 20,52-46
DC9'
103.0
D
Past 20
Aviation Noise Prommas
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
IN,
. .... ....
NO,.
02/1719513:16:02
B737
96.9
A
02n4/95 9-4236
8727
911
D
02/14M 8:1553
DC9
91.2
D
OUAM 20:45:38
B727
WS
D
02a5195 9.09.18
B727
90.5
D
MOM 7.46:18
B727
90.4
D
02125195 11:37:54
B727
90.1
D
728.06
B727
90.0
D
02124)95 20559-14
B727
89.9
D
02124195 15:01:37
B727
89.8
D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
. .... ....
NO,.
=195 14:13:01
DC9=7
A
02/0919514:18:37
B737
97.8
A
MAWS 11-04.36
FKn
972
A
0209)9514:07:35
B737
96.8
A
02(25J9515.45:08
B727
952
D
00/2519515:33:30
B727
95.0
D
02MV95 15:3&-27
8727
94.7
D
07U-95 7:3655
B727
94.6
D
02101)9516:54.36
B727
93.7
D
02O195 6:23:21
B727
93A
D
hkvopolitan Aupom Commission
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
February 01 to February 30,1995.
Noise Monitor Locations
- Lou dM AFOW" han Ofddo amikWe
Aviation Nain Prqpwu Pap 25
5,7
WANMW
W"Mmw
1
573
59.4
65.4
662
749
77.6
672
632
I
43.0
543
1 57.0
I
48.8
2
56.1
58.6
64A
643
74.7
729
65.1
59.6
492
593
54.0
553
3
613
60.5
642
64A
74.8
78.3
71.6
649
523
56.1
09
559
4
563
582
58.5
639
1 72.8
752
70A
65.0
50.8
45.5
373
49.0
5
56.0
56A
583
619
67.7
74.7
63.7
58.1
499
41A
45.0
43.8
6
57.7
58.7
63.3
64A
72.5
78.5
662
63A
41A
51.8
45.2
56.7
7
579
57.3
589
61.2
70.7
75.5
65.1
60.2
50.5
58.3
552
56.7
8
56-8
58.5
60.8
65.0
72A
79.0
659
63.5
492
5&0
47.5
57.1
9
693
61.1
67A
693
75A
80.7
683
653
49.7
59.7
52.1
569
10
57A
58A
60.5
653
742
782
683
65.1
1 429
30.6
482
1 539
11
63.7
63.0
64.1
66A
76.2
77.7
69.1
68.6
512
363
44.6
1 46.1
12
65.2
58.7
0
613
703
76.2
643
64.7
51.0
49.3
452
51.7
13
56.4
57.6
56.7
633
69.1
76.1
65.6
59.2
45.5
479
35.2
55.8
14
653.
67A
70.0
68.0
72.1
741
53.1
613
50.1
60.6
54.4
559
15
61A
60.7
64.5
64.6
749
78.1
723
629
475
59.7
52.4
53.5
16
58.6
595
643
643
749
77.0
67.6
65.5
463
58.9
50.7
55.0
17
553
58.8
65A
66.9
752
782
66.0
63.5
53.8
61.9
542
58.8
18
59A 1
60.1
639
66.1
74A
783 1
659
61.7
523
63.0
532
582 1
19
56.2
589
68.2
64.3
75.2
78.0
66.0
64.3
503
543
479
58.2
20
60.1
59.2
623
63.5
739
789
70.6
65.6
46.1
52.1
45.5
63.1
21
56.9
59.5
63.8
63.5
70.7
75A
60.0
W
55.3
63A
57.0
569
22
58.1
58.3
62A
679
75A
80.1
68.2
62A
45.7
60.4
60.0
55.6
23
63.5
622
65A
65.6
74.0
78.6
69A
66.7
529
58.0
56.6
52.9
24
59.0
60.5
671
66.5
74.7
773
669
659
542
61.1
563
54.5
25
62.8
653
68.2
64.8
•
70.6
58.8
57.7
46.8
56JD
47.8
46.7
26
589
609
64.7
619
672 1
68A
50.1
49.6
40.7
523
469
472
27
58.6
59.7
643
69-0
769
79.5
739
68.5
50.3
47.0
42A
52.5
28
60.0
592
71
777
60.6
629
70
73.0
782
67.5
66.5
51A
56A
549 I
56.1
Mo. Ldrs
612
ZA
.7
=
77A 1
68.1
58A 1
53.7 1
56.8
- Lou dM AFOW" han Ofddo amikWe
Aviation Nain Prqpwu Pap 25
5,7
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
February 01 to February 30, 1"S
Noise Monitor Locations
*Lou A= &wwYf"wm= OfAm amaws
Pop 26 Avisfim Noise hogmm
_ 5 f
CI
0
0
Mx
1
592
65.1
61.8
71.0
623
65.0
56.0
532
59.5
62.6
72A
66.8
2
63.8
66.8
67.2
71.6
60.7
60.5
47.0
46S
61.7
63.6
753
67.2
3
53A
653
61.1
713
50.8
60.6
572
57.6
48.7
612
66.0
66.1
4
40.1
57.1
519
UA
649
71.1.
66.0
59.0
1 34.7
1 54.0
54.8
1 602
5
44.6
70.8
48.9
72.0
64.2
719
643
61.7
58.0
58.7
58A
67.0
6
542
59.6
58.8
70.5
619
665
67.0
60.6
53.8
59.8
67A
632
7
38.7
569
*
69.2
57.9
65.8
66.2
56A
38.7
57.7
555
0.1
8
53.6
67.4
612
69.7
662
72.0
69A
63.1
54A
61.0
61.5
64.8
9
629
672
67.0
71.1
57.1
65.3
60.8
523
58.1
1 64.0
75A
72.1
10
53,8
63.7
54.6
72A
57.2
59.8
613
62-8
51.1
64.1
609
66.7
11
42,6
65.1
54.2
71A
54.9
649
64A
52.7
52.2
60.8
58.5
64.8
12
43.6
523
41.9
60.9
55.2
68.7
53.8
57.7
•
503
40.4
54.5
13
40.7
52.6
53.1
65.1
58.7
693
67.9
58.0
432
532
54.7
57A
14
659
67.6
70.0
71.6
49.5
50.5
46.4
50.1
1 622
1 65.1
77.3
659
15
652
67.2
71.0
70.5
489
57.0
46.9
535
623
63.5
77.6
65.6
16
61.3
66.1
65.5
70.0
59.7
55.4
MA,
519
58.8
605
73.0
64.0
17
613
65.6
65.8
71.6
52.4
579
54.8
52A
595
68.5
74.1
•
18
65.7
67.1
68.0
72.3
59A
67A
61.8
57.2
62.0
62,1
75.8
65.5
19
54.6
63.0
61.7
70.1
52.7
682
71A
58A
61.0
603
63.5
64.0
20
493
64.4
59.5
71.0
9.7
68.8
71.2
60.2
*
58A
64.5
64.1
21
66.1
65.1
68.6
709
549
57.2
47.8
499
62.4
62.5
762
66.3
22
50.3
63.5
60.8
71.0
593
64.5
64.8
59.7
471
60.7
•
64.7
23
49.1
65.7
58.5
709
61.3
72A
713
65.7
44.8
60.2
•
65.2
24
64.1
61A
66.9
72A
57.1
64.9
63.2
55.1
623
64.0
75A
67.3
25
703
67A
73.7
66.6
66A
.48-0
52.8
60.1
67A
75.0
70.1
26
(2.7
68.5
0.5
729
66.7
65.6
47.6
47.0
61.6
649
75.0
T
68.8
27
43.7
59.7
52.8
689
619
66.6
593
57.2
443
57A
58.6
635
28
405
58.5
523
693
54.5
64.4
62.4
59.9
513
57.5
57.9
62.7
=
61.0
65.8
64.4
712
62.7 1
68.9 1655
59.6
582
1
62.6 1
723
66.8
*Lou A= &wwYf"wm= OfAm amaws
Pop 26 Avisfim Noise hogmm
_ 5 f
CI
0
0
ANOMS Monthly Review
Aviation No
ise
Programs
MSP Monthly Complaint
Summary
mmrmml
nil
III
Al
1111111
1111111111111111
iiiaiFIII
III
iii
[11111
I'll
I'll
Ill
111111,111
�NN .........
w
y , ..� y
ANOMS Monthly Review
Aviation Noise
Programs
I Carrier
JetAValsrri
Runway Use Summary
...............M.
.OM.M.AM.MN..M.
bi
WMN.W.NW.WW.MM.M.
ANOMS Monthly Review
Aviation Noise
Programs
Carrier Jet Departures
.Runway Use Summary
r
,
ANOMS Monthly Review
Aviation Noise
;Programs
Nighttime Carrier Jet
Arrivals S
MMMMMMMOMMMMMMMMM
MWMMNMWNMMWMWWMWM
MMMMMMMMWMMMMMMMW
MMNMWMMWMWMMNMMNM
MMNMNMMNMMWMWMMMM
IANOMS Monthly Review -
IPercentage
-n-AVlatl
on Noisy
Programs
Nighttime Carrier Jet
Departures Summary
- - . - . - .
- . . .- . .
. ..
•
P
' s
-P
♦
Ot
V
O•
V
.Ot
• V O
P P P
a
P e•
V
P
on
O•
m
O Y
O Y
O
nd mom
O
IF
razow
O
0 r Y
V e
Y
n w1
A P
w1
P a
M
a
•
P
' s
-P
♦
Ot
V
O•
V
.Ot
• V O
P P P
a
P e•
V
P
on
O•
m
O Y
O Y
O
Y
O
tt
O
0 r Y
V e
Y
O
Y
_
.00
ze
Over Minneapolis
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Bloomington
............
Over
St.
Paul
10
�D
•
NORTHWEST AIRLINES TEL No. 612 726 8793 Apr 05,95 10:42
• TO. Chair TODD and members of the ARC
0
R-92%
FROM: Mike Schlax
DATE: 3-31-95
BUBJECP: Items from the MASAC meeting of 3-25-95
P.01
,Due to the ARC/City Council meeting of the same night I arrived
at the MABAC meeting 15 minutes late, but I believe nothing of
substance occurred prior to my arrival
VISITORS to be HEARD
Residents of EaganFs Hawthorn Woods(Mike Jordan at. al.) rose
and eloquently stated their concerns to MASAC. Their statements
were very cogent and their
.questions to the point. I think the
HW people should be encouraged to continue their interest and
activity. I will propose a motion that the ARC send them a
letter of support.
Synapsis:
HW would like a ANOMS monitor for their neighborhood. Foggia
said that would be too costly 090,000)'and that he feels radar
tracking data can confirm or disprove the problem.
Foggia says HW is 9 miles from the airport, is that true?????
Foggia repeated that MAC is NOT interested in extending the
Corridor.
Foggia stated a new concept for mel maybe John can explain --
there is a difference to MAC between Fnewf noise impacted area
(Inver Grove Heights) vs. fincreaeed" noise impacted area.
(Eagan). I believe the thrust of -the comment was if you have
noise now, live with it; but MAC will try to protect new exposure
areas. WE SHOULD GET A COPY OF THAT STATEMENT AND USE IT TO
DEFEND THE NEW NOISE IMPACTED AREAS OF WEST EAGAN!
4/22 RUNWAY EXTENSION
Presentation by Mark Ryan of MAC Staff. No action by MASAC
because the Environment Impact Study and/or the Record of
Decision by MAC has not been approved. More action at the April
meeting. New info?
Ryan announced they will be using 180 and 165 headings for
runway 22 departures (right down Cedar Ave). I requested that
they furnish us with estimated ground paths for these headings.
Current cost estimate is $65 million. -
Pad.R" brand tax trarlemMW memo 7871a awes P 2
1665
612 726 8793
04-05-95 10:40AM P001 408
60n 100d ➢PV1V:0T 96-90-40 UL9 9ZL ZT9
NEW NOISE METHODOLOGY
Presentation by Mark Salmen explaining the new program that was
Put together by the MASAC ops committee (see attached draft).
There was a motion to approve the proposal and forward it on to
MAC. The motion passed 14-5 (Minneapolis and Mednota Heights
being in opposition). At the recommendation of Eagan Staff,
Sagan voted in favor of the proposal. The gist of the -comments
were that while the proposal is bland and lacks enforcement
teeth, it"s a good first step in getting the carriers to commit
to a program and assures not backsliding on Stage II operations.
GLOBAL POSITION SATELLITE NAV CAPABILITIES
Foggia made the presentation and really loves this stuff. Items
of interest:
Minneapolis will have the first ground enhanced Sat Nav System
Implies many advantages for takeoff, approach and noise track.
Foggia made several reference to the Hawthorn Woods community and
how this system will go a long way to assure corridor compliance.
HW.got MASAC.staff"s attention.
The FAA has mandated that GPS be the sole nav system by 1998
BLOOMINGTON AIRPORT POLICIES
Bloomington presented its position paper (see attached). The
presentation was for information only. No comments were
accepted.
MASAC STAFF AIRPORT COMPARISON MATRIX
A late handout from MAc staff was the attached airport comparison
table. It is submitted PYI.
9
kX tmnwnW memo M #- ml .
293/
XE 6-8
•
726 - 5743
TO'd £O:OT S6'SU idu £6L8'9LL Z19"ON 131 _ S3NIldIU 1S3m
H1a0P'
`5' ..; F';!i
AIRLINES
r), 0 00QQ
10.0 0.0
.00000000
fib00ddOn0
VC)OUD
J�S
'That's the good news."
Northwest Airlines speeds up
order for - 15 new Boeing aircraft
DOUG IVMM snIFF warm
' tive vice president and' chief financial ...
• :
officer, sold in a prepared statement"We
Northwest'Alrlines annapnced a j
of the delivery dates of al t
can oat and
schedule of smooth aircraft deli time ons
filing
with an unusual tale!: early delivery of
Foret said the company bad obtained
financing for the 15 757 Jets, tesolving a
i 15 Boeing 757 Jets.
The carrier,�
o, on the
key financing requirement facing the .
company In the next five years, Pratt &
of Y� mIDl� profit
had arranged to take delivery of five
Whitney will provide the engines for the
.. aircraft
narrow -body 757 Jets lata this year and
10 more in 1990, two years ahead of
Deferring remelnina Boeing 757e and .
` the option To put off delivery of the 747s
schedule
In exchange, Northwest wins flesibill-
i will allow the carrier to defer as much as
$2.4 billion In capital expenditures acbed-
ty. It has been allowed to defer delivery'
of 25 other 757 Jets originally scheduled.
sled In 1995 to 1999.
-This will save Northwest almost $400 ;
for delivery beginning In 1998 until after
2000. It also has the option of deferring
four Boeing 747-400 aircraft scheduled
•; mWlun In self -Nuanced aircraft capital
`. espenditures, a significant Improvement
for delivery In 1997 and 1998.
In Noribwest's set cash Now," Forel said.
The agreement with Boeing also allows :
'Mss is a beneficial apeement for
-
. both companies." Mickey Foret, exam
l;
. i ZM ommum oN V lo
r), 0 00QQ
10.0 0.0
.00000000
fib00ddOn0
VC)OUD
J�S
'That's the good news."
exity In fleet planning Is
an
' ♦ CWMIUM FROM IF
key for airline since guessing
wrong can be costly. In December
Northwest to substitute other;
1092, Northwest had to absorb ere
models of Boeing aircraft far ex-,
counting charges totaling $854.1
luting orders, the alrilne add.
million for canceling 70 Airbus
.Iuitlally, the move will masa an.
and Boeing to and deferring de.
Increase In capacity for North-
Boeing 7571 184.
livery of others. The $854.1 m11-
seat
lion was for lost deposits and pen -
pwe000ll..aThe
and will reace
pat
al tieL
7Y 7 jets, which seat abou1!8 pas.
Northwest has opted to modify
sengers. Federal noise standardsenghlm
and interiors of its older
require that Northwest either
I1G&20 jets, which carry 100 pas.
modal the noisy 7271 a replace
seugere, rather than buy replace -
them with sew, 4aleter Jets
i For Basing, its the biggest ac
The company also said Monday
t coloration of a order In more .
than
It had converted 40 options to ppur
two years
chose engine hush kite for M O
I This Is the first time in a little
aircraft to firm orders. That
while that someone has asked as
brings the total number of hush
to move some airplanes up," sold,
1 Nick Mllhem, Boeingspokesman.
kits ordered to 80, with options for
50 more.
- -
Mt Jeffrey W. Hamfel DATE
Executive Director _ •
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: VOLUNTARY AIRt—]NE AGREEMENT TO MANAGE STAGE 2 OPERATIONS AT MSP
Dear [Airline Representative]:
AIR CARRIER AND MAC VOLUNTARILY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Subject to execution of and compliance with this vohlntary agreement by all carriers operating aircraft
We= than 73,000 pounds, MAC will not adopt a regulatioNi+*dinanot limiting activity of Stage 2
aircraft
2. Cartier agrees to use its best efforts ftom.the effective date of this agreement to schedule all aircraft
operations so that departures and arrivals at MSP will not occur during the Nighttime Period (11 PK -
6 A bt C.S.T. or CD.'E).
3. Subject to provision 4 below, Carrier agrees to use best efforts to limit its utilization of Stage 2 Aircraft
at MSP (measured as Annual Average Daily Stage 2 Operations) to meet the following Annual O6iecrive:
not to exceed the previous year's Annual Average Daily Stage 2 Operations. Given a valid adjustment
to a carrier's federally established Stage 2 Base Level [as specified in FAR Part 91.8611, a carrier's MSP
Ammal Average Daily Stage 2 Operations Objective will be adjusted accordingly.
4. MAC agrees to permit Airline the following exceptions for operating Stage 2 aircraft at MSP under •
(Zrc,nnetances that are beyond the control of Airline. (a) landings necessitated by in-flight mechanical
Problems, fuel shortage. or other emergency flight conditions; (b) delays or aircraft substitution due to
mechanical emergencies; (c) air traffic control (ATC) delays at MSP, at the proceeding departure airport or
within the ATC system between these airports; or (d) weather conditions (emoute or at MSP).
3. MAC and airline further agree that except as provided in FAR Part 91.873 [valid federal waiver
provisions]. after December 31, 1999, no person shall operate to or from the Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport (MSP) any airplane subject to FAR Part 91.801(c) [civil subsonic turbojet greater
than 75,000 pounds], unless that airplane has been shown to comply with stage 3 noise levels.
6. Airline agrees to cooperate with the FAA in maximizing use of MSP's Runway.Use System. Consistent
with safe operating procedures. Airline agrees to acmtmare flight new Munmg programs designed to
reduce noise impacts Such operational training procedures should include:
L Use of approved noise abatement taloeoff procedures.
b. Utilization of minimum landing flap settings. consistent with safe operating procedures.
C. Mmim= use of reverse thrust on landing during nighttime home, conmem with safe
operating procedures.
d. Mmbftg operations will not be carried out at the Airport except for the initial departure and
final arrival.
7. Airline agrees to provide to MAC, on a quarterly basis, its actual utilization of aircraft, by aircraft type
and specifying whether each aircraft operation is Stage 2 or Stage 3. Airline agrees to list in each quarterly
• report the circumstances surrounding operation of Stage 2 aircraft relative to the exceptions listed in
provision 4 of this agreement., and to provide such additional explanation as MAC may reasonably require.
S. Calendar Quarter Progress Monitoring and Annual Objective Monitoring (not to exceed the previous
year's Annual Average Daily Stage 2 Operations) will be reported by carrier and total airport performance
for the time periods: 6 Acs to 11 PM., 11 P.M. to 6 AM, and total overall performan .
9. MAC agrees to request all carriers operating turbojet aircraft greater than 75,000 pounds currently
saving MSP to execute this Voluntary Agreement.
IO.Nothing in this Agreement is intended to negate or replace any pre-existing agreements between the
Parties.
11. Wbile both parties agree to use their best efforts to comply with the requirements of this Voluntary
Agreement, both MAC and Airline reserve the right to withdraw from this agreement by providing the
=her Party ninety days advance. written notice.
Authorized Airline Official .
ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE
METROPOTITAN AIRPORTS COMM
BY
TTS
• DATE
pap 2
Airport Relations Commission •
Introduction
The Commission members represent a wide spectrum of residents of the city. The
Commission currently takes its direction from staff and the Commission tries to function as an
independent advisory committee. The Commission does not see itself as a rubber stamp of
the council and expects the council to seriously consider its recommendations.
Role
The Commission is seen as advisors to the council, it gathers data and provides information
and citizen input to the council. The Commission sees its primary function as receiving
direction from staff and council. A secondary function is to respond to citizens in regard to
airport matters. It also functions as an educator in regard to airport compliance, it makes
recommendations, and it provides education on various airport issues.
Goals
Its most pressing goals are to deal with the dual track recommendation and to provide a
statement of purpose or a proposal to the council for its consideration regarding the dual track
recommendation. It's general goal is to make policy recommendations to improve the aircraft •
noise environment in the city.
Problem
The Commission sees its primary limitations as the amount of time it can devote to
Commission issues and to some degree the inefficiencies resulting from use of its combined
expertise. The Commission is also concerned about its relationship to staff and the council.
Tasks
The primary tasks identified by the Commission are: to establish a list of tasks having to do
with the issues, business needs and needs of the residents; to be more clear in its work as an
educator, and to improve its communication with the community and the council. It believes
it has very good staff support and it recommends the use of more work sessions for the
Commission.
0
1�
DATE:
TO:
1Y1 EMO
city of eagan
March 31, 1995
City Administrator Hedges
FROM: Rob Rys
SUBJECT: Advisory Commission Retreat Evaluations
The following is a summary of the results of the Advisory Commission retreat evaluations.
Average responses have been tabulated for each of the individual commissions and for the
retreat as a whole. The rating scale ranges from 1 to 4, with 4 being excellent, 1 poor.
1.
Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2.
Did the session meet your expected goals?
3.
How would you rate the facilitator?
4.
Was the time allotted appropriate?
• 5.
6.
Were materials provided appropriate?
Were discussion topics appropriate?
7.
How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
S.
How often should this activity take place?
1.
Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2.
Did the session meet your expected goals?
3.
How would you rate the facilitator?
4.
Was the time allotted appropriate?
5.
Were materials provided appropriate?
6.
Were discussion topics appropriate?
7.
How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
8.
How often should this activity take place?
7 r
APRNRC
3.8
3.5
4
2.1
3
4.17
4.17
annually
VI -061
3.5
3
3:5
3
3
3.5
3
annually
1. Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2. Did the session meet your expected goals?
3. How would you rate the facilitator?
4. Was the time allotted appropriate?
5. Were materials provided appropriate?
6. Were discussion topics appropriate?
7. How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
S. How often should this activity take place?
1. Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2. Did the session meet your expected goals?
3. How would you rate the facilitator?
4. Was the time allotted appropriate?
S. Were materials provided appropriate?
6. Were discussion topics appropriate?
7. How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
8. How often should this activity take place?
1. Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2. Did the session meet your expected goals?
3. How would you rate the facilitator?
4. Was the time allotted appropriate?
S. Were materials provided appropriate?
6. Were discussion topics appropriate?
7. How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
S. How often should this activity take place?
1. Was the Commission retreat helpful?
2. Did the session meet your expected goals?
3. How would you rate the facilitator?
4. Was the time allotted appropriate?
5. Were materials provided appropriate?
6. Were discussion topics appropriate?
7. How much benefit will this session
provide to your role as a commissioner?
8. How often should this activity take place?
AR
3.5
3.3
3.3
1.5
2
3.3
3.5
annually
EDC
2.9
2.9
3
2.6
3.14
3.14
3
.annually
SWAC
4
3.5
4
3
3.5
3.5
3.5
annually
Overall evaluation
3.54
3.42
3.6
2.4
2.9
3.5
3.4,
annually
A common theme regarding the retreats is that they were especially helpful because they
provided an opportunity for the commissions to meet with the City Council to prioritize and
clarify goals. On the negative side, many of the commissioners felt more time was needed to
cover the material presented.
7 4�
•
11
A
Er�" city of
- r-, lbibomington, minnesota
7115 West Oki Shakopee Rood • Blooff*Von MN 55431 X096 • (612)948-8780 . FAX: 948-8754 • TDD: 94&8740
SLal S. Houle
Mayor
March 15, 1995
Mr. Jon Hohenstein
Assistant Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mr. Hohenstein,
Mark Bemhordson
City Manoper
I have enclosed a copy of Bloomington's updated policy positions on airport issues. These
policies were unanimously adopted by the City Council on March 6, culminating a 10 -
month comprehensive review of Bloomington's policies on airport expansion, noise
mitigation, land use compatibility and safety zone protection.
Sincerely,
(1 01;
Coral S. Houle
Mayor
0
An AHBma1We Action/Equal OppoftnWes Employer
. �3
f Bloomington
3City o
Airport Policies
On March 6, 1995, the Bloomington City Council unanimously adopted the following 11 airport
policies These policies are based on an extensive review and public comment process conducted
over a 10 -month period
Airport Location and Improvements
In 1989 the Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council
to study the capacity and expansion potential of MSP airport compared to a new airport located
south of Hastings. The study will result in a comparative cost and impact report to the legislature
in July 1996. All studies indicate that the MSP airport can be improved to handle even the largest
year 2020 passenger and aircraft operation forecasts.
The airport is responsible for substantial economic benefits for Bloomington residents and
businesses. Analysis by several agencies and consultants agree that passenger emplanements and
aircraft operations at MSP will increase so that MSP will require both runway and terminal
enhancements in the near future.
Location Policy 1: MSP should continue as the region's passenger and cargo airport.
Improvements
4-22 Extension
Policy 2: Improvements should be made to keep MSP operating. safely and
efficiently. Noise mitigation should proceed in conjunction with
operational changes.
Policy 3a: Bloomington encourages prompt implementation of the north -
south runway both as a means for increasing airport capacity and
as a reasonable measure for mitigating noise in cities surrounding
the airport.
Policy 3b: Bloomington has no preference for alternative locations to add
terminal space at MSP.
Policy 4a: Bloomington supports extension of Runway 4-22 by 2,750 feet if
MAC demonstrates that the extension is essential for economic
growth and that noise mitigation has been adequately addressed.
Policy 4b: Bloomington supports use of extended Runway 4-22 for heavy .
aircraft or emergency situations where a long runway is needed
and to allow two runway operation and adequate runway length
while 11R29L is being reconstructed.
Policy 4c: Bloomington opposes changing the Runway Use System to
simultaneously use runways 4-22 and 11L29R to redistribute.
aircraft flights and noise.
•
•
0
LE# ZOOd WdZ0:E0 S6-93-00
96ZS 9ZL Z19
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Commissioner Business AddresalPhone Listing
£e20'd 96ZS 9M ZT9
�'500�
'WWOJ 1Itl 'OHJ3J
%L6 -H
9e:S7 S66T--VZ-8 W
BRATAAS, Mark G.
Vice Chairman
Mayo Chic - Emeritus Staff
Rochester, MN 55905
507-284-2691 FAX 507-2884511
CRAMER, Steve
ERICKSON, Laurel W.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Project for Pride and Living
20 South 26th Avenue East
2516 Chicago Ave. South
Duluth, MN 55812
Minneapolis, MN 55404
2181728-1693 FAX: 218-728-1693
6121874-8511 FAX 874-6444
FIORE, Edward
GASPER, Abn
Commissioner
Commissioner
American Monarch Corp.
3M/Ind. Chemical Products Div.
2801 -37th Avenue NE
Bldg. 53-1S-02, 3M Center
Minneapolis, MN 55421
612/788-9161 FAX 788-2057
St. Paul, MN 551441000
6121778-6358 FAX 778-7691
HIMLE, John
HITESMAN, Darcy L
Commissioner
Commissioner
Himle Homer, Inc.
Doherty, Rumble & Butler
8500 Normandele Lake Blvd. #720
3500 Fifth Street Towers
Bloomington, MN 55437
150 South Fifth Street
612/831-3200 FAX: 831-5116
Minneapolis, MN. W02-4235
8121340-5594 FAX: 340-5584
JOHNSON, Daniel T.
MANCINI, Nick
Commissioner
Commissioner
Dain Bosworth, Inc.
MencinPs Cher House
Mall Stop P -16A
631 West 7th Street
60 South Sbdh Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
Minneapolis, MN 55402
6121371-2209 FAX: 371-7819
6121224.7345 FAX: 224-9367
£e20'd 96ZS 9M ZT9
�'500�
'WWOJ 1Itl 'OHJ3J
%L6 -H
9e:S7 S66T--VZ-8 W
LE# E00d N430:E0 96 -9Z -EO 9629 9ZL Z19
%L6 -H
MERICKEL Thomas
MILLER, Louis JA, Jr.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Print Craft, Ina
Teamsters, Local 120
315 Fifth Avenue NW
Midway Center Westgate
St. Paul, MN 55112
953 Westgate Drive #115
6121633-8122 FAX: 833-1882
St. Paul, MN 55114
612/641-1901 FAX: 641-1248
OINEILL, Patrk*
Paul G. Rehkemp
Commissioner
Commissioner
1400 Selby Ave.
Rehkamp Funeral Home
SL Paul, MN 55104
411 West Lyon Street
612/641-5935 - FAX: 645-8829
Marshall, MN 56258
507/532-4522 FAX 607/532-5311
STENERSON, Georgians
Commissioner
Steverson Lumber
1702 First Avenue North
Moorhead- MN 66560
•
218/233-5220. FAX: 2181233-5220
OOMMISSION CONTACT:
ADMINISTRATION:
SORENSEN, Lynn
HAMIEL, Jeffrey
Commission Secretary
Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Minneapolis, MN 55450
6121726-8186 FAX: 728-5298
61217264100 FAX: 726:5296
January, 1995
E
£0/£e'd 962S 9Z6 Z19 WWW 1MOd21rti-Oi1L3J 90:ST 966T -VZ- RM
MWIROPOLITAN AIRPORTS f OMMISSION - DISTRICT04AP
00 ATE
mm
BRABRA ism
EUBEL
ICKSON OnL"n
PAS MAWRAM
IM
STEENE
TWON Mown
49�
_ city of eagan
MEMO
TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT
RELATIONS COMMISSION
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: MARCH 15, 1995
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP SESSION - MARCH 28, 1995
As a follow up to the discussion of small groups or subcommittees, a special workshop
meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28 at 6:00 p.m. The workshop will be followed
by a joint meeting with the City Council at 6:45 to discuss results of the Commission
retreat. The joint meeting with the Council is scheduled to last about 35 minutes.
The small group concept is an outgrowth of the retreat in which participants expressed
a desire to hold work sessions in addition to their regular monthly meeting to discuss
certain issues in more depth. Such a system is used by other City Commissions as a
means of focusing on certain topics or issue areas and improving the effectiveness of
their regular meetings.
At the retreat, Mike Schlax offered to °task" an approach to the Dual Track Process. A
copy of Mike's distribution from last night's meeting is attached. The point of the exercise
was to give the Commission a starting point for their discussion of what aspects of the
Dual Track process are necessary to understand to form a position on the issue. At the
end of Mike's memo, he listed some of the other major work areas outlined at the retreat.
It would be possible to have subcommittees on a variety of topics, but you may also wish
to group them together, at least initially, to keep the time commitment more manageable.
As an example, a subcommittee on future airport planning could address issues such as
the Dual Track Study and long term noise compatibility tools like tax adjustments. A
subcommittee on current noise abatement could address the corridor, Part 150 and
Runway 4/22. Regardless of the lines along which you identify the issue areas, you may
wish to volunteer for the subcommittee which Interests you most with the understanding
that any member of the ARC may participate in any subcommittee meeting. All meetings
of the Commission and subcommittees would be public by state law.
DUAL TRACK TABLE OF CONTENTS
In a completely different vein, attached you will find a table of contents prepared by Ms.
Harris for your Dual Track document. Please insert it in your binder and note that the
MAC/Met Council Recommendation Outline should be numbered 1-38 through 1-70.
We'li see you on the 28th.
Assiaflhnt tote City Administrator
FT95 Off§
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CONFERENCE ROOMS A&B
MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING
March 28, 1995
6:00 PAL
I. ROLL CALL
H. DISCUSSION OF FORMATION OF ISSUE SUBCOMMITTEES
III. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs,
services, activities, facilities and employment without regard to rac4 color, creed, religion,
national on'04 sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to
public assistance Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance
notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is receivers the City of Eagan will
attempt to provide such aid
TO: Chair Pat Todd, Members of the Eagan ARC
FROM: Mike Schlax
DATE 3-10-95
SUBJECT: Work List For Dual Track Process
Below are some suggested areas where the Airport Relations
Committee could have an impact by taking on projects which will
help the City Council define a position for the City of Eagan.
As you can see I'm really 'noodling' here --just letting the word
processor flow. Just to let you know what I'm thinking I'll
break out the research aspect then just list other areas where we
might be effective.
THE DUAL TRACK PROCESS
1) RESEARCH
--Create Reading Files: This could be a one person project to
tear down at a minimum the ARC packets from the past 'several'
years cataloguing all the material that has been presented to us.
Perhaps executive summaries of the big documents could be
prepared. Topic areas could be:
Present Airport.Alternatives
a) Traffic projections (is there a need before 2010)
b) .4/22 expansion including costs, traffic patterns etc.
c) New north/south parallel, cost, traffic, flow
d) The third 11/29 runway, cost, traffic, flow, historic
e) New Terminal, cost, access
f) Environmentals for any of the above
g) Always looking for the 'Impact on Eagan' angle
h) The tax angle, What's it going to cost Eagan Residents
i) What benefits are there Por Eagan
The New Airport
1) Traffic patterns and runway use estimates
2) Areas of Eagan Impacted by new flight paths
3) Estimated cost of the project --Will Eagan or Dakota
county taxes be impacted.
4) Economic benefits to surrounding communities: use
Denver, Dallas and Kansas City as examples
5) Environmentals--any impact on Eagan other than noise
6) Surface traffic factors including Details of highway 55
upgrade
7) What will be Dakota County's involvement in the project,
What have they done for research on impacts.
This does not have to be limited to Packet Information. with
John's help we could probably get technical data from MAC, MET
COUNCIL, MINN DOT etc. Anything to help with.the evaluation
process and to assist in comparing alternative. This leads us
to:
2) THE ARC WHITE PAPER
Once we have the data, we should at to publish a 'white
paper' (hopefully condensing the material down to a page or two --
anything more and we'll never get people to read it) outlining
the options, the costs, the benefits, new areas of the city which
would be noise impacted and our recommendations. This paper
would hopefully be sent to all Eagan residents and their comments
solicited.
3) CITY SURVEY
4) TOWN MEETING
Other areas where similar efforts could be undertaken
a) Part 150: noise contours, sound abatement
b) Commitment of the City to the Corridor
c) Representation of SE metro on the MAC
d) Property .tax (if nothing else Dakota County adjusts
assessed values due to noise) and other reliefs on
impacted areas of the City
e) Assure the City BUDGETS FUNDS for INITIATING or JOINING
LAWSUITS to stop action on either or both of the
projects
0 CONTENTS
L Dual Track Planning Process ..................... I-1 through I-37
MAC/Met Council Recommendation
to the Legislature ........................... I-38 through I-70
H. New Airport Comprehensive Plan Draft AED ........ II -1 through II -27
III. MSP Long -Term Comp Plan Draft AED III -1 through III -15
Summary of Alternatives Evaluation ............ III -16 through III -27
Resolution for MAC Comp Plan for
Airport Expansion ........................III -28 through III -29
•
IV. Airport Study ......................................... IV -1
V. Star Tribune Articles .......................... V-1 through V-3
VL Estimates of Magnitude of Economic Development
Around the Proposed Airport Site .............. VI -1 through VI -28
VII. Relocating the Airport: Potential Development
and Policy Impacts ........................ VII -1 through VII -35
n
LJ
t former star In the Negro Leagues, stole a moment with Dennie (Oil Can) Boyd
at pitch at the game between the Sioux City (Iowa) Explorers and the SL Pend
on Monday. Boyd plays for the Explorers. O'Nell, who has been Involved with
tsars, helped get Boyd Into the major leagues, where he played for 10 years.
C remote
P4
Consultants
make report
Expanding airport capacity by leav-
ing the terminal where it is and
building new runways 20 miles out-
side of the urban arca would can
more than building a new airport or
expanding at the current site, airport
officials learned Monday.
ternational Airport about S2.2 bd-
lion, and remote runway expansion
between S4.2 billion and S4.3 billion,
consultants reported to the Metropol-
itan Airports Commission.
The remote -runways option is the
most expensive of the three because
getting passengers and baggage to and
from the present terminal and run-
ways in Dakota County would re-
quire a rail connection the size of a
major city rail system, the consul-
tants reported.
Furthermore, the system would re-
quire a bridge over the Minnesota
River and overpasses over 21 major
roads, railways and bodies of water.
Commissioners voted to v
written report from Turner
Braden, consultants fn
Worth, Texas, before decidi
er to study the unusual idea
But none of the commissioners ex-
pressed enthusiasm for the concept,
and two voiced objections.
ggression?
Knockitoff
Almanac
t
est that testosterone isn t the bad guy
Tuesday, June 20,18116
171 �t��.0
Sunrise. 5:26.
fueled heavy metal" and 'testosterone-
crazed oppressors" make you feel a bit,
Ready to give the so-mUed mete hormone
a break and retire a0 testosterone clich6
Hot again, with an isolawd thunder -
storm and south winds at 10.20 miles
well, testyl
with a single pound of Iron John's drum?
per hour. High 92. Warm and muggy
Do you think it unfair to blame one lousy
little chemical for war, dictatorships
Retire away. As it turns out testosterypq�
may not be the dread "hormone of ' lv i
t aighL Low 70,
-rime, Genghis Khan, Gongs Din, Sly
that researchers and the ►%
4,5E Obituaries es
illone, the NRA, the NFL, Stormin'
aggression"
popular imagination have long had r
Morino 8D TV, Radia, OE
ncas Lmr ruauc
local group of gays and
wanted to march in
made clear it was not
anti-py message.
"Our holding todap-r
particular view about:t
mess�e, bm on the net
ment to protect f eWT
Souter wrote.
For example, the court:
mean sponsors of an
pride parade would at
elude the views oflhea
In recent years, the b
rades in New York and
been torn by disputed
gays, abortion rights a
others can march along
their message to the
bystanders. -
Court continued on pae
News inside
Both skies Clad
Serb rebel troops A
an government fort
claimed they had or
scattered enemy Or
battle over supply r
the besieged napffe
levo. But it was exx
difficult to verify stn
Pages 2A.
heeler lad alae 1
An FBI authority on
prints testified in the
Simpson murder tri
that the person whr
bloody shoe prints
crime scene wore e
pair of Italian show
12, the size shoes i
wears. Page 7A.
TTJ
This Is not the sumi
1988 — not yet at li
mercury soared to
degrees 44 times tt
mer, aggravating th
What we have here
Kour arden-vad"
eat.12age 1e.
Telephones/
diners; Information
Classmed$
Circulation 673.4343ar'
:ry parameter we looked at went
ie same direction," Wang said.
he positive mood increased; the
egative mood decreased."
h. Willis Samsun, a professor and
t.emer anu u
Washington.
What is not open to debate is that to
call testosterone or any of the related
androgens "trine" hormones, or W
tall estrogens "female" hormones is a
Airport/ Remote runway
proposal could evolve.
into two -airport system
Condimed from page lA
The consultants studied three kinds
of nail links between the terminal and
airfield: a 60 -mile -per -hour automat-
ed people mover system, a 100-111911
conventional train and a 180 -mph
high-speed rail system.
The people mover would get people
from the terminal to the airfield in
about 21 minutes, the conventional
train would take about 14 minutes
and high-speed rail would take about
9 minutes.
"I am very concerned that people
would spend all their time riding on
trains rather than eating and shop-
ping at the terminal,^ said Commis-
sioner Laurel Erickson of Duluth,
chairwoman of the airport conces-
sions committee.
Concession revenues are an essential
part of helping the airport pay its
own way, she said
The MAC is six years into a "dial
track" comparison study of building
a new airport or expanding the exist -
tang one. In July 1996 it will recom-
mend which would be the best way to
meet Minnesota's future aviation
needs.
To satisfy public interest in the it -
mote -runway concept, an idea that
has been kicked around for 20 years,
airport officials hired the consultants
in March for $50,000 to help them
decide whether the idea was practical
enough to warrant further study and
consideration.
Atter hearing the oral report from the
consultants yesterday, commission-
ers decided that they should give
themselves and the idea's proponents
time to digest the written report, ex-
pected in July.
Urban preservationists who want to
rid south Minneapolis neighbor-
hoods of jet noise have promoted
remote runways as the ideal"compro-
mise between those who want to
build a new airport in Dakota Coun-
ty and those who want to expand the
existing one, saying it would keep the
convenience of the present location
while moving the noise to a less
attempt to build strength and muscle
mass. Often, such men report feeling
prepared to go out and pur6e their
opponents.
But scientists are beginning to
testosterone wo
diabetic insulin.
Offering a partial explanation,
Bremner and his colleagues reported
in the June 1994 issue of the Journal
Remote runway concept
What was bgled as a compno-.-� 1.compw"
a* ttt8t6d
mise proposal by andneleaving"' l
is
COSW of B�fw afton _
and,
bulldhig ni"Waya 20 nAsas .
Eqmw map1
$2
other things. But this one was /
published.^ ;, J
really believe that it sun survive
would coat more then bufllfitg
Bu0d a raw regland altpart
anmairport orexpandgrigthe "
054bBlut -
airport at the current ells
According toconaultaftwho
Remote mislayelar eW-•
studied the idea, remote ' '
$42 b0on
mrnrays would require a rail'
to 4.3 bOott
sysiliatol ofarowergar
system to fess
owe
to sae outside ft
mean lues by cave *WW nal eyeMm
t Wrimi aL
homtliepreserdtwmhiat.;
-,—.
Scarce: Meacpolilen Atrporls
populated area.
Leaving all passenger -handling facili-
ties at the terminal in while moving
all Bight operationi to Dakota Coun-
ty could be done, the consultants
said. But it would be unrealistic to
imagine that people living next to the
airfield lin Dakota County would
drive up to the terminal to take a
train back down to the airfield, they
said
In reality, the idea would evolve into
a two•airport system with expansion
to serve passenger growth taking
place int�ota County, the consul -
Commissioner Darcy Hussman, of
Another look at dinosaur DIVA
claim prompts return to study
New York Times
The dream of recovering DNA from
preserved dinosaur tissue inspires
serious research as well as science
fiction, and a group of biologists
reported in November that they.
apparently had hit pay dirt
But a fresh assessment of their
evidence by four iodependrnt
scientific teams has concluded that
hunters of dinosaur DNA have not
yet captured their giarty and muri
go back ta Weir cloning boards for
another try.
The conclusion has cast cold water
on a paper published Nov. l8 in the
journal Science by Scor Woodward,
a microbiologist, and his colleagues
at Brigham Young University in
Provo, Utah. They reported. that they
had extracted genetic material from
small, 80.million-year-old bone
fragments embedded in a coal seam
in eastern Utah. Woodward believes
the fragments are dinosaur bone, but
recovered from the bone shards
seemed more similar to human DNA
than anything else, and that the
putative dinosaur genes were nothing
more than accidental contaminants
of modem human origin. The
critiques were published as
"technical comments" in the May 26
issue of Science.
"There can no longer be any queadoo
about it,^ said S. Blar Hedges of
Pennsylvania State University, a co-
author of one of the critiques. "The
piece of DNA identified by
Woodward is clearly human.
strongly believe that the DNA
fragments we found are not the result
of human contamination."
Critics note that it takes no more
human contamination than a single
molecule to cause a spurious result.
When scientists look for minute
quantities of some sequence of DNA
.thev must fust "amplify" the
molecular migment using a
technique known as the polymers®
chain reaction. This technique can
quickly manufacture trillions of
copies of the targeted DNA fragme
therappyy producing enough of it to
ift"ti by chemical means
"In looking for dinosaur DNA we all
sometimes find material that at fret
But despite criticism of his
looks like dinosaur genes but lata "
conclusions, Woodward as well as
of his critics intend to keep up
turns out to be human
contaminatim so we move on to
some
the boat "I intend ro pursue
dinosaur DNA "Woodward said "I
other things. But this one was /
published.^ ;, J
really believe that it sun survive
even though survival must be a very
The other skeptical analyses were by
rare oceunence that happen undo
special accidental crrcumetances.^
Steven Henikoff of the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, Seattle.
4vaatn Paabo of the University
Maple Grove, said she objected to
the idea of taking land in Dakota
County for.the runways and moving
the noise of Bights there while also
trying to keep the money that travet-
ers
spend
i at and near the present
Proponents of the remote -runway
idea envisioned runway construction
on about 7,000 acres owned by the
University of Minnesota near Rose.
mount, 16 miles south of the airport.
The study did not specify where the
runways would be built, but it used
20 miles as the average distance be-
tween
o-tween the terminal and runways be.
cause the new airport search
Dakota County is roughly 20=11
from the current airport
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
April 11, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was hell on Tuesday, April
11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Bob Cooper, Steve SoderOng, Lance
Staricha and Lois Monson. Absent were Jane Vanderpoehl and Pat Todd. Also present was Assistant to
the City Administrator Hohenstein. In the absence of Chair Todd, Vice Chair Schlax presided over the
meeting.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, Visitors to
be Heard was moved ahead of Old Business.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Monson, with all members voting in favor, the
minutes of the March 14, 1995 meeting were approved, as presented.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Michelle Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive addressed the commission concerning the
increase in lights over her home in the Hills of Stonebridge Addition. She stated that she has been keeping
track of planes and the overflights and times they are occurring. She said that during the early morning
hours between 4:00 and 5:00, they are occurring one after the other. She stated that on one occasion she
counted 81 overflights between 6:00 a.m. and noon. The planes are so loud, that she Is kept awake
because of the noise. She also added that there has been an Increase In frequency in the last four months.
She would Oke to see something done about the noise by demanding corridor compliance and she
requested assistance from the commission. She stated that Minneapolis has been complaining for years
and Eagan needs to take action, to develop a strong voice.
Schlax stated that Ms. Padden's home is approximately five miles out from the runway.
The corridor extends three miles out, consequently, planes are outside of the corridor when approaching
her area.
Hohenstein gave some background on the changes occurring at the airport and with air
traffic over the years. Beginning in 1973 and 1974 the corridor was created at the request of the city of
Minneapolis. MASAC was formed in 1969. In the early 1960's, as Jet aircraft were being introduced,
Minneapolis was receiving severe impact. As the Introduction of newer Jet aircraft continued, the noise level
increased. At that time, Eagan was a rural community and, consequently, air traffic started flying over
Eagan without restriction. Eagan requested that planes fly over the commercial areas and, as a result
traffic was kept in the 1-494 and Highway 55 areas. The airport has subsequently tripled in size since the
1970's. Around that time, the airport shifted to a hub and spoke procedure. As a result, there was an
increase in flights arriving and departing the airport. In the mid -1980's, the corridor started to disintegrate
and more of the air space outside of the corridor was used. In recent years, there has been an Increase
in homes in the number of new homes in southeastern Eagan. Not only have the residential areas
increased, but the air traffic has also. Concerning the Hills of Stonebridge neighborhoods, Hohenstein
stated that they are receiving traffic headed In a southerly direction.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 2
Ms. Padden commented that the noise is so severe that it vibrates her house. She stated
that the planes pass over at the some times everyday. Schlax commented that at MASAC meetings,
Hawthorne Addition residents have complained about similar problems. He also stated that there will be
a new navigational method instituted In approximately three years that would help to alleviate some of the
problems but that does not address the current situation.
Soderling stated that he believes that by the sur mile point aircraft should be up to 3,000
feet or more. Schlax stated that it would vary depending on aircraft Involved and procedures that were
used. Hohenstein stated that a larger portion of the plans could be up to 3, 000 feet and are Increasing
speed at the sir mile point.
Cooper commented that he believed there should be some type of rule that would force
planes to stay straight after the three mile point. Hohenstein replied that the rule developed by the FAA
states that turns should begin after the three mile point. He also commented that the only way to help
change these rules is for neighborhoods and groups such -as the Airport Relations Commission and MASAC
to work together to make an Impact. Schlax stated MASAC asked a MAC representative about the chances
of extending the corridor and he replied that they had no Intention of changing the corridor. Because of
this attitude, It will take a concerted effort to make a difference. Hohenstein suggested that the commission
look to the subcommittees to focus on this Issue in more depth.
Cooper asked Ms. Padden what she would like the commission to do. She replied that
she's really not sure. She wants the FAA to support use of the center of the corridor and she wants to
know what can be done. She would tike to see corridor compliance in the early morning hours.
Schlax stated that at workshop sessions, they would like the neighbors affected by the
overflights to voice their concerns. He said that Minneapolis did exactly that and made themselves high
profile which is something Eagan needs to do. Ms. Padden asked if the early morning and late night fights
should be addressed to MASAC. Hohenstein stated that the neighborhoods need to have a voice. MAC
Is slow to act but it is necessary to take those steps to make change happen.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Hohenstein opened the discussion referring to the attachments. Hohensteln reviewed
Sections II and III. He explained that Section VI Identified three types of businesses that are dependent
on the airport, they are car rental agencies, air freight canters and hotels. These businesses will follow the
airport wherever it relocates. Airport Influenced businesses include office and industrial tenants. The report
indicates that the current hotels would not close or move. The location of an airport near Hastings would
result in the development of the eastern part of Dakota County.
Schlax asked whether those new businesses would be located close to the airport and not
the Eagan area. Hohenstein replied that that was possible but the report Is not community specific. He
continued that the implication of the report, if it is accurate, is that the airport relocation will not affect
property values along 494, which Is a very different picture than has been publicized.
Stadcha stated that he has not read any information on the negative impact to the
businesses located near the airport. He mentioned that the island development might not help Eagan and
that they should be looking at the directed development approach which would benefit Eagan.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 3
Hohenstein stated that the Island concept states that if development occurred at the new
site, it would do so separately from the urban service area. The more rural areas such as Inver Grove
Heights and Mendota Heights would see less activity.
Schlax asked whether Hastings would be responsible for utilities for the airport, such as
sewer, water and streets. Hohenstein replied that the service area would be regulated by the MWCC. The
water supply could be done with wells. The main concern will be transportation.
Staricha stated there Is no pot of gold for Eagan one way or the other. Eagan benefits from
the airport location where it currently Is but will not if It moves.
White asked Hohenstein whether the third track is being politically motivated and how much
Influence the legislature would have over ft. Hohenstein stated that the idea of a remote runway was
encouraged by Minneapolis legislators and MAC decided to move forward with the study. He stated that
it has not moved anywhere in legislature and that will be the body that will dedde what to do about f. The
direction they take will depend on the MAC's recommendation. If it were a close vote by the MAC, it would
be difficult to know what the legislature would do. After further discussion, lt was the commission's
consensus that the relocation of the airport would have little, if any, impact on they Eagan area.
Hohenstein reviewed the maps contained in the Part 11 airport AED. He stated that the
relocation site is eight miles from the Eagan boundary and the remote runway would be approximately the
same distance. Soderfing asked what shape Rosemount's runway proposal layout resembled. Hohenstein
responded that it was an L shape, operating from the southeast and southwest, although from time -to -time
the wind would force aircraft to head in other directions.
Schlax commented that rail transit would just add another element to the noise situation.
noise. SoderOng stated that the rail Is intended to cover 16 miles in eight minutes.
There was discussion of the expansion relocation maps on Pages II -22 and III -10. Cooper
asked whether Aftemate 3 was the one selected. Hohenstein responded that it was.
Staricha stated that it'll be difficult for Eagan to favor one over the other, since none of them
are too great. He stated that with a new airport, Impact would be spread out and that It will boil down to
process management for Eagan so that there Is no great solution either way.
Hohenstein explained that this alternative would change traffic patterns but will not relieve
corridor traffic. He continued that many of the impacts are due to Eagan being located south of the airport
and much of the air traffic is south bound.. If the airport is built south of Eagan most traffic will be heading
south from that point so that Eagan.
SoderOng suggested using north/south and southeast runways and not having traffic going
east or south from the south runway nor have any traffic go south of the corridor from the other runway.
This would be a reasonable option, allowing noise to be absorbed in the corridor. Schlax stated that they
will run airspace according to their own needs and desires.
Staricha stated that there is a need to get in there and make a pitch for Eagan. He stated
that the map on page II -23 shows that for every take off there is a landing and that 24% of the take -offs
and 40% of the landings are from the north. Hohenstein described the location of Eagan on the map on
page 11-23. Hohenstein stated that the track information on page II -17 shows that planes will be much
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 4
higher and so not as loud. The new north/south runway will be three miles from the west side of Eagan.
Eagan. He compared maps on pages II -23 and III -10. Page III -10 shows the larger portion in Eagan.
Schlax stated that the charge to the commission is to look at these maps and decide how
the noise impacts Eagan.
Monson stated that Its important to separate the old airport form the new airport and
comparisons should not be made. Its necessary to evaluate a new airport separately.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 150 Federal Program Modifications—
Hohensteln reviewed the attachments concerning an FAA proposal to modify the Part 150
program to discourage new home building in the 65 DNL contour. The will no longer fund "new non-
compatible land uses" In Part 150 programs. He continued that this would not have a negative impact on
the Eagan area. Schlax commented that it would be beneficial to Eagan if it did go through. Cooper stated
that the 4/22 expansion will affect Eagan residents in other areas. These residents will then demand sound
Insulation. He asked how the legislation will affect those residents. He stated that Ifs necessary to make
laws concerning this problem. Hohensteln stated the proposal would not affect new noise impacted
residences. If new houses are built, they would not be eligible for sound Insulation.
Cooper stated that it would be beneficial to change the DNL contour from 65 DNL to 60
DNL in the future.
Hohensteln responded that it may be a good Idea to hold a position that if the airport
moves, Eagan wants assurance that development would occur in existing areas and if the airport expands,
Eagan wants more sound insulation guaranteed. He stated that he would Tike to make a statement to the
City Council concerning the proposal. Schlax directed Hohensteln to put together the comments for the
Council.
Upon motion by Soderfing, seconded by Cooper, the commission charged Hohenstein to
make comments on the proposal to the City Council. Stadcha suggested the comments state that the
commission is In favor of the new airport or current airport expansion as long as the changes in operations
do not cause existing areas to become new noise areas. All members voted in favor.
B. Northam Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration—
Hohensteln stated that Chair Todd and he met with members of the cities of Sunfish Lake,
Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights to form the Northern Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration.
These cities, including Eagan, are collaborating on a fist of 16 possible areas for discussion. Hohensteln
stated that It was Important for the commission to select several areas that they believe are most relevant
for discussion by the dties. Hohenstein stated that the collaborative effort was a very valuable tool and it
is hopeful that the cities will meet on a monthly basis. Schlax suggested picking five items from the list.
Soderfing stated that this is a very good idea. White commented that it was Important to find areas of
agreement between the cities to make an impact on the MAC. Hohenstein replied that he would like to
discuss the most Important items. Schlax stated that It is worthwhile to pursue and that the items should
be reviewed. In reviewing the Items, Hohensteln stated that the group had not reached any conclusions
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 5
on items 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14. He added another item, #17, "Addition of ANOMS monitors on this side
of airport." Because of broadly shifting opinions, these Items are not agreed to by everyone. He stated
that he would like to decide what Items can be collaborated on to better understand each cures' Ideas.
Hohensteln stated that the commission should vote on the top five or six items. The
commission reviewed the list and voted for the top five, they were - 2, 3, 8, 13, and 15. Schlax directed
Hohenstein to proceed with these issues as the most important.
C. Establish Commission Subcommittees and Schedule—
Hohenstein agreed to the creation of two subcommittees made up of commission members
- Current Operations and Lang Term Planning. The Current Operations subcommittee would consider items
such as corddor compliance, departure and approach profiles and the Part 150 Program. The Long Tenn
Planning subcommittee would discuss topics such as the dual track airport planning process, the
appropriateness of the 65 DNL contour, alternative relief measures such as tax relief and economic impacts
of airport alternatives. Hohenstein stated that he would like all commission members to participate on one
of the two subcommittees.
Schlax asked commission members to state which subcommittee they were Interested in
serving on. Cooper and Staricha will serve on the Current Operations subcommittee. Monson, White,
Soderfing and Schlax will serve on the Long Term Planning subcommittee. It was suggested that Chairs
for the subcommittees be appointed at the subcommittees' first meetings.
Hohenstein suggested setting up meeting times for the subcommittees. There was
discussion regarding meeting times. It was decided that the Current Operations subcommittee will meet
Tuesday, April 18 at 5:30 p.m. The Long Term Planning subcommittee will meet Wednesday, April 26 at
7:00 p.m.
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Staricha, it was agreed to extend the commission
meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. All members voted in favor.
STAFF REPORT
B. Part 150 Update—
Hohenstein discussed the Part 150 program. He stated that the 1992 and 1993 homes are
completed and 1994 homes are almost done. In 1995, 50 homes became eligible for the program. He
stated that he has had extremely positive comments from the homeowners with the sound Insulation and
suggested that the commission tour one of the completed homes.
C. Runway 4/22 Update—
Hohenstein distributed a letter on record of the decision on the Runway 4/22 expansion.
The letter authorized the MAC to move forward when ready. Hohenstein suggested that the Runway 4/22
lawsuit be added to the next agenda for discussion by the commission. He stated that Richfield would be
agreeable to Eagan participating as a partner, which would cost Eagan $70,000. There are other options
rather than a full partnership. Richfield is moving ahead with the lawsuit so It is Important that Eagan make
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 6
a decision as to what it would like to do. Hohenstein suggested putting this Rem on the next commission
meeting to discuss it thoroughly and decide on the action to take Cooper asked Hohenstein whether the
Council would approve a $70,000 expenditure such as this. Hohenstein responded that they would not be
for it and they would need proof that it would be of benefd to the City of Eagan. Monson stated that R Is
very Important to discuss this again and come up with some creative Ideas regarding this Issue. Schlax
continued this Rem to the May Airport Relations Commission meeting.
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—
Hohenstein showed a depiction of Jet operations for December 1994 which included non-
compliant aircraft. He described Eagan's location on the map and the location of the Stonebridge and
Hawthorne Woods neighborhoods. He displayed a map showing how the map looks with compliant aircraft
and compared the two maps. While R was not a dramatic difference, R showed a level of differentiation of
concentrations in the southern area of Eagan. Consequently, R the flights are complying with the corridor,
this indicates that many of the turns would be in rural areas over parts of Inver Grove Heights and Mendota
Heights. Cooper asked at what height the planes would be reaching at six miles out. Hohenstein stated
that they would be at 3,000 feet or above.
Hohensteln stated that the FAA should be recognized for the reduction of non-compliant
flights. Almost none are coming off the north runway. The percentage is going down, however, when they
first started looking data, the percentages used were of traffic coming off the south'runway. Then they
started doing the percentages of all traffic from the southeast. Schlax stated that test will come this
summer when they start using the north runway more often. Hohenstedn stated the 20 and 30 percent
numbers should be compared to the current 6.8 or 13.6 percent.
SoderQng asked when the first ANOMS data was provided. Hohenstein responded that it
was May of 1993. It was about a year later they started giving out corridor data. White stated that the
corridor doesn't mean a lot for eastern Eagan neighborhoods because the traffic does not stay within the
corridor, it starts in the corridor but ends up somewhere else. He suggested an industrial corridor,
extending the corridor or substantial fines placed on those who are non-compliant. Cooper stated that
lengthening the corridor would be a good Idea and a reasonable possibility. He commented that Instituting
fines had been discussed before but they ran up against a wall. A longer corridor would take the planes
out farther and, consequently, they would be turning over industrial areas. Schlax stated that these are
items that should be discussed at the Long Term Planning subcommittee meeting. Monson stated that R
Is a voluntary agreement; there are commitment letters on file and that Its not something that can be
regulated with laws.
D. MASAC Meeting of March 7,199S—
Hohenstein introduced the MASAC Rem. He stated that February traffic because of winds
was more from the northwest, consequently, Eagan complaints were down. March is likely to bring more
traffic from the southeast again, since the winds have died down.
INFORMATIVE
Hohenstein informed the commission that a new Chair.was appointed to the MAC. He is
an executive from Ecolab and is a resident of Apple Valley. Hohenstein stated that the district
representative also Wes In Apple Valley. Consequently, these two are representatives of Dakota County
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/12age 7
on the MAC.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be held May 9, 1995, at Blackhawk Middle School. The school Is
located south on Pilot Knob from the Municipal Center and west on Deerwood. The entrance Is on the
south and the meeting will be held in the multi-purpose room and broadcast to the public. The Airport
Relations Commission will be meeting there through September.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Date
Chairperson
Secretary
JEH
Patch T/
Transfer Patch
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
April 11, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was hell on Tuesday, April
11, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Bob Cooper, Steve SoderOng, Lance
Staricha and Lois Monson. Absent were Jane Vanderpoehl and Pat Todd. Also present was Assistant to
the City Administrator Hohenstein. In the absence of Chair Todd, Vice Chair Schlax presided over the
meeting.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, Visitors to
be Heard was moved ahead of Old Business.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Monson, with all members voting in favor, the
minutes of the March 14, 1995 meeting were approved, as presented.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Michelle Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive addressed the commission concerning the
increase in lights over her home in the Hills of Stonebridge Addition. She stated that she has been keeping
track of planes and the overflights and times they are occurring. She said that during the early morning
hours between 4:00 and 5:00, they are occurring one after the other. She stated that on one occasion she
counted 81 overflights between 6:00 a.m. and noon. The planes are so loud, that she Is kept awake
because of the noise. She also added that there has been an Increase In frequency in the last four months.
She would Oke to see something done about the noise by demanding corridor compliance and she
requested assistance from the commission. She stated that Minneapolis has been complaining for years
and Eagan needs to take action, to develop a strong voice.
Schlax stated that Ms. Padden's home is approximately five miles out from the runway.
The corridor extends three miles out, consequently, planes are outside of the corridor when approaching
her area.
Hohenstein gave some background on the changes occurring at the airport and with air
traffic over the years. Beginning in 1973 and 1974 the corridor was created at the request of the city of
Minneapolis. MASAC was formed in 1969. In the early 1960's, as Jet aircraft were being introduced,
Minneapolis was receiving severe impact. As the Introduction of newer Jet aircraft continued, the noise level
increased. At that time, Eagan was a rural community and, consequently, air traffic started flying over
Eagan without restriction. Eagan requested that planes fly over the commercial areas and, as a result
traffic was kept in the 1-494 and Highway 55 areas. The airport has subsequently tripled in size since the
1970's. Around that time, the airport shifted to a hub and spoke procedure. As a result, there was an
increase in flights arriving and departing the airport. In the mid -1980's, the corridor started to disintegrate
and more of the air space outside of the corridor was used. In recent years, there has been an Increase
in homes in the number of new homes in southeastern Eagan. Not only have the residential areas
increased, but the air traffic has also. Concerning the Hills of Stonebridge neighborhoods, Hohenstein
stated that they are receiving traffic headed In a southerly direction.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 2
Ms. Padden commented that the noise is so severe that it vibrates her house. She stated
that the planes pass over at the some times everyday. Schlax commented that at MASAC meetings,
Hawthorne Addition residents have complained about similar problems. He also stated that there will be
a new navigational method instituted In approximately three years that would help to alleviate some of the
problems but that does not address the current situation.
Soderling stated that he believes that by the sur mile point aircraft should be up to 3,000
feet or more. Schlax stated that it would vary depending on aircraft Involved and procedures that were
used. Hohenstein stated that a larger portion of the plans could be up to 3, 000 feet and are Increasing
speed at the sir mile point.
Cooper commented that he believed there should be some type of rule that would force
planes to stay straight after the three mile point. Hohenstein replied that the rule developed by the FAA
states that turns should begin after the three mile point. He also commented that the only way to help
change these rules is for neighborhoods and groups such -as the Airport Relations Commission and MASAC
to work together to make an Impact. Schlax stated MASAC asked a MAC representative about the chances
of extending the corridor and he replied that they had no Intention of changing the corridor. Because of
this attitude, It will take a concerted effort to make a difference. Hohenstein suggested that the commission
look to the subcommittees to focus on this Issue in more depth.
Cooper asked Ms. Padden what she would like the commission to do. She replied that
she's really not sure. She wants the FAA to support use of the center of the corridor and she wants to
know what can be done. She would tike to see corridor compliance in the early morning hours.
Schlax stated that at workshop sessions, they would like the neighbors affected by the
overflights to voice their concerns. He said that Minneapolis did exactly that and made themselves high
profile which is something Eagan needs to do. Ms. Padden asked if the early morning and late night fights
should be addressed to MASAC. Hohenstein stated that the neighborhoods need to have a voice. MAC
Is slow to act but it is necessary to take those steps to make change happen.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Hohenstein opened the discussion referring to the attachments. Hohensteln reviewed
Sections II and III. He explained that Section VI Identified three types of businesses that are dependent
on the airport, they are car rental agencies, air freight canters and hotels. These businesses will follow the
airport wherever it relocates. Airport Influenced businesses include office and industrial tenants. The report
indicates that the current hotels would not close or move. The location of an airport near Hastings would
result in the development of the eastern part of Dakota County.
Schlax asked whether those new businesses would be located close to the airport and not
the Eagan area. Hohenstein replied that that was possible but the report Is not community specific. He
continued that the implication of the report, if it is accurate, is that the airport relocation will not affect
property values along 494, which Is a very different picture than has been publicized.
Stadcha stated that he has not read any information on the negative impact to the
businesses located near the airport. He mentioned that the island development might not help Eagan and
that they should be looking at the directed development approach which would benefit Eagan.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 3
Hohenstein stated that the Island concept states that if development occurred at the new
site, it would do so separately from the urban service area. The more rural areas such as Inver Grove
Heights and Mendota Heights would see less activity.
Schlax asked whether Hastings would be responsible for utilities for the airport, such as
sewer, water and streets. Hohenstein replied that the service area would be regulated by the MWCC. The
water supply could be done with wells. The main concern will be transportation.
Staricha stated there Is no pot of gold for Eagan one way or the other. Eagan benefits from
the airport location where it currently Is but will not if It moves.
White asked Hohenstein whether the third track is being politically motivated and how much
Influence the legislature would have over ft. Hohenstein stated that the idea of a remote runway was
encouraged by Minneapolis legislators and MAC decided to move forward with the study. He stated that
it has not moved anywhere in legislature and that will be the body that will dedde what to do about f. The
direction they take will depend on the MAC's recommendation. If it were a close vote by the MAC, it would
be difficult to know what the legislature would do. After further discussion, lt was the commission's
consensus that the relocation of the airport would have little, if any, impact on they Eagan area.
Hohenstein reviewed the maps contained in the Part 11 airport AED. He stated that the
relocation site is eight miles from the Eagan boundary and the remote runway would be approximately the
same distance. Soderfing asked what shape Rosemount's runway proposal layout resembled. Hohenstein
responded that it was an L shape, operating from the southeast and southwest, although from time -to -time
the wind would force aircraft to head in other directions.
Schlax commented that rail transit would just add another element to the noise situation.
noise. SoderOng stated that the rail Is intended to cover 16 miles in eight minutes.
There was discussion of the expansion relocation maps on Pages II -22 and III -10. Cooper
asked whether Aftemate 3 was the one selected. Hohenstein responded that it was.
Staricha stated that it'll be difficult for Eagan to favor one over the other, since none of them
are too great. He stated that with a new airport, Impact would be spread out and that It will boil down to
process management for Eagan so that there Is no great solution either way.
Hohenstein explained that this alternative would change traffic patterns but will not relieve
corridor traffic. He continued that many of the impacts are due to Eagan being located south of the airport
and much of the air traffic is south bound.. If the airport is built south of Eagan most traffic will be heading
south from that point so that Eagan.
SoderOng suggested using north/south and southeast runways and not having traffic going
east or south from the south runway nor have any traffic go south of the corridor from the other runway.
This would be a reasonable option, allowing noise to be absorbed in the corridor. Schlax stated that they
will run airspace according to their own needs and desires.
Staricha stated that there is a need to get in there and make a pitch for Eagan. He stated
that the map on page II -23 shows that for every take off there is a landing and that 24% of the take -offs
and 40% of the landings are from the north. Hohenstein described the location of Eagan on the map on
page 11-23. Hohenstein stated that the track information on page II -17 shows that planes will be much
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 4
higher and so not as loud. The new north/south runway will be three miles from the west side of Eagan.
Eagan. He compared maps on pages II -23 and III -10. Page III -10 shows the larger portion in Eagan.
Schlax stated that the charge to the commission is to look at these maps and decide how
the noise impacts Eagan.
Monson stated that Its important to separate the old airport form the new airport and
comparisons should not be made. Its necessary to evaluate a new airport separately.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Part 150 Federal Program Modifications—
Hohensteln reviewed the attachments concerning an FAA proposal to modify the Part 150
program to discourage new home building in the 65 DNL contour. The will no longer fund "new non-
compatible land uses" In Part 150 programs. He continued that this would not have a negative impact on
the Eagan area. Schlax commented that it would be beneficial to Eagan if it did go through. Cooper stated
that the 4/22 expansion will affect Eagan residents in other areas. These residents will then demand sound
Insulation. He asked how the legislation will affect those residents. He stated that Ifs necessary to make
laws concerning this problem. Hohensteln stated the proposal would not affect new noise impacted
residences. If new houses are built, they would not be eligible for sound Insulation.
Cooper stated that it would be beneficial to change the DNL contour from 65 DNL to 60
DNL in the future.
Hohensteln responded that it may be a good Idea to hold a position that if the airport
moves, Eagan wants assurance that development would occur in existing areas and if the airport expands,
Eagan wants more sound insulation guaranteed. He stated that he would Tike to make a statement to the
City Council concerning the proposal. Schlax directed Hohensteln to put together the comments for the
Council.
Upon motion by Soderfing, seconded by Cooper, the commission charged Hohenstein to
make comments on the proposal to the City Council. Stadcha suggested the comments state that the
commission is In favor of the new airport or current airport expansion as long as the changes in operations
do not cause existing areas to become new noise areas. All members voted in favor.
B. Northam Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration—
Hohensteln stated that Chair Todd and he met with members of the cities of Sunfish Lake,
Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights to form the Northern Dakota County Cities Airport Collaboration.
These cities, including Eagan, are collaborating on a fist of 16 possible areas for discussion. Hohensteln
stated that It was Important for the commission to select several areas that they believe are most relevant
for discussion by the dties. Hohenstein stated that the collaborative effort was a very valuable tool and it
is hopeful that the cities will meet on a monthly basis. Schlax suggested picking five items from the list.
Soderfing stated that this is a very good idea. White commented that it was Important to find areas of
agreement between the cities to make an impact on the MAC. Hohenstein replied that he would like to
discuss the most Important items. Schlax stated that It is worthwhile to pursue and that the items should
be reviewed. In reviewing the Items, Hohensteln stated that the group had not reached any conclusions
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 5
on items 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14. He added another item, #17, "Addition of ANOMS monitors on this side
of airport." Because of broadly shifting opinions, these Items are not agreed to by everyone. He stated
that he would like to decide what Items can be collaborated on to better understand each cures' Ideas.
Hohensteln stated that the commission should vote on the top five or six items. The
commission reviewed the list and voted for the top five, they were - 2, 3, 8, 13, and 15. Schlax directed
Hohenstein to proceed with these issues as the most important.
C. Establish Commission Subcommittees and Schedule—
Hohenstein agreed to the creation of two subcommittees made up of commission members
- Current Operations and Lang Term Planning. The Current Operations subcommittee would consider items
such as corddor compliance, departure and approach profiles and the Part 150 Program. The Long Tenn
Planning subcommittee would discuss topics such as the dual track airport planning process, the
appropriateness of the 65 DNL contour, alternative relief measures such as tax relief and economic impacts
of airport alternatives. Hohenstein stated that he would like all commission members to participate on one
of the two subcommittees.
Schlax asked commission members to state which subcommittee they were Interested in
serving on. Cooper and Staricha will serve on the Current Operations subcommittee. Monson, White,
Soderfing and Schlax will serve on the Long Term Planning subcommittee. It was suggested that Chairs
for the subcommittees be appointed at the subcommittees' first meetings.
Hohenstein suggested setting up meeting times for the subcommittees. There was
discussion regarding meeting times. It was decided that the Current Operations subcommittee will meet
Tuesday, April 18 at 5:30 p.m. The Long Term Planning subcommittee will meet Wednesday, April 26 at
7:00 p.m.
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Staricha, it was agreed to extend the commission
meeting beyond 9:00 p.m. All members voted in favor.
STAFF REPORT
B. Part 150 Update—
Hohenstein discussed the Part 150 program. He stated that the 1992 and 1993 homes are
completed and 1994 homes are almost done. In 1995, 50 homes became eligible for the program. He
stated that he has had extremely positive comments from the homeowners with the sound Insulation and
suggested that the commission tour one of the completed homes.
C. Runway 4/22 Update—
Hohenstein distributed a letter on record of the decision on the Runway 4/22 expansion.
The letter authorized the MAC to move forward when ready. Hohenstein suggested that the Runway 4/22
lawsuit be added to the next agenda for discussion by the commission. He stated that Richfield would be
agreeable to Eagan participating as a partner, which would cost Eagan $70,000. There are other options
rather than a full partnership. Richfield is moving ahead with the lawsuit so It is Important that Eagan make
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/Page 6
a decision as to what it would like to do. Hohenstein suggested putting this Rem on the next commission
meeting to discuss it thoroughly and decide on the action to take Cooper asked Hohenstein whether the
Council would approve a $70,000 expenditure such as this. Hohenstein responded that they would not be
for it and they would need proof that it would be of benefd to the City of Eagan. Monson stated that R Is
very Important to discuss this again and come up with some creative Ideas regarding this Issue. Schlax
continued this Rem to the May Airport Relations Commission meeting.
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—
Hohenstein showed a depiction of Jet operations for December 1994 which included non-
compliant aircraft. He described Eagan's location on the map and the location of the Stonebridge and
Hawthorne Woods neighborhoods. He displayed a map showing how the map looks with compliant aircraft
and compared the two maps. While R was not a dramatic difference, R showed a level of differentiation of
concentrations in the southern area of Eagan. Consequently, R the flights are complying with the corridor,
this indicates that many of the turns would be in rural areas over parts of Inver Grove Heights and Mendota
Heights. Cooper asked at what height the planes would be reaching at six miles out. Hohenstein stated
that they would be at 3,000 feet or above.
Hohensteln stated that the FAA should be recognized for the reduction of non-compliant
flights. Almost none are coming off the north runway. The percentage is going down, however, when they
first started looking data, the percentages used were of traffic coming off the south'runway. Then they
started doing the percentages of all traffic from the southeast. Schlax stated that test will come this
summer when they start using the north runway more often. Hohenstedn stated the 20 and 30 percent
numbers should be compared to the current 6.8 or 13.6 percent.
SoderQng asked when the first ANOMS data was provided. Hohenstein responded that it
was May of 1993. It was about a year later they started giving out corridor data. White stated that the
corridor doesn't mean a lot for eastern Eagan neighborhoods because the traffic does not stay within the
corridor, it starts in the corridor but ends up somewhere else. He suggested an industrial corridor,
extending the corridor or substantial fines placed on those who are non-compliant. Cooper stated that
lengthening the corridor would be a good Idea and a reasonable possibility. He commented that Instituting
fines had been discussed before but they ran up against a wall. A longer corridor would take the planes
out farther and, consequently, they would be turning over industrial areas. Schlax stated that these are
items that should be discussed at the Long Term Planning subcommittee meeting. Monson stated that R
Is a voluntary agreement; there are commitment letters on file and that Its not something that can be
regulated with laws.
D. MASAC Meeting of March 7,199S—
Hohenstein introduced the MASAC Rem. He stated that February traffic because of winds
was more from the northwest, consequently, Eagan complaints were down. March is likely to bring more
traffic from the southeast again, since the winds have died down.
INFORMATIVE
Hohenstein informed the commission that a new Chair.was appointed to the MAC. He is
an executive from Ecolab and is a resident of Apple Valley. Hohenstein stated that the district
representative also Wes In Apple Valley. Consequently, these two are representatives of Dakota County
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 11, 1995/12age 7
on the MAC.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be held May 9, 1995, at Blackhawk Middle School. The school Is
located south on Pilot Knob from the Municipal Center and west on Deerwood. The entrance Is on the
south and the meeting will be held in the multi-purpose room and broadcast to the public. The Airport
Relations Commission will be meeting there through September.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Date
Chairperson
Secretary
JEH