The URL can be used to link to this page

09-11-2000 ARC Packet1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENI)A September 11, 2q00 Large Conference Room - Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3 4 5 C� 7 Approval of August 9, 2000 Minutes Unfinished and New Business: a. Discuss Airport Noise Video Production with NDC4 Representative Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. August 9, 2000 Letter from Mayor Gene Winstead of Bloomington b. August 10, 2000 Letter from Jeffrey W. Hamiel of MAC c. MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for August 11, 2000 d. August 15, 2000 Letter from Mayor Patricia E. Awada of Eagan e. MASAC Meeting Agenda for August 22, 2000 f. July 2000 Technical Advisor's Report and Corridor Reports g. August 24, 2000 Letter from Deanne Gueblaoui h. August 28, 2000 Open House (Former Bureau of Mines) i. Metropolitan Airports Commission CIP j. MAC Planning and Environment Committee Agenda for September 5, 2000 k. Rescheduling of MASAC Operations Committee from September 8, 2000 to September 22, 2000 1. Airport Noise Reports Other Comments or Concerns Ad.iourn AuYiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. , ;:, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2000 - The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, August 9, 2000, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. . The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty, Commissioners Joe Leuman, Ellsworth Stein, Gregg Fitzer, Elizabeth Petschel, George May, and John Roszak. Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister took the minutes. MEETINGS WITH NO QUORUM Mr. Hollister reminded the Commission that there was no quorum at the July meeting of the Airports Relation Commission, and therefore there was no official meeting and hence no minutes. The Commission discussed what to do in case there is no quorum. . Commissioner May moved to establish the policy that if there is no quonun for a ,._, scheduled meeting, those Commissioners who did arrive shall discuss the items on the � ) agenda without taking any official action on them and that minutes shall be taken and made available to the full body at the next scheduled meeting. � Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Roszak) VIDEO PRODUCTION Chair Beaty and Commissioner Stein announced that they would not be present for the September meeting of the Airport Relations Commission. Chair Beaty suggested that the Commission not discuss the Airport Noise Plan of Action at the September rneetina, but instead focus on the production of an educational video about air noise for cable TV with assistance from NDC4 MAY 10, 2000 MINUTES Commissioner May moved to approve the May 10, 2000 minutes. Commissioner Petschel seconded the motion. C AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABS: 2 (Lueman, Roszak) UPDATES Mr. Hollister provided updates on the following items: o MSP 2010: Building a Better Airport (June 22, 2000) • MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 14, 2000 • MASAC Agenda for July 25, 2000 • MA.SAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 28, 2000 • MAC Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway • Airport Noise Reports • MASAC News The Commissioners said that they -would like the opportunity to further examine the MAC Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway before the City executes the agreement. The Commissioners also said that the new Air Noise. flyer should be sent out in the Friday News and promoted at a Council meeting. I 1 __ � �_ _' _ ��`'�M Il �►`M 1 The Commission then composed a list of topics to be covered by the Cable videotape and directed Mr. Hollister to invite someone from NDC4 to coine to the October 1 l, 2000 Airport Relations Commission meeting to discuss making the video tape. Motion made to adjourn by Beaty and seconded by Leuman. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjoiirned at 9:00 p.m. Respectficlly Sacbmitted, Pcztrick C. Hollrster C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 11, 2000 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Airport Noise Video Production Discussion At the August 9, 2000 meeting of the Airport Relations Commission, Chair Beaty suggested that the Corrunission not discuss the Auport Noise Plan of Action at the September meeting, but instead focus on the production of an educational video about air noise for cable TV with assistance from NDC4. The Commission then composed a list of topics to be covered by the Cable videotape and directed Staff to invite someone from . NDC4 to come to the September 13, 2000 and October 11, 2000 Airport Relations Commission meetings to discuss making the videotape. - Mr. Dennis RafFtery of NDC4 will be present at the ARC meeting on September 13, 2000 from 7:00 to 7:30 to discuss video production. Staff reco�nmends that the Comrnission postpone consideration of the minutes from the August meeting until after the video discussion. � Action Required Discuss the video production with Mr. Rafftery, based upon the attached "brain storming" list created at the last ARC meeting. Topics for Mendota Heights Air Noise Video with NDC4 Q&A Format Consult with NDC4 on how to make video - Invite NDC4 to neYt month's meeting � Enhance Videos with pictures, footage of airplanes Video of airplanes taking off Different airplanes, different noises How to make a complaint, phone #, info to give Fifteen degrees separation Footage from tower, hear radio, show 2 planes taking off Show color 1 day's flight track, show Eagan's protection, put recognizable landmarks out there Definitions: dual track, part 150. DBL, Global Positioning, Runway Use System Series? � History, Dual Track 15 degree separation, tower order Why we support new runway Contract Airport plan of action Emphasize history Different Jurisdictions (MAC, MASAC (Mayor Chair), FAA) � On location, different Spots, Anoms, pick a noisy day Other Cities also audience Equitable Distribution of Air Noise Hush kitting and Manufacturing Fleet Composition, Stage 2(Hush kit), Stage 3 Freight Carriers, Nighttime Noise � Distant - Close in Users 08/l0/00 THtt 15:2� F.� 612i256310 Enyironment and Noise 0EY10��fl 16:?� CIlY OF DLQOh1ING7�h� AL�hIIN DEPT � 961'3"i'�56310 Ray Ful�axm. � AngUst 9, 20a0 page 2 C� ooa tJ0.151 P093 � : - �. .,. ., , . - -,.. . , . _ ..� , . ,� :.�:.��.< . .�� ,� _. - w - , t,. � : .� . - � . _ . ,�... :. . ..- • :l�ta ' s � %! a ' -11f •��w . ' f11� • i."� •rK r'_.t ••�� &�g" the aptions. irxhur�Ti�cg litigatIAr� rhe Blo�arr�ton City C�a�r7 decid�d t'o accept the o,�'er espressed in yos�r Navem�ei• .t 6, .19981etter �� t3se presar�i'orts ex� the Cosarcil meeting by.d�IAC's 1�tayDireuorNigel ".�ey � Comm%ssianer.Tolrh Himis T�e ac�tyrr�Pr`oposQl �ta cmFe�'cate w�rrh �tC ro address oper�ior�l pr+ocea�es mrd ca�mc� fai 1 Tl3j �trrves as parr ofaPart 350 �T�e. �Y'e tmderstar�d t3r� h�C's %rt�t ia tv complete this,�'arrt 1 S!? U,�date by F�b,�my aaoa. a .• lite alter.t�ati�v� called "7..� ,�.uticai mt�e Lvra p�oi�t" sribst�utially adzicves tIu cbje+cdv�,s agt+eed ia Juac 1998, a2�Unugb, t�acjc G c�sres noith over 81oma�agtcm. xesideafiial ar�as b�n,g at �,e ean,e�sion of Ceci�as Avemue. MAC's pmjectiaas mdicste ti�st on av�ag� sbout 2� takeaffs Per daY a�iA nse t3iis ttar.k w�tb, tt�ax `7.� na�tica! .�7.e tmm poin�'. � +•�� M' . alr� i� �� rcir �� .rtt� : ' � a .I r � �. � .,[ti.•. s . �u s.ct. e � - � ' 1 e a� ••:c 1 a. _. ..- . 11Y r..� .� . �: � ' • :..:.J� � . ..i �i � ��i' —, � � ' �.��.a.�� r. ' � • � a a�l �.. r I��rt =t ✓,i� � i_ f� ' ■��.s Is. r' !:Illt r �i t � a � �� t �..' . �� ` . 1/. _tt.t �•1 �r : t ■ !�� 1 a� " : �.s �Y�■ :.1[ •t ��: • r �t � : I�l •j 1 Jtf.��f • T l[.' ■ � • �� t •'�� :.• f : .i� �� - ii! �l ►f � �If �� t � '� :�f[ • � 1 If� ..{ � • . � = s1� 1 • s��.� � ■ r_! • ...�� I •IIt �t � 11� •• - i . 1 t• ' / :1 �� . *� -i t..:�• �� .! ! i t7 �� _ f� � .... �-�r� ► •a • ' •1 ' r.t�l th[ s��• 11 >: a • " 1 �=■ •It '��■;�;1 t• ` � • r :� r.��.: .� '� ' • _ � �. : [� � • es � ` � •It • ' r• s-� • - � . . _ � � � . . • .nY.�.i .i� . �� a -!u ..rir,u • r a t��.- - . , w i ■•: arr r. . : a. �.:re �� u It -• �• . 1 1 t � i._.e �. ' •l�.� . a� .. _ - ^ �� as .. .� ['.; ti s 1 .' ■ �a. :�� ' r_�t _t ' -� :�. �� - :�� - �.• ' t • � • r�r � � �. � %f Y.•i s �:na ❑�r.s . ti s .' • . a � _.it• • 1 `} ' [ l • ' ' . . • ♦ . . - : ral �. et� •� t �ss ..:� .�f. .a.:• �,,, �� • � • �ar� � r � r = ' - - ii_.:��. • t� s ) p• � • urra r�� wrll. t. _ e ' : •r,l • [ . .i :� r..r:.:� � � • .�It : •.• :.; ■it�ft ' R" � r r..� i �� •1 � i tf � ' �1 It r��: •�i � • . ' � � � • • �i • .a � • '...• : oF� : / � �..\1�.� � �7 �tl.• _!f� ■ t � t •[� a �1 1�1 .. . - ` _ .\ l 4 ♦ �� {.' � ' �-• • •��r ��I • �� 1 /! � �l��'� M �� - .1 �It/ �/i : 1�.' .. � � • iL: "• �fI• f i t.^ • ' • * 4 la �:f. • /) / V � fI ►' `- • . ■ Ii� ■ �l! �..,�r :7� • l a : !i `• � ,,.... .. � �ilt If ��• i ' .e n s:r■ �� ` :. �..� .f�' • .rJ.� .��n�a� ��i - � • •rt• = f• . �r . �_ - • n- _t � ! -� • � tre �=+u •�..�1 � .• 1I1 Y 1 :q _.r � 08/10/00 THL1 15:2� F.� 612i256310 Environment and Noise F�� i 9%� 16 :?�' C I TY � ELO�hT I t�(GTON ADM I hJ %�EPT � 961'�'�E310 ,, � �12�11'�� . t313g1I.4C 9, 2000 Page 3 , �. [�oo� tJD .151 P0C3� .:: ._ ,,.� . .-�. : �.. , -• f. . . _ , . :.� ., - :��- - ., . . �: . . . . �. .� , ,.:� � �� .-: .. _ . .,. . � • • ' =i�.� a;'1i _ .. �.:l. �� • ' .• t �lRti ' � . :.w■ 1l � .. � .�...� t� 1� ' • 1 ' a.a a��-1� :i■. , .. .y�."�t� �•.:. f �• r.• � ' ►7 { • r�l :►�.��."T :�i�► � ' t� •1� ' • � � ' � •t �.r! • ' .Y • •.� ltt :' [t ■ J=.11 • .• ►• ■.:t '1 —:1f '�' 1.�� • � f `.?Ci3C �%3D3� Mayar /e cc: 3e$Hamiel, MAC Nigr1 F"�ta�e�, MAC Corat Houio, MAC Ca�zmission�r �t1 Rive:�s, Met Cauaci3 C- �a NIETTROPOLITAN AIRPORTS C�Ii'1MiSSION >, }'S S4,ti Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport `� *'c 6040 - 28th Avenue South • biinneapolis, MN 55450-2799 � �Z Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fa�c (612) 726-5296 � ,. o * N �o � y Office of Fxecutive Director + '� o: � '~4�RPOAYy August 10, 2000 The Honorable Charles Mertensotto 11/iQyc�, Cifi,� �f Men��?t2 Heights � City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hts., MN 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: I am writing be�ause of my serious concem regarding the development of the new Aug.usta Shores Residential Community. its proximiiy.to the departure end of Runway 12L at the Minneapolis-St. Paul lntemational Airport gives me grave concern. This development wii! be one of the closesi residential concentrations near the airport and i am concemed that homeowners will have an immediate negative reaction #o aircraft noise Ieve1 emissions and the frequency of flights near and over the properiy. I am most concemed for the community's environmental well-being during those times when we are departing to the southeast which, as you know, is the majority of the summer. The combination of high frequency take-offs during warm summer months and reduced aircraft performance because of high outside air temperatures will combine to make noise levels a serious concem in this new community. ; haY� ��e Ci�y ef Merdota Heights� has implemented noise abatement construction standards and/or covenants to require acoustical insulation packages as part of construction. Furthermore, it is my hope that the Ci�[y has stipulated that responsible parties of all residents must be thoroughly advised and briefed by the developer of the potential impacts and the expectations of increased operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. I must advise you that the Commission does not believe it has any responsibility or future liability for noise impact, aircraft vibration, or aircraft overflight frequency regarding this developi-nent. We believe that the City is fully aware of the noise environment surrounding the airport and your role as Chairman of the Metropolitan Ai�craft Sound Abatement Council places you in the unique position of being particularly well informed on all matters relating to noise abatement. The �te[ropolitan Airports Commission is an aff"irmative action employec. Felie�•er Airpurts: AIFL�.IE • AVQI:.� COCliv'TY/BL.A[�IE • CRYST�IL • FLYItiG CLOUD • I.t1i�E EL�IO • S2.IV"I' P:��L DOL�:\�C'O�V�; The Honorable Charies Mertensotto August 10, 2000 Page Two if you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me at your earliest convenience. I believe it is imperative that the Me#ropoliian Airports Commission and the Ciiy of Mendota Heights have a clear understanding regarding any liability that may arise in the Augusta Shores residential community. 'ncerely, � Je rey W. Hamiel . Executive Director Cc: Chairman Charles Nichols Commissioner Bert McKasy Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning & Environment Roy Fuhrmann, Noise Abatement Manager \ � / Metropolitan Aircraff Sound Abatemenfi Gounci! (MASAC) b040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota �450 •(612) 726-8141 Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robe�t P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 'f 982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Staniey W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve MEETING NOTlCE IVIAS�►C OPERATIONS COMNiITi'EE The Operations Committee will meet Fridav Auaust 11, 2000 — 9:00 ta 12:00 in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28 Avenue S., Minneapolis If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 wiih the name of your designated alternate. , � . 1. Roll call 2. Approval of the July 28, 2000 Minutes 3. November 2000 Operations Cornmittee Meeting Date Change Old Business 4. Sound Insulation Priorities 5. Runway 17 Departure Track Analysis 6. Other Items Not on the Agenda 7. Adjournment MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Chairman John Nelson Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne Mary Loeffelholz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis M.ayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Roy Fuhrmann, MAC 9:15 10:00 11:30 11:35 Advisory: Chad Leqve, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA Cindy Gresne, FAA Keith Thampson, FAA Jason Giesen, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC G1enn Orcutt, FAA Mark Ryan, fv1AC Joe Harris, MAC cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Pam Dmytrenko, Richfieid Tom Lawell, Appie Vailey Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis G1enn Strand, Minneapolis h ,. C � ' C 1VIASAC OPE.RATIONS COIVIMITTEE �•• � . . TO: lE'Y2010�I: SLTBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation I�toise and Satellite Programs Sound Insulation Priorities . . August 4, 2000 With the 1996 legislative decision to keep the airport at its cunent location, the MAC and the legislature agreed to provide sound insula.tion out to the DNL 60 contour azea. The legislature also established a working group of representatives from MAC, Met Council, NWA, affected communities and legislative staff to develop an initial prioritization for continuing the sound insulation program. As part of the 1991 MAC MSP Part 150 update process, the communities endorsed an implementation strategy to sound insulate single family residential properties within �the 1996 DNL 65 noise contour first and then concentrate on multi-family residential properties. MAC expects to complete sound insulation of the� single family residential homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour by eazly 2002. With the current construction schedules, existing homes scheduled for March or April of 2002 must begin homeowner orientation by July 2001. Therefore, new residences within the expanded DNL 65 and the DNL 64-60 contour areas will have to begin the sound insulation process by late summer 2001 in order for single farnily construction to continue in the spring of 2002. The scope of the MSP 2000 Part 150 Update contains unprecedented noise abatement measures. The FAA will have to be on an aggressive schedule to review and approve the Noise Exposure Maps (contours) and the Part 150 Update by mid 2001. In March, the MAC sent letters to communities within the 2005 DNL 60 Contour, requesting each city to provide MAC and MA.SAC with city specific sound insulation priority recommendations. Each city has provided the MAC with their individual priorities. Those priorities in addition to the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation ProDram priorities (listed in the left column in order of precedence) are provided in the following table on page #2. The columns in the table list the communities' order of priority by type of residence (Single Family, Multi-family, etc.). - During the Part 150 Scopin� Process, the FAA asked the MAC and communities to be mindful of potential environznental injustices if the insulation program were to continue beyond the DNL 6� contour for single farnily residences only. It is important to note there are an estimated 2371 multi-family residences within the 2005 Base Case DNL 65 contour as the Operations Committee considers insulation priorities out to- the DNL 60 contour. This issue is a primary concern for FAA and needs to be strongly considered with the e'xpanded insulation program. i�v6 MSp Noise Bloomin�ton Easan Inver Grove Mendota Minneapolis Richfield Mitig�tion Committee Hei�htS Hei�htS Prioritization Sequence #t Priority Single #1 Pria-iry: Insulate #1 Priority �i Priority #1 Priority #1 Priority #2 Prioriry: Homes Famiiy/Duplex within 75 homes in 1996 with High & Low 1996 DNL 65-75 b5 Concour - Freq. Noise #2 Priarity Multi-Family #4 Prioricy: MF in �4 priarity: #1 Priority equal Simultaneously #2 Priority ;�5 Priority: within 1996 DNL 65-75 DNL 60 and greacer Frovided no to SF in 1996 with #1 area imgact to SF DNL 65+ Priaity Insulation �3 Priority Single #2 Prioriry �2 Prioriry #2 Prioriry #2 Prioriry #3 Priority �3 Priarity: Homes Family/Dupiex within with High & Low 2U05 DNL 65-75 Freq. Noise #4 Priority Multi-Family #4 Friority: MF in #4 priority: #2 Priority equal Simultaneously #4 Prioriry #S Priaity within 2005 DNL 65-75 DNL 60 and greater Provided no to SF in 2005 with #2 azea . impact to SF DNL 65+ Priority Insuladon #5 Priarity Single #3 Priority: SF/MF #3 Pricxity #3 Priority #3 Priority :#5 Priority . �4 Priority: Homes Family/Duplex within & Duplex for 17l35 wich High & Low 2005 DNL 60-64 priar to Runway Freq. Noise I�l35 Opening - #6 Priority Multi-Family #4 Friaity: MF in �4 priority: #3 Priority equal Simultanea�sly #6 Priority #5 Prioricy within 2005 DNL 60-64 DNL 60 and greater Provided no to SF in 2005 with �3 azea impact ro SF DNL 60-64 Prioriry Insulation �'7 Priorides Then in #4 Priority #4 Prioriry �7 Priority #7 Prioriry order; Nursing Homes, Churches wi[h Daycare/Nursery Schools #i Prioriry: Low Freq Noise azea within LFSL 87dB 'The Part 150 Update schedule anticipates that a draft document will be available in late August, a public hearing in late September and a final submittal to the FAA in December of this year. The FAA can take up to 180 days to accept the document and then take additional time for review and approval. During the 1992 Update, the FAA took eighteen months to review and finally approve the document. During this update process, the MAC and the MASAC Operations Committee have been working very closely with the FAA to identify potential issues, such as insulation priorities, to reduce the approval time. This is an extremely compressed schedule and continuation of the insulation pro�ram will require all parties' most dili�ent actions. Based on the above community preferences, past FAA precedence, construction schedulina, Part 1�0 Update submittal timuig and expected approval by FAA, the , C MASAC yOperations Committee reviewed aIl possible options at its July 28, 2000 meetin�. The result of the deliberations were slight modifications to the staff recommendation which resulted in the following priority: 1. Complete the sound insulatian of sin�le family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and � eater DNL noise contours; 2A. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and b eater noise contours in conjunction with priority 2B and then sequencing to 2C below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document; 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours; 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours; 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority 2C above upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document; 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60��contour. � i The above priority sequence (as modified by the MASAC Operations Committee on July 28, 2000) takes into consideration the recommendations provided by the majority of the cornmunities, FAA environmental justice issues, the availability of Part 150 Program implementation team (consultants, contractors, and suppliers), �Part I50 implementation schedules, and the MAC Part 150 funding levels. In addition the above priority will help . ensure a smooth transition from the existing insulation prob am to an approved expanded program. Action was delayed on this issue at the July 28, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting as a result of a request for additional information. T'he requested information is included in the packet and is summarized in an associated memo. At the Au�ust 1 l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting thi� topic will be reviewed for action. Action Requested . That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the above sound insulati�n priority recommendation (as modified by the MASAC Operations Committ� at the July 28, 2000 meeting), which is consistent with the 1996 MSP Noise Miti�ation Pro�-am and forward this recommendation to the full body of MASAC for endorsement. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. t � , � • � , , T �; • • `� . . TO: FROM: SUBJEC�.': DA�'E: MASAC Operations Committee � Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Runway 17 Flight Tracks August 4, 2000 At the June 9, 2000 MASAC Uperations Comrnitte� meeting FAA expressed concern about the proposed departure procedure for westbound aircraft from Runway 17. FAA indicated that aircraft could turn almost immediately to their destination heading after passing a specific DME point and that FAA air traffic controllers would not hold an aircraft at the departure heading until it reacherl a specified altitude. These findings rendered the initial 105° hybrid fan option unfeasible from an FAA implementation perspective. As a result of that discussion, MAC, HNTB and FAA agreed to revisit the westbound departure procedures for Runway 17 to develop a workable solution. In the process MAC, HNTB and the FAA clarified assumptions about overall westbound departures, aircraft track layouts and the associated fleet mix. HNT� developed three alternatives with different DME turn points as potential solutions including a 1.7 nautical mile DME turn point, 2.2 nautical mile DME turn point and a 2.7 na.utical mile DME turn point for west bound departures. At the July 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the three turn point options were evaivated with a consultant's recommendation for implementation of the Runway 17 departure flight tracks with a 2.2 nautical mile single DME turn point for westbound departures. This option removed 13,900 people from the 60+ DNL Unmiti�ated Contour (provided greatest impact reduction within the 60+ DNL Unmitigated Contour relative to the three options). After significant discussion the MASAC Operations Comnnittee determined that a 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point should be evaluated and forwarded the issue to the July 28, 2000 mceting as a study item with action planned at the August 1 l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. At the July 28, 2000 meeting a review of the 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point alternative was provided. Throu;h the analysis conducted by HNTB, it was found that the 2.5 nautical mile turn point maintained the initial intent of the Runway 17 departure track evaluation initiative in addition to removin� an additional 1,130 people from the unmitigated 60+ DNL contour relative to the 2.2 nautical mile turn point option. As a result of the updated findings the consultant's recommendation was to implement the 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point and to implement the associated river departure track as a separate measure. � i: C Af[er considerable discussion, HNTB agreeci to mail (early the week of July 31, ZC}00) graphics to all MASAC Operations Committee members providing a graphic comparison of the two flight track options, 105° hybrid fan and the resultant contours. Upon receipt of the information members were asked to forward their comments to MAC staff for distribution to the membership prior to the August 11, 20Q0 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. The previously mailed graphics are attached to this memo. At the August 1 l, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting a final recommendation for the Runway 17 departure flight tracks will be deternuned. Action Requested That the MASAC Operations Committee endorse the consultant's recommendation for Runway 17 departure procedures utilizing a 2.5 naurical mile DME turn point that minimizes impacts of westbound jet departures as a noise mitigation measure for the Part 150 Update and implementation of a river departure track separate from the 2.5 DME turn point recominendation and forward these recommendations to the full body of MASAC for endarsement. - _ If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. ` � � , � � � , , ` ` � TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROIVI: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: Requested Information �. DATE: August 4, 2000 At the July 28, 2000 MASAC Operations Cammittee meeting several requests , were made with respect to the topics covered at that meeting. Below is a summary of the information that was requested: • Map depicting the blocks that will be insulated as a result of completing noise insulation within the 1996 65 DNL contour s Cost summary sheet providing the dollar amounts associated with the MSP : noise insulation initiatives and the money available for that purpose as a result of the airline . lease a�eements ,� ,_. . • Single and multi-family counts within the Mitigated 2.2 DME turn and 2.5 DME turn Contours �� • A chart depicting the insulation progression as it relates to the proposed single and multi- family priority The above infarmation is attached to this memo. Please review it prior to the August 11, 20(}0 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. , C � -_ -._ .:Uy,� . . . �_ _._,::�.�, - .. ._ _ -� .- - ,,:. , _ ....._. . . . .... . . . . .. .... �:�k4� S ..�,� .. � � �1- � 1 � f�.! ..�_i_ � �'-�T�1�-1_ J ��n 't"' i - . , '� . �i'�v� _,.� _y._.. ' � a -� : �� _I:� _- m��.�.,�,� �-{.__.'•, .�� ... � r- '- ��--L..�'� b �=-'�m-�:� , ' ti; r k r- ` +--• • - ;---�� `�,,� -�� - ; � t� � G.' � � :� � � �-'��; :.. , � • - 5 .:; ;�L.;.=�--�.-�- ,� r �- � , -4- : t' � � ',' �, ' 7, _ _� N _" �'" � .r--.�. -`� �,.� �L-^T.t-"-+__.-.__.I--� � - . '• '°" -i+= : ��:1:1. •-n-'^-" � ,` ,-,_-,1�.1, :• ��t-" '' •.i �.. . :'�� " .�,}�. ' '"'.�.�' :j. t- �;�� t7+ y '$•, '_i �_�=�� j � !� 1' . � �..� 'I ' '�c' ='i�`�'�r-'«�' ,. . ti I ••-,--"_ � � _ .,.I d� i_ "� ..- _, i % - i 's'k'�.. - � i 'T; � �� .--_! '} �t_-: s � �' ; _ �� C' -- �Lr.• � •'�� % \ � ' 4 t -a'; ri� I i' !'--�+-` ( y � I.:" � �-� ` �., �� : l� .` :.�. • • t'.+� • � � r-~�-� - r—i �-t �"� ��T•�----._ ,� t-, � � l 1-" '' • 1 1 ( : � �., I-..J_-r i t �T�...� ;� "�'-- "' ..� - �' , i � ., �;-_`,-�-'--�-�.% �... 7 ; i ; r.--,"— � ♦ k � ��', � + � i �: � , r ,------ : i�. � -�✓. -� .� ;-��''.' ^I .r ' 1 ='.�-_ : �'�- '� f ', i � •..__i ; — : r � ,. �=: f� '. -'-.�-' ;` `'`; � �-�' ' •,,.: . ( ;;':; - - - -+� � � ,� ' _::,_, i.,�`" .. . . �' � `.,r ^_.a r`� J ' 1--;�' '� '. - ' � � �-1�=�� i J _A j ,. _� : .:- i i ; :.: � _ , _� - i (i "''TI�� 1 j' •_ �..� � � ! t-I ^ ' :.'�.��__.�_. � � �� _ -'�"� .�:Z•. ..(.� �•yY -•-- •� iv.-.,{' =�� ,�,.., - �.r , ; �� - �� ,j{-�-� ;�� `�;" F �� ,(-' ,j �' �..�;� .-- �- � q i4 �� , `••` N�' � ?�' r� .'i� I- I �4!.�•: 7��`'7�^`� '''i `c-_ `. �s ��• � f �1 ., J i •. ^.t. � . I1 ' \ � • ' � i � �Ti` � � ' -•�^'*-Jj,.�i � !r , d� ~� � . � ' � � t.'''` ' � }� �� '.; � �_� 1'^�.� � (� i � l-. � � i „ �'� I �� 1-: i- I �1"("F J' � '':_. _ �.�.�.., ` : � _� �`ir•';:�,�„� 1�;;:� . ,'�'�'_ IG i i-' 1 �`'`•' �`t t c-'-'�'.i. 1 1 '\ �ri' � _ .^1. ,-. :i�i r�v. .l' ;y;i:i y�'.��' I�-, ' ,�r1�� : \ �\ � • � � •i '�_��.'s�� Y r � �� .-.�;'� _ : iY �% _ _ ' ..\ � ^�� 1 - t.-- . ' - � :�•.��-;. F�_:r- ,�: . ;. , (,� �'=�: ,:°__ --i �-;r_'�`;�_ , � -.�-�u;; � -". .. :`�`''-� :� .-c 1 4 ?'J ;.".-� ,/ ,ri,�'y{' '- � �}� �, ?: ��: � `~.� •2 �.�` •.�': �� i �: �rL��' z- � I ! y'� (I . ..� -~.; .� l�` '•` r1� . � i . .. � 1 _ . � ,' �-. � . �'� � r• !� `5 1 � � k • �±'�/ ,' i. � .� �1 ��') ��(-.''`�.�! �� ;i.y � r . - '`i.. -F7,, `�''.__ v � � ' __� /,,�/ `� � .f `"� � �.1vi',�, '•\ � ,i_` ��y�1 I.' �1.iti{".^i"yS 7'�/' �s. _'� � �•�' ��^� � �.t ��yV ' � �:� � .. `�•, ':� �.�'. ��lT 1[�'" : „�'�}1ni�'��F+vy 'l �' � � �� `' � . . ; �' 1 J � F� � t .� i �. � 'i L �-� �- �^ � "+�'d � .�,. � L: �� "J�� i: _ ,' ,✓`�i�. `;'F' � � . ...r�'�...4" t P '� = � .v ��a.;,.�,,,�, � ~ ,j-} ] { t = i '•� ��-.- _ J ' ' �.3^��} :,•�\ � '""..�� I •'� . �` \.``''`.� !: I� L{ J ' , . {�- r � r„ ,;:;..�,.y .i�_ _ .�l �t' r`., ; r� ri � . -' ��^`�l, ��•,� t .,,, ��'..��- u� �� :�� •f rr1' �..lt`� .,;; `� ,' ' { � \' a � i �� ' •� '�J af�,; t-' � -�.\ v . `�'�-' i �� i `�* 'r ' F' i�� 1; � ��-- H? �� F ,v-^. "� -J '�� f .1 "i.c __/'�-•`� . , ,e '\l� �. _7 i 4'�l •l'.`'Ir.... � .. :�:�: �;, � %' ; `�y� 1' �. :i '}~-..., L-�-. �._,-�:�.-, w `j ,�;..-=:�::_ : ' , f .. �'.;.. �-�- '� F' ' '�� '� ��E•,. , ��:r ,5 ,^ :-� ;�~ � � � � � J - �-'_ - r�.'�`" -t r��N \{ ir ": .. .'�, ,.:.k�. r'-�.,._`.-r • !,�� , �;; � - ' .-�---.L--,..a- ��! �.,�� ' :% � ?r � � '•:!` C "i �' - � _ _ _ _ `t_,.1" �' _ i _ ;-- . ._ 5-. J_ , �' .'��j� � It_ . � ••'r 0 i i:a � �'c� •' -"1 � '-�• : - - _-�-- - ;� •::.. ";: � .,'. ,`- ` ' J ,� : � � r'� �r' i , - � � � t : ��`( r';•..;. Y: �.. `'''` �„ i ` � �� . : � ,� _ �� :.�� ` i �� „i \ . `.i t �.•. r,' I� ;._..,'£� _ . • ,; .• � . ''� .' �,�� :;� � ' ^,t . 71 �. �i e7 � \\ '� :� �r. +-' �_, r-�-- -'" �� i� c:i.� � ir+ � � � , . '` ' ri `!.�:: �•t,: ==i:' �- � t � 'i:1�r7' :-rr � ° _.5 - �', ,; t �';•,•:r'� 1 - --� I - � ,-p� �� - � � �. ------ -�- � :�,�� ~ =�� '" • , r,_ i:.,y _ �.�� ' ~r' 7j H �� •. -�-�- -i . f I j \ .�� . y, L r` �A .� ,- �r �; . ,y"�Y� � � .1.. � "' ��, % ,' � t ! ti•.i ;t;~��.F . '�... � � I ,.�. %r i��'1 �1y �` .�3� � �..-__�r _ = 7':__... . —��:'a_7� s,�� -y,.� ' - C ��, ,�� - d � r . ,) -�-r_;. .� -trt � � -.�-�-' l.. � q - �� "�=1-' �,' ��•';i `,�.` � • � � � 1 - - 4 J i � -- ��_ �1 �-r--��_ _ � . �__T�--�_ r� I ��\'. o , � : !- . - ..::. � . ,�, . ... � ___`_ i ' �F..r� ; . ' . . : - � =�� ` �-`'��=-`�� r` � � ' �� .�_ `; . �� - • -�� - � H-�� i� • • .�=�1 � �. , �, � - �i ' �� -- '. � �' 1- ("�-ri=--, ��r r �- I . ' I . .,�� . , ;� ;�- F �; -"� r ��. � �. .., � � �.. :.- _ �.. . �--�. —'i ��:'';_ ,�,-��j'?`�:� 4� r..�- i�= r ' �--�- �� =,�4 ; -.` . , , ��-� ��-F-� -� � -.�..r �_,.� _�� . � �-E-- � - _��,.. �' � ' �f -�-,-, r '- ' �� o. �i=;._��'�1- F- ,'� : : ...- . =- � � r , ` �. :-. !..�_� ' _t=�,_._'�i_) G_ t �-�-- -_�!1 �-� a� .�",r �. _ � � ��` �- _`. �r 1 . . ''__'1 � �'�i �' �.�-��1-:--��-r--,� .; ;.%7� i � -;� _ � �.- Y`_� �"� � �'� � ��-,- - + - �-- _ 1-' . . F I ' �-`� `_;_r � -----� i. , �i.,�-_�„�_�T ;._::i'� i � �;_._� -+ � `. . s - v=, i . . . .-F,y� � �: - -��-' F i �' i 'ti Ll L( � �,�,r-��- � , �-- �.-. �-i-+ �- � �-r-f�i�. �� i-. • �`�' � __._ _r l- �-!_�!'� �f-l-. � j'" Y � �..� L �� ! � � '__ , `'i:.,,� ' L - � �_2_`i...��- - I-!—'-"_.' , _L � i i � ' .�__ �: � - - �i I-G �� Y' � IT.- -t-'-i-� I,_ __ { - 1�-:-. . ^�-i__ __ - H- .: t'"" � : -- .z+E' .-�'�� h t�_�_i...._ i T � i 7 ' .__.j^�.i ::�+—�.^ �_ � � , ' .- � �L - _�.-�� -��-� : ��-�� - ,: � - �.l _ �.: __; : � -�___;: _-- _ ;� : �7 - � i -:-i-�- .�y.-: ,''. �� r- �1 . � �� '� r � � i , . r — . �',5� f_ _ � .'� �1L''.....� � _� � .'._.._ � _1 �-.:� i a ..?_.I =J ''f ` iJ ..1��T,,:,_ �-- - �lF ��--- . � _� � -_Ti—, ` 1- � --�-n--- i = i �r �' ;. -� i _, .�� - � ��*= i _ -i ,-t � +---�'-1_`_ i i j � `_�.-� `� � _ — — _ ��' ,..� .' 7. ! ti� 1-�. y."•� � _ 1 i �'? � ' J '�� (- � ' � i i__ � � � � � u � � � '� F i i -�. � � -- � !� i ..__ . ��.ai.. �� _(_ � _' ' '^ � 1 r-�, �� ( ' �: � i ._t . I-.. � �l� Y `� �� i i � � y� � . . I ��' . ... n� . � o ` • --- . '�' .. e s-a�T'"_" y '�'z'�, .xa s,c�~ . ��..i,;x'a�*-.--^.`*�s�^�" I��r,.""*'�^ r` �' ""'T'�;°y"'�. G 4�."�'*.. � -r..- .�i �'� u �.�• ��'....�--�= �?[Q�, ' '{'. r�g' r'. tar�.'y�7 r .�-. . � � .,c -J�. �,C`f._...,....5_3 K....�.: c..:7: , �.�.;...>�'.,e.i.�.�'L4:,zsS-.. - . _ _ � F�, � �..yE'(':�"x,1''�,:..w'.W..,-...:o- �.rY....,. .�.;_...?- ti.:vr.,. 1 �! . . -. . . .. . , _ . . � . . .. �^� ;� � . - � , � , . . .. . . ' ' � . _ . . . . . . E � N N � N � U Q C U 'J^ �' C c� 3 C ..� O N 80 � i�. .:. +.+ C O � M �G � O �61 OD '°C� � � � � C � G � � w 3 N O O N R. 6� �c G 6� r+ iS� a� � w O 61 � b .+ 0. � ..+ y R CO C � � H h Q d � z * " \ � t/i O O N � � C C R � � O �F+ L � .'J � Q ♦Q♦ 'Yw V O ^i. � J � c � %� � � 27f o � a C :i.� cv � tn . c �a c � 0 � :�i :,,�: >�:, �� -,o�: : as= ;;� � �. :�. �: :�� .. o- '�: y .1.+ •^� � � J � r � M t� r.. 00 Q� O H � tA N tD N �d' w. � t�- 'd' t0 'd' 1� p� t7 00 �— CO c? L = r �.i � .0 N � � Z = Z Z � � � Q � Q � � � � T ((� l� � � � 0 � .... .... .... ... JJ_J J_1 Z Z Z Z Z � � � � � �n �n � �n rt c0 cp CO c0 cp CO tn i.t� tn � f� O O O O d� OO OO e—NN NN ; N N tlf fA N C� tU ;.'t?. EEE00 's' 0 0.0 =_ `ar =xx :=. . ;g .� .—� .—E <�o �� ;�: ti ti �i �'�" ti ::;�. � � � a� d � _ '... w. — �rn � � � G � o � � � � N � N .�r •_ � � :� � CO ,��.. 1� O H N � � � t� 1� = T N � _ Q J J Ll O u� �n co co tD «� � O r N � � M � ,—.... . ,:�.. . � � , C � r :G N y .': �>�_. .._.:.�L_.:.. .,...� r. 9�7-i�0 y�j-inf gp-:::iy 90-u�'(' 90-�a0 cp-�n(' 50-1r�•7 5Q-u2f � o o � �%Cl-3�� c�i o z ti0-Inf' o � �' V `� O . tr�� N p ra-�er � � eo-�� .3 = T �3 , E�_�n�, ,—� �, � F £D �dH a, ' •y G • Eo-u2� ^ o � n - Z�-;�u = o V •� � ZO��n� � = L C "J 0 ' ZQ'1i1'� �c O N � � Q _ �o_up� � �� =� ,� ��"�`�� in .=j •`A X �o-inr � •y O C .� lo'lc�i p .o � o U �' ��"U°� � o Z = � u OI�'}�� n �c — 00-I�t' � ; � � pQ-1d5f ' c c = �i — o:�-�Pr :l U �� o :� � . .-< z z� " a � ^Q = — . C Z �' c _ .-'-' - n `6 .r � � ,� .= � `�' � � _ o `-' U `-'' �: _ o � �+ 7' A .�' ?� � � y � �•�- r � � C •..�. �.°.. LL+ � r„ " G^ � .�.�i J, If-� , u H �n .= ^a �� = �, � n �, � � c � � _ � � � � �, �� O v1 • v1. v1 vti. � � C O. O� C �. c � �` ri N ht� N' � � UNAPPROVED M I N U T E S MASAC OPERA.TIONS COMIVIITTEE July 28, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Aii-ports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairn�an Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members �vere in attendance: Members• Charles Mertensotto, Acting Chair Dick Saunders � Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• Chad Leqve Jason Giesen Mark Kill Joe �Iarris Kim Hughes Steve Vecclii Cindy Greene Glen Qrcutt Visitors• Andy Pederson Patrick Hollister Jan DelCalzo Tom Hansen Larry Lee Mary Teske Mendota I3eights Minneapolis MBAA Eagan NWA MAC - MAC MAC MAC 11J.L 1� HNI'B THC, Inc. FA.A FAA Apple Valley Mendota. Heights City of Minneapolis City of Burnsville City of Bloomington Resident of Eagan AGENDA Approval of 1Vlinutes The minutes of the July l�, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. F_ Communications Received No communications were received. Low Demand Flight Tracks Kim Huhges, HNTB, clarified some information regarding the Low Der�and Flight Tracks recommendation. The following points were noted: • A low demand time period is defined as less than 3.5 operations in a 15-minute segment or 14 operations in an hour. • Low demand time periods occur primarily at night and vary by the da.y of the week and the month. • On average, low demand time periods occur between 12:15 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. • ATC will NOT severely reroute aircraft away from their destinations in order to use a specific low demand flight track • Absence of a low demand flight track over an area DOES NOT prevent overflights of that area during low demand periods. • Runway selection during low demand periods will continue to be determined by the RUS and not by the low dernand flight tracks. (i.e. if the EaganlMendota T3eights corridor can be used during a low demand time period, it will be used as dictated by the RUS) . • Runway use selection (as dicta.ted by the RUS) takes priority over low demand flight track use. � Monitoring of ATC compliance and use of low demand flight tracks wi11 not be possible. Additional clarification and sample scenarios can be found in the handout entitled "Low Demand Flight Track Alternative." � �� J Runway 17 Departure Track Analysis ��.. TrackA Shift Kim Hughes, HNTB, said there had been concern expressed at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting regardin; the shift in the position of runway 17's departure flight track A and noted the following: • The Record of Decision (ROD) for the runway's FEIS allows for immediate turns off runway 17, which is how the tracks were modeled at the time of the FEIS. • However, the higher-performance aircraft now coming into service are able to turn sooner onto their assigned headings than what was initially modeled. • The shift in track A's location to the north reflects better modeling of this reality. • The shift DOES NOT reflect a change in irack A's heading. + It is important to note that the INM flight track location is only accurate within the immediate vicinity of the airport. Beyond the 65 DNL contour, aircraft will continue to disperse. The INM fli�ht tracks do not model this trend because it does not impact the contour. i�Iary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked for clarification as to why INM is rnost accurate up to the 6� DNL level. Kim Hughes, H1VTB, said that the INM software has been specifically developed to model the 65 DNL level and that, in jeneral, dispersion of aircraft is difficult to model. She said beyond the 5� DNL level, the accuracy of the modelina begins to de�ade. Flzght Track Use Update � "'� Kim Hughes, HNIB, noted some changes that have been made to the track use percentages as a result of further refinement to the model. She note the following: o At the July 14, 2000 Operarions Committee meeting, Cindy Greene, FAA, indicated that when runway 17/3� is operational arrivals on 12L and 12R will restrict usage of runway 17 departure tracks F and G for westbound departures. • When this occurs, aircraft that would normally be given headings of either 245° or 285° will be given a 230° heading instead (track L). • Therefore, track F and G usage has been reduced from the initial projection. . • The change in the contour as a result oi this shift is insignificant. • Projected track F usage changes from 11.6% to 7.9%. • Projected track G usage changes from 13.1% to 8.9%. • Projected track L usage changes from 0% to 7.9%. An updated chart of nmway use percentages for runway 17 departures was distnbuted Turn Point Alternatives Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the council on the ]atest westbound departure track analysis and reiterated that the EIS ROD allows for evaluation of noise abatement measures for runway 17 departures. She also reiterated that it is necessary that any proposed noise abatement procedure to reduce noise impacts must provide for sufficient guidance to the aircraft in order to keep aircraft on the desired tracks. Ms. Hughes then reviewed the goals for the runway 17 flight track analysis and reviewed the three turn- point alternatives discussed at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. She also noted: • Use of a turn point can be designated as part of a departure procedure and as part of an FA.A order for use by the ATC. o Use of a turn point may result in a slight decrease in the runway's capacity in order to ensure adequate aircraft separation. • Turn points provide positive guidance to aircraft using existing technology. . • Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered as the technology evolves. l�Is. Hughes noted that at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting the consultants were asked to consider a 2.�nm (DME) turn point rather than the recommended 22nm turn point. The results of the 2.�nm turn point analysis shows: • It reduces the noise impact within the 60+ DNL contour. • It is a simple and easily implemented departure procedure. , • It maintains the intent of the Operations Committee's previous recommendation (105° hybrid fan with two turn points). • It reduces, but does not eliminate, overflights of Bloomin�ton's bluff area. However, the analysis also showed: 3 A 2.Snm turn point could potenrially increase overflights of other communities (further to the ; south). � . It reduces the runway's capacity by 3-4 departures per hour (although this is the same as the initial recommenda.tion). The 6(}+ contour population difference between the 2.2nm and the 2.Snm turn point alternatives is a reduction of approximately 1,130 people from the contour with the use of a 2.Snm turn point. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that there were some labeling mistakes on the map entitled "Runway 17 Turn Point Altemative Flight Tracks." Track A was not labeled and tracks F and G were transposed. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said those changes could be made and corrected versions would be sent to each member. Chairman Mertensotto asked whether the ttuning ability of an aircraft was included in the analysis. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the modeled dispersion for each track takes the turn radius of aircraft into account. � River Departure Procedure Kim Hughes, HNTB, explained how a river departure procedure may be implemented using existing technology. Two river departiue scenarios were explained: Published Deparizne Procedure • Aircraft would fly to a turn point at approximately 3nm and then turn to a heading of 245° to overfly the river. , • This type of departure procedure could only be used during forecasted low demand time periods ( due to the need for ATC clearance. (a 30-minute advanced notice is necessary) • The projected use of this procedure would be .2% of the runway 17 nighttime departures. 2. ATC Assigned Heading s ATC would assi� aircraft a heading of 230° from a 2.Snm turn point to overfly the river. � This type of procedure could be used during low and mid-demand periods. • T'he projected use of such a procedure would be 1.5% of the runway 17 daytime departures and 3.5% of the nighttime departures. In addition: • ATC would have discretion to use either procedure as appropriate. • Use of these two departures has no si�ificant effect on the contour. • Use of these procedures has the potential to reduce overflights highly impacted populated areas. The consultant's recommendation: • Implement the 2.�nm tum point departure procedure for west bound departures. • Implement the two River Departure Procedures as a separate measure. Restricting Hushkitted Aircr.aft from Specific Rainways !! Although some have indicated a desire to restrict hushlatted aircraft from using specific runways at specific times, ATC will not permit runway use to be determined by aircraft type. Chairman Mertensotto reiterated his concern regarding establishing procedures for a runway that has not been built. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said procedures must be established for runway 17 before it is operational so that ATC lrnows how the runway will operate from the first da.y it is open. She said if for some reason a change is necessary or desirable at some point in time then a process of analysis could be initiated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Denver had to change procedures after the runways were built and operating. In this case, he said, Denver had to go throuah an environmental review process. Chairman Nlertensotto asked if the procedure could include a caveat that if it did not work the way it was intended that an alternative procedure should be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that would not be possible. She also noted that since contours are created using runway procedures, any significant change in procedures would affect the contour and thus open up a whole set of problems. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that there was no difference between the capacity reduction associated with the 2.2nm turn point and the 2.Snm turri poin� Cindy Greene, FAA, said that was correct, but that because aircraft would not allowed to turn immediately off the runway for departures off runway 17, there would be a slight delay for the user. She said the reason she feels okay about the 2.Snm turn point is because she could find no significantJcompelling negative consequence. Yet, it is unknown and difficult to quantify what the affect will be for communities downstream. Ms. Greene said, however, that the reduction in the population by u5ing the 2.Snm turn point is a definite benefit. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said each member should take the information back to their respective communities for comment and come to the August 11, 2000 meeting prepared to take action: He said staff would provide a comparison of the initial 105° hybrid recommendation with the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative. Chairman Mertensotto asked that comments and preferences regarding the alternatives be sent to the staff prior to the August 11`t' meeting so that they can be distributed to the merribers before the meeting. Staff will fax or email the comments to each member as soon as they are received. Kim Hughes, HN7:B, said she would ma.il out the corrected flight track alternatives map along with a map depicting the initial recommended mitigated (105° hybrid) contour, the 2.2nm DME turn point alternative contour and the 2.5nm DIv1E turn point alternative contour. Jamie Verbrugge, Eajan, asked whether or not the shift in the position of track A would affect the contour. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the use of track A is so small that there is no si�ificant change in the contour. Contour Boundary Definition Roy Fuhrmann, 1tiIAC, intzoduced the topic and gave a brief background as to how the contour boundary had been defined in the past. 5 The goals for determining the boundary definition of the contour were: , � • Provide fair and equitable eligibility requirements for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. • Minimize FAA review delay. o Continue residential sound insulation program without inteiruption. _ Current Contour Boundary • Currently eligzbility is based on whether or not a person's home is on a block that is either within the contour or is touched by the contour. • Approximately 7,300 homes were eligible on this basis of which 5,377 homes have been completed. • Completion of the current contour is scheduled for 15L quarter 2002. � MSP Noise Mitzgation Committee ' e In 1996 the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee requested that the MAC and the surrounding communities seek FAA approval fo develop a process for determining contours based on neighborhoods arid natural boundaries, which is a deparn�re from the current MSP/FAA policy. Previous Part 1 SO Update • In the previous Part 150 Update the FAA rejected a boundary proposal that included blocks outside the 65 DNL contour, which was predicated on natural boundaries. • Because the 2000 Part 150 Update will seek approval for eligibility outside the 65 DNL contour, there is already a significant area beyond the area historically recognized as impacted by noise. Nlark Kill, MAC Advisor, then presented the six possble boundary definition cases. He also noted that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology was used for the analysis, that the spatial information ( sources included Hennepin and Dakota counries, the Metropolitan Council and field surveys conducted `' during the first quarter of 2000. Cases (a11 numbers based on single family homes) � 1. Blocks completely within the DNL 60 contour (insulation eligibility for homes on blocks completely within the DNL 60 contour) _ _ � • Adds 5,382 homes to the current program • Duration of the program - approximately 6 years (based on current projections of completion rate, budget and average cost per home) • Reduces the time for completion by about 4.7 years (compared with the estimated completion time for Case 3) • Excludes may homes physically located within the DNL 60 contour 2. Half blocks completely within the DNL 60 contour • Half blocks are blocks that have been subdivided by alleys into at least two smaller parts. • Half blocks are most commonly found in Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomin�ton 4 Adds 5,�7� homes to the current program • Duration of the program is approximately 6.2 years • Reduces the time for completion by about �.� years • Excludes many homes physically located within the DNL 60 contour 6 l • Eligibility not as clearly defined as with blocks 3. Blocks intersected by the DNL 60 contour (current procedure) • Homes on blocks that are touched by the contour are considered eligible o Adds 9,702 homes to the current program - • Duration of the prosram is approximately 10.7 years • This procedure is currently being utilized with success • Requires more time for completion than any other procedure excluding natural boundaries o Includes homes physically outside the DNL 60 contour • It has been historically considered fair and equitable 4. Half blocks intersected by the DNL 60 contour • Homes on half blocks (defined above) that are touched by the contour are considered eligible • Adds 9,559 homes to the cunent program • Duration of the program is approximately 10.6 years • Includes homes physically outside the DNL 60 contour • Eligibility not as clearly defined as with blocks 5. Parcels intersected by the DNL 60 contour . • Only individual parcels that are within or are intersected (touched) by the 60 DNL contour would be considered eligible. • Eliminates usage of the block as the smallest geographic unit for contour boundary deternzination • Adds approximately 7,971 homes to the current program • Duration of the program is approximately 8.8 years - or 1.9 years less than Case 3. • Provides program boundary that more accurately reflects the contour • Eligibility area is likely to be considered unfair and subjective by homeowners at the edge of the contour 6. Naiural boundaries • Uses naturally occurring features (i.e. lakes, creeks, rivers, open green spaces) within a reasonable distance of the contour edge �� • Uses major thoroughfares with wide ri�ht-of-ways • Uses major city streets • Where no reasonable natural boundary e.cists, the 60 DNL contour line is used • Eliminates usaQe of blocks • Adds 13,628 homes to the current pro�ram o Duration of the proeram is approxirnately 15.1 years - or 4.4 years more than Case 3 • E:ctends program boundaries well beyond the DNL 60 contour in some locations *. Has historically caused si�ificant review delay and rejection by the FA.A � • Could place approval of continuing the sound insulation pro�am in jeopardy NIr. Kill e:cplained each natural boundary. Recommendatiori 7 Use the current FA.A-endorsed intersecting block contour edge deternzination (Case 3) at MSP. Disczrssion \ Chairman Mertensotto noted that there were many compelling reasons to conrinue using the intersecting block procedure, specifically to reduce the FAA's review time. Steve Vecchi, THC Inc., said FAA precedent is critical to timely approval of the contour map and believes the recommendation is defensible. �Ie said the FAA has always been very sensitive to contour boundary definitions. He said a natural boundary proposal would likely be sent back. Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis, said there is a strong sentiment among community members �for using natural boundaries but that she understands that the FA.A is already "taldng at hit° with the DNL 60 contour. She suggested that the boundaries continue to be analyzed as part of any subsequent Part 150 updates. She also suggested including language in the submiftal that indicates the communities' desire to use natural boundaries. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said that Northwest Airlines could not endorse the use of natural boundaries and then asked if any other major airport in the United States used the intersecting block eligibility procedure. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said he was unaware of any other aixport using such a procedure but noted that most airports with sound insulation programs are still worldng on their '70 and 75 DNL contours. Mr. Orcutt said that if the airport wanted to endorse natural boundaries there would have to be more analysis based on noise impacts as to why those locations should be included. He said simply applying natural boundaries without any noise analysis would not fulfill the FAA's criteria. Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the intersecting block procedure was the most realistic option ( for quick approvaL ` � Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how the expanded insulation program would be funded. She noted that the current airline lease agreements do not include funding for insulation out to the DNL 60 contour. Glen Orcutt, FAA., said.although MSP in the past has received between $5 and $8 million annually from the AIP fund, once the airport moves past the 65 DNL contour, funding priority is likely to diminish since many more airports that are worldng on higher level DNZ contours are now competing for funds. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, noted that a majority of the sound insulation program is funded through Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) but said she was concerned that if the FAA does not approve the DNL 60 contour, the airport will not be able to use this funding source. Roy Fuhrmann, 11�IAC, said the $36.5 million annual sound insulation program bud�et is funded throuah 2010. He said negotiations with the airlines would have to take place for funding insulation beyond 2010. � Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked if MASAC would take the Policy Advisory Committee's place in administering policy for the pro�am. He said since MASAC currently has the responsibility for deternuning the elements of the Part 150 Update that lvIASAC should continue to be the body that directs policy. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said many of the issues the PAC dealt with have been ironed out 0 and that MASAC is seen as the appropriate body for making these types of decisions. Mr. Lee also sug�ested that once the 2005 DNL 60 contour map is published it should not be changed due to subsequent Part 150 Updates. Jamie Verbrug;e, Eagan, asked if any other airports aze using natural boundaries to define contours. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said some airports are insulating specific commimities but that those are usually within higher noise levels. Otheiwise, no other airport is working on the DNL 60 contour boundary defmition. Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, also asked why it was projected that it will take only 10 years to complete the program when several months ago the projection was closer to 20 years. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the numbers presented at that time were based on the unmitigated contour and preliminary numbers. He said the infornzation presented today also only included single-family homes and not mulit-family dwellings and was only presented to illustrate how each case may change the.length of the program Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said he also considers the $40,400 average cost per home to be conservative because the homes will continue to get larger. , Jamie Verbrug;e, Eagan, asked if the members could be provided with a completion map for the sound insulation program. � Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she was uncomfortable maldng a recommendation because she felt she needed more information on how the program would be funded. �. ! ) BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND LARRY LEE, BLOOiI�.i tGTON, SECONDED, TO �"" RECOlVIlVIEND TO MASAC THAT THE CUR]�NT FAA-ENDORSED INTERSECTING SLOCK CONTOUR EDGE DETERMINATION METHOD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE 2000 PART 150 UPDATE. THE 1VIOTION CAR]�IED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH ONE NAY. Sound Insulation Priority - Multi and Single-Family - Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the Committee regarding the sound insularion priorities and the decision history from both the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee and from individual communities. The following points were made: • It is anticipated that the current program will be completed in the March to Apri12002 timeframe. • In order to provide enough lead-time, homeowners who are included in the next sound insulation pro�am will have to begin the process in July of 2001. • In order to continue with the new program, the FAA will have to have approved the Noise Exposure Map by that time. • This is an aQ�essive schedule and affects the prioritization process. • MASAC members need to be cognizant of the FAA's sensitiviiy to "environmental irijustice" (i.e. fair and equitable treatment of all classes of people in the distribution of sound insulation benefits — multi-family vs. single family and possible differences in income) • Some multi-family units within the current DNL 65 contour could be insulated using the existing contractor pool, although it would only e:ctend the time frame for the existing contractors to continue to work by three to five months. 0 Proposed Priority Schedule Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the committee on the proposed priority schedule. 1. Complete the insulation of single family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and �eater noise contours. 2. Complete (or begin) the sound insulation of multi-famiIy residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #3 and then sequencins to #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document. 3. In conjunction with #2 above and after FAA. approval, complete the sound insulation of sinale- family and duplez homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. 4. In conjunction with #5 below and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation of multi- family residential structores within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall withiri the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. 6. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. . - 7. Complete the sound insulation of homes exposed to low frequency sound levels within the 87dB LFSL area on a schedule established by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. 8. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with reguIar weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60+ contours. Members ma.de the following comments: C Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the low frequency noise sourid insulation program should � be handled separate from the residential sound insulation program because it is likely there will be a separate funding source for that program. Larry Lee, Bloomington, said he agreed that the low frequency noise insulation priority should be handled separately. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said although insulation against low frequency noise, its funding source and methods have not yet been detemiined by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, it will be part of the Part 150 Update submittal. � Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked how the single family homes and multi-family structures that are within the current deferred area of the DNL 65 contour and the 2005 DNL contour in Bloomington would be handled. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the City of Bloomington would have to make a decision as to their priority schedule for this group of homes. He noted that these homes would not be a part of the 1996 DNL priorities but would be included in the 2005 priority schedule. He said the city of Bloomington will need to decide if these homes should be insulated prior to homes in the higher DNL contours, but felt that it would be better to insulate the homes in the higher DNL level contours first. • 1VIary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked if other airports in the United States have insulated multi-family structures. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said most airports are at the early stages in their pro�ams and are not insulating multi-family dwellings at this time, but some have. • Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked if it was an option to include sound insulation of homes afiected by � ::� � the new runway in the runway project costs. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that was not an option because the addition of the new runway affects all areas of the contour. Jamie Verbrusae, Eagan, said he was concerned about funds being used for multi-family insulation that would be taken away from single family insulation. He said he would not be able to support the proposed prioritization schedule if separate funds (other than the annual �36.5 million budgeted) were not available for multi-family homes. He said Eagan supports insulation for all single family residential homes first and then multi-family structures. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that one of the reasons for proposing such a prioritization schedule is to keep the contractor pool continuing to work as the airport awaits approval from the FAA. . IVIary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that all multi-family structures within the 1996 DNL 65 contour are akeady eligible for sound insulation. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that was true. Ms. Loeffelholz said she did not feel she had enough information to make a recorrmmendation at this point. She said she needed to better understand the funding implications of the proposed prioritization. Through further discussion, the following modifications were made to the priority schedule. �-:l_Complete the insulation of sinale family and duples homes within the 1996 DNL 6� and greater noise contours. z2a. Complete (or begin) the soimd insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise conto�s in conjunction with priority #3 and then sequencing to #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update documen� �.2b. In conjunction rvith #2 above and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation of single- family and duples homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. �:3_In conjunction with #5 below and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation �of multi- family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. . �-:2c. Complete the sound insulation of elibble single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. �_Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. a S��_Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the�2005 DNL 60+ contours. It was decided, due to several members' concerns, that action on the issue of prioritization should be delayed until the August 1 l, 2000 meeting. Sound Insulation Modification Packages Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., briefed the members on three possible alternatives for providing insulation to homes between DNL 60 and DNL 64. Mr. Vecchi e;cplained that the homeowner, with these options, would be able to make a choice between a menu of options: 11 l. Provide the same sound insulation mod�cation package now �being offered but without air � conditioning - To provide the exact same package to homeowners between the DNL 60 and 64 contours would not meet the FAA.'s criteria for environmental justice. Air conditioning represents approxima.tely 35% of the cost of the existing packa.ge. 2. Provide air conditioning only — this would provide only seasonal noise relief during the open window season. (Open windows cancel out all of a home's acoustic properties.) Based on county records, approximately 80% of the homes between DNL 60 and 64 do not have air conditioning and many have hydronic heat, which makes it difficult to install central air conditioning. The FAA has approved this type of package at LAX. This option could keep the cost down and meet some homeowners' wishes. " 3. Avigation easement cash payment — Homeowners would receive a cash payment and an avigation easement would be tied to. the home's deed. Most aixports who have a Part 150 program require an avigation easement, but it does not mitigate noise, does not improve the housing stock and may be inherently unfair to homeowners who, for one reason or another, are in need of cash at the time. Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he could not support an avigation easement because it would open the airport up to homeowner litigation. Chairman Mertensotto said he did not consider an avigation easement a viable option. He also said he didn't believe an air conditioning only option would provide the desired, year-long benefits for homeowners living in this climate. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, said she thought a better option would be to continue the current insulation package throughout the DNL 60+ contour. She said simply providing air conditioning will not give homeowners the year-round noise reduction benefits of a full insulation package. She also said that an avigation easement, although it does not improve the housing stock, may be desirable for people who ( do not wish to participate in the program. `- Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said although the sentiment against the avigation easement payment is understandable, it is possible that many homeowners in Eagan who already have well-built, acoustically sound homes with air conditioning would find the option desirable. Cindy Greene, FAA, said she has received many calls fiom homeowners who are making their own improvements wanting to find out if there is any way they could be reimbursed for some of their costs. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said that although there are homeowners who may like the avigation easement payment option, the airport needs to keep in mind environmental justice issues of providing equaI treatment for all classes of impacted residents. He said he personally could not endorse an avigation easement payment because it does not mitigate noise. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked if there were any airports offering an annual payinent that would be tied to a homeowner's noise exposure. She said she thought this may be a good incentive for airlines to do everythin� possible to reduce their noise output. � Chairman iYlertensotto said he thought it would be better to improve the housing stock than to offer cash payments. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about a 3dB reduction package. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said from 12 discussions with the FAA he did not believe they would be able to support a less than 5 decibel , reducrion packa.ge. Other Items Not on the Agenda Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted that the FAA had published its "Noise Abatement Policy" and that comments were due the end of August. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she believed the FAA was planning on extending that deadline. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, August 1l, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Conslruction Trailer of the Metropolitan .Airports Commission. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary 13 � ,��y�� . :� G C ' , ��-a.-<� .. `�' c a '�� : _.. .. ... ....�:J,....... O G'-�' N �"' � � � "", N �. C "' �' •^�c = . ¢:�`. . a ^ � � ^� n �Y' n ^ � � i �.�^,. � � C v �.^. a.r' �.^.. A T �, � � � .� •� .� �� .� C � C �� :J � J ^ "J ::17 — ='J = r'U = C!; � .C,/: � C/3 � � � � � � � G� G� C C o C c� � o 0 0 0 -� ^' (^1 N C�! N sn-��o - 90-i�1' 90-� �'d 30-ua.r �0-i�0 9�-Inf �01d� 50-uer � q 3 = b0-1�0 Z � � z tr�� o �- � o tr01d`J � .:. � � N G tr0-u�P ' � EO-3�0 " _ 3 '> >, � eo-i�r � .E EO �d1f --_�o = N � ea-��r � ; 7 N ZU'l�Q � O C ^ O ZO-I�f � � "' c � u Z�'1�f a Y � � 0 c'.0-ua_P o 'a, � y �[f'�� ."±i .=j - C .� 40-ini' � �y � _ .� l0-��'y � .� _ a � ^ li)-uer � o z = � u 00'1�0 � � � � 00"�nl' � v �� 01]-ldli ' c 0 = �i QQ-uB� — � -; - � .� ,Q T _ - .❑ _ o = o - �. �n L L .�.r � ,'Jf 'A � � 0 0 :i� v�i � �:. � August 15, 2000 Mr. Charles Mertensotto, Mayor City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 551 1 8-41 06 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: PATRICIA E. AWADA Moyor PAU�BAKKEN 8EA BlOM9UiST PEGGY A. CARLSON SANDRA A. MASIN Councii Members THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator The Cit�r of Eagan is asking for your help at MASAC on an airport issue important to our community. The City of Eagan has actively participated in the MAC Part 150 Update process. One of our primary concerns has been the definition of flight tracks for the new north-south runway. Approximately 45% of all departures from Runway 17-35 will impact Eagan. After detailed analysis by MAC and its consultant, it appears that the only area where the Eagan City Council has the possibility of seeing our preferences for flight tracks enacted is during the Low Demand Period. � The City's origina{ preference for the Low Demand Flight Tracks, approved May 2, 2000, was the 170° straight-out heading. This flight track is over�an area that is not as denseiy populated with residential development because of expansive right of way for the Cedar Avenue freeway. Despite our recommendation, MAC and its consultant recommended using track headings of 95°, 160° and 185°. At the time of the recommendation, those three flight tracks all flew over heavily residential areas of Eagan and Bu�nsville. MASAC adopted the recommendation of MAC staff over the City's objection. Subsequent analysis of flight tracks has shown a substantial northerly shift of the 95° flight track over an area that is more commercially zoned, and therefore more compatible f�r Lo��v Demand Pericd c�erations. Based on this new information, the Cit� Counci! .. amended its position on August 1, 2000 to recommend the 95° and 170° headings for low demand use. Here are the important points that I am asking you to consider on our behalf: ➢ According to HNTB, MAC's Part 150 consultant, changing the preferred low- demand tracks for Runway 17-35 will have NO IMPACT on the noise expasure contour. Low demand use of 17-35 will apply to only a few flights per day, mostly in the middle of the night. ➢ HNTB consulta�t Kim Hughes stated at the August 11 MASAC Operations Committee tha� it would be appropriate to consider a local jurisdiction's request for flight tracks if those flight tracks do not negatively impact another community. The City cf Fagan's preference WI�L NOT negatively impact Mendota Heights residents or residents in Bloomington or Burnsville. MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 PIIOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55122-1897 PHONE:. (651) 681-46Q0 FAX: (651) 581-4612 TDD: (651) 454-8535 THE IONE OAK TREE THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY Equal Opportunity Employer www.cityofeagan.com MAINTENANCE fACIIITY 3501 COACHMAN POINT EAGAN, MINNESC7TA 55122 PHONE: (651) 681-4300 FAX: (651) 681-4360 TDD: (551) 45d-8535 r^ C C_ August 15, 2000 Page 2 At the August 22 MASAC meeting, the Eagan representaiives will ask the membership to reconsider its previous recommendation regarding Low Demand Period flight tracks for Runway 17-35. In order to do this, a MASAC representative who voted for the original recommendation would have to move reconsideration. As chair, I�hope that you would consider allowing MASAC representatives to reconsider Eagan's appeal and consider supporting that appeal yourself. If you have any qiaestions, please contact City Administrator Tom Hedges at 6�1-681-4607. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue. We look forward to continued cooperation at !�1ASP.0 by all noise-impacted communities. Sin Patkicia E. Awada Mayor (' \ .:�, .. . . : .,, __ �„ . . . .._.re . . "._'' ,• � . . . . . ...r.. � . . .. _ . . . .... . ,. , ... . , �. . :_—� . . . . � . — t � � . • ' .". -.;. . ..i� . `:�. .u.. .I:�,.' . -:�... ........ :.�:.:, , . . . '� _ � . . � .., '�. . .. . . ... , , . . '. .. 1 , . .. '., ;:, . . . . . .. ' .. . � - .rU:. �t � . ... . . . . . . . . � ' . � � . . ��'.: ... . � .. _ , . � . 1 . ' . i: "' , . .. , i l .. .. .. . � ..��. ..... �: ':�:� _ . . ... : -� . .:. ;�. ... ... � ". .. • • � . • ' • . .•" •' . �.�� :.. � . . ..� . . �-' '. . � � ::� � ... 1 , . . .. . y' .. . • -. • . . . . � i . . . . . .. . � . . �. � � � � � • • � � ' � � ' i • . General Meetin� August 22, 2000 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota - l. Call to Order, Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting July 25, 2000 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications 4. Introduction to Lochard - New ANOMS Provider - Guest, Nathan Higbie 5. Part 150 Update • Runway 17 Departure Track Recommendation o Contour Boundary Definition Recommendation • Sound Insulation Priority Recommendation o Sound Insulation Modification Package Options 6. FAA Noise Abatement Polucy 2000 7. Report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee 8. Report of the July 28 and August 11, 2000 Operations Committee Meetings 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting - Chairman 1Vlertensotto 10. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary 11. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 12. Items Not on the Agenda 13. Adjournment Ne.Yt Meeting: � � September 26, 2000 , � C _ �. �ASAc �O: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Introduction to Lochard — New ANOMS Provider — Guest . Speaker, Mr. Nathan Higbie, Lochard, Vice President of Technology DATE: August 14, 2000 In February 1999, the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) technology was transfened from Harris Miller Miller & Hansen (HMMH) to Lochard, based in Victoria, Australia. To ensure the long-term viability of ANOMS for their clients, HMMH felt it was in the best interest of ANOMS users and the ANOMS technology to enter into negotiations with Lochard for transfer of the technology. HMNIF-i feels that this agreement ensures that ANOMS advancements made to date will continue into the future along with continuing quality support for all ANOMS users. Lochard specia.lizes in the development and design of airport noise and environmental ( � monitoring/management products. The cornpany provides a wide range of products -' including software and instrumentation to many airports azound the world. The focus of the products provided by Lochard include: s Aiding airports in the management of environmental monitoring programs • Assisting airports with planning airport expansion • Providing airports with the capabilities to enhance their public relations programs Lochazd provides an aircraft operations and noise rnonitoring system similar to ANOMS called GEMS (Global Environment Management System), which provides similar ANOMS-like analytical functions. It is anticipated that Lochard will continue their aggressive product development towazds a next generation aircraft operations and noise monitoring system that will incorporate the strong suits of both GEMS and ANOMS respectively, into a new and analytically superior product. The resultant capabilities of these research and cievelopment initiatives are significant in the arena of aircraft operational information, airspace.usages analysis and noise impact assessments. At the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting Lochard's Vice President of Technology, Mr. Nathan Higbie, will provide a presentation highlighting the following topics: heading (170� uniquely relative to the existing land uses on either side of runway heading. The resultant proposal endorsed a 105° "hybrid fan" (headings from 095° to 200�. This � fan proposal maintains the EIS assumption that allows aircraft to turn to on-course headings as soon as aircraft are off the runway to headings east of runway heading (headings from 095° to 170�. On the west side of runway heading aircraft would fly the various departure tracks from the 170° heading to the 200° headings per the same standards as used on the east side of runway heading with the exception of the EIS modeled tracks "F" (245� and track "G" (285�. Jet traffic on these tracks would fly runway heading to a point established at approximately 1.7 miles using Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). Upon reaching that point the aircraft would turn to a heading of either 185° or 200°. The second turn to either a 245° or 285° heading would occur at the point which departure control would issue an on course heading, which would be approximately 3000 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). At the June 9, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting FAA expressed concern about the proposed departure procedure for westbound aircraft from Runway 17. FAA air traffic raised some cancerns about the runway 17 departure track proposal's second turn language. FAA personnel indicated that aircraft could tum almost unmediately to their destination heading after passing a specific DME point and that FAA air traffic controllers would not hold an aircraft at the departure heading until it reached a specified altitude. These findings rendered the anitial 105° hybrid fan option unfeasible from an FAA implementation perspective. � As a result of that discussion, MAC, HNTB and FAA agreed to revisit the westbound �,, .; departure procedures for Runway 17 to develop a workable solution. In the process MAC, HNTB and the FAA clarified assumptions about overall westbound departures, aircraft track layouts and the associated fleet mix. HNTB developed three alternatives with different DME tum points as potential solutions including a 1.7 nautical mile DME turn point, a 2.2 nautical mile D1VIE turn point and a 2.7 nautical mile DME turn point for west bound departures. At the July 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the three turn point options were evaluated with the consultant's recommendation for implementation of the Runway 17 departure flight tracks with a 2.2 nautical mile single DME turn point for westbound departures. This option removed 13,900 people from the 60+ DNL Unmitigated Contour. After significant discussion, the MASAC Operations Committee determined that a 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point should be evaluated and forwarded the issue to the July 28, 2000 meeting as a study item with action planned at the August 1l, 2Q00 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. At the July 28, 2000 meeting a review of the 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point alternative was provided. Through the analysis conducted by HNTB, it was found that the 2.5 nautical mile turn point maintained the initial intent of the Runway 17 departure track evaluation initiative in addition to removing an additionai 1,130 people from the 60+ DNL contour relative to the 2.2 nautical mile turn point option. As a result of the updated findings the consultant's recommendation was to -implement the -2.5 nautical mile DME � ' turn point and to implement the associated river departure track as a separate measure. � Due to requests for additional information and to provide an opportunity for communities to submit comments, the decision was delayed until the August 11, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. ' At the August 11, 2000 meeting the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed input from all comrnunities. As a result of that review, the Operations Committee endorsed the use of the 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point for westbound Runway 17 departures and implementation of a River Departure Track separate from the Runway 17 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point proposal. The proposal was forwarded to MASAC with a recommendation for approval. Action Requested � That MASAC endorse the Operations Committee recommendation for the Runway 17 departure procedure utilizing a 2.5 nautical mile DME turn point that minimi�es impacts of westbound jet departures as a noise mitigation measure for the Part 1�0 Update and implementation of a river departure track separate from the 2.5 DME turn point recommendation. This option removes 15,030 people from the 60+ DNL Unmitigated • Contour. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. TO: FROIVg: SUBJEC'I': DATE: MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Contour Boundary Definition August 14, 2000 In November 1996, the MAC adopted the "MSP Noise Mitigation Program", which requested that MAC and the affected Communities seek approval from the FAA to develop neighborhood and natural boundaries that reflect current conditions at the outer edge of the expanded contour to the maximum extent possible. This guidance is a departure from the current MSP/FAA policy of granting eligibility only to blocks that aze intersected by the outermost contour boundary. To establish a boundary adjustnient proposal, MASAC and Staff would be required to conduct a study that defines neighborhood and "natural boundaries" in portions of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Height�s using criteria that is applied consistently throughout all eligible communities. �' � During the last MSP Part 150 Update review process, the FAA rejected a boundary �-- proposal that included blocks outside of the DNL 65 contour boundary. These azeas included natural boundaries, such as rivers, lakes and major community roads. Due to this initial request and subsequent rejection, final FAA review and contour edge approval encompassed a period of eighteen months. Due to the upcoming expected completion of single family homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour in early 2002, an approved Part 150 document will need to be available in mid-2001 to continue an uninterrupted residential sound insulation program. In addition to the critical timing issues, the FAA will also be considering the appropriate area for consideration beyond the DNL 65 contour. This will most likely be a national precedent setting request with considerable nation-wide implications. Blocks that are intersected by the 1996 DNL 65 Contour define today's MSP approved Part 150 contour boundary detennination method. Please recall that in the previous Part 150 submittal, FAA strongly considered rounding off eligible properties .that were completely within the DNL 65 contour. The MAC and MASAC then developed a compelling case to the FAA to finally approve the intersecting block method as the preferred boundary determinant. In order to avoid a similar delay, MAC staff completed a series of o�tions for consideration by the MASAC Operations Committee. The following scenarios were presented at the July 28, 2000 Operations Corrunittee meeting: l. Blocks that are Completely within the DNL 60 Contour , 2. Half Blocks that are completely within the DNL 60 Contour 3. Blocks that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour � 4. Half blocks that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour ' 5. Parcels that are intersected by the DNL 60 Contour 6. Natural Boundaries The scope of the proposed expanded sound insulation program using the 2005 mitigated DNL 60 Contour could include requesting approval for an additional 12,000 to 17,(}00 single-family homes. If the noise environment around MSP remains constant during future Part 150 Update submittals, the potential completion date could extend to 2015 to 2018. Extending the program beyond the currently approved block intersection method to natural boundaiies could pose two potential issues. First, approval of the Part 150 Update by the FAA to continue the residential sound insulation program could- be placed in jeopardy if the review process extends beyopd mid 2001. Second, future Part 150 Updates will have the opportunity to better define the noise impacts for updated fleet mix considerations and operational levels. The future Part 150 Updates or Noise Exposure Map Updates will then enable MASAC and MAC to continue to make informed decisions that reflect the noise environinent during the FAA Part 150 recommended five- year planning cycle applicable to each update. Based on the above considerations, FAA guidance, community input and the critical � nature of the sound insulation program construction scheduling, the MASAC Operations Committee, at its July 28, 2(}00 meeting, endorsed the use of the current FAA approved Intersecting Block Contour Edge deterniination method at MSP for the Part 150 Update. (- The endorsement is forwarded to the full body of MASAC with a recommendation for \ approval. Action Requested T'hat MASAC approve the Operations Committee recommendation and continue to use the current FAA-endorsed Intersecting Block Contour Edge deterniination method at MSP for this Part 150 Update. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. �� . � `� � ' ` • • , . , 1` '�O: FI201��I: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Sound Insulation Priorities August 14, 2000 With the 1996 legislative decision to keep the airport at its current location, the MAC and the legislature agreed to provide sound insulation out to the DNL. 60 contour area. The legislature also established a working group of representatives from MAC, Met Council, NWA, affected communities and legislative staff to develop an initial prioritization for continuing the sound insulation pragram. As part of the 1991 MAC MSP Part 150 update process, the communities endorsed an implementation strategy to sound insulate single family residential properties within the 1996 DNL 65 noise contour first and then concentrate on multi-family residential properties. MAC expects to complete sound insulation of the � single family residential homes within the 1996 DNL 65 contour by early 2002. With the current construction schedules, existing homes scheduled for March or April of 2002 must begin homeowner orientation by July 2001. Therefore, new residences within the expanded DNL 65 and the DNL 64-60 contour areas will have to begin the sound insulation process by late summer 2001 in order for single family construction to continue in the spring of 2002. The scope of the MSP 2000 Part 150 Update contains unprecedented noise abatement measures. The FAA will have .to be on an aggressive schedule to review and approve the Noise Exposure Maps (contours) and the Part 150 Update by mid 20Q1. In March, the MAC sent letters to communities within the 2005 DNL 60 Contour, requesting each city to provide MAC and MASAC with city specific sound insulation priority recommendations. Each city has provided the MAC with their individual priorities. Those priorities in addition to the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Program priorities (listed in the left column in order of precedence) are provided in the following table on page #2. The columns in the table list the communities' order of priority by type of residence (Single Family, Multi-family, etc.). . During the Part 150 Scoping Process, the FAA asked the MAC and communities to be mindful of potential inequality if the insulation program were to continue beyond the DNL 65 contour for single family residences only. It is important to note there are an estimated 2371 multi-family residences within the 2005 Base Case DNL 65 contour. This issue is a primary concern for FAA and needs to be strongly considered with the expanded insulation program. 1996 MSP Noise $�ppmj[i�t011 Ea�an Inver Grove Mendota Minneapolis Richfield Mitigation Committee Hei hts Hei�hts Priocitization Sequence #I Prioriry Single #I Prioriry: Insulate #1 Priority #1 Priority #1 Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority: Homes Family/Dnplex within 75 homes in 1996 with High & Low 1996 DNL 65-75 65 Contour Freq. Noise #2 Priority Multi-Family #4 Priority: MF in #4 priority: #1 Priority equal Simultaneously #2 Priority #5 Priority: within 1996 DNL 65-75 DNL 60 and greater Provided no to SF in 1996 with #1 azea impaa to SF DNL 65+ Priority Insulation #3 Prioriry Single #2 Priority #2 Priority #2 Priority #2 Priority #3 Priocity #3 Priority: Homes Family/Duplex within with High & Low 2005 DNL 65-75 Freq. Noise #4 Priority Multi-Family #4 Priority: MF in #4 priority: #2 Priority equal Simultaneously. #4 Priority #6 Priority within 2005 DNL 65-75 DNL 60 and greater Provided no to SF in . 2005 with #2 azea impact to SF DNL 65+ Priority Insulation #5 Priority Single #3 Priority: SF1MF #3 Priocity #3 Priority #3 Prioriry #5 Priority #4 Priority: Homes Family/Duplex within & Duplex for 17/35 with High & Low 2005 DNL 60-64 prior to Runway Freq. Noise 17/35 Opening #6 Priority Multi-Family #4 Priarity: MF in #4 priority: #3 Prioriry equal Simultaneously #6 Priority #6 Priority within 2005 DNL 60-64 DNL 60 and greater Provided no to SF in 2005 with #3 azea im�ract to SF DNL 60-b4 Priority Insulation #7 Prioriues Then in #4 Priarity #4 Priority #1 Priority #7 Priority order; Nursing Homes, Churches with Daycare/Nursery Schools # 1 Prioriry: Low Freq t Noise area within LFSL 87dB The Part 150 Update schedule anticipates that a draft document will be available in September, a public hearing in late October and a final submittal to the FAA in December of this year. The FAA can take up to 180 days to accept the document and then take additional time for review and approval. During the 1992 Update, the FAA took eighteen months to review and finally approve the document. During this update process, the MAC and the MASAC Operations Committee have been working very closely with the FAA to identify poten�ial issues, such.as insulation priorities,--to reduce the approval time. This is an extremely compressed schedule and continuation of the insulation program will require all parties' most diligent actions. Based on the above community preferences, past FAA precedence, construction scheduling, Part 150 Update submittal timing and expected approval by FAA, the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed all possible options at its July 28, 2000 meeting. The result of the deliberations were slight modifications to the staff recommendation which resulted in the following priority: 1. Complete the sound insulation of single family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours; 2A. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority 2B and then sequencing to 2C below upon FAA approval of the_ Part 150 Update Document; 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours; 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours; - 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority 2C above upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document; 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60.contour. ;'� 7 The above priority sequence (as modified by the MASAC Operations Committee on July ' 28, 2000) takes into consideration the recommendations provided by the majority of the communities, FAA environmental justice issues, the availability of Part 150 Program implementation team (consultants, contractors, and suppliers), Part 150 implementation schedules, and the MA.0 Part 150 funding levels. In addition the above priority will l�elp ensure a smooth transition from the existing insulation program to an approved expanded program. Action was delayed on this issue at the July 28, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting as a result of a request for additional information. Upon further discussion at the August 11, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting the above priority was approved and forwarded to MASAC with a recommendation for approval. Action Rec�uested That MASAC endorse the Operations Committee recommendation to approve the above sound insulation priority recommendation, which is consistent with the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Program and forward this recommendation as part of the Part 150 Update. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 612-725-6326. C C� ,,, � � ' . . TC): FROM: SUBJECT: 1• MASAC Steve Vecchi, Terrell Hundley & Carroll Multi-Family Sound Insulation Issues & DNL6460 Single Family Insulation Option Update August 14, 2000 As HNTB and MAC Staff strive towazd the completion of the MSP Part 150 Update Document and corresponding 2005 DNL60 Base Case Noise Contour, the MAC � Commission will be required to reach a resolution regarding several new Part 150 policy issues relating to the expansion of the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program from the DNL75-65 to the DNL6460 mitigation area. These decisions must be made before the MSP Part 150 Update Document can be completed and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). _, � � Consistent with history, MASAC will act as the primary advisory body to the MAC _ Commission with regard to Part 150 Update recommendations. This memorandum ,! -`� outlines some additional information as it relates to both multi-family and single y Part 150 insulation issues in the following order: I. Multi-�amily Sound Insulation Issues A. Multi-Family Insulation Package Modifications B. Impacts of Prioritization on Current MAC Program C. MAC Single & Multi-Family Prioritization Options D. Multi-Family Sound Insulation Remaining Tasks II. 2005 DNL60 Residential Sound Insulation Strategies A. 2005 DNL75-65 strategies B. 2005 DNL 64-60 strategies I. 1Viulti-�amily �ound Insuiat�on Issues In November, 1996, the MAC adopted the "MSP Noise Mitigation Program" (see Attachment 1), wtuch stated "the prioritization of the expanded program should be to initiate single family homes upon completion of the currently approved schedule, and begin work on the following newly eligible dwellingslbuildings, beginning with the highest noise exposure levels, in accordance with a schedule agreed upon with each city - - multi-family dwellings, nursing homes and churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school types of operations." Based on this directive, the City of Minneapolis recently passed a resolution requesting that MAC provide sound insulation modifications for multi-family structures within the 2005 DNL75-65 before continuing the insulation of single family homes in the 2005 (- DNL64-60. � . A. Multi-Familv Insutation PackaEe Modifications Based on MAC Part 150 Program history and FAA's 5-decibel reduction goal, a proposed multi-family Part 150 sound insulation package should consist of the following modifications: - window and door treatrnents (STC/ANLR to meet acoustic reduction goal) - required ventilation modifications - baffling of existing wall A/C units - A/C modi�cations (optional; depending on Commission directive�- Note: Air conditioning modifications in multi family units may include mechanicaUelectrical design work, "ductless" cooling units, multiple-zone DX units, central chiller systems, electrical modifications, structurad modifications and ductwork modiftcations. The Commission will need to reach a resolution whether A/C modifications are applicable to Part 1 SO Multi-Family insulation objectives. B. Impacts of Prioritization on Current MAC Part 150 Program The priority approach outlined in Roy Fuhrmann's memo is consistent with noise exposure sensitivities. It a]so addresses issues associated with developing MSP's �. Part 150 Program implementation schedule that could potentialy create a series of additional impacts relating to overall Program implementation, scheduling, contractor impacts and funding that depend on MAC's prioritization plan. According to the most recent 1996 DNL65 Residential Sound Insulation Program completion schedule, it is estimated that MAC will reach completion of single family homes as early as February, 2002. At this time MAC will be in a position � to either: 1) complete insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-65 2) continue insulation of single family homes; first, within the 2005 DNL75-65, and second, within the 2005 DNL64-60 3) continue insulation of single family homes (2005 DNL75-65, DNL64-60) and begin insulation of multi-family units (1996 DNL75-65), simultaneously Due to the size and momentum of the current MAC Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation�Program; itis�also�critical that the-Commis-ion'sfinalprioritization decisions do not negatively impact Program momentum and the Program implementation team (consultants, contractors and suppliers). Any interruption to Program continuity would have a negative effect on public relations and the public's perception of MAC's continual Part 150 commitment. � C. MAC Single & Multi-Family Prioritization Options Option 1• Com�letion of Multi-Familv Within 1996 DNL75-65 If MAC elects to halt the insulation of single family homes and begins the insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-65, there will be significant impact on the current consultant team, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who aze configured to implement single family structures. � Based on recent estimates, Staff is of the opinion that only a few of the current Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program.general contractors would have . the capability to insulate smaller multi-family structures. It is estimated that of the 177 Multi-Family structures (approximately 2,371 units) within the 2005 DNL75-65 contour, only 118 structures (464 total units) could be completed by these contractors, due to capacity limitations. The remaining majority of multi- family structures (59 structures; 1,908 units) would require the capabilities of commercial general contractors. Under this scenario, the current single family implementation team of consultants, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers will be severely impacted as a result of the single family program shutdown. In order to complete the insulation of multi-family units, MAC will be required to add the services of lazger (commercial type) general contractors. Furthermore, Staff estimates that given a number of challenges ranging from the number of different multi-family structure types, number of units, staging and scheduling challenges, it would take approximately a 24 month period to complete the insulation of multi-family units within the 1996 DNL75-65. Since the single family insulation process would halt during this time period, this scenario poses a significant negative impact to MAC Part 150 Program continuity. Option 2• Continuation of Sing,le Family Within 2005 DNL75-60 If MAC elects to bypass the insulation of multi-family structures within the 1996 DNL75-65 contour and elects to continue the insulation of single family homes within the 2005 75-60 contour exclusively, the current Program momentum will not be affected. However, bypassing the insulation of multi-family units within the DNL75-65 will, most likely, be challenged by FAA during the Update review process due to environmental justice and discrimination issues (single family vs. multi-family priorities). This could have a major impact on the approval of the entire MAC Part 150 _U�date.D�cument and.the:apprs�val oi.rhe 2005 DNL60 NEM. � Option 3• Simultaneous Insulation of Multi-Family and Single Familv It is critical that MAC choase an insulation prioritzation scenario that avoids negative impacts to the cunent Program (consultant team, contractors, suppliers) and possible rejection from FAA during the Update review process. It would be' acl�vanta�eous for MAC to begin simultaneous implementation of both multi- family insulation (within the 1996 DNL75-65) and single family insulation (within the 2005 DNL75-60) insulation as soon as the MAC Part 150 Update Document is approved by FAA. Choosing this scenario will: - guarantee minimal disruption to the current Program & momentum � - guarantee a seamless transition for single family hornes � - insure commitment to multi-family units within the DNL65 - maintain opportunities for current contractors and suppliers - minim;�e the opportunity for environmental justice issues _ - offer additional opportunities for larger contractars - insure continued public confidence in the MAC Part 150 Insulation Program Based on the current MSP Part 150 Update Document schedule, it is estimated that MAC may submit the completed document to FAA by December, 2000. Given the precedent-setting natuie of this document, it is almost assured that FAA's review will be extremely detailed and will require a long revie�v period. During the last MSP Part 150 Update review process (December, 1992 to Mazch, 1993), FAA review took a total of eighteen (18) rnonths. Given this history, the MAC should be prepared for a review period equal to or greater than eighteen (18) months. Therefore, the earliest MAC should expect approval from the FAA for the MSP Part 150 Update Document and 2005 DNL60 contour is June, 2002. Since the cunent 1996 DNL65 Part 150 Program insulation of single family hames is anticipated to be completed by February, 2002, there will most likely be a"waiting" period of a minimum of four (4) months, where MAC will have to temporarily halt single family home insula.tion while waiting for FAA approval of the Part 150 Update Document. During this period, MAC couid begin insulation of the smaller multi-family units (approximately 118 structures; 464 total units). ( Upon FAA approval, MAC could then begin simultaneous implementation of both single family insulation (within the 2005 DNL75-60) and multi-family insulation (within the 1996 DNL75-65) insulation, given the annual budget of - $36.SM. D Multi-Familv Sound Insulation Remainin� Tasks In addition to selecting the preferred multi-family acoustic package, MAC will need to develop solutions to the following tasks before a Part 150 Multi-Fa.mily Program can begin at MSP, pending FAA approval of the 2005 DNL60 noise contour: Multi-Family Tasks• 2000-2001 time period - Development of MAC Multi-Fam.ily Program Policies and Specifications - Development of MAC Multi-Family Acoustic Goals - Address Consultant Team Staffing Needs Multi-Familv T.asks: 2D01-2002 time��eriod - Development and Implementation of a"Pilot" Program In order far MAC to be in a position to begin the insulation of the smaller multi-family units (approximately 118 structures; 464 total units) during the February, 2002 — June, 2002 "waitin�" period, these above tasks must be completed prior to February, 2002. MAC will need to define an aggressive schedule in order for completion of the above ( tasks to occur. II. 2005 T,NL60 l�es�den�ial Sound Insexl�tion Issues In November, 1996, the MAC adopted the MSP Noise Mitigation Program, which directed "that the program be expanded after completion of the current program to incorporate the area encompassed by the 2Q05 60 DNL." Expansion of the MAC Part 150 Sound Insulation Program to hames within the 2005 DNL60 contour raises several new policy issues. Based on the draft "base-case" 2005 DNL60 contour boundary, Staff estimates there may be approximately 15,820 additional single family hornes between the 2005 DNL64-60 contour areas that may be eligible to receive Part 150 sound insulation modifications. Given the precedent-setting nature of this Part 150 Update Document, there will be several issues that MAC will be required to address in order to secure FAA approval of tlie MSP Part 150 Update -Document: Given the differences in noise exposure between the DNL75-65 and DNL6460 contour azeas, it is certain that the FAA will expect insulation solutions that differ from past DNL75-65 packages with reduced components to reflect reduced noise exposure levels and environmental justice issues. - Given the uniqueness of this Part 150 Update Document, it will be imperative that the proposed residential DNL6460 mitigation options <<"� �� reflect a variety of "menu" options that reflect noise exposure levels, -- housing diversity, and proposed implementation schedules. Given the large number of eligible homes, it will be imperative that the DNL64-60 insulation options reflect Program funding levels. A 2005 DNL 75-65 Residential Sound Insulation Strategies Based on the past nine yeazs of MAC Part 150 Program history, I recommend that MAC continue to provide horries within the DNL75-65 contour azeas with the same 5-Decibel Reduction Package offered to eligible Homeowners within the in the 1996 DNL65 contour. These modifications should include: - window and door treatments (STC 40, ANLR 31) - wall & attic insulation - roof vent ba,ffling - required ventilation modifications - air conditioning (A/C) modifications Note: It should lie noted that air conditioning modifications in single family homes may include mechanical/electrical design work, addition of an air conditioning condenser, addition of supplementary ductwork, furnace replacement, asbestos removal, electrical modifications, installation of "ductless" cooling units and/or installation of "cooling- only" furnaces with independent ductwork. The above would represent a continuation of the current MAC Part 150 insulation package to homes within the 2005 DNL75-65 noise contour area and would match past Program acoustic reduction levels (6 decibel average) quality levels. B. 2005 DNL 64-60 Residential Sound Insulation Strate�ies ; Given the variety of hor�ne sizes, property values, azchitectural characteristics, types of � existing heating and Homeowner preferences, I recommend that MAC develop a"menu" format for eligible Homeowners wishing to participate in the MAC Part 150 Program in the 2005 DNL64-60 contour areas. This "menu" could consist of the following three (3) options: 1. Sound Insulation Modifrcation Package (without Air Conditioning Modifications) 2. "Air Conditioning (A/C) Only" Modification Package 3. Avigation Easement Cash Payment Offering a"menu" of these three (3) 2005 DNL64-60 Program options would provide MAC with the following: Consistency with FAA's probable DNL64-60 concerns; relating to the development of Part 150 package options that are consistent with the reduced noise exposure levels in the DNL64-60 contour area (when compared to the higher noise exposure levels of the DNL75-65 areas). �. Increased mitigation choices among participating homeowners, given the projected increase of individual preferences and housing styles within the DNL64-60 contour area. Superior Program cost value and efficiencies. Based on budget concerns from FAA, airlines and MAC related to the large number of eligible properties within the 2005 DNL64-60 contour, it will be critical that MAC develop mitigation optians that efficiently match annual Part 150 Program funding levels. In addition, providing three (3) different Part 150 mitigation options will help to reduce overall Part 150 Program construction costs and potential construction liability issues. - Improved distribution of Part 150 construction labor force among certified Program general contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers. Having two (2) Program options that require different construction services (Sound Insulation .Program .Package &°°A/C onl}�' �Package) will more effectiyely distribute carpentry, insulation, mechanical and electrical services among available contractors. This specialization will provide MAC with the ability to implement different Part 150 Programs, simultaneously, resulting in the highest monthly and annual Prograsn implementation rates. Z'his will, in turn, help to maximize monthly capacities among Part 150 contractors. ( , - Provide an opportunity for more specialized consultant construction management responsibilities, due to specialization of construction services. While Option 1(Sound Insulation Modification Package) will require construction and insulation services, Option 2("A/C Only" Package) will require primarily mechanical and electrical services. - Provide greater protection for MAC against environmental justice and discrimination challenges from past 1996 DNL75-65 Program participants due to better selection and variation of mitigation options, reduced package components and cost "CAP" options. The following is a brief summary of the three (3) proposed 2005 DNL64-60 mitigation program "menu" options: - Oution One• Insulation Modification Packa�e (without A/C) Based on options identified in my May 23, 2000 memo (see attached), I recommend that MAC maintain the current STC40 and ANLR31 acoustic gaals for all I'rogram window and door modifications. This would maintain conformance to FAA's "minimum of S decibel" goal and would avoid the need to do further costly and laborious research in the identification of reduced STC and ANLR goals. In addition, tlus strategy would maintain continuity in past MAC Part 150 Prograrn modifications and products, as well as the continuation of Program quality standards. Package Elements The proposed Insulation Modification Package should include: - window and door treatments (STC 40, ANLR 31) - wall & attic insulation - roof vent baffling - required ventilation modifications Similar to the current 1996 DNL75-6S Part 150 Program, homeowners electing this mitigation option would be required to sign a Work Agreement Contract and Avigation Release. Oution Twoc "Air Conditionin� (A/C) Onlv" Packa�e The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently approved a similar "Air Conditioning Only" Part 150 mitigatian package for eligible homes surrounding the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), setting the precedent for other Part 150 Programs. In addition, it is estimated that as high as 80% of 2005 DNL64-60 homes may not have a pre-existinQ central air conditioning system. This figure is based on data of predicted 2005 DNL64-60 homes derived from city records: -e�sting gravity heat (10% occurrence rate) -existing hydronic (radiator) heat (30% occurrence rate) -existing forced air; without e�cisting A/C (40% occurrence rate) -existing forced air; with existing A/C (20% occunence rate) ( Given these above projected figures and the fact that some homeowners may prefer A/C modifications over a Sound Insulation Modification Package (option 1),_it appears there may be a significant need among eligible Homeowners for this mitigation option. Given the predicted high occunence of the lack of pre-existing central air conditioning systems, this option would provide significant acoustical reduction benefits to Homeowners during the" open window" months (May through October). Package Elements The proposed "Air Conditioning Only" Modification Package should include the following, depending on e�cisting heating types: Homes wtth �'orced air heat - addition of central air conditioning coil and condenser - furnace replacement (if required) - addition of ductwork (if required) - electrical modifications (if required) , Homes with�ravi heat - addition of central air conditioning coil and condenser - addition of forced air furnace - addition of ductwork (if required) - electrical modifications (if required) Homes with hvdronic (radiator) heat - addition of independent cooling furnace - addition of ductless cooling units (if required) - addition of ductwork (if possible) - electrical modifications (if required) OpHon Three• Avi�ation Easement Cash Pavment Consistent with many U.S. Part 150 Programs, MAC has the option of establishing an avigation easement mitigation option in addition to offering sound insulation and air conditioning modifications. Although this option does not involve actual treatments to the home, it still allows an additional mitigation program choice to eligible Homeowners. Due to the lower cost of an avigation easement (as compared to sound insulation and air conditioning modifications), offering this option to eligible Homeowners would allow � MAC the ability to maximize annual Part 150 funding and Program completion � schedules. Packa�e Elements An avigation easement requires that Homeowners: - grant passage of aircraft through airspace - restrict all property structure height to 100 feet - prevent aircraft interference to navigation and communication systems - release all legal claims and actions pertaining to aircraft noise exposure Avi�;ation Easement Cash Payments The Federal Avia.tion Administratian (FAA) currently requires that airports determine avigation easement cash payments based on either current appraised property values or proven demunition of property value resulting from aircraft noise impacts. On average, most avigation easement cash payments offered in U.S. Part 150 Prograzns are $2,500 (or less) for eligible homes within the DNL75-65. - For airports wi�hing to purchase avigation easements for greater that $2,500 (primarily due to higher property values), the FAA requires that the easement cash payment be based on a formula determined by, 1) individual property appraisals and 2) a pre- determined percentage based on either airport direction or other determining factors. This percentage ranges between 2% - 6% in most U.S. airports that offer an avigation easement cash payment option. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact Roy Fuhrmann at 612-725-6326. , � �. ,'' + . . TO: MASAC I+'12�M: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SU�,jEC'�: F,AA Noise Abatement Policy 2000 DATE: August 14, 2000 In 1976 the Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. At the time, approxirnately six to seven million people resided in areas of significant noise impact (DNL 65 contours) around U.S. airports. The Policy provided a means of addressing airport noise impacts azound the country. The principles and associated legislative and regulatory initiatives provided significant noise reduction around our nation's airports. Currently the Federal Aviation Adm.inistration (FAA) estimates that approximately 500,000 Americans are exposed to significant aircraft noise levels around U.S. airports, substantially reduced from the 19'76 figures. The first pilot programs providing Federal funding for up to 25 airport noise control plans were established in 1976 as part of the policy. Since that time the FAA has issued Airport Improvement Program (AI�') grants for over $2.6 billion as part of a set-aside program and established the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program, which has provided airport proprietors with revenue collection authority at commercial use airports allocating in excess of $1.6 billion for noise mitigation efforts. Although significant strides have been taken, continuous efforts to increase the effectiveness of our nation's airport noise reduction policies continue to be investigated. Because of the changing transportation demands, public environmental expectations and the availability of new technologies, a review of the policy established in 19�6 is being conducted. The policy review process will resuit in a document consisting of two parts. The Transportation Secretary will issue a policy statement broadly addressing noise concerns and in turn the FAA Administrator will issue aviation noise policy guidelines. The FAA's proposed policy document incorporates the major points contained in the 19'76 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy in addition to new developments. The draft policy summarizes cunent conditions affecting aviation and sets forth goals, policies and strategies for addressing them. The policy document also outlines the foundations and methodologies for assessing aviation noise, promoting research and development in aircraft noise reduction technology and noise abatement procedures, in addition to promoting compatible land use measures in noise impacted areas. The FAA's year 2000 aviation noise abatement goals as part of the draft policy document consist of the following: • Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source. • Use new technologies to reduce noise impacts. • Bring existing land use into compatibility within levels of significant noise exposure around airports and prevent the development of new non-compatible uses in these areas. o Design prospective air traffic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise ( impacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus, safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. • Provide special consideration to locations in national parks and other federally managed areas having unique noise sensitivities. • Enable strong financial support for noise compatibility planning and for mitigation projects. � The document has five sections and an appendix of references (please refer to the attached copy of the document acquired from the Federal Register). Sections one through five cover: - l. Introduction � 2. Goals and Policies 3. Authorities and Responsibilities — Legal Framework 4. Assessing Aviation Noise 5. Source Noise Reduction The document was published on the July 14, 2000 Federal Register. Comments on the document must be received on or before August 28, 2000. Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number [30109] 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Please review the attached copy of the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 Federal Register document and the draft MASAC comment letter. The policy and MASAC response will be discussed at the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612- 725-6328. 43802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices ARAC Acceptance of Task ARAC has accepted this task and has chosen to assign it to a new Fuel Tank Inerting Harmonization Working Group. The new working group will serve as staff to the tiRAC F�cecutive Committee to assist ARAC in the analysis of the assigned task. Worki.ng group recommendations must be reviewed and approved by ARAC. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA as ARAC recommendations. The Fuel Tank Inerting Harmonization Working Group should coordinate with other harmonization working groups, organizations, and specialists as appropriate. The working group wili identify to ARAC the need for additional new working groups when existing groups do not have the appropriate expertise to address certain tasks. Working Group Activity The Fuel Tank Inerting Harmonization Working Group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to: 1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, includi.ng the � -� rationale supporting such a plan, for ' consideration at the ARAC Executive Committee meeting held following the establishment and selection of the working group. 2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations, prior to proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below. 3. Draft a report andlor any other collateral docu.ments the working group determines to be appropriafe. 4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC Executive Committee. Participation in the Working Group The Fuel Tanlc Inerting Harmonization Working Group will be composed of experts having an interest in the assigned task. Participants of the working group should be prepared to devote a significant portion of their time to the ARAC task for a 12-month period. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the committee. An iiidividual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the working group should contact: Regina L. Jones, ARM-23, Office of Rulemaking, F,ederal Aviation � � Administration, 800 Independence -- Avenue, SW., Washington. DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-9822, fax (202) 267-5075, or e-mail Regina.Jones�faa.gov, expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the tasks, and stating the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than August 11, 2000. The requests will be reviewed by the ARAC chair, the executive director, and the working group chair, and the individuals will be advised whether or not requests can be accommodated. The Secretary of Transportation has determined that the formation and use of ARAC are necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law. Meetings of the ARAC Executive Committee will be open to the public. Meetings of the Fuel Tank Inerting Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. No public announcement of working group meetings will be made. Issued in Washington, DC, on July l0, 2000. Anthony F. Fazio, Executive Director, Aviation Rutemaking Advisory Committee. (FR Doc. 00-17860 Filed 7-11-00; 2:12 pm) BIWNG CODE 4910-13-i1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No.: 30109] Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Propvsed policy document, Request for comments. SUMMARY: In 1976, the Department of Transportation pubiished its Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, which provided a course of action for reducing aviation noise unpact. The principles contained in that document and subsequent legislative and regulatory action have resulted in a dramatic reductionin the nwnber of Americans adversely exposed to aviation noise. The changes in transportation use, public expectations, and technology warrant a review of the policy, which the Department is now undertaking. In particular, the Department is consideri.ng issuing a revised policy statement, which may extend to all forms of transportation noise, in order to provide direction to its efforts over the next 25 years. Although the 19�6 policy document was signed by the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the future document will be divided into two parts: iust, the Secretary will publish a policy statement broadly addressing noise concerns. Based on this policy statement, the FAA Administrator wiil issue aviation noise policy guidelines. The issuance of this draft document on aviation noise abatement represents a first step in a process to develop an aviation noise policy: It is intended to sti.mulate ideas that will result in comments to the public docket. These comments wilI be evaluated, along with other inputs, in the development of a comprehensive policy statement and guidance document. This proposed FAA policy document reaf�irms and incorporates the major " tenets of the 1996 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy and includes subsequent developments. It summarizes current conditions affecting aviation and sets forth goals, policies, and strategies for addressing them. This policy document also outlines the foundations and methodologies for assessing aviation noise, promoting research and developmentin aircraft noise reduction technology and noise abatement procedures, and promoting compatible usage of noise impacted lands. Finally, it presents a selective listing of reference materials that form the basis for the Federal Government's aviation noise policies. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2000. ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket (AGC- 200j, Docket No. [30109], 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Connor, Noise Division, AEE-100, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 80o Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone, (202) 267-8933; facsimile, (202j 267-5594. SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATiON: Interested persons are invited to participate by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in triplicate to the Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43803 Rules Docket address specified above. All comments received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed policy. The proposals contained in this notice may he changed in light of comments received. All comments received wi11 be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA public contact concerned with the suhstance of this document will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: "Comments to Docket No. �c000c." The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to the commenter. Issued in Washington, DC on July 7, 2000. James D. Erickson, Director af Envimnment and Energy. FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 5ection 1: Introduction The first comprehensive aviation noise abatement policy was issued by the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on November 18, 1976. At that tune, six to seven million Americans residing near airports were exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise—deiined by FAA as those areas in which noise levels are Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 dB or higher. Aircraft noise had become a growing problem in the 1960's with the introduction of jet aircraft and the rapidly increasing number of commercial aircraft operations in the United States. Aircraft noise, and its adverse impacts on residential and other noise sensitive land uses, was recognized as a major constraint on the further development of the aviation system, threatening to limit the further construction and expansion of airports and ground access to them. The 1976 Policy outlined a national effort under Federal leadership to reduce aircraft noise, with aircraft noise source reduction being a key component of the policy. The 1976 Policy has been highly successful. It has guided actions over a period of almost 25 years that have substantially reduced aviation noise and its irnpacts. By the year 2000, the FAA estimates that there will be about 500,000 Americans exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise— down substantially from the six to seven million people exposed in 1976. Even as noise has been so dramatically reduced, the national aviation system, including the airport component of that system where aircraft noise is the most severe, has grown signiiicantly in this last quarter of the century. As we stand at the threshold of the 21st century, the achievernents realized from the 1976 Policy provide a solid foundation for the future. The successive phaseouts of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft are responsible for the larger component of the considerable success in reducing noise levels around the airports. With all civil turbojet aircraft heavier than 75,000 pounds now Stage 3 compliant, the most severe aircraft nnise will be limited to withi.n or very near the airport boundaries. The .long-term outlook beyond 2000 is for a generally stable situation with respect to noise contours around airports, followed by further reduction as the result of advances in noise abatement technology and the replacement of hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes by built— as Stage 3 airplanes. One of the cornerstones of the FA.A's year 2000 aviation noise abatement policy is the continuation of aircraft source-noise reduction. The FAA is aggressively pursuing a variety of approaches, including source noise abatement technologies, with the goal of substantially reducing community noise exposure. In late 1999, the Secretary of Transportation supported this effort by announcing as one of his flagship initiatives the need for more stringent aircraft noise standards. The initiative states "Promote the development of international certification noise standards for turbojet airplanes that will be more stringent than the current Stage 3 standards; and, develop models to assess new noise abatement technologies that will encourage introduction of quieter planes." The 21st century will offer opportunities for additional noise reduction not only from its source, through improved aircraft design, but also from other technological advances. New tools such as Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, which will be .used. for greater safety. and efficieacy of air transportation, will also be used to mitigate noise by keeping aircraft tightly within their designated noise corridors. Noise abatement flight procedures are constantly evolving with advances in technology, unproved aircraft design, and more refined airspace management procedures. State-of-the-art navigational technology will enable us to refine the ability to define, and the pilot's ability to fly, flight tracks with increased precision in the vicinity of noise sensitive areas. The continued development of aviation growth is a vital element of U.S. transportation, and the aviation industry is, in turn, a powerful generator of economic activity and jobs within coaimunities. Notwithstanding anticipated technological improvements, aircraft noise will remain and will be a pivotal quality-of- life issue. While the number of Americans exposed to significant levels of aviation noise has been dramatically reduced since the 1976 Policy was issued, a large number of people still remain so impacted. Furthermore, even as Americans s�imulate aviation growth by their increased air travel, they also e�cpress an ever-increasing desire for a quieter neighborhood environment. As significant noise around the Nation's airports is dramatically reduced, people will direct more attention to the lower but still annoying noise levels. Unless aircraft noise is addressed with purpose and vigor, it will likely become a potential unpediment to the robust airport and aviation system gmwth and operation that will be needed as public demand for access to aviation services continues to grow. The FAA continues to place great emphasis on reducing the number of persons residing in areas of significant noise exposure around airports. Each airport with areas of significant noise exposure outside its boundary is encouraged to evaluate its current and projected noise levels, and to develop a progratn that both reduces the number of persons significantly impacted by noise, and prevents new noncompatible development from occurring. This may be accomplished through either the Federal voluntary airport noise compatibility plann;ng process, with FAA technical and financial assistance, or through a locally-determined process. Community involvement is a critical part of airport noise compatibility planning. It serves to provide input on noise mitigation measures that are the most desirable to airport neighbors, while informing the public of the technical and reasonable limits to noise reduction. Noise relief continues to be a shared responsibility, as descrihed in the 1976 Policy. The FAA and the aviation industry have the primary responsibility to address aircraft source noise, technological advances, and air traffic procedures. Airport proprietors, State and local governznents, and citizens have the primary responsibility to address airport noise compatibility planning and local land use plan.ning and zone. The airport operator must be �'. � �� I J 43804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices involved in local land use plann;,,g and control efforts on a conti.nuing basis. The 1976 Policy encouraged airport proprietors and others to consult with FAA about their plans and proposals and to suggest innovative ways to meet the noise problem in their communities. Airport proprietors were encouraged to consult and review proposals to restrict use with airport users and the FAA before implementation. FAA advised airports so that "uncoordinated and unilateral restrictions at various individual airports do not work separately or in cambination to create an undue burden on foreign or interstate commerce, unjustly discri.minate, or conflict with FAA's statutory authority." This policy foreshadowed the national noise policy announced by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). Citing similar concerns, the Act, among other thi.ngs, established a national program for review of airport Noise and access rastriction pmposals. At the time of the 1976 Policy, before the phaseout of Stage 1, there was limited potential for effective control of the sizeable land area subjected to significant noise levels. Land use solutions were to a large extent beyond the reach of local affected communities until effective aircraft source noise reduction was implemented. However, with the year 2000 phaseout of Stage 2, compatibie land use has become a viable, effective, and necessary solution. With the vast reduction in land area that is significantly impacted by aviation noise, the major actions needed at the beginning of the 2000's decade to achieve and maintai.n noise compatibility around airports are land use and developmental actions outside the airport boundary appropriate to the airport's remaining and future noise. The Federal Government generally does not control land use—zoning authority is reserved to the States and their subdivisions. The FAA has established a compatible land use initiative program to encourage and guide State and local governments having land use control authority, to exercise that authority in a way that serves both the a.i.rport and the community. Jurisdictions are particularly urged to refrain from pernutting noise sensitive land uses to develop ever closer to airports as the Stage �2 phaseout shrinks their noise contours. In some communities, it may be possible to establish a broad noise buffer beyond areas of significant noise exposure, between the airport and the community, where noise sensitive land uses would either be prohibited or remediated in some way. Noise buffers are subject to determuiations of local feasibility and decisions. The FAA will respect and support such locally established buffers. Beyond the airports' environs, with responsible airspace management and safety being the first consideration, the FAA's goal is to design prospective air traffic routes and procedures to ��;mi�e noise consistent with local consensus. The FAA will carefully review the noise impact of prospective changes to air trafiic routes and procedures on communities and, in response to requests, will consider alternatives to minimize noise sensitive areas as described above. Locations with unique noise sensitivities in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and other Federally managed areas merit and will receive special consideration as FAA manages the navigable airspace and evaluates aviation actions that raise noise concerns for these areas. The 1976 Policy initiated the first pilot program under which the Federal government funded up to 25 airport noise control plans a year. That modest beginning was expanded in the 1980's and 1990's by legislation and policies. By the end of the century, the FAA had issued Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for over $2.6 billion from an earmarked noise set-aside. Si.nce the statutory establishment of the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program in 1990, the FAA has appmved PFC collection at commercial service airports exceeding $1.6 billion for noise mitigation projects. Additional AIP funding is provided to mitigate the noise i.mpact of airport eacpansion projects. In addition to these Federal admi.nistered funds, airports finance substantial noise mitigation with locally generated funds. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOTj policy on airport rates and charges identifies aircraft noise abatement and mitigation as an environmental cost recoverable through fees charged to air carriers for the use of airport facilities and services. All funding sources must be used responsibly to ensure continuing strong financial support for noise mitigation, including exploration of innovative financing and creative public/private partnerships. In summary, the FAA's ... year 2000 aviation noise abatement goais are the following: • Continue to reduce aircrai� noise at its source. • Use new technologies to mitigate noise impacts. • Bring existing land uses into compatibility with levels of significant noise exposure around airports, and prevent the development of new noncompatible uses in these areas. • Design prospective air trafiic routes and procedures to minimi�e aviation noise unpacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus and safe and efficient use of the navigabie airspace. • Provide special consideration to locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas havi.ng unigue noise sensitivities. o Ensure strong financial support for noise compatibility planning and for mitigation projects: This document is comprised of five sections plus an appendix of references, with this introduction being Section 1. Section 2 is the heart of the policy, and outlines FAA's noise goals and policies, with a brief discussion of each policy element. Section 3 describes the legal and regulatory framework governing aviation noise and the shared responsibilities of all those who must act in complementary ways to mitigate the noise problem—govern.ment, aviation, and piivate citizens. Section 4 presents the FAA's' methods and standards for measuring and assessing noise i.mpacts, which are derived from scientific research and a series of Federal interagency committee reviews. Section 5 provides greater detail on aircrait source noise reduction, history, research, and future prospects. As stated previously, the 1976 Policy has served the nation well. This comprehensive update to that Policy seeks to build upon ANCA and meet the challenges of the first part of the 21st century. It is a task that must be shared by government at all levels, by the aviation industry, and by citizens. Solutions depend on technological advances, solid airport noise compatibility programs, strong land use commitments, noise-responsible airspace management, and adequate financial resources. Section 2: Goals and Policies This section is the heart of the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. It outlines FAA's noise goals and policies, and provides a brief discussion of each element. This policy fully incorporates and amplifies, clarifies, and supplements the 1976 Policy, based upon our experience and changing needs. 2.1 Aviation Noise Goals Since it was issued, the 1976 Policy has successfully guided actions on civil aviation noise in the United States. To keep pace with changing technology and the projected growth in aircraft operations, the FAA must sek realistic and achievable aviation noise goals, and Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43$05 develop new policies to support the safety and eff'iciency of the National Airspace System (NAS) while seeking to minimize the adverse impacts of aviation noise on people and the environment. Buiidi.ng on past successes in the area of aviation noise, the FAA's goals are to: Goal 1: Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source The successive phaseouts of noisier Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft have been largely responsible for the considerable reduction in the number of persons exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in the United States. Ongoing research and development pmgrams by FAA, NASA, and industry to develop quieter aircraft, combined with regulatory action by FAA will result in achievable future reductions in the number of persons exposed to � significant levels of aircraft noise. Goa12: Use new technologies to mitigate noise impacts New technologies bring with them the challenge to integrate noise planning and mitigation into their deployment. GPS, automated flight guidance, free flight, and other innovations will all be examined for their potential to mitigate noise impacts while improving safety and efficiency. Goai 3: Encourage development of compatible land uses in areas experiencing significant noise exposure around airports, to the extent feasible, and prevent the development of new noncompatible uses in these areas In the year 2000, there will still be an estimated 500,000 Americans residing in areas of significant noise exposure. A top priority for 2000 and beyond will be to achieve compatibility in these areas. It is important that there be a corresponding emphasis on protecting these gains by preventing new noise sensitive land uses from becoming established in these areas, through stronger State and local land use commitments. The FA.A's a.irport noise compatibility program and compatible land use—have and will continue to support this goal. Goa14: Design air traff'ic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise unpacts in areas beyond the legal jurisdiction of the airport proprietor, consistent with local consensus and safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace The trend in recent decades has been a growing expectation by Americans of continuing envirorunental unprovement, including a quieter noise environment. In the airport environs, State and local jurisdictions aze strongly encouraged to prevent noise sensitive land uses from developing ever more closely to airports as noise contours shrink with the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet. Creating an extra margin of noise buffer outside significant noise exposure areas is possible for some communities, and locally-established buffers will be supported and respected by the FAA— where a community has adopted and implemented noise standards which are more stringent than �'AA's noise compatibility standards, FAA will respect those local standards in its actions which could cause growth of the airport's noise contours, tbrough appropriate mitigation actions. Goa15: Provide specific consideration to locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas having unique noise sensitivities The American heritage is enriched with national parks, national wildlife refuges, and other Federally managed areas containing locations with unique noise sensitivities. These locations merit specific noise considerations as the FAA manages the navigable airspace and evaluates other aviation actions. Goal 6: Ensure strong financial support for noise compatibility planning and for mitigation projects The 1976 Policy opened the door to Federal fundi.ng of local noise abatement planning and programs. That modest beginning has since grown into a sizeable noise set aside in Airport Improvement F�rogram fundi.ng, and was joined in the 1990s by the use of Passenger Facility Charges and more substantial contributions from airport revenues to fund noise mitigation. Future reliable sources of funding are vital, including the exploration of innovative imance programs and public/private partnerships to accelerate adequate financing of noise mitigation projects. 2.2 Aviation Naise Policies The seven elements comprising FAA's policies to achieve the aviation noise goals outlined above are as follows: �. The FAA will•aggrassively �ursue the development and prescription of a new generation of more stringent noise standards and regulations in order to protect public health and welfare. 2. The FAA will examine new operational technologies for their potential to mitigate noise impacts while maximizing aviation system efficiencies. 3. The FAA will carefully review the noise impacts of prospective changes to air traffic routes and pmcedures and, in response to requests, will consider alternative actions to minimize noise impacts for residents of communities surrounding airports and for noise sensitive azeas that are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of interest. 4. The �'AA will encourage airport proprietors, in consultation with airport users, local planning officials, and the interested public, to implement airport noise compatibility programs that will reduce existing noncompatible land uses around airports, and prevent new noncompatible uses. ' 5. As requested, the FAA will assist State and local governments and planning agencies in establishing policies and practices to minimize noise sensitive land uses around airports, includi.ng locally determined buffers outside areas of significant noise exposure. 6. The FAA will take into account the specific circumstances of locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas'with unique noise sensitivities in managing the navigable airspace and evaluating proposed FAA actions that raise aviation noise concerns. . 7. The FAA will continue strong support for noise compatibility plan.ning and noise mitigation pmjects with financial programs under its jurisdiction, with airQort rates and charges policy, and by encouraging in.novative funding mechanisms including creative public/private partnerships. 2.3 Discussion of Noise Policy Elements The above seven elements that together comprise the FAA's year 2000 aviation noise abatement policy are briefly discussed by number in the remai.nder of this section. Policy Element 1: Aircraft Source Noise Reduction The FAA will aggressively pursue the development and prescription of a new generation of more stringent noise standards and regulations in order to protect public health and welfare. Discussion: Although the reductions .in.noise unpacted populations and the reductions in new noncompatible uses resulting from the airport noise compatibility program have been significant, over the last quarter century the reduction of aircraft noise at its source has provided the greater amount of noise relief to the public. The FAA has a long-standing commitment to achieve increasingly effective source noise reduction and, in accordance with the Secretary of Transportation's C �. � 43806 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices flagship i.nitiative, is aggressively pursuing the development of even more stringent noise standards. In 1968, the FAA first began developing noise certification standards, initially for measuring and later for lim.iting aircraft source noise. These certification standards, which paralleled technological improvements i.n airplane engine design, were codified as 14 CFR Part 36 (Part 36). Effective December 1, 1969, Part 36 set limits on noise emissions of large tu.rbojet aircratt of new design by establishing Stage 2 certification standards. The Noise Control Act of 1972 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715) gave the FAA broader authority to set limits for aircraf� source noise. Using this authority, the FAA established more stringent Stage 3 standards in Part 36, set li.mits on sou.rce noise for all newly produced airplanes, and required in 14 CFR Part 91 (Part 91) the phaseout of Stage 1 turbojet aircraft over 75,000 pounds by January 1, 1985. Stage 3 Transition The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) required the phased elimination of Stage 2 turbojet airplanes weighing more than 75,000 pounds operating in the contiguous Un.ited States. A$er December 31, 1999, civil �' -� turbojet airplanes over 75,000 pounds _. must be Stage 3 compliant to operate within the contiguous 48 states. To bring about the earliest feasible reduction of noise levels, interim compliance deadlines of 1994, 1996, and 1998 were established in the general operating rules (Part 91, Subpart 1). The Stage 2 phaseout regulations required all operators of affected airplanes to report compliance progress to the FA.A on an annual basis. The regulations also provided separate criteria for interim and final compliance waivers. As prescribed in the ANCA, a final compliance waiver couid only be granted to a domestic air carrier that had achieved a fleet mix of at least 85 percent Stage 3 airplanes by July 1, 1999—no waiver may extend beyond December 31, 2003. The benefits of the Stage 3 transition will continue to accrue after completion of the Statutory . compliance process. Newly manufactured Stage 3 aircraft are quieter than their predecessors, and significantly quieter than older hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes. Even with substantial growth in operations, noise contours around many U.5. airports will continue to shrinlc as hushkitted and � � older Stage 3 airplanes reach the end of " their service lives and are replaced by newer airplanes. Source Noise Research In early 1992. the FAA and NASA began co-sponsorship of a multiyear program focused on achieving significant advances in noise reduction technalogy. In October 1992, Congress reinforced this effort by mandating that the FAA and NASA jointly conduct an aircraft noise reduction research pragram with the goal of developing technoIogies for subsonic jet aircraft to operate at reduced noise levels. The goal of this program is to identify noise reduction technology to reduce the community noise impacts of future subsonic airplanes by SO dB (relative to 1992 technology) by the year 2001. Based on� the progress in this program and in fulfillment of its legislative mandate, the FAA plans to amend aircraft noise standards and regulations during the first decade of the sentury to take advantage of feasible noise reduction technologies. In addition, the FAA is supporting NASA's proposal to extend the research program in order to reach the enabling technology goals in its own "Aeronautics & Space Transportation Technology: Three Pillars for Success" program. Working closely with industry, government, and academia, NASA has set bold goals to sustain U.S. leadership in civil aeronautics and space. The goals are grouped into Three Pillars: "Global Civil Aviation," Revolutionary Technology Leaps, and "Access to Space." Included among the ten enabling technology goals of the program is "Enqironmental Compatibility." Its noise goal is to reduce the perceived noise levels of future aircraft by a factor of two by 2007 and by a factor of four by 2022, compared to 1995 technology. This effort cnuld result in even greater aircraft sou.rce noise reductions. The FAA is also a major participant on an ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEPj technical working group that is formulating proposals for an increase in stringency of the intemational noise standard for subsonic jet and large propeller-driven airplanes. The FAA plans to set new Stage 4 standards by _. earl3�.in the next century. New standa�ds -� would result in a future timed transition to a generation of airplanes quieter than Stage 3, sunilar to source-noise reduction transitions that have been implemented since the 19�6 Policy. Future Supersonic Transport (SST) Airplanes With respect to future SST airplanes, specific noise standards have not yet been established. The FAt1 anticipates that any future standards for SST airplanes would be pmposed so as to produce no greater noise impact on a community than a subsonic airplane certified to Stage 3 noise limits. Accordingly, the Stage 3 noise limits prescribed in Part 36 for subsonic airplanes may be used as guidelines for developing any future SST airplanes. This policy is consistent with Chapter 4 of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Annex 16, Volume 1, which states that Chapter 3(equivalent to Stage 3) noise levels applicabie to subsonic airplanes may be used as guidelines for future SST airplanes. Any provisions for noise certification of future SST auplanes will give consideration, to the extent possible, to the unique operational flight characteristics of future SST designs. Policy Element 2: New Operational Technologies The FAA will examine new operational technologies for their potential to mitigate noise unpacts while maximizing aviation system efficiencies. Discussion: The National Airspace System (NAS) is the infrastructure withi.n which aviation operates in the United States. The NAS includes airports, automated flight service stations, air traffic control towers, terminal radar control facilities, and en mute air traffic control centers. The FAA continually seeks to improve various aspects of the NAS. In 1996, the FAA began to develop a NAS modernization plan to define what the aviation system of the future would look like and how it would be implemented. This plan—termed the NAS architecture—is a collaborative effort between the FAA and the av'iation community. Several NAS modernization programs have th� potential to influence aviation noise. GPS Augmentation It appears that the principal navigation system for the 21 st century will be based upon the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides a practical starting point for eventual development of the GNSS, but will not totally satisfy all civil aviation requirements for navigation and landing. For use in civil aviation, augmentations are required to improve GPS accuracy for precision approaches, provide integrity and continuity for all phases of flight, and provide availability necessary to meet radio navigation requirements. These GPS augmentations are being unplemented incrementally. Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43807 The fi.rst augmentation being developed in the United States is the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The WAAS is a safety-critical navigation system that will provide a quality of positioning information never before available to the aviation community. It is a geographically expansive augmentation to the basic GPS service. The WAAS impmves the accuracy, integrity, and availability of the basic GPS signals. When fully unplemented, this system will allow GPS to be used as a primary navigation system from departure through Category I precision approach. The wide area of coverage for this system includes the entire United States and portions of Canada and Mexico. WAA S will be deployed in phases. The final operating capability will satisfy enroute through Category I precision approach capability requirements for using GPS/WAAS as the only radio navigation aid. Another augmentation to the GPS signal being developed in the United States is the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS). The LAAS is intended to complement the WAAS. Together, the two systems will supply users of the NAS with seamless satellite based navigation for all phases of flight. In practical terms, this means that at locations where the WAAS is unable to meet existing navigation and landing requirements, the LAAS will fulfill those requirements. The LAAS will meet the more stringent Category II1III reguirements that exist at selected locations throughout the United States. The LAAS will be implemented in stages, with full completion expected in 2006. When fully implemented, these WA.AS and LAAS enhancements to the GPS will permit greater precision in directing aircraft operations than currently is available. The FAA anticipates that this increased precision will perrnit the refinement of procedures, particularly airport approaches and departures, to abate aircraft noise and minimize exposure leveis in noise sensitive areas. Antomated Flight Guidance Automated flight guidance capabilities have steadily increased and unproved with time. Air carrier crews now routinely use autoflight features that are operational during takeoff and landing. An Auto Flight Guidance System (AFGSj includes features such as an autopilot, autothrottles; displays, and controls that are interconnected in such a manner as to allow the crew to automatically control the aircraft's lateral and vertical flight path and speed. A flight management system (FMS) is sometimes associated with an AFGS. An FMS is an integrated system used by flight crews for flight planning, navigation, performance management, aircraft guidance and flight progress monitoring. Some aircraft now have automated features identified for operations specifically at low altitudes—for noise abatement—which when used, contribute to performance, workload, cost, noise, and safety benefits. Such features are certificated on the aircraft by either type certification or supplemental type certification. Free Flight The introduction of technologies such as GPS and Auto Flight Guidance allows the future NAS tlrchitecture to be built on a concept of air traffic management called "free flight." This concept is predicated on greater sharing of information between pilots and air traffic controllers to facilitate air traffic management. I# is designed to permit aircraft operators to select their own mutes as alternatives to the published preferred instrument flight rule (IFR) routes, thereby removing the constrai.nts currently imposed on these users. By providing increased controller-planning support through decision support tools, pilots will be permitted to select the most direct, cost-effective routes between takeoff and landing. As traffic density increases however, the free flight concept calls for structured flow. The same tools that provide flexibility en route and in low-density traffic areas will also help ensure the most efficient flow within a highly structured airspace such as a terminal area. Free flight is being implemented incrementally. Many of the tools necessary to achieve free flight are currently available; others are still being developed. Enhanced satellite navigation will significantly enhance free flight capability. Fuil implementation will occur as procedures are modified and technologies become available and are acquired by users and service providers. The dispersal of aircraft at higher altitudes because of free flight can reduce lower-level noise exposure on ..the ground. At lower�altitudes, such as when approaching and departing airports, it would normally be more desirable to concentrate flights (and noise) over those areas least sensitive to noise rather than dispensing the aircraft. Here, free flight's technology may also have applicability to landing, takeoff, and lower altitude flight tracks, by safely concentrating aircraft into narrowly defined corridors which have been protected from noise sensitive development and helping them to avoid the more noise sensitive land areas. Policy Element 3: Air Tra�ic Procedures The FAA will carefully review the noise impact of pmspective changes to air trafficroutes and procedures and in designing these changes will consider actions to minimize noise impacts for residents of communities surrou.nding airports and for noise sensitive areas that are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of interest consistent with safety, eff'iciency, and local consensus. Discussion: By law, the FAA has the sole authority to establish flight operational procedures and to manage the air traffic control system and navigable airspace in the United States. The RAA is responsible for avaluating actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FAA's environmental goal is to make and implement air fraffic decisions that minimize the noise and other environmental unpacts on residential and other noise sensitive areas, consistent with the highest standards of aviation safety and the need for effective and efficient air traffic management. FA.A's Community Involvement Policy ensures that FAA will seek and consider community input before making decisions that affect the public. This policy emphasizes active, early, and continuous communication with affected members of the public throughout the NEPA process. Airspace Changes The basic structure of the airspace has not changed appreciably over the last ten years. However, in that decade aircraft, navigation aides, and technology in general have advanced by several generations. Free flight has been established as the key direction for the evolution of the NAS. Airspace is a major component of the free flight concept. These advances create the need to redesign the airspace to meet evolving needs. Changes in airspace configuration, architecture, or structure will have implications for air traff'ic control, air traffic management, the user community, and the environment. ..The Ft1A's policy is to ensure appropriate consideration of noise impacts in decisions on airspace changes, together with safety, technical, and economic factors. The FAA has developed the Integrated Noise Model (INM), a computerized modeling tool widely used by the civilian aviation community for evaluating aircraft noise irnpacts in the airport environs. The FAA is developing the Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS), a computerized C � 43808 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices research tool for assessing the environmental impacts of air traffic actions beyond the airport environs, up to 18,000 feet above ground level (AGL). NIRS adapts the noise data and algorithms from the INM for use in an air traffic design system. The program requires integration with air traffic models which contain the routes and events used to assess delay, capacity, and workload. NIRS provides airspace planners with environmental noise screening assessments for airspace design changes encompassi.ng a wide area. NIRS allows an airspace design team to perform noise evaluations concurrently with other modeling requirements. The enables the same routes, procedures and events used in delay/capacity analyses to be used in the related environmental analyses. Predicted noise levels over noise sensitive areas for both existing and � alternative scenarios are modeled, and a change of exposure criteria is used to determine if the proposes action is likely to be controversial on environmental grounds. If controversy is anticipated, FAA may use NIRS to identify alternatives or mitigation. Whenever practicable in designing routes and procedures, the FAA seeks to identify and avoid environmentally �' sensitive areas and to minim�y@ RO1S0 �� eifects when such azeas cannot reasonably be avoided. Noise Abatement in the Airport Environs Most noise impacts related to air traffic procedures are in the airport environs where aircratt operate in the closest proxunity to people and homes. FAA requires an environmental assessment for new or revised procedures which would route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet above ground level (AGLj. Where runway use, flight procedure, or air traffic changes are not necessary for operational reasons, but are proposed for noise abatement reasons, the FAA relies on airport proprietors to submit requests for such changes. Airport proprietors are the appropriate initiators of such noise abatement proposals because of the liability they .. bear for noise unpacts in the airport environs. Noise abatement proposals are submitted to the FAA by airport proprietors in a variety of ways, including recommendations in airport noise compatibility programs. The airport proprietor and the FAA both have roles in environmental review and ( ) affording opportunities for public —'" participation for proposed air traffic changes in the airport environs. FAA Advisory Circulaz (AC) 91.53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP), provides standards for noise abatement departure pmcedures for subsonic turbojet-powered airplanes with maximum certificated takeoff wei�ts exceeding 75,000 pounds. T e AC provides guidance for selecting the most effective procedures for specific airport environments, while standardizing those choices within a practical number of options in order to increase the margin of safety by superseding a growing number of unique, airport-specific practices. AC 91-53A provides two standard departure procedures, one to benefit noise sensitive communities that are the closest to the airport, and one to benefit more distant noise sensitive communities. It does not mandate the selection of either the AC's close-in or distant NADP. Rather, it allows discretion to select either of the NADPs described in the AC or ta use the standard NADP in 14 CFR 25.111(a). In some cases, local communities seek assurance that certain air traffic procedures will remain in place in perpetuity for noise abatement reasons. Airport proprietors do not have the autharity to make air traffic commitments for the FAA because of Federal preemption of airspace use and management. Airport proprietors do have the discretion to assure communities that they will not in the future request Che FAA to make any procedural changes at the airport for noise abatement purposes that differ from the procedures at issue. Consistent with its policy, the FAA does not initiate noise abatement procedural changes absent an airport proprietor's request and would only consider changes on its own initiative necessary to assure the highest standards of safety and efficiency in the use of the navigable auspace. The FAA will make every possible effort to maintain noise abatement procedures that have the community's support. However, unforeseen future circumstances may render current procedures untenable for airspace safety and efficiency, and the FAA can.not abrogate its airspace responsibility in _local agreements. Itis also possible that future circumstances may render today's noise abatement procedures unnecessary or less desirable from a noise standpoint than alternative arrangements, resulting in local decisions to revisit them. Changes in air traffic procedures that have potentially significant noise impacts on communities surrounding an airport require preparation of an environmental assessment or impact statement. Beyond the Airport Environs Beyond the airport environs, aircraft following air traffic routes and procedures normally do not significantly influence the noise environment of underlying land uses. Air traffic procedures for operations over 3,000 feet AGL are normally categorically excluded from FAA environmental assessment requirements. At the same time, in recognition that some actions that are normally categorically excluded can be highly controversial on environmental grounds, the FAA has developed the Air Traffic Noise Screening Model (ATNS), which allows air traffic specialists and planners to evaluate potential noise impacts from proposed air traffic changes. The ATNS can evaluate proposed changes in arrival and departure procedures between 3,000 and 18,000 feet AGL for large civil jet aircraft weighing over �5,000 pounds. Where a pmposed change would cause an increase in noise of DNL 5 dB or greater, FAA considers whether there are extraordi.nary circumstances warranting preparation of an . environmental assessment. Where air traffic changes are not necessary for operational purposes, the FAA is willing in the appropriate circumstances to consider changes for noise abatement reasons for communities at greater distances from airports that are outside the airport proprietor's legal area of interest and already at noise levels consistent with Federal land use compatibility gu.ideli.nes. In these cases, proposed changes must first be consistent with safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace, and also reflect local consensus. Final decisions will then reflect the FAA policy that operational changes made for noise abatement reasons must reduce the number of peopie affected by noise and the severity of the effect, without increasing noise effects in natural environments with unique noise sensitivities. Overflights of Noise Sensitive Areas The FAA Rdvisory Circular 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, identifies 2,000 feet AGL as the minimum recommended altitude for overflights of noise sensitive areas when aircraft are not landing at or taking off from an airport. It identifies typicai noise sensitive areas to include: outdoor assemblies, chu.rches, hospitals, schools, nursing homes, residential areas designated as sensitive by airports, and units of the National Park System. Consistent with aviation safety and efficiency, the FAA will actively assist Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43809 other agencies in seeki.ng the voluntary about two-thirds of our busiest cooperation of operators with regard to commercial airports. the 2,000 feet AGL minimum altitude Airport noise compatibility pianning advisory. This assistance includes addresses both existing and future proposals for regulation of low-flying aviation noise impacts. Noise exposure fi�ced-wing airplanes, helicopters, maps use noise contours to depict the ultralight vehicles, balloons, and extent of existing and future noise gliders. exposure within the community and the Policy Flement 4: Airport Noise location of noise sensitive land uses Compatibility Planning (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, churches) within the contours. The FAA will encourage airport Knowledge of future noise exposure proprietors, in consultation with airport provides a basis for long-term local users, local pla„r,;ng officials, and the plarLn�ng and investment in noise interested public, to unplement airport mitigation for particular noise sensitive noise compatibility programs that will areas, including how to compatihly m;n;m;�e aviation noise impacts, reduce develop any vacant land or to redevelop existing noncompatible land uses older urban areas azound airports into around airports, and prevent new compatible uses. noncompatible uses. Based on the noise e�osure maps, Discussion: Airport noise strategies are developed and evaluated compatibility planning is the prunary to reduce noise exposure and tool used by many airport proprietors noncompatible land uses around an and local officials to m;n;m;�e aviation airport. Noise solutions are airport- noise i.mpacts in the vicin.ity of airports. specific—no two airports are alike in Airport noise compatibility planning their noise and land use environments. involves an evaluation of an airport's The best solutions for one airport may existing and future noise e�cposure, the not be effective or desirable in another selection of effective measures to reduce location. ASNA makes the airport noise and noncompatible land uses, and proprietor responsible for airport noise the implementation of those measures. compatibility planning, including The measures to be implemented are selecting the specific noise abatement analyzed in a document called an and mitigation measures deemed airport noise compatibility program appropriate for inclusion in the airport (NCP). noise compatibility program. The FAA has provided technical and The FAA reviews airport noise financial support for airport noise compatibility programs submitted by compatibility plan,,;,,g since 1976. airport pmprietors under Part 150 for FAA's current program derives from the consistency with criteria established by Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement law and regulation. PrograIIi measures Act of 1979 (ASNA), implemented must be reasonabiy consistent with the through 14 CFR Part 150 (Part 150) in goals of reducing existing 1985. ASNA directed the FAA to noncompatible land uses around the establish by regulation a single system airport and of preventing the for measuring aircraft noise exposure, to introduction of additional identify la�d uses that are normally noncompatible land uses. Program compatible with various noise exposure measures must not derogate safety or levels, and to receive voluntary adversely affect the safe and efficient submissions of noise exposure maps use of airspace. Program measures must and noise compatibility programs from not impose an undue burden on airport proprietors. Airport sponsors interstate or foreign commerce. Program w]io prepare noise exposure maps are measures must not be unjustly unrnune from certai.n future liability for discri.muiatory or violate other airport noise damages. After prepari.ng the map, grant agreement assurances. Program airport operators may prepare noise measures should be designed to meet compatibility prograzns. These programs both local needs and needs of the contain measures that an airport national air transportation system. operator plans to take to reduce exisiing .. ..Rinally, program measures must k�e or prevent the development of new consistent with all of the powers and noncompatible land uses in the area responsibilities of the FAA covered by the noise exposure map. Administrator. Airport sponsors must consult affected The FAA is directed by law to parties and provide the opportunity for approve airport noise compatibility a public hearing. Airport proprietor programs that meet the specified participation in airport noise criteria. The FAA may request that an compatibility planning is voluntary. airport proprietor consider additional o Over 230 airports are participating in alternative program measures, but the the program and 193 airports have FAA FAA does not have the authority to approved NCPs in place—this includes substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor regarding which measures to select for implementation. The FAA may only approve or disappmve program measures recommended by an airport proprietor in accordance with estahlished statutory and regulatory criteria. If an airport noise compatibility program is not acted on by the FAA within the statutory 180- day timeframe, it is automatically approved by law with the exception of flight pracedures. Flight procedures are not subject to automatic approval. Although the FAA has established, under ASNA and Part �150, a uniform system for measuring the noise in and around airports, the responsibility for determining t�ie acceptable and permissibie land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specif'ic noise contours rests with the local authorities. In preparing noise compatibility programs, airport sponsors may support the use of state and local land use compatibility standards more stringent than Federal guidelines. If an airport proprietor proposes an airport noise and access restriction subject to the requirements of 14 CFR Part 161 (Part 161), the FAA encourages the proprietor to integrate the required Part 161 analysis into a Part 150 planning process which first analyzes nonrestrictive measures to mitigate noise, and then analyzes the proposed restriction. For Stage 2 restrictions, which are not subject to FAA approval under Part 161, the FAA advises airport proprietors who have integrated a Part 161 analysis into a Part 150 study to await the FA.A's determinations under Par 150 before adopting the restriction. FAA's Part 150 determinations may provide valuable insight regarding the proposed restriction's consistency with existing laws and the position of the FAA with respect to the restriction. Stage 3 restrictions are subject to either formal agreement among airport users or to FAA approval under Part 161. If an airport proprietor integrates a Stage 3 restriction proposal and analysis into a Part 150 program, the proprietor may submit a combined Part 150/Part 161 suhmission to the FAA., as provided �• for i.n the Part 161 regulation. The FAA will evaluate the proposed Stage 3 restriction under Part 161 requirements in addition to evaluating the submission under Part 150 requirements. Effective airport noise compatibility pianning is a continuous process, rather than a one-time accomplishment. A r number of airport proprietors have prepared updates to previously approved airport noise compati6ility program as changes have occurred over �. - 43$10 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices ('"�. � � � time. For the foreseeable future. Part 150 will remain the primary FAA program for evaluating and mitigating aircraft noise in an airport's vicuuty. Part 150 is a valuable tool for supporting and complementing local land use plan.ning and zon.i.ng efforts. A primary.goal of part 150 is to improva the compatibility of land uses surrounding airports by reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of new noncompatible land uses. In response to congressional concerns, as of October 1, 1998, FAA policy is to place additional emphasis on the prevention of new noncompatible land uses by limiting Federal funding to soundproof new homes built in noise-impacted areas. FAA's policy is that new noise sensitive land uses should be prevented from developing around airports or, in cases where prevention is not feasible, they should be rendered compatible with noise exposure levels through measures such as sound insulation during construction. Policy Element 5: Land Use Planning and Zoning The FAA will assist State and local governments and planning agencies in establishing policies and practices to minimi�e npise seIIsitive land uses around airports, including locally determined buffers outside areas of significant noise exposure. D�scussion: Both the 1976 Policy and Part 150 clearly assert that State and local governments, includi.ng airport proprietors and planning agencies, are responsible for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses around airports and defining the relationship between specific properties and airport noise contours. The airport operator must be an integral part of this planning process, and bears its own responsibility for tracki.ng plan.ning and development taking place in its environs, and interceding with local governments as may be appropriate to help assure long-term compatibility. Where permitted by law, the FAA is prepared to support compatible land buss planning and actions by providing planning guidance, as well as technical and iinancial assistance. Toward this end, the FAA has engaged in a national compatible land use initiative in a cooperative partnership with the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAOj. The transition by the year 2000 to an all Stage 3 fleet of large commercial airplanes significantly reduces aviation noise from levels previously experienced. Noise contours will continue to shrink well into the 21st century around many airports. This reduction in aviation noise exposure presents both a challenge and an opportunity to institute and maintain effective compatible land use policies and practices. There will be significant pressure to develop residential and other noise sensitive land uses closer to some airports as noise contours shrin.k towards the airport boundary. Such development should be undertaken only after prudent, thoughtful community planning and appropriate mitigation. The general trend over the past few decades has been an increasing interest on the part of the American public in continuing to upgrade environmental standards. Once noise exposure levels have stabilized with the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet, the demand by residents near airports for an ever quieter environment may outpace the delivery of further source-noise gains from advances in aircraft noise abatement technology. Additionally, not every airport will remai.n relatively static with respect to aircraft noise; ri- some airports will experience high levels of growth and expansion of their facilities after completion of the Stage 3 hansition, with consequent growth of their noise contours. It is important for the various governmental entities that own airports and control land uses around those airports to coord.inate airport and land use planning, and to undertake complementary actions that take into account the needs and operational requirements of the airport and the developmental goals and environmental needs of the community. The FAA encourages airport noise compatibility planning pussuant to Part 150. _ The FAA encourages local jurisdictions with responsibility for land use planning and zoning to take the strongest compatible land use actions with in those areas around airports still subject to significant noise exposure after the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet. According to FAA guidance, areas of significant noise exposure are those in which noise levels are DNL 65 dB or higher. Significant noise exposure is not compatible with a variety of noise sensitive land uses, as delineated in FAA's compatible land use guidelines in Part 150. Jurisdictions should take all possible actions to make existing land uses compatible and to prevent new noncompatible land uses form developing at DNL 65 dB and above. The FAA further encourages jurisdictions to guard against development of new noise sensitive land uses in areas that have been compatible within the DNL 65 dB contour i.n the last decade or more, but will be just outside that contour with Stage 3 transition. In situations where noise compatibility measures were funded by Federal grants, Federal grant assurances require that these properties must not become residential or zoned for other-noise sensitizes uses, but must remain non-noise sensitive even if shrinking noise contours place them outside DNL 65 dB. Based upon local factors, local jurisdictions may take a more comprehensive approach to aviation noise exposure below DNL 65. 5ome communities are more noise sensitive than others. Part 150 guidelines recognize local"discretion to define noise sensitivity. Some communities have better opportunities than others, because of vacant land or urban redevelopment projects, to reduce and prevent noise sensitive land uses beyond the DNL 65 dB countour. Stage 3 transition and the noise compatibility gai.ns otherwise achieved since the 1976 Policy increase the feasibility in certain locations of dealing with noise exposure below significant levels. A few airport proprietors and local jurisdictions have already begun to address areas outside DNL 65 dB to create an extra margin of noise buffer between the airport and the community. The FA.A will support local efforts to establish noise buffers by agreement between the airport pmprietor and the local community, evidencad through both commitments and land use actions by affacted jurisdictions..If jurisdictions firmly and consistently act to reduce, prevent, or mitigate noise sensitive development in buffer areas, the FAA will recognize such areas and actions accordingly in NEPA assessments for proposed airport development and in Part 150 noise compatibility pmgrams, and any resulting noise mitigation recommendations. Local jurisdictions may use the complete array of available methods to address noise sensitive land uses. Several of the most widely used methods are briefly described below, although these are not intended to preclude the use of other methods. A combination of inethods, comprising a .graduated response from the most to the least adversely affected land uses, may serve communities effectively and can prudently balance costs with levels of noise exposure. The FA.A strongly encourages the reduction and prevention of noncompatible land uses at noise exposure levels of DNL 65 dB and higher. Mitigation techniques short of reduction and prevention may be more vialile in buffer areas. Methods may support each other for the same Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43811 properties, such as combining sound insulation, an easement, and disclosure. In applying the basic Federal policy elements, the FAA encourages local jurisdictions ta • Establish zoning ordinances or other control measures to preclude new noise sensitive development; acquire existing noncompatible pmperties and relocate people; implement policies and programs to redevelop noise sensitive areas into more compatible land uses. • If noise sensitive development cannot be removed or precluded: acoustically insulate existing structures; establish local building codes for new residential and other noise sensitive construction requiring attenuation of exterior noise levels; purchase noise easements. • Require formal disclosure of aviation noise exposure levels as a part of real estate transactions for properties located near airports, where authorized by State and local law; provide transaction assistance to noise impacted property owners wishi.ng to sell. Policy Element 6: Areas With Unique Noise Sensitivities The FAA will take into account the specific circumstances of locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas with unique noise sensitivities in managing the navigable airspace and avaluating proposed FAA actions that raise aviation noise concerns. Discussion: The FAA's Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Areas, issued November 8,1996, af$rms the FAA commitment to carefully balance the interests of the general public and aviation transportation with the need to protect certain natural environments from the irnpact of aviation noise. This policy statement addresses FAA's management of the navigable airspace over locations in national parks and other Federally managed areas with unique noise sensitive values. It affirms that the FAA will exercise leadership in achieving an appropriate balance among environmental concerns, airspace efficiency, and technical practicability, while maintaining the highest practicable level of safety. This policy envisions joint efforts by the FAA and resource-managing Federal agencies to enhance compatibility by coordinating management of the airspace and the management goals of these specific areas. In order to promote an effective balance of agency missions, the Secretaries of Transportation and the Interior are jointly reviewing the environmental and safety concerns resulting from park overflights, developing a national policy on overflights of national parks, and working toward resolution of overflight issues in specific national parks. The overarching goal is to identify how best to provide access to the airspace over national parks while ensuring all park visitors a quality experience and protecting park resources. The FAA and the National Park Service have initiated individual and joint efforts to achieve abetter understanding of the effects of aviation noise on areas within national parks, preserves, and wildlife refuges. A primary focus for FAA is to identify the extent to which low-level noise (i.e., noise levels below existing thresholds of significant, or even adverse, impact for most common land uses) may adversely impact areas with unique noise sensitivities. At present, no scientifically verified, predictable criteria have been established. Until standardization of criteria has been achieved to the satisfaction of the Federal agencies with noise and land use responsibilities, particular interfaces of concern between aviation and special resource areas will be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the FAA and the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the area. Pursuant to F�cecutive Order 13084, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," the FAA is committed to removing obstacles that detrimentally affect or impede working directly and effectively with tribal governments. FAA will engage in meaningful consultation with tribal governments whenever significant impacts on trust resources are identified. When requested by a tribal government, the FAA will use best efforts to make aeronautical charts available to tribal representatives, as well as information on how to identify types of aircraft that may be overflying tribal lands. Additionally, on request from tribal officials, the FAA will use best efforts to depict Native American lands that are of significance on a year- around basis on visual flight rules aeronautical sectional maps. The areas will be depicted using the demarcation •associated •with flying over noise sensitive national park areas. All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface while flying over these types of areas. On reguest from tribal officials, the FAA wili also use best efforts to assist in alerting pilots of Native American seasonal events of significance through Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs) or a graphical depiction in the appropriate Airport Facility Directory. Policy Element 7: FAA Financial Programs The FAA will continue strong support for noise compatibility planning and noise mitigation projects with financial programs under its jurisdiction, with airport rates and charges policy, and by encouraging i.nnovative funding mechanisms including creative public! private partnerships. Discussion: The 1976 Policy initiated a pilot program under which the FA.A awarded the first grants to airport proprietors to develop .comprehensive airport noise control plans. This pilot program was expanded in the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA), which created airport noise compatibility planning under Federal Aviation REgulations (FAR) Part 150 that continues today. ASNA authorizes the FAA to fund the preparation of airport noise compatibility plans and to fund the unpiementation of noise compatibility programs developed under those plans, subject to FAA's approval of the program measures. All public airports are eligible to apply for Federai assistance in prepari.ng and implementing airport noise compatibility programs under Part 150. An approved Part 150 program is required for an airport proprietor to receive specifically earmarked grant funds for a broad array of noise mitigation projects. A statutory exception is sound insulation of educational or medicai buildings in a noise unpact area, which may be funded without an approved Part 150 program. Units of local government in the airport area may also appIy for grants to help carry out parts of approved Part 150 programs that are both within their jurisdiction and ability to implement. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 estahlished the first reservation, referred to as a"set-aside," of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds specifically for noise compatibility planning and projects under Part 150. The first noise set-aside was established at 8 percent of the total available annual AIP. In 1982, approximately $41 million was given in noise grants. Since 1982, the noise set- _aside has remained a key component in AIP legisiation, while the set-aside has remained a key component in AIP legislation, while the set-aside percentage has been increased to reflect the growing demand for noise funding. In the last funding year of the century, the noise set-aside (established at 31 percent of AIP discretionary funding) has been over �168.8 million. From the inception of airport noise compatibility funding through fiscal year 1999, the I,,. --.) � � 43812 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices FAA has issued noise planning and project grants totaling over $2.6 billion under the A irport Improvement Program. In addition to the AIP noise set-aside, the FAA administers other statutory provisions and supports decisions that result in additional fundi.ng for noise mitigation. The FAA is responsible for evaluati.ng the environmental impact of proposed airport development projects submitted for FA.A approval and funding. FAA's airport funding statue includes environmental requirements. For example, FAA may only approve a grant for a major airport development project that has a potentially significant impact on natural resources if there is no possible and prudent alternative and the project includes reasonable steps to min'�e the harm. These mitigation commitments are included in the FAA decision and any subsequent ��nt agreements. Such commitments are eligible for AIP funding from sources other than the noise set-aside as part of the cost of the airport development project. The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program, established by the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990, includes among its objectives the funding of projects to mitigate airport noise impacts. PFC-eligihie pmjects include mitigation for areas adversely impacted by noise, with or without an approved Part 150 program. Since the inception of the PFC program, the FAA has approved PFC collection authority' exceeding �1.6 billion for noise mitigation projects—an important and growing supplement to Federal funding provided through the AIP. Another unportant source of airport funding for noise mitigation is airport- generated revenue. As part of its role in administering the AIP, the FAA assumes a stewardship role related to the protection of the Federal investment in airports. Generally, an airport accepting Federal assistance must agree to use all airport revenue for related costs. The FAA has long recognized that noise mitigation associated with an airport capital development project qualifies as a capital cost of the airport and, therefore, is an appropriate use of airport revenue. In June 1996, DOT issued its Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 61 FR 31994, outlining the expenses an airport proprietor may include in establishing cost-based fees charged to air carriers for the use of airport facilities and services. The policy permits the recovery, through rates and charges, of reasonable environmental cbsts to the e�ctent that the airport proprietor incurs a corresponding actual expense. The policy expressly identifies aircraft noise abatement and mitigation as a permitted recoverable environmental cost. These provisions were not vacated in a ruling on the policy, Air Transport Association v. Department of Transportation, 119 F.3d 38 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In the future, the FAA will continue to make Federal fundi.ng available for measures directed at mitigating noise around airports, reducing noncompatible land uses, and protecting currently compatible land uses, when such funding is iinancially feasible and permitted by law. The challenge is to ensure adequate financial support for noise mitigation. The FAA manages available AIl' funds in a manner to sustai.n airport noise compatibility planning and programs for as many airports as possible with noise affected communities, giving priority consideration to mitigating the most significant higher noise levels. The FAA evaluates the national demand for Federal noise funding and recommends adjustments to the Congress in reauthorizations of airport grant legislation. Increasingly, the FAA seeks to leverage available Federal funding with other funding sources, including PFCs and airport revenue. In the last two years, the FAA has explored innovative financing proposals. The FAA approved an innovative project to relocate a large number of people on an accelerated schedule from an area of airport noise impact through a Federall local public and private sector partnership arrangement of shared costs and responsibility. The noise mitigation advantages of this project were obvious, and the overall costs were lower in terms of AIP demand than would have been the case under the traditional approach to funding. Future innovative finance arrangements can help to sustain a strong funding commitment to noise. The FAA will work with State and local govern.ments and the private sector to create new partnerships and opportunities to increase reliable sources of funding and to accelerate adequate financing of noise mitigation projects. •Section 3: Authorities and Responsibilities—Legal Framework 3.1 Lega1 Responsibilities of the Federal Government The principal aviation responsibilities assigned to the Federal Avaiation Administrator and since 1966 to the Secretary of Transportation, under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq., concern promoting the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce. The basic national policies intended to guide our actions under the Federal Aviation Act are set forth in section 103, 49 U.S.C. 40101(d), which provides public interest standards, including: (1) Assigning, maintai.ning, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce; (2) Regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and fulfills national defense requirements; (3) Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, includi.ng new aviation technology; (4) Controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efFiciency of both of those operations; (5) Consolidating resea.rch, and development for air navigation facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities; and (6) Developing and operating a common system of air traffic control and ' navigation for military and civil aircraft. To achieve these statutory purposes, sections 307(a), (b), and (c) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 40103(b), 44502, and 44721, provide extensive and plenary authority to the FAA concerning use and management of the navigable airspace, air traffic control, and air navigation facilities. The FAA has exercised this authority by promulgating wide-ranging and comprehensive Federal regulations on the use of navigabie airspace and air traffic control.l Similarly the FAA has exercised its aviation safety authority, includi.ng the certification of airrnen, aircraft, air carriers, air agencies, and airports under Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act, section 601 et seq., 49 U.S.C. 44701 et seq. by extensive Federal regulatory action.z In legal terms the Federal government, through this exercise of its constitutional and statutory poweis, has preempted the areas of airspace use and management, air trafiic control and aviation safety. The legal doctrine of preemption, which flows from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, is essentially that state and local authorities do not have legal power to act in an area that already is subject to comprehensive Federal regulation. Because of the increasing public concern about aircraft noise that accompanied the introduction of tu.rbojet powered aircraft into commercial service in the 1960s, and � See 14 CFR Parts 71. 73. 75. 91. 93. 95, and 97 2 See 14 CFR Parts 21-43. 61—fi7. 91. 121 through 149. Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43813 the constrai.nts such concern posed for the continuing development of civil aeronautics and the air transportation system of the United States, the Federal government in 1968 sought—and Congress granted—broad authority to regulate aircraft for the purpose of noise abatement. Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. 44715, constitutes the hasic authority for Federal regulation of aircraft. noise. In 1972, displaying some dissatisfaction with the FAA's methodical regulatory practice under section 611, the Congress amended that statute in two important respects. To the original statement of purpose, "to afford present and future relief from aircraft noise and sonic boom," it added consideration of, "protection to the public health and welfare." It also added the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the rulemaking process. Section 611 now requires the FAA to publish EPA proposed regulations as a notice of proposed rulemaking within 30 days of receipt. If the FAA does not adopt an EPA proposal as a final rule after notice and comment, it is obliged to publish an explanation for not doing so in the Federal Register. Whether consideri.ng a rule it proposes on its own initiative or in response to the FPA, the FAA is required by section 611(d) to consider whether a proposed aircraft noise rule is consistent with the highest degree of safety in air commerce and air transportation, economically reasonable, technologically practicable and appropriate for the particular type of aircraft. The FAA acted promptly in unplementing section 611. On November 18, 1969, it promulgated the first aircraft noise regulations, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36,14 CFR. Part 36, which set a limit on noise emissions of large aircra$. of new design. It reflected the technological development of the high-bypass ratio type engine, and was initially applied to the Lockheed 1011, the Boeing 747, and the McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. The Part 36 preamble announced a basic policy on source noise reduction and a logically phased strategy of bringing it about. Essentially, Part 36 established the quietest uniform standard then possible, taking into account safety, economic reasonableness, and technologicai feasibility. Part 36 was initially applicable only to new types of aircraft. As soon as the technology had been demonstrated, the standard was to be extended to all newly manufactured aircraft of already certificated types. Ultunately, the preambie indicated, when technology was available the standard would be extended to aircraft already manufactured and in operation. The last step would require modification or replacement of all aircraf�t in the fleet that did not meet the. Part 36 noise levels. The first two steps have already been accomplished. This third step is being taken now. In accordance with the Federal noise abatement program announced in the 1976 Policy, the FAA adopted regulations in 14 CFR Part 91 to phase out operations in the United States of so-called "5tage 1 aircraft" by January 1, 1985. These aircraft were defined as civil subsonic aircraft with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds that do not meet Stage 2 or 3 Part 36 noise standards. In 19so, pursuant to the Aviation Noise Abatement Act of 1979, the FAA extended the phaseout requirement to foreign international operators, and was directed to issue exemptions to operators of two-engine turhojets with 100 or fewer seats for small community service until January 1, 1988. In addition to its regulatory authority over aircraft safety and noise, the FAA has long administered a program of Federal grants-in-aid for airport construction and development. By virtue of its decision-making on whether to fund particular projects, the FA.A has been able, to a degree, to ensure that new airports or runways will be selected with noise impacts in mind. That indirect authority was measurably strengthened when in 1970 the Airport and Airway Development Act expanded and revised the FAA's grant-in-aid program for airport development, and added environmental considerations to project approval criteria. These criteria include consideration of whether the project is consistent with plans (existing at the time the project is approved) of public agencies authorized by the State in which the airport is located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport. The 1976 amendments to the 1970 Act increased funding levels and provided new authority to share in the costs of certain noise abatement activities, as part of a pilot program initiafed under the 1976 Policy. Under this progranr, the FAA funded up to 25-airport noise control plans per year In 1979, Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, 49 USC 47501 et seq., to support Federal efforts to encourage development of compatible land uses around civil airports in the United States. In 1981, the FAA adopted 14 CFR Part 150 to implement ASNA. As explained in detail in Section 2, nnder ASNA, FAA is authorized to provide grants to airport sponsors to fund voluntary preparation of noise exposure maps, comprehensive noise compatibility planning, and soundpmofing, land acquisition, and other projects to carry out noise compatibility programs. Noise compatibility programs are developed in consultation with surrounding communities and airport users. The airport must notify the public and afford an opportunity to comment at a public heari.ng. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (A.AIA) esfablished the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and first made funds available for noise compatibility planning and to carry out noise compatibility pmgrams authorized under ASNA. The AAIA has been amended several ti.mes, and authorizes the current Federal AIP program. Since 1976, the ability of the FAA to provide financial assistance under the AIP has remained limited in terms of both percentage of project costs and the types of projects eligible for Federal aid. Applications for airport development pmjects have consistently exceeded available fundi.ng, although the amounts available for obligation under the AIP have ranged from appmximately $450 million in Fiscal Year 1982 to a recent high of approximately $1.9 billion in Fiscal year 1992. Through additional legislation, FAA gained authority to grant AIP funds to units of local government in order to soundproof public schools and hospitals. In 1990, Congress established a National Aviation Noise Policy in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 USC 47521 (ANCA). This Policy had three primary elements. The first was a program for transition to an all-Stage 3 civil subsonic turbojet fleet. In 1991, pursuant to ANCA, the FAA amended Part 91 to establish a phased program to require operations by civil subsonic turbojet airplanes weighing more than 75,000 pounds to meet Stage 3 noise standards by the year 2000. This phaseout requirement applied to all operators of large Stage 2 airplanes, not just air carriers, operating in the contiguous United.States. The second element was a national �. program for review of airport noise and access restrictions on operations by Stage 2 and 3 aircraft. ANCA applies to restrictions on operations by Stage 2 aircraft proposed after October 1,1990, and to restrictions on operations by Stage 3 aircraft not in effect before October 1, 1990. In 1991, as a companion rulemaking to the Part 91 amendment, the FAA adopted Part 161 to implement the requirements under ANCA relating to airport restrictions. 43814 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices After careful study, the FAA determ.ined that Part 161 should cover operations by all Stage 2 aircraft, including those weighing less than 75,000 pounds that are not subject to the phaseout requirement. Part 161 also applies to proposals to restrict operations by helicopters that are certificated as Stage 2. ANCA, as implemented by Part 161, provides that airports must give 180 days notice and an opportunity for public comment on a cost-benefit analysis concerni.ng proposals to restrict operations by Stage 2 aircraft. Proposals to restrict operations by Stage 3 aircraft must (1) be agreed upon by the airport and all users at the airport or (2) satisfy procedural requirements similar to proposals to restrict Stage 2 operations and be approved by FAA. To be approved, restrictions must meet the following statutory criteria: (1) The restriction is reasonable, � nonarbitrary and nondiscri.minatory. (2) The restriction does not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce. (3) The proposed restriction mai.ntains safe and efficient use of the navigable airs ace. (4�j The proposed restriction does not conflict with any existi.ng Federal statute or regulation. - (5) The applicant has provided ( � adequate opportunity for public -- comment on the proposed restriction. (6� The proposed restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system. ANCA does not supersede preexisting law except to the extent required by the application of its terms. Preexisting law governing airport noise and access restrictions is discussed in detail below, under "Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors." FA.A encourages airport proprietors to seek to enter into voluntary agreements with users. Voluntary agreements are not subject to ANCA, and may include agreed-upon enforcement mechanisms that are consistent with Federal law. The fmal element of the national noise policy was the provision of another source of funds eligibility, conditions upon compliance with the national program for review of airport noise and access restrictions. In 1990, Congress amended the Anti-Head Tax provisions of the Federal Aviation Act to authorize FAA to approve collection and use of PFCs by public agencies.3 Public agencies that control commercial service airports may, subject to FAA approval, receive passenger facility charges collected from enplaning ) passengers using the airport, and use `� these charges for airport development or noise abatement projects. PFCs charges may be used, among other things, to finance remedial measures that would qualify for AIP funding if included in an approved airport noise compatibility program. The PFC program has assumed increasing importance in providing revenue for noise as well as capacity- enhancing projects. 3.2 Legal Responsibilities of State and Local Governments While the Federal government's exciusive statutory responsibility for noise abatement through regulation of flight operations and aircraft design is broad, the noise abatement responsibilities of state and local governments, through exercise of their basic police powers, are circumscribed. The scope of their authority has been most clearly described in negative terms, arisittg from litigation over their rights to act. The chief restrictions on state and local police powers arise from the exclusive Federal control over the management of airspace. Local authorities have been long�prevented by Federal preemption of authority in the area from prohibiting or regulati.ng overflight for any purposes 4 That principle was found in 1973 to include any exercise of police power relati.ng to aircraft operations in Cify of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973). In the Burbank case, the Supreme Court struck down a curfew imposed by the City in the exercise of its police power at an airport not owned by it. The court stated that, "the pervasive nature of the scheme of Federal regulation of aircraft noise leads us to conclude that there is Federal preemption." 411 U.S. at 633. The national character of the subject matter also suppoited preemption. 411 U.S. at 625. "If we were to uphold the Burbank ordinance and a significaut number of municipalities followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control of the timing of takeoffs and landings would severely 1'unit the flexibility of the FAA in controlling air traffic flow. The difficulties of scheduling flights to avoid congestion and the concomitant decrease in safety would be * American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968) Town noise ordinance that prohi6ited overflights over the village by aircraft that did not meet certain noise standazds held invalid because Congress had preempted the field of aircraft operation. Compliance with the ordinance would have required the alteration of FAA-promulgated flight pattems and procedures controlling aircrafi in the New York City azea; American Airlines v. City oj Aud ubon Park, 297 F. Supp. 207, 407 F.2d 1306 (6[h Cir. 1969) Court held that local ordinance conflicted with the glide slope which aircraR were required to follow in approaching the aaport. compounded." 411 U.S. at 639. Although control of noise is deep-seated in the police power of the states (411 U.S. at 638), the Court found that Congress unequivocally intended that the Federal government have "full control over aircraft noise, preempting state ancl locai control." 411 U.S. 625, 627-28, 639. The Court's reliance on the legislative history of section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act and its 1972 amendments indicates that other types of police power regulation, such as restrictions on the type of aircraft using a particular airport, are equally pmscribed. The Court, however, specifically excluded consideration of what limits, if any, apply to a municipality acti.ng in its proprietary capacity. In two subsequent cases, Federal courts determined that the constitutionality of state airport noise regulations depended upon whether . they sought to directly control aircraft noise or mitigate its effects. In Air Transport Association v. Cmtfi, 389 F. Supp. 58 (N.D. Cai., 1975) a state airport noise statute that imposed noise abatement duties on airport proprietors without directly regulating aircraft operation was upheld. California's statutory and regulatory scheme established permissible cumulative noise (community noise equivalent noise levels or CI�tEL) standards for continued operation of airports, monitoring requirements, and ultimate noise levels for surrounding land uses. In upholding the validity of the statutory scheme, the court noted that airport authorities were left to choose among suggested procedures, and were free to use other noise control measures beyond those suggested to achieve the prescribed noise standards. The court indicated that efforts to control aircraft traffic under the CNEL might be suspect, but since no action had been taken the court refrained from ruling upon limitations to the airport proprietor's authority. In this same case, the court struck down maximum single event noise exposure levels (SENEL) for takeoff and landings of aircraft, which had been established by the State for enforcement by counties through criminal fines levied against aircraft operators. The court held that these state regulations were per se unlawful exercises of police power because they attempted to regulate noise levels occurring when aircraft were i.n direct flight in clear contravention of FAA's statutory authority.s � See also, Minnesota Pub)ic Lobby v. Metropolitan Airport Commission. 520 N.W. 2d 388 (Minn. 1994) Minnesota Supreme Court held that Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43815 In 1981, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a measure that the state required an airport proprietor to implement in order to comply with the airport noise standards upheld in Crotti. In San Diego Unified Port District v. Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1981), cert den. 455 U.S. 1000 (1982), the State of California sought to require the Port District, as owner of Lindbergh Field, to extend a curfew. The State made extension of the curfew a condition of the variance needed to continue to operate the airport, which was not in compliance with California noise standards. Like the curfew in City of Burbank, the court found that the State's curfew unpinged on airspace management by directing when planes may fly in the San Diego area, and on Federal control of aircraft noise at its source hy restricting the permissible flight times of aircraft solely on the basis of noise. The court explained that the Federal government has only preempted local regulation of the source of noise, not the entire field of aviation noise. The effects of noise may be mitigated by state and local government • independently of source noise control. "Local governments may adopt local noise abatement plans that do not impi.nge upon aircraft operations." 651 F.2d at 1314. The court declined to interpret the 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy as evidence that the Federal Government had abdicated its duties to regulate aircraft noise or for the proposition that states may use their police power to coerce political subdivisions to use proprietary powers. The court also found that the State of California was not a proprietor of Lindbergh Field, and thus could not rely upon Burbank's proprietor exception permitting airports utilizing their proprietary powers (rather than police powers) to enact reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory rules deiming the perm.issible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using the airport. The ruling in City of Burbank was held to govern the exercise of zoning tha Metropolitan Airports Commission was not required to develop a plan to comply with state pollution control noise standazds in operating Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The State's noise standazds as appiied to MAC impinged on aircraR operations becauae (1) enforcement of the standazds would severely limit the flexibility of the FAA in contrnlling aircraR flow and (2) compliance would 6e impossible without either substantially reducing aircraft operations, converting much of South Minneapolis and the surrounding suburbs to non-residential azeas, or moving the airport. In the opinion of ihe court the State had no power to require an airport proprietor such as MAC to use its proprietary powers in certain ways that may have achieved compliance with the noise standazds. authority to ban a taxiway project in Burbank-Glendale Pasadena Airport Authorityv. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1992). In the BGPAA case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the constitutionality of an ordinance that required prior submission and approval of plans for development of a 54-acre parcel of land. The land, which was used solely for aircraft landings and takeoffs at Burbank Airport, was slated for construction of a taxiway project that was expected to produce signiiicant safety improvements and noise benefits. The ordinance was enacted by the City of Los Angeles just before construction of a taxiway project was to begin, and applied exclusively to the parcel of land owned by the airport but located in the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. The court found that the City was prohibited from conditioning airport development on prior City approval. It stated that proper placement of taxiways and runways is critical to the safety of takeoffs and landings and essential to the efficient management of the navigable airspace. The Court stated that Federal aviation safety interests preempted control of airport ground faciLities. The Court held that nonproprietor jurisdictions may not abuse their land use powers by delaying a safety project and withholding a building permit until the FAA and the airport proprietor agree to aircraft noise control terms. Recent years have witnessed a steady increase in state and local ordi.nances and zoning measures that seek to regulate growth and expansion of large metropolitan airports e Federal law and policy continues to confirm that state and local police power regulation of aircraft noise is Federally preempted when it unpinges on airspace management, aircraft flight, and operations. Non-proprietors may take noise impacts into account in siting airports and other facilities, and may mitigate the effects of noise. Federal aviation statutes do not direct the Federal govern.ment to decide where airports should be located, or whether and where an existing airport should acquire additional property for expansion; instead, such decisions are the primary responsibility of airport � See, e.g., Dallas Ft. Worth lnternatlonal Airport Bonrd v. City of lrving, 854 S.W.2d �50 (CG of Appeals Texas 1993). writ denied, 894 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. App-Ft. �1/orth 1995): City of New Orleans v. Kenner, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1046 (ED Ia 1992), rev'd_F.2d_ (Sth Cir. 8/6/92): City o/'Cleveland v City of Brook Park, 893 F. Supp 742 (ND Ohio 1995); City oj'Burbank v. BGPAA (85 Cal Rpt. 2d 28 (1999J. review der.. 1999 Cal. LEXIS 5393 (Cal Sup. Ct. 8/11/99). owners and operators. However, Federal authority to control the navigable airspace necessarily encompasses the piacement, size, and conf'iguration of runways. Likewise, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 prescribes a dominant role for the FAA in airport development, which encompasses constructing, repairing, or improving public use airports, and imposes significant program responsibilities on the FAA. Non- proprietor jurisdictions have no role in determining the legal requirements for runway expansion and development within the boundaries of the existing airport. Federal aviation law preempts local ordinance's designed to control and impede air navigation facilities, airport safety projects, or development projects on airport property at major airports as a means of controlling aircraft noise, and to otherwise controi flight operations and impede safe and efficient airspace management. As a corollary of this principle, state and�local govern.ments may not use their police powers to require airport proprietors to exercise their proprietary powers to control aircraft noise at its source. The FAA is closely scrutinizing actions by state and local governments seeking to limit airport expansion, particularly of major metropolitan airports. FAA has and will continue to intervene in appropriate cases to assure that state and local governments exercise their authorities in full accord with the principles in City of Burbank and its progency. in addition to established case law, Section 105 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. 41713 expressly provides that States, political subdivisions of States, and political authorities of at least two States, are prohibited from enacting or enforcing any law relating to a price, route, or service of an air carrier. This statute was intended to ensure that States would not undo Federal deregulation with regulation of their own. This statute prohibits state laws or local noise ordinances that would constitute a direct or indirect regulation of a price, route or service of an air carrier. As noted in the Section entitled "Legal • Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors," it preserves the authority of airport proprietors. The FA.A encourages local authorities to unpiement airport noise compatibility planning and protect their citizens from unwanted aircraft noise, principally through their powers of land use control. Control of land use around airports to ensure that only compatible development may occur in noise- unpacted areas is a key tool in limiting C 43816 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices the number of citizens exposed to noise impacts, and it remains exclusively in 'the control of state and local governments. Occasionally, it is a power enjoyed by individual airport operators; some operators are municipal governments that can impose appropriate land use controls through zoni.ng and other authority. But even where municipal governments themselves are operators, the noise impacts of their airports often occur in areas outside their jurisdiction. Other police power measures, such as requirements that noise impacts be revealed in real estate transactions, are also available to them. Other measures are also available to mitigate the effects of noise, such as by baffling existing noise or resetting those affected by noise. Finally, local governments have legal authority to take noise impacts into account in their own activities, such as their choice of location and design for new airports, new schools, hospital or other public facilities, as well as sewers, highways and other basic infrastructure services that influence land development. 3.3 Legal Responsibilities of Airport Proprietors Under the Supremacy Clause of the �'-- --'� U.S. Constitution, Federal law preempts ` � state or locai law when Congrese expressly or impliedly indicates an intention to displace state or local law, or when that law actually conflicts with Federal law. As discussed above, in 1973, the Supreme Court held that the pervasive scope of Federal regulation of the airways implied a congressional intention to preempt municipal aircraft noise restrictions based upon the police power. The court left the door open to no'ise regulations imposed by municipalities acting as airport proprietors,' however, based on such municipalities legitimate interest in avoiding liability for excessive noise generated by the airports they own. After Burbank, Congress expressly provided that the proprietary powers and rights of municipal airport owners are not preempted by Federal law. 49 U.S.C. 41713 (section 105 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978). Thus, the task of protecting the local population from airport noise has fallen to the agency, usually the local government, that owns and operates the airport. Subsequent to the Burbank decision, the courts have confirmed that Congress has reserved a limited role for local � ) � Traditionally, airpoit proprietors own and _ operate the airport, promote the airport. and have the legal power 4o acquire necessary approach eafiements. airport proprietors to regulate noise levels at their airports. Thus, the responsibilities of state and local govern.ments as airport proprietors are less restricted than those of non- proprietor governments. The rationale for the airport proprietor exception is that airport proprietors bear monetary liability for excessive noise under the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v. A/legheny Couniy. 369 U.S. 84 (1962). The Court found that because the airport proprietor had that liability, fairness dictated that airport proprietors must also have the power to insulate themselves from that liability. The proprietor, the court reasoned, planned the location of the airport, the direction and length of the runways, and has the ability to acquire �ore land around the airport. From this control flows the liability, based on the constitutional requirement of just compensation for property taken for a public purpose. The Court concluded: "Respondent in designing the Greater Pittsburgh Airport had to acquire some private property. O.ur conclusion is that by constitutional standards it did not acquire enough." The role of the proprietor described by the Court remains the same today . In contrast, it is understandable that non-proprietor localities in the vicinity of major airports cannot be permitted an independent role i.n controlli.ng the noise of passing aircraft. In the words of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. [t]he likelihood of multiple, inconsistent rules would be a dagger pointed at the heart of commerce--and the rule applied might come literally to depend on which way the wind was blowing. The task of protecting the local population from airport noise has, accordingly, fallen to the agency, usually of local government, �'ha oed with operating the airport British Airways Board v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 558 F.2d 75, 83 (2d Cir. 1977). An airport proprietor's powers, however, are not unlim.ited. For example, Federal case law consistently holds that proprietors are vested only with the power to promulgate reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory regulations establishing acceptable noise levels for the. airport and its immediate� environs that avoid the appearance of irrational or arbitrary action. National Helicopter Corp. v. City of New York.137 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 1998); British Airways Board v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 558 F.2d 75, 564 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1977). The Department of Transportation's own policy statement similarly states that an airport owner's conduct is not preempted as an exercise of its proprietary powers when such exercise is reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonburdensome to interstate commerce, and designed to accomplish a legitunate State objective in a manner that does not conflict with the provisions and policies of the aviation provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code. 14 CFR 399.110(fl. In the British Airways case, the Port Authority of New York and New jersey banned the Concorde SST aircraft from using Kennedy International Airport pending a six-month study of operating experience at other U.S. airports. Rather than applying its 1951'noise standard to the new Concorde aircraft, the Port Authority banned the aircraft based on its low frequency sound. Air France and British Airways challenged the ban, arguing among other things, that the ban was preempted by DOT's authorization of Concorde landings at JFIC and provision of detailed regulations for noise control at the airport, and that it was discriminatory and an undue burden on commerce. The Court of Appeals held tliat the Port Authority possessed the power and bore the responsibility to establish fair, even- handed and nondiscriminatory regulations designed to abate the effect of aircraft noise an surrounding communities and directed the lower court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the reasorrableness of the Port Authority's ban based upon low frequency sound. Subsequent to the first ruling, the Port Authority resisted in responding to the airlines' desire to secure a fair test of their aircraft in New York. The Port Authority refused to accord landing rights to an airplane that was capable of meeting its rule that had consistently been applied to all other aircraft for nearly 20 years-112 PNdB. As a result, the carriers brought suit again. In the second British Airways case, the Court of Appeals afiirmed its prior ruling concerning the limitations of proprietary powers. The court then afiirmed the enjoining of further prohibition of Concorde operations at Kennedy Airport until the Port Authority promulgated a reasonable, nonarbitary and nondiscriminatory noise regulation that all aircraft were afforded the opportunity to meet. The action of the Port Authority purporting to exercise delegated authority to regulate noise was held to constitute unjust discrimination within the meaning of the AAIA when the action resulted i.n denial of use of the airport to aircraft that met noise standards applies to other aircraft allowed to use the airport. The court pointed out that with respect to the reasonableness of airport Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 ! Friday, july 14, 2000 / Notices 43817 use restrictions, it is important that they be found on "definitive findings, based on substantial evidence, that the proposed use would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the public." British Airways, 564 F.2d 102, 1014 (2d Cir. 1s77). A noise curfew prohibiting the arrival or departure on a non-emergency basis of any aircraft between the hours of 12 midnight and 7 a.m. applying to all aircraft regardless of the noise emission level of degree of noise produced was faund to be an unreasonable, arbitrary, and discri.minatory and overbroad exercise of power by the county in U.S. v. Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). In City and County of San Fmncisco v. F.AA, 942 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991), a city regulation was interpreted to ban a retrofitted (�707 meeting Stage 2 standards from using the airport while other Stage 2 aircraft making similar levels of noise were permitted. The aircraft operator filed a complaint with the FAA alleging t�iat exclusion of its retrofitted 709 was unjustly discriminatory in violation of the city's Airport Improvement Program grant assurances. A DOT law judge found that the city had breached its grant assurance that it would operate the airport without unjust discrunination. The FAA Administrator affirmed the law judge's finding because the city's noise regulation allowed aircraft that were equally noisy or noisier than ¢707's to operate at the airport and increase in number without limit, while excluding the (�-707 based on a characteristic that had no bearing on noise (date of type- certification as meeting Stage 2 requirements). Thus, the regulation violated the statutory requirement and the city's grant assurance requirement that the airport would be available without unjust discrimination. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FAA's interpretation of the statutory and grant assurance requirements as reasonable. This case, as in the British Airways cases, illustrates that use of noise control regulations by an airport proprietor to bar aircraft on a basis other than noise, or without a factual basis, was found to be inconsistent with a fair and efficient national air transportat}on system. Airport proprietors are also prohibited from enacting noise restricfions that would 'unpose an undue burden on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause prohibits any state or local government actions that would unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce. For the most part, noise ordinances that would violate the Commerce Clause when the particular means chosen by the proprietor to achieve its goals are irrational, arbitrary or unrelated to those goals. For example, a court would likely strike down a noise ordinance if its purpose was in fact to disfavor interstate commerce, its benefits were illusory or insignificant, or impermissible parochial considerations unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. In U.S. v. Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), the court found that a blanket nighttime curfew regardless of noise emission had an adverse impact on the flow of air commerce because it interfered with and prevented the efficient use of the navigable airspace, resulting in bunching of flights, delays . in flights not only at Westchester County Airport but at LaGuardia and other airports in the metropolitan area, and disruption in the flow of air traffic in the New York City metropolitan area. The curfew further represented an unlawful exercise of local police power by the County. In National Aviation v. Hayward, 418 F. Supp. 417 (N.D. Ca1.1976), the court reviewed the constitutionality of an ordinance which prohibited the operation of aircraft between the hours of il p.m. and 7 a.m. by aircratt which exceeded a noise level of 75 dBA. The plai.ntiffs argued that the ordinance burdened interstate commerce by forcing them to make their flights from Oakland Airport rather than Hayward Air Terminal, thereby impairing their ability to deliver mail and newspapers to customers in California and other nearby states. The court upheld the a�rport's nighttime noise level limitation as a valid exercise of propriatary rights. On application of a balancing test under, the Commerce Clause, the court found that the burden unposed on the flow of commerce was incidental and did not overcome the local interest in controlling noise levels at I-�aya�vard Air Terminal during late evening and morning hours. The nighttime noise level limitation did not sufficiently reduce the value of aircra$ operator leases so as to be an unlawful taking under the 14th Amendment. In Santa Monica Airport association v. City of Santa Monica, 659 F.2d 100 {9th Cir. 1981), the court stuck dowri-an airport ban on the operation of jet � aircraft on the basis of noise under the ' Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution because the quality and quantity of noise emitted by the jets had no greater tendency to uxitate and annoy than that emitted by permitted propeller-driven aircraft. Ln Alaska Airlines v. City of Long Beach, 951 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1991), the City of Long Beach had enacted a curfew in 1981 which limited air carrier flights to 15 per day and required carriers to use quieter aircraft. The Court of Appeals overruled the district court's findings that the ordinance was preempted by Federal law, impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, violated equal protection principles, and was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise not rationally related to legitimate governmental concerns. The Court of Appeals found that each of the challenged pmvisions of the ordinance was sufficiently supported by a reasonable and legitimate justification. Airports that are recipients of Federal airport development grants have specific contractual duties, under the terms of their airport development �rant agreements, to ensure that their facilities are available under equitable conditions. These obligations include the duty to ensure that the airport is available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, and that no restriction . results in the establishment of an exclusive right. The courts have made it clear that these contractual obligations are an important aspect of the limitations on an airport owner's authority to control aircraft noise, for example, in the issuance of curfews. In U.S. v. Westchester, 571 F. Supp. 786 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), discussed in part above, the court also found that the county had obligated itself by the FAA's gT3IIt assurances to make the airport available for public use on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust discrimination, and at all ti.mes. The court noted that failure to comply with the conditions of a grant authorized the FAA to suspend current grant payments and withhold future grants. The court held that Westchester's curfew on flight operations constituted a breach of the terms, conditions, and assurances set forth in the grant-in-aid agreements between the county and the FAA, and that the FAA properiy refused to pay further grant monies to the county based on its failure to comply with �rant conditions and assurances. The power thus left to the proprietor—to control what types of aircraft use its airports, to impose curfews or other use restrictions, and, subject FAA approval, to regulate runway use and flight paths—is not unlimited. Though not preempted, the proprietor is subject to two important Constitutional restrictions. It first may not take any action that imposes an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and second may not unjustly discriminate between different categories of airport users. As discussed, � 43818 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices airport proprietors that are recipients of FAA airport development grants are subject to certain statutory and contractual obligations including that to make the airport available for public use on reasonable terrns and conditions. Also, states, political subdivisions of states, and political authorities of at least two states may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier, unless that law or regulation is consistent with the proprietary exception. See, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Our concept of the legai framework underlying this Policy Statement is that proprietors retain the flexibility to unpose such restrictions if they do not violate any Constitutional or statutory proscription. We have been urged to undertake—and have considered carefully and rejected—full and complete Federal preemption of the field of aviation noise abatement. In our judgment the control and reduction of airport noise must remain a shared responsibility among airport proprietors, users, and govern.ments. Summary The legal framework with respect to noise may be sumrnarized as follows: -.. .� o The Federal Government has `"" � preempted the areas of airspace use and - management, air traffic control, safety and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source. The Federal government also has substantial power to influence airport development through its administration of the Airport Improvement Program. • Other powers and authorities to control airport noise rest with the airport proprietor—including the power to select an airport site, acquire land, assure compatible land use, and control airport design, scheduling and operations—subject to Constitutional prohibitions against creation of an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce, and unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjust discrimuiatory rules that advance the local interest, other statutory requirements, and interference with exciusive Federal regulatory responsibilities over safety and airspace management. • State and local goverrunents may protect their citizens through land use controls and other police power measures not affecting airspace management or aircraft operations. In addition, to the extent they are airport propriekors, they have the powers described in the preceding section. � The authorities and responsibilities �" under the Policy�may be summarized as follows: • The Federal Government has the authority and responsibility to control aircraft noise by the regulation of source emissions, by flight operational procedures, and by management of the air traffic control system and navigable 8]TSPHCB ]Il W3}�5 �lat minimi�@ IlO15B impact on residential areas, consistent with the highest standards of safety. The Federal government also provides financial and technical assistance to airport proprietors for noise reduction planning and abatement activities and, working with the private sector, conducts continuing research into noise abatement technology. • Airport Proprietors aze primarily responsible for planning and implementing action designed to reduce the effecY of noise on residents of the surrounding area. Such actions include optimal site location, improvements in airport design> noise abatement ground procedures, land acquisition, and restrictions on airport use that do nat unjustly discriminate against any user, impede the Federal interest in safety and management of the air navigation system, or unreasonably interfere with interstate or foreign commerce. • State and Local Governments and Planning Agencies should provide for land use planning and development, zoning, and housing regulations that are compatible with airport operations. • Air Carriers are responsible for retirement, replacement or retrofit for older jets that do not meet Federal noise level standards, and for scheduling and flying airplanes in a way that minimizes the impact of noise on people. • Air Travelers and Shippers generally should bear the cost of noise reduction, consistent with established Federal economic and environmental policy that the costs of complying with laws and public policies should be reflected in the price of goods and services. • Residents and Prospective Residents in areas surrounding airports should seek to understand the noise problem and what steps can be taken to minimize its effect on people. Individual and community responses to aircraft noise differ substantially and, for some individuals; a reduced level of noise may not eliminate the annoyance or irritation. Prospective residents of areas impacted hy airport noise thus should be aware of the effect of noise on their quality of life and act accordingly. Section 4: Assessing Aviation Noise 4.1 Foundations The Federal government's methods and standards for measuring and assessing noise impacts derive from scientific research and a series of interagency committee reviews. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise In 1979 the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) was formed to develop Federal policy and guidance on noise. The committee's membership included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FAA, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Departments of Defense (DOD), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA). Among other things, it developed consolidated Federal agency land use compatibility guidelines using Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) as the common descriptor of noise levels. In order to develop the guidelines, it was also necessary to establish a correlation between land use and noise exposure classifications. The FICLTN issued its report entitled Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control in June 1980. This report established the Federal government's DNL 65 dB standard and related guidelines. The FICUN generally agreed that standard residential construction was compatible for noise exposure from all sources up to DNL 65 dB. Their land use compatibility guidelines for noise exposure between DNL 65-90 dB called for building codes to require at least 25 dB outdoor to indoor noise level reduction (NLR); between DNL 70-75 dB, at least 30 dB NLR. The FICLTN considered noise exposure above DNL 75 dB to be "inoompatible" with all residentiai uses except transient lodging with NLR of at least 35 dB. The report contained a comprehensive guidelines table. This table contains the following footnote regarding residential and certain other noise-sensitive uses in the moderate exposure zone from DNL 55-65 dB: The designation of these uses as "compatible" in this [moderate impact] zone reflects individual Federal agencies' consideration of general cost and feasibility factors as well as past community experiences and program objectives. Localities, when evaluating �� -tha applica#ion of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to consider. The designations contained in the FICLIN's land use compatibility table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43819 properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 The ASNA was the first Federal legislation speciiically addressing airport noise compatibility. The FAA implemented the ASNA's provisions in Part 150. This regulation adopted the DNL metric and the 65 dB land use compatibility guideline. This Federal guideli.ne has heen widely accepted by airport proprietors as a threshold for limiting new residential development and for sound insulation where new development is permitted above this guideline. The subsection on Airport Noise Compatibility Plann;ng � Section 2 addresses Part 150 provisions in greater detail. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise In 1991, the FAA and EPA initiated the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to review technical and policy issues related to assessment of noise impacts around airports. Membership included representatives from DOD, DOT, HLTD> the Department of justice, VA, and the Council on Environmental Quality. The FICON review focused, among other things, on the manner in which noise impacts are determined and described and the extent of impacts outside of DNL 65 dB that should be reviewed in a NEPA document. The FICON's findings and recommendations were published in an August 1992 report, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. With respect ta DNL, the FICON found that there are no new descriptors or metrics of suff'icient scientific standi.ng to substitute for the present DNL cumulative noise exposure metric. It further recommended conti:nuing the use of the DN metric as the principal means for describing long-term noise exposure of civil and military aircraft operations. The FICON reaffirmed the methodology employing DNL as the noise exposure metric and appropriate dose-response relationships (pri.marily the Schultz curve for Percent Highly Annoyed) to determine community noise impacts. Based on these findings, the FICON supported agency discretion in the use of supplemental noise analysis. It also recommended that further analysis should be conducted of noise-sensitive areas between DNL 6�--65 db having an increase of 3 dB or more if screening analysis shows that noise-sensitive areas at or above DNL 65 dB will have an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more. The FICON decided not to recommend evaluation of aviation noise impact below DNL 60 dB because public heath a�d welfare effects below that level have not been established. The FTCON strongly supported increasing research efforts on methodology development and on the impact of aircraft noise. It recommended a standing Federal interagency committee be established to assist agencies in providing adequate forums for discussion of public and private sector proposals identifying needed research and in encouraging research and development in these areas. Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) was formed in 1993 based on the FICON report's policy recommendation to form a standard interagency committee for facilitating research on methodology development and on the impact of aircraft noise. Membership includes representatives from DOD, HUD, DOT and the Department of the Interior, as well as NASA and the EPA. Each of the Federal agencies conducting significant research on aviation-related noise is represented on FICAN. Some member agencies, such as HUD and EPA, are not currently conducting reseazch but have broad policy roles with respect to aviation noise issues. The F'ICt3N does not conduct or directly fund any research. Rather, it serves as a clearinghouse for Federal aircraft noise research and development (R&Dj efforts and as a focal point for guestions and recommendations on aviation noise R&D. Products include various reports, studies, analyses, findings, and canclusions. The FICAN holds periodic meetings, including a public forum, and issues a report on its activities annually. Since its inception in 1993, it has reached the foliowing conclusions: • Interagency communication between researchers will help researchers to understand other agencies' goais and objectives in their research programs; afford the opportunity for researchers to discuss the projects ongoing at their own or � other agencies; and result in more efficient use of Federal funds by reducing redundancy of research, increasing coilaboration, ancl pooling the talents of various agency scientists. • The public forum is a valuahle rnechanism for soliciting input from interested members of the aviation profession and community members. • The Acoustical Society of America should form a working group tasked with development a revised standard for predicting noise-induced sleep disturbance. Current and future FICAN activities include: • Working with researchers to develop individual agency priorities for research to address issues regarding overflight noise in parks and wilderness areas. • Publishing technical positions on aviation noise topics based on definitive research by member agencies. Such topics include noise-induced sleep disturbance, non-auditory health effects, and land use compatibility guideli.nes. 4.2 AssessmentMethodologies Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL) The FA.A and other Federal agencies use DNL as the prunary measure of noise impacts on people and land uses. This cumulative metric is the Federal standard because it • Correlates well with the results of attitudinal surveys of residential noise impact; • Increases with the duration of noise events, which is important to people's reaction; • Takes into account the number of noise events of the full 24 hours in a day, which aiso is important to people's reaction; • Takes into account the increased sensitivity to noise at night by including a 10-dB nighttime penalty between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to compensate for sleep disturbance and othei effects; • Allows composite measurements of all sources of community noise; and • Allows quantitative comparison of noise from various sources with a community. DNL is the only metric backed with a substantial body of scientific survey data on the reactions of people to noise. It provides a simple method to compare the effectiveness of alternative airport scenarios. Land use planners have acquired over 20 years of working experience appiying this metric to make zoning and planning decisions. DNL is a sound and workable tool for land use planning and in relating aircraft noise to community reaction. Fxperience -indicates that DNL provides a very good measure of impacts on the quality of the human environment, forming an adequate basis for decisions that influence major transportation infrastructure projects. 1n an August 1992 report, the FICON reaffirmed both DNL as the appropriate metric for measuring aviation noise exposure and DNL 65 dB as the Federal Government's levei of signi�cance for assessing noise impacts. �;. �, , � � �_ 43820 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 /Notices Some people challenge the use of DNL to assess aviation noise because it is a measure of exposure from cumulative events over time rather than a measure of exposure from a single noise event. Commonly cited as potential alternative metrics are the Sound Exposure Level (SEL), which describes cumulative noise exposure from a single event, and Maximtun Level (L,,,ax), the highest level during a single event. Although sometimes useful as supplemental measu.res of noise exposure, single event metrics pose problems. They present neither an accurate picture of noise exposure nor the overall impact of noise on a community. Because single event metrics by deiuution are not composites of cumulative events, 100 aircraft operations a day would be no worse than one operation. Similarly, one event at 90 dB would be assessed as worse than 100 events at 89 dB. These effects clearly do not reflect noise impacts or annoyance reactions accurately. Alternatively, DNL increases with the number of operations, while single event measures do not. DNL combiries the number of operations with the loud.ness of each operation into a cumulative noise dose. The resulti.ng values correlate well with independent tests of annoyance from all sources of noise. Human response to noise involves both the maxunum levei and its 90 80 70 60 50 40 3a zo 10 duration, so the maximum sound level alone is not sufficient to evaluate the effect of noise on people. Cleazly, people are bothered by individual noise events, but their sense of annoyance increases with the number of those noise events, and with those that occur late at night. The DNL metric provides a combined measure of these factors that can. be used to evaluate existing and predicted future conditions on an unambiguous, single-number basis. Although DNL is an-average of cumulative noise levels, sound levels of the loudest events control the DNL calculation. Both L,n,X and SEL measure individual sound events that may occur only once, or may occur several times during the day. The number of times these events occur and when they occur are important in measuring the noise environment. DNL is a time-average of the total sound energy over a 24—hour period, adjusted by providing a 10 dB penaity to sound levels occurring between 10PM and 7AM. This 10 dB penalty means that one nighttime sound event is equivalent to 10 daytime events of the same levei. Accordingly, DNL combines both the intensity and number of single noise events with a nightkime weighti.ng factor in a manner that is strongly influenced by maximum sound levels. Recognizing that DNL often is criticized based on perceptions of community annoyance, the F'ICON Schultz Curve reaffirmed that complaints are an inadequate indicator of the full extent of noise effects on a population. The DNL 65 dB level of significance does not mean that no one is annoyed below that level. Extensive research has been conducted to evaluate annoyance. In an attempt to meet demand for a usable and uniform relationship between noise and annoyance; T.). Schultz reviewed the results of 161 social surveys where data were available to make a consistent judgment concerni.ng what percent of the population was "highly annoyed" (%HA). The surveys were of community reactions to several types of transportation noises such as road traffic, rai]road, and aircraft noises. The results agreed fairly well with one another, and Schultz developed an equation for describing the relationship between the level of exposure (in DNL� and percent of population highly annoyed. Schultz published the results of the stuveys in 1978 in "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance." 7n 1992, the US Air Force updated Schultz's research with a total of 400 surveys. Comparison of the original and updated results indicate that they differ by less than two percent in the DNL range from 45 to 75 dB. The followi.ng chart presents the relationship hetween %HA. and DNL: 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 The Schultz curve ind.icates that about 12 percent of people living at DNL 65 dB report themselves to be "highly annoyed" by transportation noise. About 3 percent are highly annoyed at �� a DNL of 55 dB. � -Day-Night Average Sound i.�evel•in dB Noise Analysis Criteria for Changes in DNL The DNL 65 dB contour remains the FAA's lower limit for defining significant noise impact on people. For a variety of reasons, noise predictions and interpretations are frequently less reliable below DNL 65 dB. DNL prediction models tend to degrade in accuracy at large distances from the airport. Srnaller proportions of the population are highly annoyed with successive decreases in noise levels below DNL 65 dB. The FICON studied criteria for predicting changes in community annoyance below DNL 65 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43821 dB. It found that a DNL 3 dB increase at the DNL 6� dB level is generally consistent with the existing DNL 1.5 dB screeni.ng criterion at the DNL 65 dB level. This finding was based on using the Schultz curve to relate changes in impact level with changes in DNL. Increases of 5 dB at DNL 55 dB, 3 dB. at DNL 60 dB, and 1.5 dB at DNL 65 dB all resulted in a three percent increase in %HA. For airport development and other actions in the vicinity of an airport, the FA.A guidelines for screening based on changes in aviation noise impacts above and below DNL 65 dB follow: DLN 65 dB and above—An increase in noise exposure of 1.5 dB or more at these levels is considered a signiiicant addition of noise. A Federal action resulting in such an increase would require an environmental impact statement (EIS�. DLN 60-65 dB—Increases in noise of 3 dB or more that remain between DNL 60-65 dB do not result in significant e�osure but can be noticeable and may be highly annoying to some people. The FA.A will consider mitigation options but would not require an EIS in noise- sensitive areas between DNL 60–&5 dB that are projected to have an increase of 3 dB or more as a result of the proposed changes. For air traffic changes farther away from an airport, FAA recognizes that some actions in areas below DNL 60 dB may produce noticeable noise increases and generate adverse community reaction. Although increases in noise in these areas are well below the standard criteria for significan.t impact, the FAA's air traffic screening procedures provide mechanisms to identify whether there are extraordi.nary circumstances warranting an EA. Supplemental Metrics The FICON recognized that DNL can be supplemented by other metrics on a case-by-case basis, but advised continued agency discretion in the use of supplemental noise analysis. It found that the use of supplemental metrics is ]imited because threshold levels of significant impact have notbeen established and there is no accepted methodology for aggregating these values into a cumulative impact description. Supplemental metrics can be useful in characterizing specific events and enhancing the public's understanding of potential effects resulting from proposed changes in aircraft operations. Supplemental single event analysis sometimes is conducted to evaluate sleep disturbance and, less frequently, specific speech interference issues. For proposed FAA actions in the vicinity of national parks in pristine areas and land uses such a wildlife refuges where the Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines bear little relevance, the FAA supplements DNL noise analysis with other metrics on a case-by-case basis. The following metrics are useful for site-specific applications on a case-by-case basis: Equivalent Sound Level (I.Kq) is a cumulative metric that can. be appropriate where aircraft noise can affect activity periods of less than 24- hour duration. Maximum Sound Level (L,,,�� is a single event metric that can be used to describe the greatest sound level in decibels during a given time period at a noise-sensitive location. • Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is a single event metric that can be used to describe noise exposure at noise- sensitive locations. This metric can be expressed both in terms of maximum levels and number of occurrences at varying levels. Time Above dBA Threshold (TA) is a metric that can be used in the same situations as I..�q, such as measuring noise exposure within specific time periods. The designation of threshold to be used in supplemental TA measurements may be defined with respect to speech interference or the ambient (background) noise level. 4.3 Aircraft Research in National Parks 1n 1987, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law (PL) 100-91, the National Parks Overflight Act, which called for the NPS to recommend to the FAA actions for the substantial restoration "natural quiet" to the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). One year later, the FAA issued the Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 50-2, creating a Special Flight Rules Area, flight-free zones, and defined routes for commercial air tours and sightseeing within the GCNP. Another milestone occurred in 1995 when the NPS preserited a report to Congress on aircraft noise in national parks. The FAA and the NPS initiated a model validation process. In August 1999, the agencies hosted a two-day meeting at �rand Canyon National-Park - of eight internationally recognized acoustics experts (the Technical Review Committee (TRG)j. Representatives from Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson; Volpe Nationai Transportation System Center;, and Wylie Laboratories worked with the TRC to develop a protocol that would measu.re the output of various acoustic models against the actual acoustic environ.ment in the Grand Canyon National Park. The desired outcome of the process is a level of confidence in the ability of the tested models to replicate the conditions found in the � park. The on-site data was collected during the month of September 1999 and a Spring 2000 report is planned. The TRC will be asked to review and comment on the results. 4.4 Research on Low Frequency Noise The issue of low frequency aircraft noise and its unpact on structural integrity and human health was explored in detail as part of the environmental assessment of the introduction of Concorde supersonic transport operations into the United States. Potential impacts were found to be negligible. Field studies found that the noise-induced vibrations as a result of Concorde operations cause no structural damage. In addition, the Concorde sound pressure levels at low frequencies were found to he well below the EPA threshold for potential health impact. As a result of these findi.ngs, the FAA concluded that low frequency noise of subsonic aiicraft in a typical airport environment had no signiiicant impact on structures or human health. This does not mean that there may not be� some noticeable vibration in certain cases. Human annoyance resulting from the effects of aircraft noise induced structural vibration is a recently raised concern. Low frequency noise and perceptible vibration may be experienced when aircraft noise levels are high (near the start of takeoff roll) and there are many aircraft events. This same combination of factors also tends to lead to high DNL levels (generally within the 65 DNL contour or higher). However, unlike the widely accepted relationship between aircraft. noise exposure in DNL and community annoyance, there does not currently exist a scientific consensus or Federal guidelines on the human annoyance effects of noise-induced structural vibration. Overall evidence recently evaluated by the FAA suggests low frequency noise is not a separate unpact phenomenon, but rather is connected to -high cu.mulative aircraft noise exposure levels. It may be of concern under certain conditions in areas already within the 65 DNL contour due to higher frequency noise. Perceptible vibration due to low frequency noise may be a secondary effect under certain conditions (e.g., home location relative to takeoff roll and aircraft fleet composition) in homes that are exposed to high levels of aircraft noise as calculated with the DNL metric. The � 43822 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, july 14, 2000 / Notices FAA supports and promotes further research on this issue through FICAN Section 5: Source Noise Reduction Commercial air transportation became a major factor in the U.S. economy with the introduction of jet-powered civil transport aircraft into passenger service in the early 1960's. The economic vitality of jet service triggered explosive growth both in the air transportation industry and in those cities and industries it serviced. However, as airports grew in size and importance, the areas adversely i.mpacted by aviation noise also e3cpanded. Despite economic and transportation benefits, as air service expanded to new communities and flight frequencies increased, complaints about aviation's noise i.mpact became coaunon. As noise became a major concern, both the Federal government and the aviation industry sponsored research into ways to resolve noise problems. In the 1960's, aircraft and engine manufacturers jointly developed the first generation of low-bypass ratio • turbofan engines that were both lower in noise and more fuel-efficient than the turbojet engines then in use. In the early 19�Os, another major technological advancement occurred with the ---. introduction of the second generation of ( � high-bypass turbofan engines. These -- ' research efforts contributed to considerable progress in aircraft noise reduction through guiet engine designs. 5.1 Aircraft Source Noise Standards On July 21, 1968, Congress passed the Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715), giving the FAA its first express authority to regulate aircra.{� noise through the establishment of aircraft noise standards. Beginning in 1968, the FAA developed certification standards, first for measuring and then for li.miting. aircraft noise at the source. These certification standards, which paralleled technological improvements in airplane engine designs, are codified in 14 CFR Part 36. The adoption of Part 36 in 1969 prohibited the ftu�ther escalation of aircraft noise levels of subsonic civil turbojet and transport category airplanes, and required new airplane types to be markedly quieter than the generation of turbojets that were developed in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The historical evolution of the FAA's certification standards from Stage 1 to Stage 2 to Stage 3 assisted U.S. airframe manufactu.rers in gaining a competitive I ) advantage by providing the quietest and �-' most fuel-efficient airplanes available. Effective December 1, 1969, the first U.S. aircraft noise regulations in Part 36 set a li.mit on noise emissions of large aircraft of new design by establishing Stage 2 certification standards. Stage 2 criteria served as the basic standard for engine noise and were based on then- current technology and initially applied only to new types of airplanes. Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, the FAA was given broader authority to set limits for aircxaft noise emissions. This authori�y is codified in 49 U.S.C. 44715. On February 25, 1977, the FAA amended Part 36 to establish three levels (or stages) of aircraft noise with specified lim.its, and prescribed definitions for identifying those airplanes classified under each stage. It also required applicants for new type certificates applied for on or af�er November 5, 1975, to comply with what are now imown as Stage 3 noise standards, and to prescribe the acoustical change requirements for airplanes in each noise level stage under Part 36. The amendment was "intended to encourage the introduction of the newest generation of airplanes, as soon as practicable" and provide a compliance schedule to maximize the incentive to replace rather than retrofit older aircraf�. This amendment prescribed the noise level standards for that "newest generation of airplanes." The three stages of aircraft noise established in Part 36 have been used as the noise operating limits for civil subsonic turbojet aircraft in the phaseouts of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 airplanes. 5.2 Airplane Operating Noise Limits- Stage 1 Phaseout When the.1976 Policy was published, it announced a program which would ulti.mately prohibit operation within U.S. airspace of any civil, subsonic turbojet airplanes with a standard airworthiness certificate and with ma�cimum takeoff weights of more than 75,000 pounds that had not been shown to meet the Stage 2 noise standards contai.ned in Part 36. In accordance with the 1976 Policy, the FAA adopted regulations that in part established a phased compliance program for U.S. domestic operations to reduce aircra.ft noise. Subpart 1 of�Part 91 required-#�at civil subsonic airplanes with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds comply with Part 36 Stage Z or Stage 3, noise levels by January 1, 1985, in order to operate in the United States. Compliance could be achieved by (1) replacing the older fleet with new, quieter airplanes; (2) re-engining the aircraft; or (3) using noise reduction technology, such as hushkits, that has been shown to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable for use on older turbojets. On February 18,1980, the Congress enacted the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA). Title III of that Act required the FAA to promulgate regulations extending application of the January 1, 1985, cut- off date for turbojet aircraft to U.S. and foreign international operators if no international agreement could be achieved on a compliance deadline. Since no such agreement could be reached, on November 28, 1980, the FAA amended § 91.303 to make it applicable to all operators for their operations in the U.S. The ASNA also mandated that certain civil two-engine turbojet airplanes with 100 of fewer seats be given exemptions from the noise rule until Jaztuary-1, 1988 (the so- called "small community service" exemptions). The FA.A implemented the "service to small community" exemption for two-engine subsonic a.i.rplanes in § 91.307. 5.3 Airplane Opemting Noise Limits- Stage 2 Phaseout Through passage of the Airport Noise . and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), Congress directed that domestic and foreign civil subson.ic turbojet airplanes with maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds must meet Stage 3 standards to operate within the contiguous United States after December 31, 1999. In implementing this statutory requirement, the FAA promulgated a rule in 14 CF'R Part 91, Subpart I, requiring that domestic and foreign airplanes that do not meet Part 36 Stage 3 noise levels either be retired or modified to meet those levels. To bring about the earliest feasible reduction of noise levels, interim compliance deadlines for phaseout of Stage 2 and transition to Stage 3 airplane fleets were established on the basis of technological and economic reasonableness. Interim compliance options and related deadlines are: Phaseout Method An operator could choose to reduce the number of Stage 2 airplanes it maintains on its operations specifications for operation in the contiguous United States to the required percentage of its established base level number on each compliance date as follows: After December 31, 1994, 75 percent of its base level; After December 31, 1996, 50 percent of its base level; and After December 31, 1998, 25 percent of its base level. Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices 43823 Fleet Mix Method An aircraft operator could choose to increase the number of Stage 3 airplanes it maintains on its operations speciiications for operation in the contiguous United States so that its fleet consists of: Not less than 55 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1994; Not less than 65 percent Stage 3 airplanes a$er December 31, 1996; and, Not less than 75 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1998. New Entrant Compliance A new entrant air carrier (a domestic or foreign air carrier begin.ning service in the contiguous United States after November 5, 1990) must increase the number of Stage 3 airplanes it maintains on its operations specifications for operation in the contiguous United States so that its fleet consists of: At least 25 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1994; At least 50 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1996; and At least 75 percent Stage 3 airplanes after December 31, 1998. The regulations require all operators of subject airplanes to report compliance progress to the FAA annually. They also provide separate criteria for interim and final compliance waivers. As prescribed in ANCA, a final compliance waiver may only be granted by the Secretary of Transportation (through delegation, by the FAA) to a domestic air carrier for no more than 15 percent of its fleet and that has achieved a fleet mix of at least 85 percent Stage 3 airplanes by July 1, 1999. Any final compliance waiver granted may not extend beyond December 31, 2003. 5.4 Potenfial Gnins From Source Noise Reduction Research Federal policy recognizes noise impacts on populations and emphasizes source reduction to alleviate those unpacts. This policy initiated the Stage 1 phaseout, which subsequently was codified into Federal law. It also resulted in the establishment of Stage 3 standards. In conjunction with additional Federal legislation, the Federal government's aviation noise policy facilitated the phaseout of Stage 2 airplanes by the year 2000. In keeping with this policy, the FAA places a high priority on developing future aircraft noise reduction technology to support the continued expansion of the national aviation system. In early 1992, the FAA and NASA began sponsorship of a multiyear program focused on achieving significant noise reduction technology advances. In October 1992, Congress mandated that the FAA and NASA jointly conduct an aircraft noise reduction research program, the goal of which is to develop, by the year 2001, technologies for subsonic jet aircraft to operate at reduced noise levels. Current and pmjected funding of this project in the FAA's and NASA's co-sponsored research program will exceed $200 million by the year 2000. The project's stated goal is to develop technology to reduce the community noise impact of the future subsonic airplanes by 10 dB (relative to 1992 technology). Future Noise Standards The FAA is a major participant on an. ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) technical working group that is formulating proposals for an increase in stri.ngency of the international noise standard for subsonic jet and large propeller-driven airplanes. The FAA plans to set new Stage 4 standards by early in the next century. New standards would result in a future ti.med transition to a generation of airplanes quieter than Stage 3, similar to source-noise reduction transitions that have been implemented since the 1976 Policy. The Secretary of Transportation's flagship initiative supports the development of more stringent aircraft noise standards. FAA is aggressively pursuing the development of international certification noise standards for turbojet airplanes that will be more stringent than the current Stage 3 standards; and, developing models to assess new noise abatement technologies that will encourage introduction of quieter planes. Source Noise Reductions for Aircraft Under 75,000 lbs. Commercial and business aircraft of not more than 75,000 pounds gross weight make a significant contribution to aviation in the United States. They often provide the bridge between smaller communities and the major air carrier airports. Generally, this task is performed by commuter aircraft and specialized air traffic services. Privately owned business aircraft also make a contributiog to the system by providiug specialized point-to-point service for corporate executives and staff. This service saves valuable time and relieves hub congestion while providing increased aircraft capacity to the system. Each of these classes of smaller aircraft makes its unique contribution to the overall efficiency of aviation. Together, they extend air service to many smaller outlying areas, both rural settings and suburban. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 airplane phaseouts afFected only large commercial airplanes with a gross weight of more than 75,000 pounds. There are no provisions in either Federal law or FAA regulations that are directed at phasing out airplanes of not more than-75,000 pounds. In 1990-91, the FAA undertook a study in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47525 to determine whether requirements governing noise and access restrictions in Part 161 should apply to Stage 2 sirplanes of not more than 75,000 pou.nds as well as to those above that weight. Af�er careful consideration of the various issues involved and of comments received from the public, the FAA concluded that the analysis, notice, and comment provisions for proposed restrictians should apply to all Stage 2 aircraft operations regardless of gross weight. This conclusion was based on the need to protect the interests of all segments of aviation and of the general public. The National Business Aviation � Association (NBAA) passed a resolution in January 1998 that is a first step in voluntary elimination of noisy business aircraft. Coordinated with the FAA, the resolution calls for the NBAA's 5,200 members to refrain from adding Stage 1 aircrai� tn their fleets beginni.ng in January 2000 and to end the operation of Stage 1 aircraft by january 2005. This resolution affects business aircraft at or below 75,000 pounds. In the absence of specific Federal legislation, the FAA encourages and supports voluntary efforts by the aviation industry that will result in reducing noise of Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft of not more than 75,000 pounds in gross weight. Helicopter Noise Reduction Research 44 U.S.C. 44715 directs the FAA to prescribe and amend aircraft noise standards taking into consideration whether the standard is economically reasonable, technologically feasible and appropriate for the applicable aircraft, aircraft engine, appliance, or certiiicate. An FAA research project seeks to demonstrate the technological and economical feasibility of incorporating existing noise abatement technology •-coneepts into the designs of light helicopters produced by small manufacturers. The project is a technology transfer effort that will address existing noise abatement design concepts for individual small helicopter designs. Prototype hardware will be constructed and tested, or existing airframe designs modified, to demonstrate the airworthiness and noise reduction potential of the noise abatement designs. The FAA-sponsored 43824 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 / Notices activity is a follow-on to the similar NASA research pro,gram directed ' toward the larger, more technologically advanced manufacturers and involving the development of advanced noise design technologies. General Aviation Noise Reduction Researcli In 1994, Congress directed that the FAA and NASA jointly conduct a noise study of propeller-driven small airplanes and rotorcraft to identify noise reduction technologies, evaluate the status of R&D and determine the need for addition research activities. For propeller-drive small airplanes> the study identified the need for user- friendly tools to design quieter propellers> engine systems optimized for low noise; and demonstration of these concepts. The FAA and NASA initiated a governmentlindustry/university partnership for acoustics technologies following the findings of the study. This research supports the General Aviation Action Plan (GAAP�, which was developed by the generai aviation (GA) industry and the FAA. One of the goals of the GAAP is to promote the development of new methodologies and -. technologies that will reduce the overall j�� perceived noise footprint of GA aircraft: ---� In response, the FAA and NASA are co- sponsoring a research program that seeks to identi.fy and develop propeller- driven aircraft noise reduction and control technologies. The objective of the project is to enable U.S. manufacturers to produce quieter propeller-driven airplanes. Appendix: References Source Literature Acoustical Society of America. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of Compatible Land Use. ANSI S12.40-1990. Federal interagency Committee on Noise (F'ICOI�, 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. Washington, D.C.: FICON. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (F'ICtJN), 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Iand Use Planning and Contr�ol. (U.S. Government Printing Office Report #1981-337-066/8071) Washington, D.C.: FICLTN. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAOj. Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. 1995. Evolution of the Noise Glimate Around Airports. Working Paper Number 59. Monteeal. Canada: ICAO. National Research Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences. �' Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and � Biomechanics (CHABA). 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise. Report of bVorking Group 69. Washington, D.C.: National Reseazch Council. Nationai Reseazch Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1981. Assessment of Community Response to High-Energy Impulsive Sounds. Report of Working Group 84. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. National Reseazch Council (NRC). Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). 1981. The Effects on Human Health from Long-term F.�cposures to Noise. Report of Working Group 81. Washington, D.G: National Reseazch Council. Schultz, T.J.,1978. "Syathesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 64(2): 377-405. U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of the Secretary and Federal Aviation Administration, 1976. Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. �oT, Frin. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Adminish�ation. Office of Environment and Energy. 1984. Land Use Compatibiliiy Study: Aircraft Noise and Land Use. FAA-AEE-84-16. Washingtoa, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Environment and Eneigy. 1989. Report to Congress on the Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. 1993. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles. Advisory Circular 91.53A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Off3ce of Environment and Energy. 1994. Future Noise Contour Analysis. FAA-AEE-96-06. Washington, D.C.: U.S. DOT, FAA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Public Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise, July 29, 1973. EPA Report 550/9- 73-002. Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmentai Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfaze with an Adequate Margin of 5afety. EPA Report No. 550/9-74-004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. II'A-550/9-82-105. Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service (PBsz-21 s2os). Statutes Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715). Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA) (49 U.S.C. 44709, 44715). Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA) (49 U.S.C. 40116, 46505, 47501-47508). Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) (49 U.S.C. 47521-47533). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Regulations in 14 CFR Part 36, Noise 5tandazds: Aireraft Type and Airworthiness Certification. Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules; Subpart I, Operating Noise Limits. Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Pjanning. Part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions. [FR Doc. 00-19784 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am] e�wn� cooe as�o-ia-r� DEPARTRAENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-20Q0-7601] Notice of Request for Clearance of a New information Collection: DesigN Buiid Research Study AGENGY: Federal Highway Administration (F'HWAJ, DOT. ACTION: Natice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Rct of 1995, th.is notice announces the intention of the FHWA to request the Off"ice of Management and BudgeYs (OMB) approval for a new information collection involving responses to a questionnaire concerning design/build projects. The information to be collected will be used to analyze the affected public's perception of safety related issues and impacts on private property that may be attributed d.irectly to design/build projects. This information is necessary to address certain details and provide feedback to the FHWA's evaluation of right-of-way acquisition and relocation on design/build projects. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2000. ADDRESSES: All signed, written comments should refer to the docket number that appears in the heading of this document and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notiiication of receipt of couunents must inciude a self- addressed stamped envelope or postcard. FOR FURTHER INF�RMATION CONTACT: MT. David Walterscheid, (202) 366-9901, Office of Real Estate Services, Federal C / Metropolltan Aircrvff Sound Abatement Council C�vIASAC� 6040 28th Avenue Sauth • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 •(612) 72b-8141 Chairman: Mayor Charles Mertensotto Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999 Scott Bunin, 1990-'1995 Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: Chad Leqve Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-2Q0) Docket Number [30109] 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 To whom it may concern: August 14, 2000 ,__, The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) is an organization comprised of equal ,` "� community, a'sline and airport representation. MASAC continually strives to find new and innovative ways -- to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Through cooperative decision making and insightful proposals, MASAC has a long list of noise reducing success in which both the communities and the airlines played an active role. MASAC is well aware of the tremendous role national policy plays in the successful implementation of noise abatement initiatives on a local level. Consistent with that realization, MASAC encourages the highest degree of thought and consideration on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when issues such as national noise abatement policy revision are discussed. There is no doubt that since the 1976 Department of Transpartation Noise Abatement Policy, significant noise reduction accomplishments have been achieved at our nation's airports. The national policy, legislation and regulation to this point have provided procedures, funding and a framework for Noise Compatibility Program development and implementation at our nation's airports. These efforts and accomplishments are not inconsequential, yet significant advancements in airport noise reduction is possible through responsible golicy development that considers cooperative approaches to noise ahatement solutions, new technologies and the general public's expectations. After review of the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 document published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2000, MASAC has several comments for your consideration as part of your policy review. I am submitting the %llowing comments on behalf of MASAC relative to the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 review: ♦ A new Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which ma�timizes the noise reduction capabilities of available and future aircraft engine technologies. ♦ As part of the new Stage 4 noise level criteria, Part 161 should be updated or a new policy should be developed to address the timely retirement of Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft and a reasonable phase-out plan for existing manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. o RealizinD that the single event noise energy produced by Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds can be equal to or greater than many Stage 3 aircraft above 75,000 pounds, a timely phase-out schedule for Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds should be established. In addition, the future transition schedule to a Stage 4 aircraft fleet should apply to aircraft under 75,000 pounds as well. ♦ The FAA recognized noise impact area of 65 DNL for purposes of conective and preventative land use measures should be expanded to the 60 DNL azea realizing that noise impacts extend beyond the 65 DNL contour line at our nation's airports. � e Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with new airspace use flexibitities provided by the GPS technology and surrogate capabilities such as free flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. o Federal Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) funding initiatives should adciress noise cornpatibility efforts out to the 60 DNL contour at our nation's airports. ♦ Realizing the possible noise reduction benefits GPS can offer in the airport environment, the FAA should develop mandatory airborne avionics compatibility timetables, ensuring the noise reduction benefits that could be received as a result of on-baard GPS coupled Flight Management Systems (FMS) and Auto Flight Guidance Systems (AFGS). ♦ Future airspace redesign requirements should take into account the capabilities of new � navigational technologies such as GPS to ensure procedural implementation and environmental evaluation criteria do not unduly burden the navigational flexibility these new technologies can offer relative to noise abatement. ♦ An all-encompassing GPS implementation strategy should be developed to provide direction to airport proprietors for terminal area procedure implementation in an effort to reduce noise exposure. ♦ The public input portion of the Part 150 process should include more public education and information initiatives to prevent public frustration as a result of misinformation or lack of understanding. Once again on behalf of MASAC I urge your diligent consideration of the above comments as you review the future of our nations noise abatement policies. The successful relationship between our nation's airports and the communities that neighbor them is contingent on responsible decision making and national policy development. I wish you luck in this significant undertaking. . T'hank you in advance for your review and consideration. Sincerely, Charles Mertensotto Chairman Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council \=_ � t :, � i � , , , � ♦ , " ; . . TO: MASAC FR�1VI: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUB.�ECT': Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report IiATE: August 14, 2000 On August 10, 2Q00 the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee met to discuss the draft Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report. The draft document was approved outlining the Harris and Fidell contours and the resultant Policy Contour, which outlines the mitigation areas relative to the 87 dB, 78 dB and 70 dB Low Frequency Sound Levels (LFSL). The recommendations for treatments to reduce interior LFSL in existing residential areas aze as follows: e<'70 dB LFSL: no treatment to reduce rattle and no requirement to reduce interior LFSL. ( ) s 70-77 dB LSFI.: treat rattle directly and decrease interior LFSL by 5 dB (Based on findings of the social survey, the existing Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program provides the equivalent of 5 dB reduction, therefore no further reduction is necessary.) •'78-86 dB LFSL: treat rattle directly (may not be fully adequate) and decrease interior LFSL by 5 dB and consider reducing by more than 5 dB. •>87 dB LFSL: treat rattle directly (probably not fully adequate) and decrease interior LFSL by at least 10 dB (probably not economically feasible). In addition to the above recommended treatments the report outlined recommended rattle prevention and limits for interior LFSL for new construction. Below is a summary of the information: •<'70 dB LFSL: no rattle treatment and no special requirement for interior LFSL reduction. + 70-77 dB LSFL: rattle prevention and 15 dB interior LFSL reduction. • 78-86 d� LFSL: -ra�tle pre�+ention and �20 dB -interinr-i:FSL-rednetion. •>87 dB LFSL: do not develop for residential use. The next step in the approval process will include review and approval by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration via incorporation in the Part 150 Update document. Additional �, ) information such as the number of affected units and associated costs are being generated. A review of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report will be provided at the August 22, 2Q00 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612- C, 725-6328. C Joseph E. Lee 3 81 � Abbott Ave S Minneapolis Mn. »410 Mavor Chazles Mertensotto Perhaps you were aware that I left the meeting last Tuesday when you temporarily adjourned to safer quarters. Under the circumstances I did not want my wife to be home alone awaiting the arrival of the storm which incidentally never materialized-fortunately. Hence I missed the discussion about the steps that miQht be taken to relieve ni�ht time aircraft noise. Northwest rejected the request to reschedule due to an estimated $8mm cost. Perhaps other airlines were included in these cost estimates. At any rate I fail to understand the unwillingness to accept this expense given the enormous support NW has received from this Community over the years-financial and otherwise. Thousands of people are seriously troubled or damaged by these late night flights which the airlines and F�1A choose to ignore. If the airlines are responsible neighbors as they claim then I would expect them to to accept these moral obligatiot�s. These are the comxnents I would have made if I had remained at the meeting and I want to share them with you. _ Ydtirs truly �� ) � , _ �`� � � � � C MASAC NOISE MONITOF:ING AND INFORMATION R.EQUEST FOR1V.� PLEASE COMPLETE T�IS�FO,RMTTERS ORRFORMAL RE ULO TOIONS.LY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTAC Date: 2`� �v� �Z o00_ Name: l�� e� � 1 ' L � ar k. Address: 5`t l�l �ZY�s L�k� T+oY, 1�1 � �,� �apo t�s Iv�.N 554�q Phone: b! 2-- �6'6 R- SG! �-- Is this a one-time request? Yes or No On whose behalf are you requesting:': Yourself ✓- City Council Mayor Citizen � Oraanization Mt ��c�vl�3 M�4-SA- C Rt� , Other - If no, what is the expected time frame �r� � r�lq �o n�'�.s Beginning � Au q Zeoo t0 .� Which of the followinQ best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) C�ound Noise verflight Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Ending � �(p✓ 2boD Other - - -- � --- - ---. _ �..........�.. ,-.� I respectfully request information on population density around MSP for the purpose of assessing the impact of aircraft events >65dbA. This is a first request for a modest amount of data to judge the feasibility, validity and propriety of the resulting report. My objective is to provide a means, easily assimilated, which shows the effect on the population of aircraft noise around MSP. For this purpose, 1 need a map divided into 0.25 mile squares showing the population density in each square that will be disturbed by aircraft noise. As an examp(e, I attach a map showing the Remote Monitor Stations (RMT) around MSP. The map is divided into one-half mile squares west and north-west of the airport. Quarter-mile squares are identitied by their location in an arbitrary.X - Y axises into 121 sqiares. With know(ed�e of the population density of each square, I plan to determine the number of aircraft events >65db� for each square from the RMT data. Multiplying the population by the nu►nber of events will yield a number proportional to the noise disturbance for the area. I then plan to plot the resulting data on a chart similar to the one attached called Population - Location Chart. � � 1 understand that these data that 1 request are available from the MASAC staff. I trust this �--- rec�uest for information will be granted. If any aspect of this request is unduly burdensome, I will be happy to discuss alternate procedures. `/��/ C �1�... 14 12 � 1� 0 � ---� 8 �. 6 0 °- 4 2 0 � � j Population - Location Chart X "' �� z ,, ,ti w : �' , �� ; � � • : � � �� :,.: August 11, 2000 Chairman John Nelson MASAC Operations Committee 6040 28`h Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Dear Mr. Chairman: The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights adopted the attached Resolution at their August l, 2000 meeting appointing me as the Mayor's alternate on the MASAC Operations Committee. I will serve in this capacity during the transition period between City Administrators. Si erely, (...,�' - Gi Patric C. Hollister Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (651) 452-1850 • FAX 452-$940 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MIlVNESOTA RESOLUTION 00-60 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES ON THE METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has two public representatives on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC); and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has one public representative an the MASAC Operations Committee and the MASAC Executive Committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Hei�hts, as the appointing authority, shall file with MASAC a notice of appointment of our designated representatives on the MASAC and its various committees, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS I3EREBY RESOLVED by the City Councii of tl�e City of Mendota Heiahts that the followin� persons are duly appointed to represent the City of Mendota Neights at all, or any, MASAC meetin�s or committees: Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Jill Smith, Airport Relations Commission Scott Beaty, Airport Relations Commission Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant MASAC Operations Committee Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Jill Smith, Airport Relations Commission Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant MASAC Esecutive Committee Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Jill Smith, Airport Relations Commission Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant Public Representative Public Representative A lternate Alternate Member Alternate Alternate Member Alternate Alternate Adopted b}' the Cit�� Council of the City of Mendota HeiQhts this 1 st day of August, 2000. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL . ,� ,� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS --� Charles E. Mertensotto /s/ B�' ;�G�; �� , ;)�� G'��-i. By K �. � ' �• k Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor � 11��r,c�.J o,�;,:� �.i��.:�� -�i�, �i�%'� C C e STATE OF MINNESOTA. ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) s.s. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ) I, Nancy J. Bauer, being the duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk of the City of Mendota Hei�hts, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 00-60, "A Resolution Designating the City's Official Representatives and Alternates on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council" is a true and exact copy of said original resolution on file in my office. Signed and sealed by hand this Sth day of April, 2000. (S�AL) //C��7�'�C.^. � � ��-�,U. - l Na'ncy J. Bauer Deputy City Clerk C �� city of bloomington, minnesofia 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bioomington MN 55431-3096 • 952-563-8780 • FAX 952-5f�3-8754 • 7T1' 952-563-8740 �� _,ie L. Winstead Mayor August 9, 2000 Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28`� Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Deaz Mr. Fuhrma.nn: Mark Bernhardson City Manager Thank you for presenting updated information on Runway 17 departure procedures to the Bloomington City Council on August 7. As you heard, the City has been working with MAC for over two years to address operational procedures and controls for the 17/35 runway. In its June 1S, 1998 letter to Nigel Finney, the Bloomington City Council agreed with MAC to pursue three principles for departures on runway 17: �-.� "The City of Bloomington expects that the actual departure flight tracks and procedures _ for runway 17/3S will comply with the assum,�tions originally presented to the City of Bloomington by MAC, specifically: • all departures will stay east of TH77 until they reach the Minnesota Rzver; • the best available technolo�y (for example GPS) will be used to keep aircra, ft within designated corridors which mitigate noise impacts on residential areas; • a new runway use system which incorporates the lowest impact way to route early morning and late night operations will be devised to route these flights in corridors which entail the least residential impact. " In November 1998, Nigel Finney and John Himle, MAC Commissioner, spoke to the City Council on this issue. The City Council decided to accept MAC's offer to address "operational procedures and controls" for 17/35 departures during preparation of the Part 150 update based in part on a November 16, 1998 letter from Jeff Hamiel in which he stated, "I would suggest that this process be used to evaluate the westbound tracks for Runway 17-35 and tlie reduction in noise exposure associated with combining the westbound tracks. It is my expectation that this can be accomplished with mznimal capacity impact...As you know, the Part 1 SD Program must be reviewed and approved by FAA, however the FAA will generally defer to the recommendations of the airport operator unless safety would be compromised. The proposed flight track refrnement will not have adverse safety impacts, and I am confident that it will not have significant impact on airport capacity. " An Affirmative Action/Equai Opportunities Employer Roy Fuhrmann August 9, 2000 Page 2 Based on the November 16, 1998 presenta.tion to the City Council, Mayor Houle responded to Mr. Hamiel. In her November 17, 1998 letter, she stated, "After wezghing the options, including litigation, the Bloomington City Council decided to accept the offer expressed in your November 16, 19981etter ant� in the presentations at the Council meeting by MAC's Deputy Director Nigel Fznney and Commissioner John Himle. We accept your proposal to cooperate with MAC to address operational procedures and controls for 17/35 departures as part of a Part I50 Update. We understand that MAC s intent is to complete this Part 1 SO Update by February 2000. " The alternative called "2.5 nautical mile turn point" substantially achieves the objectives agreed in June 1998, although track G curves north over Bloomington residential areas beginning at the extension of Cedaz Avenue. MAC's projections indicate that on average, about 27 takeoffs per day will use this track with that "2.5 nautical mile turn point". The Ci of Bloomin on is committed to accomplishing principle number one — in which all � tY � departures (except turboprops) stay east of TH77 until they reach the Minnesota River: The City Council while understanding the need for the 2.5 nautical mile turn point when the 17/35 runway is at capacity and appreciative of both MAC and FAA's staff efforts to achieve this improvement over the previously proposed 2.2 nautical mile turn point, encourages MAC and the FAA to also develop a turning point farther from the runway than the 2.5 nautical mile alternative, perhaps at 2.7 nautical miles, even if this more distant tum point can be used only when runway 17/35 is not at capacity. Additionally, the Council strongly supports the development and implementation of the "River Departure Track" as presented at the August 7, 2000 Council meeting for use whenever feasible. The City Council and staff aze very appreciative of the efforts of both FAA Tower Chief Cindi Green and those of you and your staff to develop the alternative turn points and the river departure track as a means to fulfill the commitments made as part of the EIS process. The City Council also reafFirms its support for principle number two (use the best available technology to keep aircraft within corridors) and encourages MAC to introduce this technology and use it as soon as possible within the expected 3-5 year timeframe. The Council also continues its support of principle three, which is implementation of a runway use system to route early morning and late night operations in low impact corridors as part of the Part 150 revision currently being considered. _ �oy F,�n�� August 9, 2000 Page 3 The City Council does acknowledge and appreciate MAC's cooperation to mitigate impacts of runway 17/35. I hope and expect that MAC will continue to recognize Bloomington's cooperative approach to resolving problems associated with MSP's development by proposing mitigation consistent with our previous agree en�s. Sincerely, i � ' , /i Y� Gene Winstead Mayor /c cc: Jeff Hamiel, MAC ��.� � � Nigel Finney, MAC _ Coral Houle, MAC Commissioner Phil Riveness, Met Council C C ��V��s o� � J�TL,Y 25, Z000 s�.c �� . _ :- : .. _ - �, : . -a; ; , .�.. _ . ��: : ,, � fk , . � . ' � . �� . . ' . � .. �:r� , _ }i � i � �� ' _ t ?t'rt ' .j � r r _ r` : � f .� �' t t .11'- .. . {t��y.(��.7, �91 .' . �. ': " , :. � � '..' '. , .. ' � . ' , . �� .�. . . '. .. ' . i� .. ..� . . ,; ,: � . . . . .. . ._ : . �i ,,�. ...�. . „ :.,.. ... ... � ..:: .... ....:. . . . . .�..:,.. . �.�-.. _ ..:: .�i.. ...�' '. . ..�..�.� . �� .:.... � � . .'.." � . _ . .._ . _� ' ...,�.. .. - � ,. � .. � . . . : �. _. .. .. � � ::;,.' .:; . ., : �.�:.. .:. �: . . ... .. ...._ ..... ..�..: '.. .- .. . .. .. . . .�...�.,. .. . .. '.,. ... . .:��. . .. ... . .. .. .� . �.. . �. . ..,, ..: . . .. .:' , � . .� - . ... . . ' , � 4j .... .: . , -. . . - . , + ��i,��'� . _. '.� . ... , ,� ,.. : -. ...:. :..:�. ..' - ' 4' . . . .� ..� . . �.� ':'.. . ,� .�.�� .- �..� . . ..' ' ..:. . -�.:, . �. .:..'�., . '. -''�' .. � ' � tj . .. ...' .. .; '.. � . � . . ��. ' . .. �..' .�. - � . �' ...` '�� .. � ..,.:: ... i j . . .�. .'. . .:.� �t'-.� � - '�� . . . . . . � . . ' . . . . .. . . . _ l�: . . . . . . .... .. :._ . . . . � . ' : � . . . . . ..i: . ' . � . . . . ;.' . . . . � ' .�.:. .� ..... 4 }' . � •.� . � . . �� . ..' ' .. . . . � . .. . .. ..�4��'.'' METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING July 25, 2000 7:30 p.m. 6040 2$`h Avenue S. Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order. Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mertensotto at 7:40 p.m. The followin� members were in attendance: Charles Mertensotto, Chairman Mary Loeffelholz Jennifer Sayre Brian Simonson Bob Johnson Petrona Lee Chuck Thorkildson Lance Staricha Jill Smith Will Eginton Neil Clark Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Barret Lane Mike Cramer Joe Lee Steven Wolfe Jeff Bergom Kay Hatlestad John Halla Pam Dmytrenko Kristal Stokes Advisors Glen Orcutt Chad Leqve Mark Kill Shane VanderVoort Jason Giesen Mike Pedro Visitors Andv Pederson Mendota Heights Northwest Airlines Northwest Airlines DHL MBAA Bloomington Eagan Eagan Mendota Heights Inver Grove Heights Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis � Minneapolis St. Louis Park Burnsville Burnsville St. Paul Richfield Richfield FAA Technical Advisor MAC MAC MAC MAC Apple Valley ?. A�proval of Minutes The minutes of the June 27, 2000 MASAC meetin; were approved as distributed. � Introduction of Invited Guests There were no invited guests. Receipt of Communications There were no communications recognized. 4. MSP 2000 Construction Update Gary Warren, MAC Director of Airside Development, updated the members on the year 2000 construction projects. He noted that there is $500 million worth of construction under contract for 2000, which is 10 times the amount of previous years. North/South Runway • Construction of the new runway began in 1999. • Approximately $100 million worth of construction contracts are underway for the North/South runway project. s Construction has been concentrated on the north side of the runway with major utility and underground soil conection work. •� Lonafellow Avenue (Cedar Avenue frontage road) is under reconstruction and realignment. Theysouth third of Longfellow Avenue will be paved this �year, although it will not be available to the public, only construction traffic. • The infield pavement was laid in the spring, which will eventually be the FedEx1UPS ramp � area. • A tunnel that will go under runway 17/35 is also being constructed this year. MAC is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources regarding dewatering permits. The tunnel is a public access tunnel that will be double-barreled and have two lanes of traffic. • The MAC will be goin� in front of the watershed district next month. Details of the mitigation plan are currently being worked out. • The 17/35 tunnel is scheduled for completion in 2001. West Cargo Apron s Major utility and surface grading work is currently being done. o All paving north of the existin� south parallel runway should be complete in 2002. 66`�' Street Interchange - Phase 1 • Phase I improvements to the Cedar Avenue and 66`h Street interchange will begin in August 2000. • The project is being undertaken through an agreement between the City of Richfield, the MN Department of Transportation (MNDOT) and the MAC. • The intent is to eliminate the hook ramps and the non-standard geometrics and end up with a fully conventional, on/off interchange. � • The first project is to construct two on and off ramps on the east side of Cedar Avenue. e MNDOT will then add four lanes to the existing bridge section in order to double the capacrty. • Next year on and off ramps for the west side will be completed. Pavement Reconstruction Project e Over the last ten years, the apron pavements (circa 1960's) surrounding the gate areas have been reconstructed. The project is almost complete except for a small area between the red and gold concourses on the south side. This will be completed sometime after Labor Day this year. Green Concourse Apron Expansion • Paving of the Green Concourse apron expansion area continues. North Side Storm Sewer Project • This project involves construction of a 72-inch storm sewer to deal with a capacity problem on the north side of the airport and an 18-inch watermain to provide a continuous watermain loop around the terminal complex. • Next fall a new outlet will be constructed for the storm sewer on the north side, which will relieve some af the capacity constraints on the sewer system. ' Runway Reconstruction Projects o The middle sections of both the north and south parallel runways are being reconstructed. • A full reconstruction of these portions of the runways is not possible because it would require the runways to be shut down completely. o The work includes a mill and overlay. • The project is being completed during the nighitirne hours between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. • A majority of the work has been completed on both runways. • One runway at a time has been closed during the evening for the past 6 weeks to accommodate the work. � Temporary Extension ofthe South Parallel Runway and Taxiway • The project was rewarded in October of 1998 to Schafer Contracting. s The environmental assessment was signed off on in early 2000. • Construction is expected to begin in August 2000 and be completed next spring. o MAC and the City of Minneapolis have met to clarify the terms of the agreement for the use of the extension. It will only be used for one year - 2001- and will only be used for departures of heavy aircraft on days when it is needed. The arrival threshold will remain the same for all aircraft. • Minimal use of the extension is eYpected. 12R Deicing Pad • Due to problems with access to the site, the 12R deicing pad will not be built this year as - planned. The MAC is negotiating with the Navy for access to the site. Sozrth Side Storm Sewer Project • In concert with the runway 17/35 program, a major storm sewer project is also underway on the south side of the airport. • The area being impacted is between 24`h and 34`h Avenue. e The project will not require closing the frontage road between these two streets, but will require some realignment of the roadways to accommodate the project. Two lanes of traffic will be open at all times. Storm Setive�- Ponds � � o Construction of a new series of storm water ponds on the east side of the airport is scheduled - for next year to add capacity for runway 17/35 storm water runoff. 3 o The ponds will also give the DOT ponding and water quality alternatives for �vhen hiahway 494 is expanded in approximately 10 to 15 years. • The MAC is working with the watershed district on the plans. � � Hz�mphrey Terminal Hvdra�zt Fueling Svstem • The new Humphrey Terminal is scheduled to open May 2, 2001. • A hydrant fueling system is being constructed in conjunction with the Humphrey Terminal construction project. Light Rail Line Tunnel . o Bids for the construction of two tunnels - one on the north side and one on the south side - will be opened August 29, 2000. • The tunnels will be 70 feet deep and 22 feet in diameter. • The tunnel construction is expected to be completed in early 2004. Discussion Mike Cramer, Minneapolis, clarified that the temporary south parallel runway extension would only be used for departures and that the arrival threshold would not change. Chairman Nlertensotto asked if the storm sewer ponds were being constructed in order to collect the runway deicina chemicals. Gary Warren, MAC, said the ponds are being constructed to provide inert standards for water quality. He noted that any discharge from the ponds would be monitored through the airport's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit. He also noted that the airlines' glycol deicing fluid would be part of that elimination but that the airport is able to capture much of that fluid before it is discharged through the use of deicing pads and a p1uQ and pump system. �/ Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked when the middle sections of the parallel runways would be permanently reconstructed. Gary Warren, MAC, said there is no specific schedule for reconstructinQ the middle sections, but that it would have to be done after runway 17/35 is operational. lYlr. Eginton asked about the dimensions of the reconstructed areas of the runways. Mr. Warren said the dimension of the north parallel reconstruction area is 150' wide by 2,800' long and the south parallel runway reconstruction area is 200' wide and 3,400' long. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if Duck Lake still existed on airport property. Gary Warren, MAC, said that Duck Lake has been filled in, but that soil work will continue through August. Mr. Lindberg also asked about the runway 4/22 tunnel construction project. Mr. Warren said the schedule for work on the 4/22 tunnel is not set at this point. There was a discussion regarding the jurisdictional boundaries of the Lower Minnesota Watershed District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district on airport properEy. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked if there were plans for water quality control measures for the discharQe from the north side storm sewer. Gary Warren, MAC, said currently there is a 66- inch storm sewer pipe that goes under highway 5 and into a water quality pond. He said the MAC is hopinQ to be able to work with the existing storm sewer and water quality ponds at this point. _ (.. Ms. Smith also asked about the 66`h street interchange project. She asked why the capacity of the interchange needed to be increased. Gary Warren, MAC, said the MAC, in concert with MNDOT and the City of Richfield, performed engineering studies for that interchange over a 1 1/2 year time span in order to determine the projected traffic demands for that area. He said initially they thought the entire interchange, including the bridge section, would have to be reconstructed due to expected tra�c demands. He explained that if the interchange were to be left as is, by the time runway 17/35 opened the interchange would provide a very low level of service. He said, too, that if Richfield were to redevelop the area around the interchange, service would come to a halt. So it was determined that the interchange needed to be upgraded and the geometrics of the on and off ramps (currently unsafe hook ramps) needed to be changed. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked if the issue of parking capacity at Building C in conjunction with the south side storm sewer project had been resolved. Gary Warren, MAC, said the issue has been resolved. He said phasing plans for the project mean that the number of parking spots taken out at one time has been limited. Ms. Loeffelholz also asked ahout how the road reconstruction is expected to irnpact Building C. Mr. Warren said that Building C's parking would be left complete with the road reconstruction. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked how the delay in the runway 4/22 tunnel would affect Northwest's ability to fly extended range aircraft at that time since the south parallel runway extension can only be used for one season. Gary Warren, MAC, said Northwest Airlines is aware that they will not be able to use the south parallel extension but believe by 2004 they will be able to upgrade their fleet enough to be able to use the available runway length. He said Northwest Airlines is aware that they may have to take a weight penalty, as well. Mr. Warren said he had also brought information about MAC's plans for acquiring the Bureau of Mines (BOM) property and presented an illustration of where the BOM property is in regards � � to the runway 04/22 protection zone (RPZ). He also explained that the sfate's runway zoning area, referred to as Zone A, extends 2,500 feet from the end of the runway and encompasses a larger portion of the BOM property. He explained that although a small portion of the properly (approximately 9 acres} to the south is outside the two zones the entire property is being purchased. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked what the difference is between an 'A' and a'B' Zone and what the MAC's plans are for the 9 acres outside the two zones explained above. Mr. Warren said Zone A does not allow any structures. He said MAC will be demolishing all structures within this zone on the BOM property. Zone 'A' does, however, allow surface uses but not parking lots. Zone B has density requirements (three dwellings per acre) and allows some structure types. Mr. Warren also said the Metropolitan Airports Commission, through the purchase agreement with the City of Minneapolis, has the authority to decide whether or not to or how to use the 9 acres outside the RPZ and state protection zones. He said he did not know how that area may or may not be used. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if the FAA would be reimbursing the MAC for all or a portion of the purchase price of the BOM property since it is within the RPZ and whether or not the buildings could be spared if the FAA were not to reimburse the MAC. Gary Warren, MAC, said the FAA gives high funding priority for the acquisition of property to protect runway approach protection zones and that it is possible the MAC could be reimbursed for some of the purchase price. However, regardless of the FAA's possible funding, the buildings within the RPZ must be demolished according to zoning criteria. 5 Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, asked why the MAC needs to purchase the BOM property now. Gary Warren, MAC, said MAC is acquiring the property now because 1) a 1,000 faot extension to runway 04/22 to the north will be built expandin� the RPZ and 2) the property is � now up for sale. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked how many aircraft per day are expected to be diverted to the south parallel runway in order to use the extension in 2001. Gary Warren, MAC, said, and Jennifer Sayre, NWA, concurred that approxirnately four (4) to six (6) operations per day will be diverted. Part 150 U�date - Fleet Mix Considerations and GPS/Future Technolo�v Considerations Fleet Mix Considerations Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the members on the Operations Committee's discussion and recommendation for the Part 150 Update's fleet mix options. The following points were made: • The best way to reduce noise impacts through the fleet mix at MSP is to reduce the number of hushkitted aircraft operations. o Two examples were given of how total replacement of hushkitted aircraft operations either during the whole day or during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) would affect the contour and the number of people within it. • If hushkit operations could be eliminated from the nighttime hours, approximately 21,390 people wouId be eliminated from the unmitigated contour. • If hushkit operations could be eliminated altogether, approxirriately 31,810 people would be eliminated from the unmitigated contour. • However, there are limited options for imposing restrictions on hushkit aircraft operations at � the local level. � • Mandatory reductions in hushkit aircraft operations at MSP would require a Part 161 study, which, based on historical information, has little or no chance of being successful. (Certain criteria must be met and it is difficult to impose restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft.) • Also, aircraft manufacturers are not equipped to produce the number of aircraft that would be needed to replace all hushkitted aircraft in a timely fashion. • Mandatory reductions or elimination of hushkitted aircraft would also have an adverse economic impact on the carriers and associated industries. (Part 161 requires the airport to prove no adverse economic impacts to the carriers.) Other alternatives for reducing the use of hushkit aircraft operations at MSP were then analyzed. Moving some of the nighttime operations into the daytime, thereby compressing the schedule, proved not to be feasible. A SIM1L10D analysis showed that the airport wozrld not be able to operate under these conditions and would cost Northwest Airlines alone �8 to $10 million a year. Replacing hushkitted aircraft for manufactured Stage 3 aircraft during the nighttime hours would not offset by the noise reduction benefits (the number of homes taken out of the contour would be minimal with the elimination of all NWA hushkitted nighttime operations). Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, explained that Northwest Airlines' share of the nighttime operations is so small that the effect of replacing their hushkitted aircraft with manufactured Stage 3 aircraft at night would be miniscule. � e The noise benefits (reduction of number of homes in contour) of replacin� hushkitted aircraft with manufactured Stage 3 aircraft do not offset the costs of replacement. It was noted that it would cost $65+ billion to replace all of the hushkitted aircraft operatin� in the United States. Discussions with MSP airlines showed that a number of airlines are planninQ to phase-out or replace their hushkitted aircraft. But, it is important not to rely on these projected plans as part of the Part 150 Update fleet mix since reducing the number of hushkitted aircraft in the 2005 fleet mix could unduly reduce the size of the contour without any guarantee that the hushkit reduction will take place. Operations Committee Recommendation Institute a Voluntary Nighttime Ag-reement with the airlines at MSP to reduce the use of hushkit aircraft at night. The components of such an agreement would be: Airline voluntarily agrees not to operate or schedule hushkit aircraft during the nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m. Exceptions would be permitted for emergencies, mechanical problems, ATC delays and weather. The agreement would be similar to the previous voluntary agreement, which reduced the percentage of Stage 2 aircraft operations at night. Mr. Leqve noted that the current voluntary nighttime ab eement had a demonstrated positive effect when it was first implemented. NOTE: DUE TO T�-IE SEVERE WEATHER SIRENS GOING OFF, THE MEETING WAS � MOVED INSIDE THE GENERAL OFFICES OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS � � COMMIS5ION AT APPROXIMATELY 8:45 P.M. AFTER A SHORT RECESS, THE � MEETING RESUMED AT 9:00 P.M. IN THE BASEMENT OF THE BUILDING. Members continued their discussion of the Operations Committee's recommendation to implement a Voluntary Nighttime Agreement that would reduce the number of hushkitted aircraft operations. Petrona Lee, Bloomington, asked what .incentives the airlines have for phasing out their hushkitted aircraft. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said it is difficult to institute mandatory rules regulating aircraft-type operations on a local level because rules made at the national level dictate what is possible at the local level. He said work cunently being done on a national level in determining Stage 4 standards is important to what will happen in the future at MSP and airports around the country. He noted, too, that ICAO plans to have published Stage 4 standards by June 2001. He said once the standards for Sta�e 4 aircraft are set, a reasonable phase-out schedule can be established for both hushkit and manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. He aiso explained that since MSP, along with other airports, is a public use facility and uses federal monies for airport improvements, it is subject to federal regulation and thus local regulation is very difficult to achieve. Chairman Mertensotto said he was concerned that the language included in the recommendation did not go far enough in encouraging airlines to either replace their hushkitted aircraft or to keep hushkitted aircraft out of the nighttime hours. After further discussion, a motion was made. BARRET LANE, MINNEAPOLIS, MOVED AND PETRONA LEE, BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED TO MODIFY THE EXISTING NIGHTTIME AGREEMENT TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING: AIRLINES AT MSP WOULD BE ASKED TO VOLUNTARILY AGREE NOT TO SCHEDULE FLIGHTS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:30 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M. BUT IF THEY MUST DO SO THAT THEY NOT OPERATE OR SCHEDULE HUSHKIT AIRCRAFT, TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY AND TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, DURING THAT TIMEFRAME. THE AGREEMENT WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE PERMITTED FOR EMERGENCIES, MECHANICAL PROBLEMS, ATC DELAYS AND WEATHER. FURTHERMORE, T�IAT THE AGREEMENT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PART 1S0 UPDATE. THE MOTION PASSED 10 TO 3. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked if the level of operations included in the 2005 Part 150 Update would continue to be 575,000 operations. He said he was concerned that it may be too low. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, confirmed that the annual operations of 575,000 still represents projected numbers and will continue to be used as part of the Part 150 Update. GPS/Future Technology Considerations Andy Harris, HMMH, briefed the members on the MSP GPS Technology Study. He said the purpose of developing a GPS plan now is to make sure that when the technology becomes widely available the benefits also become available. What's Happening with GPS Today • The best precision GPS is now available to all users (previously it was only available to the military with a degraded sib al available for all other users). ( • The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is experiencing a delay in its development and implementation schedule. • The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) is moving ahead at an accelerated pace. • MSP will soon replace its Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with a higher precision system (LAAS). • The signal precision has improved from 100 meters horizontally and vertically to between .16 and .20 meters horizontally and .25 meters vertically. What are the Potential Benefzts of GPS • It allows for precise location knowledge. • It will ultimately supplement the radar system now in place. • It will reduce the amount of communication (talkin�) between the pilot and the air traffic system. • It will eventually allow for curved approaches, although not within 2-3 miles of the airport. What are the Barriers for Implementation • Absence of an FAA implementation policy. • Although the newest aircraft are able to make the best use of the technology, it is aiso the most expensive to make it available on these aircraft. • Some of the current noise mitigation procedures at airports today will not be able to be duplicated using GPS technology because GPS operates under different rules for the development of procedures. (,. PETRONA LEE, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND BARRET LANE, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION � THAT THE PART 150 UPDATE INCLUDE THE EXPLORATION OF GPS AND FMS TECI3NOLOGY TO EVALUATE EXISTING AND PROPOSED NOISE MITIGATION PROCEDURES AS A FUTURE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURE. Report of the Jul� 14 2000 Operations Committee Meetin� Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, reported on the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. He reported that the Committee had discussed fleet mix considerations, GPS/FMS future technology considerations and the runway 17 depariure flight tracks. He noted that a decision regarding the runway 17 depariure flight tracks will be made at the August 1 l, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. 7. Re�ort of the July 12 2000 Communications Advisorv Board Meetin� Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, briefed the Council on the July 12, 2000 Communications Advisory Board meeting. He noted that the topics for the fourth quarter issue had been identified. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, suggested, and Mr. Leqve agreed, that in addition to topics identified at the meeting an article on Northwest Airlines' accelerated schedule for phasing out their 727 aircraft should be included in the next issue. It was reported that there are approximately 3,900 people on the MASAC News mailin� list. � 8. Report of the MAC Commission Meetina Chairman Mertensotto reported on the July 17, 2000 MAC Commission meeting. The following items were mentioned: There was significant discussion regarding the detwatering permits for the runway 17/35 tunnel. John Ash of Global Aviation Associates reported his findings on the effects of a merger between Northwest Airlines and American Airlines on MSP's aviation services. Chairman Mertensotto said the MAC Commission had taken the position against the merger because it is not in the best interest of MAC or its customers. He also reported that there are no plans to change the MSP 2010 impcovement plans. Technical Advisor's Report Due to the late hour, there was no report of the June 2000 Technical Advisor's Report. 10. Persons WishinQ to Address the Council Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about the timeline for the submittal of the Part 1�0 Update document to the FAA. Chad Leqve, Technical Advisor, said the plan is to have a draft of the document completed by early September with a public hearing in early October. The final submittal is planned for early January, 2001. 11. Items Not on the Asenda There were no additional items. 12. Adjournment Chairman Mertensotto adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary m � ' C i � � •'�' � • � : � � � u�_� �� • � � �� '�G� _ : . �ZI.NUTES t�F 'I'HE AUGUST 11, 20001VIASA.0 .: OPERATI(� , . , : NS CO1��IVIITTEE IVIEETIl�TG ' ;: _ �. , .. : . __ .. : . . , �. -: WILL BE AVAII�ABI�E AT TIEI]E AUG�.TST 22, 20001Vi. > ., li�iEETING � _ _ r� . : . � : ,,:. , . : ... - : . .... , , . ;. .. . , . . _ . . ; ,:. .. . , : _ __,. ..: . ,: , �: , �- : ` = � , ; ;: �� t - , : . . :. . . , , �: � ' - � � - _ i . - .:- `: �< _ � '. •;: ` . . . .._ _ - - , . . .; . . ;.: . � , . - : ;- - <: .. : . ; . . . , ;: ; ,, t _ - _ - ' t �T� � � .. �^1 �% �.i -� . .. � . . . � , . , � � �� _ . � � . � � . . . , :. h, � �. .. J y' ... . . , ., .. ". . . •' .. ..:.. ... ....�. .. . . . . •., _ �., . .. . .. ". .. . . . . -�.. .� .• �ir J ._. � , . �...-' ' ��". .� ._ _.:��. ,. . ��.. . �.: . _...�:.�-' ._. .i,�, . - ' � ,:�! i.� . � •._ � .� } � 1 _� � � 1 - - _ Y . . . .. � .. . . . - _ _ 7 . . .., . . . .�. . . . - .. . . . . . . � . . . - .. . ... . ' ' ' '.:... . . . . � . � . .- . ...' �: ' ... . . �. . , . . . . . . . . . �.. . . � .... ,. . .� . ' . . ... �. . � '. . . . . . ' . .. ... . . . . .. . . . � . . . , . . . . . _ . . . . .. . ... .. , ... . ., � . .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . . , . .. �� APPROVED M I N U T E S NL�SAC OPERATIONS COMIYIITTEE July 14, Z000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson called the meetinj to order and the roll was taken. The followin� members �vere in attendance: i�Iembers• John Nelson, Interim Chair Kevin Batchelder Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbru�ge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• - Chad Leqve � ) Jason Giesen Shane VanderVoort Mark Ryan Joe Harris Cindy Greene Glenn Orcutt Visitors• Kim Hughes Kent Duffey Andrew Harris Robert Miller Richard Hinz Andy Pederson Patrick Hollister Glenn Strand Jan DelCalzo Paul Teske Bloomington l�rlendota Heights Minneapolis MBAA Eagan NWA I�IAC MAC MAC MAC MA.0 MAC FAA FAA Ii�N'I`B F3NTB HIVIlVg3 �IlVIlVII3 NWA Apple Valley Mendota Heights IVlinneapolis City of Minneapolis Resident of Eagan AGENDA Chairman Nelson noted that Kevin Batchelder was leaving his position with the City of ivlendota HeiQhts and movinQ to Colorado and recognized Patrick Hollister as Mendota Heights' interim 1 representative at the IvLA.SAC Operations Committee. Chairman Nelson also directed staff to draft a j letter of commendation for 1VIr. Batchelder's service on the IVIASAC Operations Corrunittee. ` Receipt of Communications There were no communications. Introduction of Invited Guests l�Iary Loeffelholz, NWA, introduced i�Ir. Richard Hinz of Northwest Airlines' aircraft fliaht crew. Approval of i�Linutes The minutes of the June 9, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. Special MASAC Operations Comnaittee Nleeting Chairman Nelson directed the members' attention to the first staff inemo re2arding the addition of a Special Operations Committee meeting scheduled for July 28, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Nelson asked if there were any scheduling conflicts for this special meeting. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said both she and Jennifer Sayre, NWA, have scheduling conflicts. She said she would attempt to reschedule her other appointrnent in order to make the meeting. Chairman Nelson said he would not be able to attend the meeting, as well. In his absence, he said staff would ask Charles 1�Iertensotto, Chairman of MASAC, to chair the meeting. If Chairman Mertensotto is unable to chair the meeting, Bob Johnson, MBAA, would chair the meeting and if Mr. Johnson is unable to chair, Roy Fuhrmann, . i�IAC, would chair the meeting. . � Part 150 Update Progress Report � Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a brief progress report on the Part 1�0 Update. He noted that the topics for � the special July 28, 2000 meeting would be the sound insulation package options, the contour boundary definition, and the multi- and single-family priorities. He said a draft Part 150 Update should be completed by late Au�ust with a public hearing set for late September or early October. The final report is expected to be completed and submitted by December or January 2001. Runway 17 Departure Flight Tracks Kent Duffey, HNTB, gave a brief presentation on the history of the Runway 17 deparhire track discussions and decisions to date. He noted that at the June 9, 2000 Operations Committee meeting the FAA had e:cpressed concerns about- the method used to define the western flight track turn points necessary to keep aircraft along a route that impacts the fewest people. �Ie said since that meeting, HNT'B, the FAA and the MA.0 have worked to establish a procedure that is acceptable to the FA.A and that maintains the intent of the committee's recommendation. l�Ir. Duffey reminded the members that flight tracks are estimates based on typical destinations and ATC routing procedures and that the FEIS flight tracks represent the best information available at the time. iYLr. Duffey also noted that: Dispersion off each track should be expected. The use of ANONIS, AutoCAD and GIS software has allowed more precise development of projected flight tracks. The Inte�ated Noise Model (IN�NI) now also has the ability to model dispersed flight tracks. The increase in usage of high-performance aircraft means that aircraft are talang off at shorter distances, ciimbing higher, and ultimately turning sooner than what was modeled in the EIS. l�Ir. Duffey said, in light of continuing discussions with ATC and the carriers, some changes have been made in regards to runway 17, including: Change in flight tracks due to the earlier turns that can be e:cpected with the new high-performance aircraft. Some propeller aircraft in the projected fleet mix have been replaced with reb onal jet aircraft. These changes have resulted in a chanje in the unmitigated 2005 contour and the ultimate number of people includecl in it. When these changes are applied, appro�cimately 2,870 people are added to the 60+ unmitigated contour (new contour vs. Nlarch 2000 contour). (A graphic depicting both the l�Iarch 2000 and July 2000 Unmitigated contours was presented.) iY1r. Duffey then reviewed the goals of the runway 17 deparhire flight track analysis and explained the concerns the FAA had with the use of one DNfE turn point in addition to a second turn point used in the initial analysis. i ) Turn Point Alternatives Mr. Duffey explained the three turn point alternatives for westbound aircraft. For each alternative, the aircraft would be given a 170° (straight out) heading and then be turned on their assigned heading at a specified distance from start of take off roll. The three distances analyzed were 1.7 miles, 2.2 miles and 2.7 miles from start of take off roll. The 22-mile turn point alternative was detetmined to be the alternative closest to the initial analysis. The following reasons were given for this detemunation: •. It reduces the impact within the 60+ DNL. contour, while avoiding increased overflights of other � communities. • It is simple and easy to implement. • It maintains the intent of the Comrnittee's original recommendation (105° hybrid fan). • West bound aircraft will be at a slightly higher altitude than the original recommendation (105° hybrid fan) before turning over populated areas. • It allows for future transition to GPS/FyIS navigation. A�aphic showing the contours associated with each turn point alternative was presented. The 2.2-mile turn point alternative, like the previous recommendation; reduces overall runway capacity by 3-4 departures per hour but is still within the runway's projected capacity as outlined in the FEIS. Overall, the use of the 2.2-mile turn point alternative would eliminate approximately 13,900 people from 3 the July 2000 unmiti,;ated 200� 60+ DNL contour. With this alternative, an addirional 510 people are � eliminated from the contour compared with the original recommendarion (10�° hybrid fan). It was also recommended that a river departure procedure be developed usin� e:cisring technolosy, for use durin� low demand periods. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked how the northern movement of the 095° flight track �vould affect departures off runways 12R/12L. He said he was concerned that the 09�° flight irack, which now crosses into the path of flights departing off runway � 12R/12L, would interfere with departures on the south parallel runway and would therefore force additional flights onto the north parallel runway. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the new 095° fli�ht track crosses into the 12L/12R contour after the 3-mile mark of the corridor. Cindy Greene, FAA, said interactions with the 095° track should not affect runway choice for either the north or south parallel runway because runway choice decisions would be made prior to kno�ving whether there would be a departure scheduled for runway 17 at the same time. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, clarified with the consultants that the reduced capacity for runway 17 associated with the 2.2-mile tum point alternarive was no different than what was projected for the ori�inal recommenda.rion, and that the overall capacity of the runway was still within the projected capacity listed in the EIS. Cindy Greene, FAA, noted that the projected capacity reduction would only affect the user (airlines) with possible time delays but would not change the runway use system (RUS) percentajes. Chairman Nelson asked �r. Duffey to explain the reason for the northerly shift of track A(095°). il�Ir. Duffey said the track shifted north due to better modeling of expected turn rates. He esplained that the newer technolo�y aircraft are able to climb faster and turn sooner than what was projected in the EIS. CI He noted that information regarding turn rates for all the other runways was gleaned from the ANOMS data and that data was now being used to predict turn rates for nuzway 17. Jamie Verbru�ge, Ea;an, asked whether or not it could be predicted how often the 095° headin� would not be used because of subsequent departures off of the 12's. Cindy Greene, FAA, said there was no way to predict because it would depend on what other activities are occurring at the airport. She said, however, that if aircraft were landing on the 30's, ATC would not use the 095° heading for departures off runway 17 due to the interaction with arriving traffic on the 30's. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted, too, that the RUS percenta;es would not change with the location change of the 095° flight track. Chairman iVelson asked why tracks H and I were included in the mitigated flight tracks and not in the unmitigated. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the H and I flight tracks were part of the 105° hybrid recommendation and have always been part of the mitigated modeling. Chairman Nelson then asked about fli�ht tracks F and G, west of runway I7 centerline. He noted that both tracks aie also now modeled at a more northerly location. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the tracks are further north because it is expected, and thus was modeled, that aircraft will be able to tum sooner than what was previously projected. Chairman Nelson said the City of Bloomington is very concerned about the more northerly tracking of tracks F and G and asked if there were any other possibilities for moving the tracks further south closer � 0 ' to the original recommendarion (105° hybrid - May 2000). i�Ir. Duffey said several turn point distances were analyzed and the 2.2-mile tum point was chosen because it represented a balance between providing noise miri;ation for Bloomington and not increasina aircraft noise exposure over other communities further to the south. _ Chairman Nelson asked if it would be possible to look at a location between the 2.2 and 2.7-mile tzu-n point alternatives. Cindy Greene, FAA, said tum point locations between these two points have already been analyzed and that the FAA feels the 2.2-mile turn point is as far out as they would be comfortable turning aircraft. IYIs. Greene said the FAA balanced their safety, runway capacity and user impact concerns with their desire to be noise friendly and feels the 2.2-mile alternative is the best compromise. Chairman Nelson asked if there were any other possibilities for reducing the impacts over the more residential areas of Bloomind on. Kent Duffey, HN�IB, noted that the new recommendatiori includes the development of a low-demand river departure procedure using esisting technology. He said other than this he had no other suggestions. Cindy Greene, FAA, also noted that when aircraft are arriving on the 12's, ATC will not be able to utilize the 285° heading for departures off runway 17, which will reduce the amount of time that the 285° heading is used. Chairman Nelson sugaested that the runway 17 departure flight track analysis be held over for further study and review by the interested parties' (city councils and cominissions) and then taken up and completed at the Au�ust 11, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. Chairman Nelson also asked the staff and consultants to continue to explore other potenrial alternatives that would accomplish further noise mitigation. He said if no other alternative can be found, then he would like to see a"bundling° of other mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts, such as fleet mix restrictions, low demand flight tracks and the placement of turbo prop and regional jet aircraft flights. He suggested that these, along with a river track departure procedure, be pursued in arder to further reduce the impacts on residents in Bloomington. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the original recommendation of a 105° hybrid fan, which was presented to the public in May, would be changed. Chairman Neison said that was correct and noted that the issue of the runway 17 departure flight tracks have not been presented to MA.SAC for a vote. He also noted that the reason for the changes was because the FA.A felt it could not implement the ori�inal recommendation that essentially included two turn points. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said he felt the additional analysis requested could be completed by the July 28, 2000 meeting and could be presented at that time, which will give the cities two weeks to review the information before the August 1 l, 2000 meeting. Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she did not understand the need for additional analysis. She said it seemed to her that all of the analyses and information had already been presented but agreed that the cities may want the time to review what had been presented. Chairman Nelson said the City of Bloomington feels the recommendarion as presented represents insufficient mitigation and wants to be sure all possibilities are exhausted. He said� he recognizes that the recommendation may not change. Roy Fuhrmann, �fAC, said the reason he feels comfortable bringing a final recommendation to the July 28`� meeting is because the consultants, staff and the FA.A have thoroughly analyzed the possibiliries and � it should not be di�cult to put together a comprehensive recommendation at that time. Jamie Verbrugae, Eagan, said he supported Chairman Nelson's recommendarion and posed the question as to whether additional public workshops need to be held in light of the new iriformation. He said residents will be upset if what they were presented in May is chan�ed without the ability to comment. He said he highly recommended having an additional workshop. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND JAiYLCE VERBRUGGE, EAGAs�t, SECONDED TO FORWARD T'HE RUNWAY 17 DEPART'URE TRACK AlYALYSIS AS A STUDY IT'ENI TO BE PRESENTED A1YD DISCUSSED AT T'� AUGUST 28, Z000 SPECIAL OPERATIONS CCiMIVIITTEE MEETING AND AS AN ACTION ITE11�1 FOR THE AUGUST 11, 2000 OPERATIONS COlY1MITTEE I�LEETTi�tG. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOT'E. Fleet NIix Alternatives Kent Duffey, HNTB, reviewed the two scenarios of eliminating all hushkit aircraft operations at MSP or eliminating all hushkit aireraft operations during the nighttime hours at MSP. He noted that for several reasons neither of these alternatives is viable. He said there are limited options for imposing restrictions at the local level on hushkit aircraft operations due to: A Part 161 Study would be required, with little chance of successful implementation. Manufacturers would be unable to produce the number of aircraft needed to provide for an all manufactured Stage 3 fleet. ( There would be adverse economic impact to the cazriers and associated industries if a mandatory no hushkit operations rule were to be applied. Therefore, alternatives for reducing the use of hushkit aircraft have been analyzed with the assistance of the carriers at MSP. Moving some nighttime operations into the daytime hours was analyzed using SlIVIl�ZOD - it was determined that this schedule shift would not be feasible. Accelerating aircraft purchases - it was determined that the noise benefits of buying new aircraft would not offset the costs of purchasing new aircraft (i.e. the reduction in the number of homes within the contour and the associated costs for sound insulation would not make up for the cost of purchasing new aircraft amortized over time). iY1r. Duffey noted that, although the airlines' plans for purchasing new aircraft in the future shows promise, it would be difficult to precisely estimate the number of new aircraft purchases. Therefore, these estimates should not be used for generating the contours. Recommendation The recommendation from the staff and the consultants is to institute a voluntary nighttime agreement with the carriers, much like the previous agreement for Stage 2 aircraft operations. The agreement would state that: C� • The airline agrees not to operate or schedule hushkit aircraft during the nightrime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 am. • Exceptions are permitted for emergencies, mechanical problems, ATC delays and weather. Discussion Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked why it was so di�cult to ensure 6 to 8 nighttime operations, for NWA, are manufactured Sta�e 3 aircraft. i�1ary Loeffelholz, NWA, said NWA estimates that it would cost the carrier $8 to $10 million per year to swap hushlatted aircraft with manufactured Staae 3 aircraft during the shoulder hours. She said NWA should be able to work within the 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. timeframe but that eliminating hushkit operations before 10:30 p.m. and after 6:00 a.m. would be impossible for the carrier. She also noted that NWA is not the most si�ificant contribu�or to nighttime operations at MSP. Jan DelCalzo, City of Miiuleapolis; said she was disappointed that the alternatives discussed previously had not come to fruition. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said NWA had hoped that a compressed schedule would have worked but that a SIlVIlVIOD analysis has shown that the airport could not run with a compressed schedule. She said, also, that shifting aircraft around to take all hushkitted aircraft out of the 10 to 7 timeframe resulted in an$8 to �10 million cost increase with no appreciable change in the contour. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, also asked which carriers have the most significant impact on the contour for nighttime operations. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said the cargo carriers have more of an effect on �" � the contour because they operate primarily during the nighttime hours. He also noted that because of the -' physical location of the cargo facilities, many of the flights are concentrated on the south parallel runway whereas NWA usually uses the north parallel runway. He said this type of split is common throughout the day but is more pronounced at night because the major carrier does not operate during the nighttime hours as it does during the day. He noted, too, that some cargo carriers have all hushkitted fleets. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted, too, that there are significant numbers of operations during the 5:45 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and the 10:00 to 10:30 p.m. timeframes, which is the timeframe that affects the ni�httime contour the most. He said there, simply is not enough manufactured Stage 3 aircraft to fill those time slots. 1VIr. Fuhrmann also noted thafbecause of the nature of the cargo carriers' business, they must operate at night and thus completing a successful Part 161, which would unduly restrict their businesses, is unlikely. He said that the cargo operations during the nighttime hours typically make up a little less than 50% of the total niehttime operarions. Gienn Strand, Minneapolis, noted that the reduction or elimination of hushkit aircraft operations was the most significant noise mitigation measure discussed thus far and expressed concern that there had not been sufficient evidence presenfed or discussion regarding the inability of the airlines to reduce or eliminate their hushldtted fleet. He also suggested that the conclusion that a Part 161 could not be successfully completed at MSP should be investigated further. Chairman Nelson noted that 1�Iike Mahoney of Northwest Airlines at the May Operations Committee meeting had discussed and explained in detail the reasons for the airline's inability to replace their hushkitted aircraft with manufactured Sta�e 7 3 aircraft. Roy Fuhrmann, IvLA:C, again noted that even if the airline was financially able to replace all of its hushkitted aircra.ft with new Stage 3 aircraft the manufacturers have indicated that they would not be able to produce the number of aircraft needed. 1�Ir. Fuhrmann also noted that the cost to NWA to _ replace all their hushkitted aircraft would be approximately �4.5 to $4.6 billion (173 DC9Q aircrafr x �32 million for an A320 or A319). � Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked if there had been any discussion on establishing incentives or disincenrives to replace the hushldtted aircraft and suggested that there be discussion on this subject. He also said he did not believe that a voluntary agreement would work because the airlines would have no incentive to abide by it. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked Roy Fuhrmann; MAC, how well the Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreement had worked. NIr. Fuhrmann said the Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary A�eement was very successful in reducing the number of Stage 2 aircraft opera.ting at niQht. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked for more information as to why a compressed schedule �vas deemed impossible, as well as for an estimate as to how much it would cost and how long it would take to conduct a Part l61 study. Kent Duffey, HNTB, said a compressed schedule would result in delays during the peak hours at the airport. I3e said at this time there is time between the "banks" but when the schedule is compressed, the banks begin to overlap causing capacity constraints and delays. Bob �Iiller, HN�IH, said in their experience a Part 161 can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $4 million, depending on the complexity of the study. The more complex the study is the longer it would take. He noted that their San Francisco study had cost between $500,000 and $600,000 and took less than a year. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted the expected change in the number of cargo and passenger �+ operations beriveen 1999 and 2005. He said the number of nighttime flights is expected to �ow from 48,000 in 1999 to 76,000 in 200� with cargo operations expected to �ow from 2,000 to $,000 durin� the same time period. He also noted that the predominant passenger aircraft flying at night in 200� will be the hushldtted DC9 and that the largest number of cargo flights at night will be flown using DCS-6 hushed aircraft. Mr. Saunders said he was concerned that the number of nighttime flights represented in the projected fleet mix did not represent the number of "renegade" flights - flights that are not scheduled during the nighttime hours but are forced, for one reason or another, to operate during those hours. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said these so-called "renegade" flights are factored into the projections using existing ANOMS data. He also reminded Mr. Saunders that the projected nighttime fleet mi�c and aircraft operation levels he quoted were from the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. timeframe and not the 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. timeframe that is used at MSP to define nighttime hours. He also noted that the DC8-6 is a hushkitted aircraft but the DC8-7 is a re-engined aircraft that has an A320 engine. Chairman Nelson recapped the discussions regarding the fleet mix alternatives to date. .He said the question for the Operations Comrrlittee is whether or not an ag�essive timetable for the phaseout of hushkitted aircraft at MSP should be included as part of the fleet mix considerations and whether there should be a voluntary niahttime a�eement between the hours of 10:30 to 6:00 for hushldtted aircraft. Chairman Nelson then confirmed with l�Iary Loeffelholz that Northwest Airlines plans to phase out its Boeina 727 fleet over the neXt two to three years. He also confirmed that within the next 7 to 9 years Northr,vest Airlines will begin phasing out its DC9 hushed aircraft over a 7 to 10 year timeframe. C E:, Chairman Nelson said he also felt that the Operarions Committee should pursue discussions reQarding possible incenrives/disincentives for the airlines to reduce or eliminate hushldt operations and noted that _ a presentation of the FAA's Part 161 was on the agenda for October. Chairman Nelson said in the meantime, he feels MA.SAC should pursue a Nighttime Voluntary A�'eement with the carriers at NISP. Chairman Nelson commented that in the previous Part 150 Update the FAA rejected mandatory restricrions on nighttime Stage 2 operations and would likely not approve any mandatory restrictions on hushkitted aircraft operations, as well. He noted, however, that the FA.A did approve and endorse a voluntary program. He also noted that there aze other mechanisms outside a Part 150 Update, such as a Part 161, that can and should be explored. JOH'�i t NELSON, BLOOi�IINGTON, NIOVED AND BOB JOH'�Ti SON, NIBAA, SECONDED TO RECOIVINIEND TO lYIASAC THAT A VOLUNTARY �IIGHTTTi� AGREEI�IENT, �VHICH WOULD REQUEST THE CARRIERS AT MSP TO VOLUNTARILY LTiVIIT STAGE 3 HUSffi{ITTED OPERATIOPdS BET'WEEN TH� HOURS OF 10:30 P.M. AND 6:00 A.I�I., BE INCLUDED I'�ti THE PAR.T 150 UPDATE AS A NIITIGATION MEASUR.E. T�E IVIOTION CA�D ON A VOICE VOTE. GPS/FMS Assessment Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, introduced Andy Harris and Bob bliller of HIVIlVIH who have been workinQ on the GPS assessment for MSP. Both men introduced themselves, as well, and gave the members a brief explanation of their backgrounds in acoustics and aviation. Andy Harris, hOVINQ3, said for MASAC he would concentrate on what Global Positioning System (GPS) technology can do for noise reducrion at an airport and what a GPS�IS mitigation measure would consist of for inclusion in the Part 150 Update. He said the purpose of devetoping a GPS plan � now is to make sure that when the technology becomes widely available the benefits also become available. What's Happening with GPS Today • The best precision GPS is now available to all users (previously it was only available to the military with a degraded signal available for all other users). • The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAA.S) is experiencing a delay in its development and implementation schedule. • The Local Area Au�nentation System (LAAS) is moving ahead at an accelerated pace. • MSP will soon replace its Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with a higher precision system (LAAS). • The signal precision has improved from 100 meters horizontally and vertically to benveen .16 and .ZO meters horizontally and .25 meters vertically. What are the Potential Benefits of GPS • It allows for precise location lrnowledge. • It will ultimately supplement the radar system now in place. • It will reduce the amount of communication (talking) beriveen the pilot and the air traffic system. • It will allow for curved approaches �!7 What are the Barriers forlmplementation • Absence of an FAA implementation policy. • Although the newest aircraft are able to make the best use of the technology, it is also the most expensive to make it available on these aircraft. • Some of the current noise mitigation procedures at airports today will not be able to be duplicated using GPS technology because GPS operates under different rules for the development of procedures. NIr. Harris said one of the goals for the meeting was to present information regarding the noise benefits that could be expected with improved adherence to current noise abatement flight tracks and corridors. Mr. Harris then explained the difference between planned and unwanted dispersion. He said planned dispersion reduces concentration of noise over any one area and optimizes an airport's capacity. Unwanted dispersion is the "drift" that happens when aircraft move off of a specified path. Unwanted dispersion increases noise impacts in areas that the airport is trying to avoid. The causes for unwanted dispersion include: • Existing ILS environment is a fan sha.pe • Radar accuracy - stiveep times • Airline procedures and pilot techniques s ATC techniques • Limited departure path guidance in older aircraft • Limitations of current design procedures for area navigation lY1r. Harris then presented, in graphic form, the geometrical differences between an IL.S signal and a GPS signal. Bob iYliller, �]�vIlvI�3, presented information about Boston-Logan's application of an FI�IS procedure on one of its runways to illustrate how GPS can benefit an airport community, as well as some of the problems associated with implementation of the technology. A graphic showing the area in which aircraft equipped with FiVIS were supposed to stay within was presenfed. It illustrated how the use of FMS waypoints can help concentrate aircraft over a very specific area. He noted, however, that there are limitations associated with using waypoints. For instance, there are procedural limitations on how far the first waypoint must be from the end of the runway. There are also limitations associated with how much distance there is between subsequent waypoints. �Ie said this illustrates how it would be possible that a current noise abatement procedure might not work with FMS/GPS technology. He also noted that even �vith the use of the �vaypoints, there is a lot of variability to the location of the flight tracks. iYlr. Nliller then presented an analysis that illustrated how a GPS noise benefit analysis might be performed for existin� procedures at MSP. Using i�ISP flight track data from days when there were either strong right or strong left crosswinds, �IlVIIv�3 determined how far to the right or left of centerline, for both departures and arrivals in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor, aircraft would drift without the benefit of GPS technology. iVIr. iVliller noted that the arrivals kept much closer to the centerline than depariures. �,, � l�Ir. Nliller e:cplained that there was an approximate 2° shift of flight tracks to the north as a result of the crosswinds. And, using an SEL contour, he illustrated how this "drift" might affect the area of impact on the ground compared with where the area of impact would be if an aircraft were to use GPS technology. The ultimate difference in noise levels between the two scenarios is approximately one to two decibels. He said the difference would be even less on days with lighter or no crosswinds. - NIr. 11�Iiller then showed what would happen if the dispersion inherent to each flight track in the INi�I were to be narrowed with either 70% or 100% of the GPS/FMS capable aircraft using it. The results showed less dispersion of noise impacts (more concentrarion) and a lengtheninj af the contour's "lobes." In fact, at almost every Ievel there was an increase in the amount of land encompassed by the contour. Mr. Miller said these analyses show that GPS/FNIS technology will not necessaril}� provide large, overall benefits but that it could be applied in specific areas, such as with a river track. He said the purpose of the GPS assessment is to determine in which areas GPS/FMS technology may benefit the communities. Paul Teske, resident of Eagan, asked several technical questions regarding GPS and MSP's system. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said the most difficult question to answer is who will receive the benefit from the technology and who will not. Bob lYliller, �iMMH, said MASAC will need to decide, as in the past, who will benefit from this technology and who will not. He said GPS/FMS technology is simply a tool to ensure that the decisions made by MASAC for noise abatement procedures can be implemented as precisely as possible, but that it does not take away the question as to how and where to apply the benefits. Chairman Nelson asked when GPS/FMS technology would be widely available and widely used. Bob i�liller, I3MtYII3; said the technology would not be fully implemented withisi five years, but that it is still an ideal time to include the technology in the Part 150 Update as a precedent so that the airport is prepared for futl.lre Updates. He said this gives the airport the opportunity to continue to explore the technology and its potential benefits even before it can be fully implemented. A brief discussion took place regarding the possible wording that would be included in the Part 150 Update regarding the future use of the GPS/FivIS technology for noise mitigation purposes. Chairman Nelson then asked 1�Ir. FIarris and Mr. Miller what possible applications the technology could be used for at MSP, specifically during low demand periods. Mr. Nliller said one possible area that the technology might be applied is over the river. He also noted that the technology is most applicable to departure procedures rather than approach procedures since serpentine approaches can be difficult to perform and are usually uncomfortable for passengers. Although a curved, up-river, approach may be possible. Roy Fuhrmann,ll�IAC, noted that the current GPS system at MSP (SCAT) will be updated over the next six to eight months to a LAAS system. He also noted that the FAA plans to have 160 LAAS stations up and running by the end of 2002. ROY FUHI2.ttiI.�'Vi�t, iVLAC, i1�IOVED AND BOB JOITiVSON, NIBAA., SECONDED TO m RECOIVLiV1END TO NIE-1SAC THAT THE P:�RT 150 UPDATE INCLUDE THE EYPLOR�,'1�ON OF GPS A.��tD FiVIS T'ECHNOLOGY TO EVALUATE EXISTING A.iti'D PROPOSED NOISE yIITIGATION PROCEDURES AS A FUTURE NOISE 1�IITIGATION I��ASURE. THE i1�10TION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, suggested having iVlr. Harris and NIr. Nliller make a presentation at the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting. Chairman Nelson asked if Ivlr. Harris and NIr. Miller were available to make that presentation. iVlr. iVliller and NIr. Harris said they would be happy to present the information at that time. Other Items Not on the Aaenda Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, presented a map that depicted the runway 17 flight tracks over the city of Eagan's residential land use and noted that he planned to revisit the issue of the runway 17 low demand flight tracks at the next MA.SAC meeting. He noted that the City of Eagan believes that the 170° flight track, which was not included as a recommended low demand flight track, is the better choice because it overflies the Cedar Avenue corridor and avoids residential land uses. Chairman Nelson noted that Mr. Verbrugge may be able to revisit the issue at MASAC if someone on the prevailing side of the vote wishes to bring it back for further discussion. He also suggested that he consult with MAC staff or the Chairman as to the proper procedure for revisiting the issue. Kent Duffey, HNTB, noted that the reason the 170° flight track had not been recommended was to avoid further overflights of the areas already affected by the straight in arrivals. He also noted that the recommended low-demand flight tracks were _ chosen because, based on an SEL analysis, they would impact the fewest people. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. A Special MA.SAC Operations Comrruttee meeting will be � held on Friday,luly 28, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Metropolitan Room at the Lindbergh Terminal. Respectfully Submitted, Melissa Scovronsld, Coznmittee Secretary 12 (. A�'PROVE]D M I N U T E S ' MASAC OPERA.TIONS COMNIITTEE July 28, 2000 The meeting was held in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and called to order at 9:00 a.m. .. .> Chairnzan Nelson called the meeting to order and the roll was taken. The following members were in attendance: Members• Charles Mertensotto, Acting Chair Dick Saunders Bob Johnson Jamie Verbrugge Mary Loeffelholz Roy Fuhrmann Advisorv• Chad Leqve Jason Giesen Mark Kill Joe Harris Kim Hughes Steve Vecchi Cindy Greene Glen Orcutt Visitors• Andy Pederson Patrick Hollister Jan DelCalzo Torn Hansen Larry Lee Mary Teske Mendota Heights Minneapolis MBAA Eagan NWA MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC HNTB THC, Inc. FAA FAA Apple Valley Mendota Heights City of Minneapolis City of Burnsville City of Bloominb on Resident of Eagan AGENDA Approval of Minutes The minutes of the July 14, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed. Communications Received No communications were received. Low Demand Flight Tracks Kim Huhges, HNTB, clarified some information regarding the Low Demand Flight Tracks recommendation. The following points were noted: • A low demand tirne period is defined as less than 3.5 operations in a 15-minute seament or 14 operations in an hour. � • Low demand time periods occur primarily at night and vary by the day of the week and the month. e On average, low demand rime periods occur between 12:15 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. • ATC will NOT severely reroute aircraft away from their destinations in order to use a specific low demand flight track. " • Absence of a low demand flight track over an area DOES NOT prevent overfli�ts of that area during low demand periods. • Runway selection during low demand periods will continue to be determined by the RUS and not by the low demand flight tracks. (i.e. if the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor can be used durin� a low demand time period, it will be used as dictated by the RUS) • Runway use selection (as dictated by the RUS) takes priority over low demand flight track use. • Monitoring of ATC compliance and use of low demand flight tracks will not be possible. Additional clarification and sample scenarios can be found in the handout entitled "Low Demand Flight Track Alternative." Runway 17 Departure Track Analysis Track A Sh � (, Kim Hughes, HNTB, said there had been concern expressed at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting regarding the shift in the position of runway 17's departure flight track A and noted the following: • The Record of Decision (ROD) for the runway's FEIS allows for immediate turns off runway 17, which is how the tracics were modeled at the time of the FEIS. + However, the higher-performance aircraft now coming into service are able to turn sooner onto their assi� ed headings than what was initially modeled. s The shift in track A's location to the north reflects better modeling of this reality. a The shift DOES NOT reflect a change in track A's heading. • It is important to note that the INM flight track location is only accurate within the immediate vicinity of the airport. Beyond the 65 DNL contour, aircraft will continue to disperse. The INM flight tracks do not model this trend because it does not impact the contour. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked for clarification as to why INM is most accurate up to the 65 DNL level. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said that the INM software has been specifically developed to model the 65 DNL level and that, in general, dispersion of aircraft is difficult to model. She said beyond the 65 DNL level, the accuracy of the modeling beQins to degrade. Flight Track Use Update Kim Hughes, HNTB, noted some changes that have been made to the track use percentages as a result of 2 further refinement to the model. She note the following: • At the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting, Cindy Greene, FAA, indicated that when runway 17/35 is operational arrivals on 12L and 12R will restrict usage of runway 17 departure tracks F and G for westbound departures. • When this occurs, aircraft that would normally be given headings of either 245° or 285° will be given a 230° heading instead (track L). • Therefore, track F and G usage has been reduced from the initial projection. •'The change in the contour as a result of this shift is insi�ificant. • Projected track F usa;e changes from 11.6% to 7.9%. • Projected track G usage changes from 13.1% to 8.9%. • Projected track L usaje changes from 0% to 7.9%. An updated chart of runway use percentages for runway 17 departures was distributed Turn Point Alternatives Kim Hughes, HNTB, briefed the council on the latest westbound departure track analysis and reiterated that the EIS ROD allows for evaluation of noise abatement measures for runway 17 deparlures. She aIso reiterated that it is necessary that any proposed noise abatement procedure to reduce noise impacts must provide for sufficient guidance to the aircra$ in order to keep aircraft on the desired tracks. Ms. Hughes then reviewed the goals for the runway 17 flight track analysis and reviewed the three turn- point alternatives discussed at the July 14, 2000 Operations Comrnittee meeting. She also noted: (^ � • Use of a turn point can be designated as part of a departure procedure and as part of an FAA order for -- use by the ATC. • Use of a turn point may result in a slight decrease in the runway's capacity in order to ensure adequate aircraft separation. • Tum points provide positive guidance to aircraft using existing technology. • Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered as the technology evolves. NIs. Hughes noted that at the July 14, 2000 Operations Committee meeting the consultants were asked to consider a 2.Snm (DME) turn point rather than the recommended 2.2nm turn point. The results of the 2.Srun turn point analysis shows: • It reduces the noise impact within the 60+ DNL contour. • It is a simple and easily implemented deparhue procedure. • It maintains the intent of the Operations Committee's previous recommendation (105° hybrid fan with two turn points). o It reduces, but does not eliminate, overflights of Bloomington's bluff area. However, the analysis also showed: s A 2.Snm turn point could potentially increase overflights of other communities (further to the south). • It reduces the runway's capacity by 3-4 depariures per hour (although this is the same as the initial 3 recommendation). �" The 60+ contour population difference between the 2.2nm and the 2.Snm turn point alternatives is a reduction of approximately 1,130 people from the contour with the use of a 2.Snm turn point. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that there were some labelin� mistakes on the map entitled "Runway 17 Turn Point Alternative Flight Tracks." Track A was not labeled and tracks F and G were transposed. Kim Fiughes, HNTB, said those changes could be made and corrected versions would be sent to each member. Chairman Mertensotto asked whether the turning ability of an aircraft was included in the analysis. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the modeled dispersion for each track takes the turn radius of aircraft into account. - River Departure Procedure Kim Hughes, HNTB, explained how a river departure procedure may be implemented using existing technology. Two river departure scenarios were explained: 1. Published Departure Procedure • Aircraft would fly to a turn point at approximately 3nm and then turn to a headin� of 245° to overfly the river. • T'his type of deparlure procedure could only be used during forecasted low demand time periods due to the need for ATC clearance. (a 30-minute advanced notice is necessary) e The projected use of this procedure would be .2% of the runway 17 nighttime departures. 2. ATC Assigned Heading �. , . • ATC would assign aircraft a heading of 230° from a 2.Snm turn point to overfly the river. • This type of procedure could be used during low and mid-demand periods. • T'he projected use of such a procedure would be 1.5% of the runway 17 daytime departures and 3.5% of the nighttime departures. In addition: • ATC would have discretion to use either procedure as appropriate. • Use of these two departures has no sia ificant effect on the contour. • Use of these procedures has the potential to reduce overflights hi�hly impacted populated areas. The consultant's recommendation: • Implement the 2.Snm tum point departure procedure for west bound departures. • Implement the two R.iver Depariure Procedures as a separate measure. Restricting Hushkitted Aircraft ft-om Specific Ra�nways Although some have indicated a desire to restrict hushkitted aircraft from using specific runways at specific times, ATC will not permit runway use to be determined by aircraft type. Chairman Mertensotto reiterated his concern regarding establishing procedures for a runway that has not been built. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said procedures must be established for runway 17 before it is operational so that ATC knows how the runway will operate from the first day it is open. She said if for some reason a change is necessary or desirable at some point in time then a process of analysis could be initiated. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Denver had to change procedures after the runways were built and operating. In this case, he said, Denver had to go through an environmental review process. Chairman Mertensotto asked if the procedure could include a caveat that if it did not work the way it was intended that an alternative procedure should be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that would not be possible. She also noted that since contours are created using runway procedures, any significant change in procedures would affect the contour and thus open up a whole set of problems. Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that there was no difference between the capacity reduction associated with the 2.2nm turn point and the 2.Snm turn point. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that was correct, but that because aircraft would not allowed to turn immediately off the runway for departures off runway 17, there would be a slight delay for the user. She said the reason she feels okay about the 2.Snm turn point is because she could find no significant/compelling negative consequence. Yet, it is unknown and di�cult to quantify what the affect will be for communities downstream. Ms. Greene said, however, that the reduction in the population by using the 2.Snm turn point is a definite benefit. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said each member should take the information back to their respective communities for comment and come to the August 1 l, 2000 meering prepared to take action. He said staff would provide a comparison of the initial 105° hybrid recommendarion with the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative. Chairman Mertensotto asked that comments and preferences regarding the alternatives be sent to the stafFprior to the August 11`'' meeting so that they can be distributed to the members before the meeting. Staff will fax or email the comments to each member as soon as they are received. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said she would mail out the corrected flight track alternatives map alon� with a map depicting the initial recommended mitigated (105° hybrid) contour, the 2.2nm DME turn point alternative contour and the 2.Snm DME turn point alternative contour. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked whether or not the shift in the position of track A would affect the contour. Kim Hughes, HNTB, said the use of track A is so small that there is no significant change in the contour. Contour Boundary Definition Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, introduced the topic and gave a brief backb ound as to how the contour boundary had been defined in the past. The goals for determining the boundary definition of the contour were: Provide fair and equitable eligibility requirements for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. Minimize FAA review delay. Continue residential sound insulation program without interruption. 5 Current Contour Boundary ( e Currently eligibility is based on whether or not a person's home is on a block that is either within the � contour or is touched by the contour. • Approximately 7,300 homes were eligible on this basis of which 5,377 homes have been completed. • Completion of the current contour is scheduled for 1 S` quarter 2002. - MSP Noise Mitigation Committee • In 1996 the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee requested that the MAC and the surrounding communities seek FAA approval to develop a process for determining contours based on neighborhoods and natural boundaries, which is a depariure from the current MSP/FAA policy. Previous Part 1 SO Update - • In the previous Part 150 Update the FAA rejected a boundary proposal that included blocks outside the 65 DNL contour, which was predicated on natural boundaries. o Because the 2000 Part 150 Update will seek approval for eligibility outside the 65 DNL contour, there is already a significant area beyond the area historically recognized as impacted by noise. Mark Kill, MAC Advisor, then presented the six possible boundary definition cases. He also noted that Geographic Informarion Systems (GIS) technology was used for the analysis, that the spatial information sources included Hennepin and Dakota counties, the Metropolitan Council and field surveys conducted during the first quarter of 2000. Cases (all numbers based on single family homes) � l. Blocks completely within the DNL 60 contour (insulation eligibility for homes on blocks completely r. within the DNL 60 contour) � • Adds 5,382 homes to the current program • Duration of the program - approximately 6 years (based on cunent projections of completion rate, budget and average cost per home) e Reduces the time for completion by about 4.7 years (compared with the estimated completion time for Case 3) Excludes may homes physically located within the DNL 60 contour Ha1f blocks completely within the DNL 60 contour + Half blocks are blocks that have been subdivided by alleys into at least two smaller parts. • Half blocks are most commonly found in Minneapolis, Richfield and Bloomington • Adds 5,575 homes to the current prob am • Duration of the program is approximately 6.2 years • Reduces the time for completion by about 4.5 years • Excludes many homes physically located within the DNL 60 contour • Eligibility not as clearly defined as with blocks 3. Blocks intersected by the DNL 60 contour (current procedure) • Homes on blocks that are touched by the contour are considered eligible Adds 9,702 homes to the current program Duration of the pro�ram is approximately 10.7 years �' � -- • This procedure is currently being utilized with success ' • Requires more time for completion than any other procedure excluding natural boundaries • Includes homes physically outside the DNL 60 contour • It has been historically considered fair and equitable 4. Half blocks intersected by the DNL 60 contour • Homes on half blocks (defined above) that are touched by the contour are considered eligible • Adds 9,559 homes to the current program • Duration of the program is approximately 10.6 years • Includes homes physically outside the DNL 60 contour • Eligibiliiy not as clearly defined as with blocks 5. Parcels intersected by the DNL 60 contour • Only individual parcels that are within or are intersected (touched) by the 60 DNL contour would be considered eligible. • Eliminates usage of the block as the smallest geographic unit for contour boundary determination • Adds approximately 7,971 homes to the current program • Duration of the program is approximately 8.8 years - or 1.9 years less than Case 3. • Provides program boundary that more accurately reflects the contour e Eligibility area is likely to be considered unfair and subjective by homeowners at the edge of the contour 6. Natural boundaries � • Uses naturally occumng features (i.e. lakes, creeks, rivers, open green spaces) within a reasonable distance of the contour edge e Uses major thoroughfares with wide right-of-ways • Uses major city streets • Where no reasonable natural boundary exists, the 60 DNL contour line is used o Eliminates usage of blocks • Adds 13,628 homes to the current program • Duration of the prob am is approximately 15.1 years - or 4.4 years.more than Case 3 • Extends program boundaries well beyond the DNL 60 contour in some locations • Has historically caused significant review delay and rejection by the FAA • Could place approval of continuing the sound insulation program in jeopardy Mr. Kill e;cplained each natural boundary. Recomnzendation Use the current FAA-endorsed intersecting block contour ed�e determination (Case 3) at MSP. Discz�ssion Chairman Mertensotto noted that there were many compelling reasons to con,tinue using the intersecting block procedure, specifically to reduce the FAA's review time. Steve Vecchi, THC Inc., said FAA precedent is critical to timely approval of the contour map and believes the recommendation is defensible. He said the FAA has always been very sensitive to contour 7 boundary definitions. He said a natural boundary proposal would likely be sent back. Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis, said there is a strong sentiment among community members for using natural boundaries but that she understands that the FAA is already "taking at hit" with the DNL 60 contour. She sugaested that the boundaries continue to be analyzed as part of any subsequent Part 150 updates. She also suggested including language in the submittal that indicates the communities' desire to use natural boundaries. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said that Northwest Airlines could not endorse the use of natural boundaries and then asked if any other major airport in the United States used the intersecting block eligibility procedure. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said he was unaware of any other airport using such a procedure but noted that most airports with sound insulation programs are still working on their 70 and 75 DNL contours. Mr. Orcutt said that if the airport wanted to endorse natural boundaries there �vould have to be more analysis based on noise impacts as to why those locations should be included. He said simply applying natural boundaries without any noise analysis would not fulfill the FAA's criteria. Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the intersecting block procedure was the most realistic option for quick approval. Nlary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked how the expanded insulation program would be funded. She noted that the current airline lease ab eements do not include funding for complete insulation out to the DNL 60 contour. Glen Orcutt, FAA, said although MSP in the past has received between $5 and $8 million annually from the AIP fund, once the airport moves past the 65 DNL contour, funding priority is likely to diminish since many more airports that are working on higher level DNL contours are now competing for funds. ',. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, noted that a majority of the sound insulation program is funded through Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) but said she was concerned that if the FAA does not approve the DNL 60 contour, the airport will not be able to use this funding source. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the $36.5 million annual sound insulation program budget is funded through 2010. He said ne�otiations with the airlines would have to take place for funding insulation beyond 2010. Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked if MASAC would take the Policy Advisory Committee's place in administering policy for the program. He said since MASAC currently has the responsibility for determining the elements of the Part 150 Update that MASAC should continue to be the body that directs policy. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said many of the issues the PAC dealt with have been ironed out and that MASAC is seen as the appropriate body for making these types of decisions. NIr. Lee also sugQested that once the 2005 DNL 60 contour map is published it should not be changed due to subsequent Part 150 Updates. Jamie Verbrugae, EaQan, asked if any other airports are using natural boundaries to define contours. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said some airports are insulating specific communities but that those are usually within higher noise levels. Otherwise, no other airport is working on the DNL 60 contour boundary definition. C : � � Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, also asked why it was projected that it will take only 10 years to complete the program when several months ago the projection was closer to 20 years. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the numbers presented at that time were based on the unmitigated contour and preliminary numbers. He said the information presented today also only included single-family homes and not mulit-family dwellings and was only presented to illustrate how each case may change the length of the program. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said he also considers the $40,400 average cost per home to be conservative because the homes will continue to get larger. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, asked if the members could be provided with a completion map for the sound insulation program. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she was uncomfortable making a recornmendation because she felt she needed more information on how the program would be funded. BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND LARRY LEE, BLOOMINGTON, SECONDED, TO RECOMMEND TO MASAC THAT THE CURRENT FAA-ENDORSED INTERSECTING BLOCK CONTOUR. EDGE DETERMINATION METHOD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE 2000 PART 150 UPDATE. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A VOICE VOTE WITH ONE NAY. Sound Insulation Priority - Multi and Single-Family Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the Committee regarding the sound insulation priorities and the decision history from both the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee and from individual communities. 'The following points were made: . -.. � � e It is anticipated that the current program will be completed in the Mazch to Apri12002 timeframe. • In order to provide enough lead-time, homeowners who are included in the next sound insulation program will have to begin the process in July of 2001. • In order to continue with the new program, the FAA will have to have approved the Noise Exposure Map by that time. •'This is an aggressive schedule and affects the prioritization process. • MASAC members need to be cognizant of the FAA's sensitivity to "environmental injustice" (i.e. fair and equitable treatment of all classes of people in the distribution of sound insulation benefits — multi-family vs. single family and possible differences in income) • Some multi-family units within the cunent DNL 65 contour could be insulated using the existing contractor pool, although it would only extend the time frame for the existing contractors to continue to work by three to five months. Proposed Priority Schedtrle Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefed the committee on the proposed priority schedule. 1. Complete the insulation of single family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours. 2. Complete (or begin) the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority #3 and then sequencing to #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document. 3. In conjunction with #2 above and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation of single- family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. 4. In conjunction with #5 below and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation of multi- family residential struciures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. 5. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. 6. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. 7. Complete the sound insulation of homes exposed to low frequency sound levels within the 8'7dB LFSL area on a schedule established by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. 8. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60+ contours. Members made the following comments: Chairman Mertensotto said he thought the low frequency noise sound insulation prob am should be handled separate from the residential sound insularion pro�am because it is likely there will be a separate funding source for that program. Larry Lee, Bloomington, said he agreed that the low frequency noise insulation priority should be handled separately. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said although insulation against low frequency noise, its fiulding source and methods have not yet been determined by the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, it will be part of the Part 150 Update submittal. Larry Lee, Bloomington, asked how the single family homes and multi-family structures that are within the current deferred area of the DNL 65 contour and the 2005 DNL contour in Bloomington would be handled. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the City of Bloomington would have to make a - decision as to their priority schedule for this group of homes. He noted that these homes would not �,, be a part of the 1996 DNL priorities but would be included in the 2005 priority schedule. He said the city of Bloomin�on will need to decide if these homes should be insulated prior to homes in the higher DNL contours, but felt that it would be better to insulate the homes in the higher DNL level contours first. • Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, asked if other airports in the United States have insulated multi-family structures. Glen Orcutt, FA.A, said most airports are at the early stages in their programs and are not insulating multi-family dwel]ings at this time, but some have. • Larry Lee, Bloomingtori, asked if it was an option to include sound insulation of homes affected by the new runway in the runway project costs. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that was not an option because the addition of the new runway affects all areas of the contour. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said he was concemed about funds being used for multi-family insulation that would be taken away from single family insulation. He said he would not be able to support the proposed prioritization schedule if separate funds (other than the annual $36.5 million bud�eted) were not available for multi-family homes. He said Eagan supports insulation for all single family residential homes first and then multi-family structures. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted that one of the reasons for proposing such a prioritization schedule is to keep the contractor pool continuing to work as the airport awaits approval from the FAA. 10 • Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, clarified that all multi-family structures within the 1996 DNL 65 contour � '' are already eligible for sound insulation. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that was true. Ms. Loeffelholz said she did not feel she had enough information to make a recommendation at this point. She said she needed to better understand the funding implications of the proposed prioritization: _ Through further discussion, the following modifications were made to the priority schedule. -1-1_Complete the insulation of single family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours. 2�a. Complete (or begin) the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and b eater noise contours in conjunction with priority #3 and then sequencing to #5 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document. - �-:2b. In conjunction with #2 above and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation of single- family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. 4.3_In conjunction with #5 below and after FAA approval, complete the sound insulation af multi- family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater contours. �?c. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. �_Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to 64 noise contours. 5�:5_Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60+ contours. It was decided, due to several members' concerns, that action on the issue of prioritization should be delayed until the Aub st 11, 2000 meeting. Sound Insulation Modification Packages Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., briefed the members on three possible altematives for providing insulation to homes between DNL 60 and DNL 64. Mr. Vecchi explained that the homeowner, with these options, would be able to make a choice between, a menu of options: Provide the same sound insulation modification packaae now being offered but without air conditioning - To provide the exact same package to homeowners between the DNL 60 and 64 contours would not meet the FAA's criteria for environmental justice. Air conditioning represents approximately 35% of the cost of the existing package. Provide air conditioning only - this would provide only seasonal noise relief during the open window season. (Open windows cancel out all of a home's acoustic properties.) Based on county records, approximately 80% of the homes between DNL 60 and 64 do not have air conditioning and many have hydronic heat, which makes it di�cult to install central air conditioning. The FAA has approved this type of package at LAX. This option could keep the cost down and meet some homeowners' wishes. Avigation easement cash payment - Homeowners would receive a cash payment and an avigation � easement would be tied to the home's deed. Most airports who have a Part 150 program require an avigation easement, but it does not mitigate noise, does not improve the housing stock and may be inherently unfair to homeowners who, for one reason or another, are in need of cash at the time. Bob Johnson, MBAA, said he could not support an avigation easement because it wouid open the airport up to homeowner litigation. Chairman Mertensotto said he did not consider an avigation easement a viable option. He also said he didn't believe an air conditioning only option would provide the desired, year-long benefits for homeowners living in this climate. Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, said she thought a better option would be to continue the current insulation package throughout the DNL 60+ contour. She said simply providing air conditioning will not give homeowners the year-round noise reduction benefits of a full insulation package. She also said that an avigation easement, although it does not improve the housing stock, may be desirabl� for people who do not wish to participate in the program. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, said although the sentiment against the avigation easement payment is understandable, it is possible that many homeowners in Eagan who already have well-built, acoustically sound homes with air conditioning would find the option desirable. Cindy Greene, FAA, said she has received many calls from homeowners who aze making their own improvements wanting to find out if there is any way they could be reimbursed for some of their costs. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said that although there are homeowners who rnay like the avigation easement payment option, the airport needs to keep in mind environmental justice issues of providing equal treatment for all classes of impacted residents. He said he personally could not endorse an avigation easement payment because it does not mitigate noise. � Jan DelCalzo, City of Minneapolis, asked if there were any airports offering an annual payment that would be tied to a homeowner's noise exposure. She said she thought this may be a good incentive for airlines to do everything possible to reduce their noise output. Chairman Mertensotto said he thought it would be better to improve the housing stock than to offer cash payments. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, asked about a 3dB reduction package. Steve Vecchi, THC, Inc., said from discussions with the FAA he did not believe they would be able to support a less than 5 decibel reduction package. Other Items Not on the Agenda Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, noted that the FAA had published its "Noise Abatement Policy" and that comments were due the end of August. Mary Loeffelholz, NWA, said she believed the FAA was planning on extending that deadline. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m. The next Operations Committee meeting will be held on Friday, August 11, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Large Construction Trailer of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Respectfully Submitted, 12 Melissa Scovronski, Committee Secretary 13 . . � � �, ' • � � � . �: � � � � PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM AS ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. Date: On whose behalf are you requesting?: Name: Yourself Address: City Council Mayor •- Citizen Phone: Organization Other � Is this a one-time requesi? Yes or No Beginning Ending If no, what is the expected time frame for this request? to Which of the following best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) Ground Noise Overflights Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other PLEASE WRITE OUT YOUR REQUEST HERE ANDIOR ATTACH ANY LETTERS OR FORMAL RESOLUTIONS. - over - � . � � �, . � �, , ,� . � •' Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN S54S0 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. �� MA�AC NEWSLETTER INPUT FORM . � On whose behalf are you requesting? (please check one and explain where necessary): Date: Name: Address: Phone: E-Mail: Proposed article topic: Yourself ❑ City Council ❑ Mayor � Citizen ❑ Name: Organization ❑ Name: Other ❑ Name: Circle the desired publication date: 2"d Qrt. 2000 3rd QI`t. 2000 4th Qrt. 2000 lst Qrt. 2001 Reason for request: Please provide a description of the article's focus and content: Please send your request via mail to: MASAC Secretary, 6U4U L�tn Avenue �., Minneapol.is, IYTN 55450 or fax it to: (612) 725-6310. j l, � � a� E� � ..a � •� � o n oo .., o �^ r1' M oH �n � � a� �� v �.y o rri � �" � E-� V�1 �' c�a Z °O ~ � '� U "� (� � � � x � v Z o � p .� y z N � Q� � � � � � M N � � c,� O W Q'� O � M� � � � O v �./ � i�. �a M�+.I � � � iG �d � N v� O o � O d � U O ,_., O �i . ° � ►a � N � p�.� � Ew � �, �, � -= � 'd +.., �� o � .� � � o •� � ;� AQ � � � �U � o ev Z .�>� `J � � O Q ��a� v� � ';, � a �� N °' � ° � N � p�,� M N C�1 E,.� J�" � 3 � ,a, rt N W . o � � - A � •� � y � v� � E .o � U o � c Q ..^. U 0 � 4:., �n C/] v a � h N �"' � O � (� O CS ',��.�' L r"'� �p c�3 v�i � Q u � i � `y o .~ � :a, i V � �� ' � � �1 ,.� ..� A , `4 N � " .C^C Lj O W id U R% � � E"� U '� �, v �, �=a � � '� ►c J c c � � Q � � � .� •� � � °� � � � � � ¢� � � � x x -wa � 0 � - �ooa000000 0 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 h�.� i!? "" M M'-, pp p.—, [� �y� � d' t� l� CT M r-+ M G1 � N N�--� �.--� N M M M � �}696�}b46f}S4E�?6�?Ff3 r �� V�� Y Q1 �. �� l� �r'� � c*') C1 f..d'�n�d"OOV�V�� ,--. N N N N N� � ��6�}�N�}6F}59b9 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � x��x�� p Q� M G1 M N C`� N oo �D N �y M d' G1 cf' O d' '-+ v'� �J 00 ^� N� 00 Q 00 01 l` ct' 00 � � � � d CQ z" N M d' �n Vr t� 00 O� O�, �O�i Q�i 0�1 G�'1 cT G1 01 C�i1 p � .-. .-. ,-� .-. ,.-+ � .-� N E', TAB�E OF CONTENTS List of Figures List of Tables I. introduction II. Policy Committee Review of Expert Panel Work III. Findings of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee IV. Recommendations of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Appendices A. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Membership, F�cpert Panel Membership B. Meeting Agendas and Minutes C. C C� ` LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 FICON Annoyance Curve Figure 2 MSP and LAX Annoyance Surveys Figure 3 MSP and LAX Annoyance Relative to Distance Figure 4 Harris Low Frequency Sound Level Contours Figure 5 Fideil/Sutheriand Low Frequency Sound Level Contours Figure 6 Low F�equency Sound Level Policy Contours Figure 7 Low Frequency Sound Level Mitigation Areas c � LIST OF TABLES Tabie 1 Leveis Identified by Govemment Entities for Various Purposes with Associated Percentages of Highly Annoyed Population (from FICON) " Tabie 2 Recommended Treatment to Reduce interior �FSL in Existing Residentiai Areas Table 3 Recommended Rattle Prevention and Limits for Interior LFS� for New Construction � INTRODUCTION The �ow Frequency Noise Policy Committee was formed as a part of a December 18, 1998 agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The agreement between the City and the MAC arose out of the City's concem regarding the potential impact of low frequency noise from the new No�thlSouth (17/35) Runway on established residential neighborhoods in east Richfield. The North/South Runway is part of MAC's 2010 expansion plan. The new runway is cutrently under construction and is scheduled to be completed and operational in Decembe�, 2003. When complete, the runway will be 8000 fest long and will carry up to 300 to 400 daily operations. The Agreement charged the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee with completion of the following tasks: A. Review all existing informaiion pertaining to SFO, BOS, BWI and LAX and any other published studies of the audibility and impact of Low Fraquency Noise, not excluding impacts outside of residential settings. B. Conduct such studies as, in the opinion of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, are necessary to address issues related to low frequency noise. C. Convene an Expert Panel consisting of Sandford Fidell, Andrew Harris, and a third member to be named by these two (Louis Sutherland), to provide technical input and information to the Policy Committee for consideration. D. Present recommendations regarding the appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards, and recommended mitigation programs, measures or techniques. E. Prepare a report or reports documenting the Palicy Committee's deliberatians and conclusions. The Committee began meeting in February, 1998, and held 15 meetings. At the final meeting, the Policy Committee adopted the Summary Report. Appendices A and B contain information regarding membership and activities of the Policy Committee. � C a, POLICY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THE EXPERT PANEL WORK This section of the Report presents the Policy Committee's interpretation and review of the information prepared and presented by members of the Expert Panel. Methodoloav The Committee instructed the Expert Panel, convened pursuant to the Agreement, to undertake the following tasks: Task 1. Review the literature on audibility, noticeability and the effects of low- frequency noise on individuals and communities. Task 2. Identify relevant noise effects and descriptors. Task 3. Determine existing and predicted low-frequency noise levels in the vicinity of MSP runways, based on field measurements in areas adjacent to MSP. Task 4. Identify criteria for acceptability of low-frequency noise in residences, including a laboratory study of annoyance of a set of sounds under controlled listening conditions and a social survey in neighborhoods acljacent to MSP. � Task 5. Determine low-frequency noise reduction provided by typical residential construction in the vicinity of MSP, based on field measurements of typical homes in the area. Task 6. Determine low-frequency noise reduction provided by residences subsequent to treatment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. Task 7. Evaluate the acceptability of low-frequency noise environments in residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program. Task 8. Determine the types of treatment required to improve the noise reduction and achieve compatibility of the low-frequency noise environment, including a laboratory analysis of low frequency transmission loss of typical wall, window and door construction. Task 9. Prepare reports for the Policy Committee documenting the woric of the Expert Panel. Task 10. Measure noise in the vicinity of MSP for comparison with calculated C-weighted values from Integrated Noise Model 6.0 (INM 6.0)'. ' This task was added at the request of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy. E Effects of Low Frequencv Aircraft Noise The primary effect of existing or forecast Iow frequency aircraft noise on the residents of neighborhoods near MSP is rattle-related annoyance. The low frequency aircraft noise poses no known risk of adverse public health consequences, nor a risk of structural damage. Under the expected circumstances of residential exposure, low frequency aircraft noise will not interfere with indoor speech, nor is this low frequency noise likely to awaken people. Annoyance is not a trivial effect of aircraft noise exposure. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) recognizes annoyance as the best indication of adverse community reaction to aircraft noise. It is the highly annoyed portion of the population that is usually identified. The prevalence of annoyance also provides much of the rationale for federal and state policies conceming mitigation of aircraft noise impacts in residential areas. Additional information about the effects of low frequency aircraft noise on individuals and communities may be found in the technical reports. A laboratory study in which test subjects judged the annoyance of recorded samples of low frequency aircraft noise confirmed the following facts: Low frequency naise is more annoying than aircraft overflight noise heard at the same A-weighted sound level. � • The addition of even minor amounts of rattle to low frequency noise increased its judged annoyance by about 5 dB in this study. • Reductions in the low frequency content of this noise proportionally decreases the annoyance of non-rattling test sounds. Descriptors of Low Frequencv Aircraft Noise and Low Frequer�cv Noise Dose The Exp�rt Panel recommended that the Policy Committee adopt the sum of the maximum sound levels in the 25-80 Hz one-third octave bands (the low frequency sound level, abbreviated LFSL) during individual aircraft noise events as the preferred descriptor of �ow frequency aircraft noise in the vicinity of MSP. This recommendatian was accepted on May 19, 1999. Further review identified the arithmetic average of the maximum low frequency sound levels for those events as the best measure of low frequency aircraft noise dose. The E�cpert Panel did not agree on whether the lower bound for the dose analysis should be 60 or 70 dB. 3 C Criteria for Acceptabilitv of Low Frequencv Noise in Residences FICON and its constituent federal agencies have adopted the relationship between overall noise exposure and the percentage of the population that is annoyed by the noise expasure for guidance in setting policy.2 The descriptor for overall noise is Day-night Average Sound Level (DNL). Figure 1 shows the FICON relationship. Table 1 shows the F1CON levels and also levels identified by various bodies for specific purposes. � �oo � �� <L so a � 70 �v >, so 0 � 50 Q >+ 40 � � 30 _ � 20 � 10 N d-' 0 d�5 SQ 55 60 65 ?0 Ta 80 85 90 Day-Night Average Sound Level, dB 'Note: The above graphic clepicts the relationship of noise exposure to the prevalence of high annoyance, per the dosage-response �elationship by the Federal Irrteragency Committee on Noise (1992). � z The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored the initial research that showed this relationship. 0 Table 1 Levels Identified by Government Entities for Various Purposes with Associated Percentages of Highly Annoyed Population (from FICON) Entity Purpose Identified Levei DNL Percentage Highly Annoyed U.S. E.P.A. Level identified as 55 4 Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare with Margin of Safety (Not policy, standard or re ulation Minnesota Legislature Identify Area to Study 60 7 Treatment Minnesota Legislature Identifiy Area for 65 12 Sound Insulation Metropolitan Airports Lower Limit ofi 60 6 Commission Residential Sound Insulation HUD Level belawwhich �65 �2 Untreated Residential FAA Use Compatible Re ulation HUD Range of Levels 65-75 37 where Improved FAA Noise Reduction is Re uired Re ulation HUD Level above which >75 >37 Residential Use not FAA Compatible Re ulation HUD, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) have adopted criterion levels for noise and vibration compatibility where the percentage of persons highly annoyed was selected to correspond to the percentages reflected in the FICON relationship for DNL 65, DNL 70 and DNL 75. The E�cpert Panel recommended, and the Policy Committee has used, the same approach in basing its recommendatians on the percentages of the population that is highly annoyed. 5 Figure 3 indicates the relatianship between the percentage of respondents in the LAX and MSP social survey who wrere highly annoyed by rattle and vibration from aircraft and the distance from their homes to the nearest runway. The prevalence of annoyance to vibration increased in degree the closer in praximity the home was to the runway. This relationship is variable depending on a number ofi other factors. _ � 10� c 0 :� � g� .n > `o � w � ?0 O v � � 0 U � G t6 7+ O � C C '�;, _ � m _ O ZO m � a�i 1Q m > a� Q � 1,600 Z,0p0 2,515 3,165 4,pQp. 5A�6 6r310 Sideline Distance from Closest Departure Runway Centerline (ft) �_. Based on the relationships shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 the actions by federal agencies and the Minnesota Legislature, the Expe�t Panel and Policy Committee recommendations are based on the percentages of highly annoyed persons that correspond to DNL 65 (12%), DNL 70 (22%) and DNL 75 (37%). From Figure 2, the equivalent levels of low frequency sound dose are 70 d6, 78 dB, and 87 dB. Predicted Low ��-e�uen�v IVois� Levels in #he Vicinitv ofi MSP Daytirne ambient sound levels in low frequency one-third octave bands in residential areas of Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington near MSP are currently on the order of 55 dB ± 5 dB. Nighttime ambient sound levels in Richfield are roughly 10 dB lower. These findings are consisteni with previous surveys that identified typical levels of environmental noise in developed ar�as and approximaiely a 10 dB difiference between daytime levels and nighttime levels. 7 Figures 4 and 5 show projected low frequency sound level contours with Runway 17-35 in use. Two approaches were taken toward contour development, one which determined that takeoff noise impacts were more significant and one which determined that reverse thrust impacts were more significant. The two contours were the result of dififerent approaches taken by the consultants toward interpretation of the data collected during the monitoring program completed as part of this work effo�t. The takeoff-dominated contour (Figure 4) has more impact at the nor#hem end of the nanway whereas the reverse thrust dominated contour (Figure 5) incorporates additional areas toward the midpoint of the runway. No consensus was reached by the F�pe�t Panel that one contour or the other was a better representation of low frequency noise impacts. 0 Existina and P�tential L.ow Frec�uency IVoise Reduciion of Residences near MSP Field measurements of single family detached residences near MSP provide roughly 15 dB of noise reduction at frequencies befinreen 25-100 Hz regardless of construction type. No meaningful differences were observed in the reduction of LFSL values of homes that had MSP's standard acoustic insulation treatments and homes that had not been so treated. However, the social survey indicates a decrease in persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise in homes that have received the treatment. The decrease is equivalent to a 5 dB decrease in sound dose or a 5 dB increase in noise reduction. The reasons for this change in attitude are not known, although they may be associaied with changes such as a reduction in rattling windows or with the difiference in nois� I�vels at frequencies above 80 Hz. Modifying the structure can increase the low frequency noise reduction provided by residences. An improverr�ent ofi approximately 5 dB can be achieved by adding a heavy layer to the ouiside or inside (e.g., the equivalent of a 1" heavy-weight plaster/stucco skin resiliently support�d from the standard construciion or a double layer of %2" gypsum board added to all inierior wall surfaces and ceiling). � C The upper limit of improvement is approximately 10 dB. This low frequency noise reduction would require use of a complex structure (e.g., a brick wall with minimal openings toward the noise source with separately supported interior skins and multi-pane windows of limited size). The interior levels of low frequency noise can be reduced by a number of inethods. These include increasing the noise reduction of the stnacture, dec�easing the outdoor noise levels or a combination of the two. Level of Noise Reduction Required to Achieve Compatibititv with the Low Frequency Aircraft Noise Environment Table 2 identifies the level of treatment recommended to achieve compatibility for exisiing residences. Table 3 identifies the level of treatment recommended to achieve compatibility for new construction. Table 2 Recommended Treatment to Reduce Interior LFSL in Existing Residential Areas Average Treatment to Reduce Rattle Interior LFSL Reduction Exterior LFSL in dB <70 None Re uired None Re uired 70-77 Treat Rattle Directl Decrease interior LFSL b 5 dB'` 78-86 Treat Rattle Directly Decrease Interior LFS� by 5 dB and Consider Reducing by more May not be fully adequate than 5 dB >87 Treat Rattle Directly Decrease Interior LFSL by at least 10 dB. Probably not Economically Probably not fully Adequate Feasible *Based on findings of the social survey, the existing Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program provides the equivalent of 5 db reduction, therefore no further reduction is necessary. Table 3 Recommended Rattle Prevention and �imits for Interior LFSL for New Construction Average Exterior Rattle Prevention Treatment Interior LFSL Reduction LFSL in dB <70 None Required No Special Requirement 70-77 Rattle Prevention 15 dB 78-86 Rattle Prevention 20 dB >87 Do not develop for residen#ial use 11 FINDINGS The following represent the Findings of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. The findings are based on information developed by the Expert Panel and Committee discussion. Effects on People: The primary effect of low frequency aircraft noise on the residents of neighborhoods near MSP is rattle-related annoyance. Low frequency aircraft noise poses no known risk of adverse public health consequences, nor a risk of structural damage. Under the expected circumstances of residential exposure, low frequency aircraft noise will not interfere with indoor speech, nor are the levels of low frequency noise likely to awaken people. 2. Noise Descriptors: The preferred descriptor of low frequency aircraft noise is the sum of the maximum sound levels in the 25-80 Hz one-third octave bands during individual aircraft noise events. This measure is called the low frequency sound level (LFSL). The best available predictor of the prevalence of annoyance due to multiple aircraft events is the arithmetic average of low frequency sound levels above a se(ected threshold. This measure is called the low frequency sound level dose (LFSL Dose). 3. Information on Compatibilitv: Many bodies have identified levels of general aircraft noise in terms of their compatibility with a range of land uses. These levels are typically expressed relative to the Day-night Average Sound Level (DNL). HUD and the FAA have established regulations that place no restrictions on residential development where the exterior DNL is less than 65 dB. They also do not allow new residential development where the exterior DNL exceeds 75 dB, except under special circumstances. In the range of exterior levels from a DNL of 65 dB to a DNL of 75 d8, residential development is allowed if the noise reduction provided by the building structure prevents interior noise levels from exceeding a DNL of 45 dB. 4. Communitv Response to Noise: Annoyance related to environmental noise is typically described in terms of the percentage of the community that repo�ts a high level of annoyance to the noise. 5. FICON Relationship: Figure 1 shows the relationship of noise exposure (DNL) to the prevalence of high annoyance as adopted by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). Table 1 shows the percentages of the population highly annoyed, from FICON, associated with levels of overall environmental noise identified by various bodies. 6. Low Frequencv Survev Responses: Responses to low frequency noise obtai�ed by a social survey conducted in Minneapolis showed results consistent with a social survey conducted adjacent to LAX in the range of LFSL Dose from about 75 dB ta 88 dB. Figure 2 shows the results of the individual surveys and the combined results. 7. Relationship befinreen sideline distance of households to runway: A relationship exists between the distance of homes from the runways and the prevalence of high � j annoyance. Figure 3 indicates the percentage of respondents in the LAX and MSP �- social survey who were highly annoyed by rattle and vibration from aircraft and the � distance from their homes to the nearest runway. This relationship is variable depending an a number of factors. 8. LFSL Dose Relationships: The e�erior LFSL Doses corresponding to various levels of the population highly annoyed are 12.3% HA (70 dB), 22.5% HA (78 dB) and 36.5% HA (87 d8). Exterior LFSL Doses below 70 dB are considered fully compatible with residential use without any special treatment. Exterior �FSL Doses at or above 87 dB are considered incompatible with residential use. Exterior LFS� Doses at or above 78 dB and below 87 dB require structures that provide highe� than normal low frequency noise reduction. 9. Low Frequency Noise Reduction Provided bv Existinq Residences: Existing, residences in the vicinity of MSP, whether or not treated under the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program, provide approximately 15 dB of low frequency noise reduction. However, residents in structures that have been treated report levels of annoyance to low frequency naise that would be expected only if the residence provided a 20 dB law frequency noise reduction. 10. Forecast Exterior LFSL Dose near MSP: The Expert Panel did not reach consensus on a LFSL contour representing conditions with Runway 17-35 in operation. Two contours have been presented to the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee has indicated uncertainty about certain aspects of both contours: 1) the reverse thrust dominated contour potentially understates � impacts at the north end of the runway, and 2) the takeoff dominated contour potentially understates impactS toward the midpoint of the runway and potentially overstates impacts at the north end of the runway. A policy contour has been developed which takes these concems into consideratian (Figure 6). This policy contour is appropriate for use in determining land use compatibiliiy. 11. Treatment of Existinq Sinqle-Familv Residences: Table 2 shows the treatment that is appropriate for existing single-family residences exposed to low frequency noise. 12: Noise Reduction Requirements for New Sin41e-Familv Residences: Table 3 shows the noise reduction requirements that are appropriate for new single-family residences exposed to low frequency noise. 13 C � iC� C RECOMMENDATIONS The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee recommends that: 1. The recommendations of the Low Frequency Policy Committee be adopted by MAC, incorporated into the Part 150 Noise Mitigation Program Update, and submitted to FAA for review and approval as soon as possible. 2. The FAA be u�ged to act expeditiously in review and approval of the Part 150 Update since Runway 17-35 is currently under construction. 3. The best descriptor of low frequency aircraft noise is the sum of the maximum sound levels in the 25-80 Hz octave bands, and the best descriptor of low frequency aircraft noise dose is the arithmetic average of low frequency sound levels above a selected dB threshold. 4. The mitigation measures identified in Table 2 be used as the basis for determining appropriate low frequency noise mitigation for existing areas, including single-family residential conversion at levels above 87 dB LFSL. 5. The mitigation measures identified in Table 3 are to be used as the basis for future residential development. 6. Blocks intersected by low frequency noise contours be treated as if the whole block is included within the contour. 7. Land use conversion be used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential neighborhoods inside of the 87 db contour. 8. The low frequency sound level contours shown on Figure 6(LFSL Policy Contour with Runway 17-35 in use) be adopted as the best representation of areas potentially affected by Iow frequency sound. 9. Figure 7, identifying the blocks impacted by the 87 dB, 78 dB, and 70 dB LFSL, be adopted for application of the mitigation measures indicated in Tables 2 and 3. 10. Homes previously insulated under the MSP residential insulation program, and now included within the low frequency impact area, receive additional low frequency mitigation as appropriate. 11. Homes included within both the DNL (for overall noise) and LFSL (low frequency noise) contours receive appropriate treatment for both types of noise concurrently. 12. FAA move fon�vard expeditiously with development of national standards for determining both the impacts of low frequency aircraft noise as well as appropriate mitigation measures. 13. Information developed by the Expe�t Panel be forwarded to FAA for use in development of national standards for low frequency noise. 15 .•• � • Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Membership � Richfield Mike Sandahl (Co-Chair) Metropolitan Airqorts Commission John Himle* (Co-Chair) Alton Gasper (Co-Chair) Bioominaton Larry Lee Minneapolis Sandy Colvin-Roy ''John Himle resigned from the MAC on March 31, 20Q0, and was replaced on the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee by Commissioner Alton Gasper. TECHNICAL SUPPORT Metropolitan Council Nacho Diaz Federal Aviation Administration Glen Orcutt Minnesota Pollution Control Ac�encv Brian Timerson MASAC Dick Saunders t'�'7 C� Andrew Harris Sanford Fideil Lou Sutherland EXPERT PANEL MEMBERSHIP 18 ••- � LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES � C. � i i � MASAC Meeting MSP Part 150 Update Study August 22, 2000 � � Agenda 1 Runway 17 Departure Tracics I Recommendat�on I, 1 5ound Insulation Boundary Definition ' Recommendation ' 1 Sound Insulation Priority ' Recommendation ' 0 Documentation Schedule i ; - . �._ Runway 17 Departure Tracks 1 Latest analysis involves Track A, track use considerations due to arrivals on Runways 12L and 12R, and west bound tum points i Track A- Shift North I Concern expr�ssed at July-14-00 MASAC Ops meeting about the north shift of Track A i ROD of the FEZS permits 190° fan, with tums immediately off runway end I New (ocation of Track A intended to better �•`y modei this trend, given high-performance aircraft �� 1 C C Runway 17 Depae�ture Tracks i Track A- Shift North I Note that INM flight track location is accurate oniy in the immediate vicinity of the Airport I Beyond the contour aircraft continue to disperse and the IN�1 flight tracks do not model tfiis trend as it does not impact the contour � j � Runway 17 Departure Tracks 1 Flight Track Use Update 1 Arrivais on Runway 12L and 12R will restrict westbound departures from Runway 17 from using Tracks F and G i Aircraft will be assigned to Track L(230°) instead i Use of Track F and G reduced i Contour change insignificant a2unway '17 Flight 7'racics 1 Flight Track Use Update i Track F (245°) I Old: 11.6%, New: 7.9%, Net: -3.7% I Track G (285°) I Old: 13.1%, New: 8.9%, Net: -4Z% 1 Track l. (230°) I Old: 0.0%, New: 7.9%, Net: +7.9% �, � � `i.� 2 Runway �t 7 Flight Tracdcs 1 Turn Point Alternatives i Environmentai Impact Statement (EIS) Record ot Decision (ROD) stated that noise abatement � `� measures could be evaluated for Runway 17 deparlvre tracks to avoid populated areas close to Airport i Flight tracks and procedures must provide sutficient guidance to ensure that aircrafr of varying performance capabilities avoid, as much as possible, populated areas enroute to their destinations k � 3 �.a.l� Runway '1? Flight Trac6cs 1 Goal - 1 Reduce noise impact within the DNl 60 contour i Avoid increased overflights of other communities 1 Maintain runway capacity 1 Feasible lmpiementation by FAA/ATC i Provide positive guidance to aircraft to reasonably follow desired flight tracks i Allows for possihle future transition to FMS/GPS navigation /k j � 3 ( C Runway 17 Fiagh# 'iracks 1 Turn Point Alternatives i East bound aircraft are abie to tum immediately oFf runway end i West-bound aircraft (Tracks D, E, F, and G i Depart on straight out track (i'iack G7 I Upon reachinq designated DME point, tum to assigned heading i Initially,at the JuiY 14� Ops meeting, three tum pomts considered - i.7 2.2, antl 2J naut�cal miles (from start o{takeoff roil) 3 �:.��"� Runway �t 7 IFleght Tracks / West Flight Tracks — Turn Points I Tum point can be designated as part of a Departure Procedure (DP) for a specific heading, and as part of an FAA order for use by ATC 1 Use of tum points may result in a slight decrease in runway capacity in order to insure adequate aircraft separation 1 Provide positive guidance of aircraft, using exlsting technology 1 Future use of GPS/FMS should be considered as �the technology evoivPs ) � Runway 17 Fiight 'B'racks 1 Turn Point Alternatives 1 Originally considered Tum Point @ 1.7nm, 2.2nm, and 2.7nm 1 2.2 Tum Point determined best altemative I Per the requPst of MASAC Ops Committee at the July 14� meeting an additional scenario considered a 2.5nm Tum Point � Runway .17 Piight 'Tracics � � Turn Point Alternatives I Pros I Reduces noise impact witfiln 60+ DNL I Simple, easily implemented Deparlvre Procedure i Maintains Intent of Operatfons Committee's Previous recommendation for a 105 degree fan I 2.5nm Tum Point Altemative reduces, but does not eliminate, overflights of Bioomington bluff a�ea �F j �._'^.►_/.��-� Runway 17 Fiight 'iracks 1 Tum Point Alternatives i Cons I Reduces runway capacity by 3-4 departures per hour (similar to 105° Hybnd Fan) I Attematives could potentlaliy increase overttights of other commun�hes � � ) �a.i'Tc� 1 Runway 17 Fiigh# Tracics -.. _. _... � Turn Point Alternatnres i Z.2 Tum Poitrt 1 Population impact as compared to the July-00 2005 Unmitigated DNL Contour I DNL 70 dBA contaur - approwmately 40 people added I DNL 65 dBA mntour - apprwomately 1,160 people deleted I ONI. 60 d8A crontour - apprmdmatey 12,780 people deleted i Total change - approwmately 13,900 people deleted from 60' ONL contour � �I�� 'B �, Runway 17 Fiight Tracks ' 1 Turn Point Alternatives 1 2.5 Tum Point i Populatlon impact as compared to the ]uly-00 2005 Unm�hgated DNL Contour i DNL 70 dBA mntour - approwmately 30 people added I DNL 65 dBA contnur - approuimately 1,320 people deleted 1 DNL 60 d&4 mntour - approximately 13,�40 people deleted 1 Total change- approximately 15,030 people deleted from 60' DNL contour �I M additional 1,130 people deleted from Z2 Tum Point ) � Runway 17 Fiight Tracks B River Departure Procedure (DP) i Published DP i Aircreft would fly to tum point @ agprox. 3.Onm, and tum to heading of 245 to overfiy river I Can only be used during forecast 1ow-demand period due to ATC Clearance Requirements I Pro1'ected use: 0.24% of Runway 17 night traffic � iZunway 17 �lighi Tracics 1 River Departure Procedure (DP) 1 ATC /�lssigned Heading I Assigned heading of 230° from 2.5 Tum Point to ovefiy river I Can he used during low and mid-demand periods I Projected use: 1.54°� of Runway 17 day ops, 3.46% of night ops Runway 1? Fiight Tracks 1 River Departure Procedure (DP) i ATC would have discretion to use either procedure as appropriate i No significant change in contour i Potentiai to reduce overflights of high impact populated areas Runway 1? Flight 7'racks 1 Action Requested: i MASAC endorse the Operations Committee recommendations for the Runway 17 departure procedure utilizing a 2.5 nauhcai mile DME tum poink that minimizes impacts of westbound jet departures and a nver departure track separate from the 2.5 DME tum point recommendation as part of the Part 150 Update. � � � ; i �) � Sound Insulation Boundary Definition Alternatives � Boundary Definition Goals �Provide fair and equitable eligibilitv requirements for Part 150 Sound Tnsulation Program -�-Minimize FAA review delay �Continue residential sound insulation progrem without interruption � , 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Prograe� �-Requested MAC & communities seek FAA approvai to develop neighborhood and natural boundaries in contour boundary adjustrnent procedure. �-Depart�re from current MSP/FAA policy + � �. �=t _. Previous Part 150 Upc9ate -)- FAA rejected a boundary proposai that inciuded blacks outside DNL 65 contour -� Predicated on natural boundaries -�2000 Part 150 Update: FAA wiil consider significant area beyond DNL 65 contour for appropriate sound insulation area 1 Contour Boundary Adjustrnent �ptions -} Case #1 • Biocks mmp{eMy within tlx DNL 60 conmur 3� Case #2 • Half Blocks compktdy witliln the DNL 60 Conrour -Y Case #3 • Biocks intetsecm+f by tlx ONL 60 Contnia -N Case #4 • Hali Bfocks intersected by the DNL 60 Conm�r � Case #5 ` • Parcds intersected by the DNL 60 Conmur � •Y Case #6 (�:.n • Natural0ovidaries Technology Utilization -} G75 technolagy used for analysis of contour boundary aftematives � Spatial infomiation sources • Hennepin County • Dakota Counry • Metropolitan Council • Fieki Surveys (1# quarter 2000) � Updated data ailows for more accurate block ��'`y definition and contour boundary adjustrnent-- P�}►i �aJl f 1 �7� a-Residential Sound Insulation Program boundaries defined by blocks completely within DNL 60 boundary �Analysis • 12,504 single family homes included in Residential Sound Insulation Program (5204 additional to 199Z Sound Insulation Program) • Duration of program = approx. 5.8 years • Reduces 4me for compietion of program by approx. 5 years ,� � • Exciudes many homes physicaily located within DNL 60 contour �—� :.3: 2 —rat�.::r>�oI � . � _ . . .. - �_-- .— .. , , � ;a � p�;;.;y:; �a �� , Case #I i . ,�,��..��,_..,. . != r . •• ri + l . . C � � .. 4 F' . . �.� r � . °! � il + ,� � .,'..t � �-.-.,... .�``, � R ` .-... i • ._a . � �. � . r-- -e . r--._... ) � i �,' i� �' .... � �\1\.�• _ — � - �� r' - --- - - _ � . ... � v� _ � � , C' �\ �� ' ��`'`�`�'.��.� � � �,� ��\ �l�//\.\\`�\ \�. � , ' .z�.. t �"_ ►�..��:��.a.:;i.+.-"--.._.-Jh:J..�!O.e_d•;,_� � . 3 Case #2 �-Residential Sound Insulation Program boundaries defined by half blocks completely within the DNL 60 Contour �Half blocks — blocks subdivided by alleys into at least two smaller parts �Commonly found in Minneapolis and Richfield + ; �� Case #2 -�Analysis • 12,559 singie family homes included in Residentiai Sound Insulation Program (5259 additionai to 1992 Sound Insulation Program) � Duretion of program = approx. 5.8 years • Reduces time for completion of program by approx. 5 years � F�ccludes many homes physically located within DNL 60 contour �• Eligibility area not as cleariy d�ned as the�floc� ■k� ) t �� Case #3 �Residentiai Sound Insulation Program boundaries defined by blocks intersecting the DNL 60 contour �-Any block touched by the contour is included � � Case #3 �-Analysis • 17,024 single Family homes included in Residential Sound Insula[ion Program (9724 additional to 1492 Sound Insulation Program) • Duration of program = approx. 10.8 years • Being utilized in curzent Part 150 sound insulabon program with success � Requires more dme for comp�edon than any other case (excluding natural 6oundaries) • Includes homes physically outside DNL 60 contour • Has historically been considered (air and equitable k y � �� 2 _i aa�.......�.��,. �aoe_�s+ix.--LaiF3"�'��INiu �.. _.. .... ,... 'a..i•�r. ,.��I"�—.�—ml:�r.;ji.:l�� ' . ? i��l ._._... Case #3^ . � ' . a,-r,jr'r � �m, ..� � ,,��:�:; .... c ,' }, "'"thr � . f.,'•, i � � ..11.,y . _... , '� Ii . '� -__ `;; __ �•:,.� ,� � ' , .• -- � - ; � , ��;:_� �� ~` v�\\ ; .,.��;:�: .._.. . �,. , , � -- �.. �; � . � . p� .� ; ,��7`�� 'T , ''� �i ~i�� r..fltllu.J.R!��'� / alA. a�t._-i� �. � . . 661IVIrY+rYyYy�Y.'. � ]N01�rmC�x.:.•.�411��2;Nl1f .., . _Ir:,..;�"..,�,„�..,�� tr...�—Ial�r•.��F �!; � . � , . '� �rttm . � � .� , � '�� ._ �' ��µ 7; ,� O r • !• '1 -� � �. �`. I :�I ��i� �� i � !�� 1 �•� � 1 �.�, ,. •��I' 1' �:'`.�� 1 t `'t� - ,� �! �' .1 \ f � '� .H � I; _. �;% f •;' `� �-�,, ;� �-.'c, r . J. c j�''�� T:� f�"ili%� o:�'� o...,: �n . r v:e. _.� Caze #3 �'; �_ � � o-av.�.rsr..ma�ri�:..�:.-:'c.�_:.:_:_'.:-_c_ ... ..__... _..._.:........ ...... ._._ ...... . ...._______.... ]�sa��a.�a.x..,..j�pih'�� iliN�X rr_ir .!-.+��I,••.�—Ial• ��im �t . • a \•��...��i7j1..-:..-� .— k':;,.�,;i..,,; ,� �� r , c� �;�:x: , ,,� C\, i\ � `�'~\•l��L-4'Y��'..as.. Y, ....'�•'�'!i ; ,�.....�`. � _ � -_, .:� ; \,`. ,� `� _ Case #3 � �'" � � � ``\� ��' ) I \��j��.%,`(``�:~� `�.. �. `\�^ � `.,..—"'�'T�—...r^,� ;-^i_ � ,.. ' ,�, �� 9��' � ,-,•% ' .. . . . . �� =�i � - iss�sj ' � � �. ._r _► t�: o. �. fi:�-1 QT �1 � l¢ IA. s_ 1. _..� �'i3Se #4 �Residential Sound Insulation Program boundaries defined by half blocks that are intersecting the DNL 60 contour �-Any haif block touched by the contour is included � Case #4 -�Analysis • 16,200 single family homes included in Residential Sound Insulatlon Progrem (8900 additional to 1992 Sound Insulation Program) • Duration of program = approx. 9.9 years • Time period for completion reduced by only 0.9 years • Tncludes homPs physically located outside DNL 60 contour �� • Eligibility area not as cleariy defined as the block :�: � r :�-� G� i P Ir l� I�,�Y+• l+Y+�le i�GG61ZEiX��-�•tbiF�f�7ib':V � . ... ...._.,-.., � , . .. .... . .. . . . _. �i. ..�.�-��r.o(-fdl:.�l'c�l'.:.. _... � a a �� _ ,,.� — � .. ;P. ' Case �=1 "r. <,: �,. ..� ' ' " .,/.•::!K +.. � ' ' f�:.i.,'. � . .. ~�`.�. -. .. � � _ • •. .' . " :f i. . � . . � � . . : . -� � �•. � ' �. � •� � �i � , ;({:;. . " ' � � � � _ '� ._.' _ �_�_ ` `.r� '/7 � � �y,:i' � �'.. ,'• .' : , ..� � - � . �v� �,��- -, ._. ,` �� ,.,_�_� '`' � �;...��C�' \ ' ;- �.�-;-. ��; C.�\��---. ; � e.+..iirru...n�a��t�rn�e.e.t:�_.I � .. . . �uo�ia�aaw....;��F'r�1:r�r. � . �1. ..��I...I__��:.�is�l � . . .. '! �� ..... ��S . .�:.��„1�� ` L C'rii'.i;r::�'%. r. , ._.... _____�_�>: ::Y� � , i i � i. � � �� ..,�; y o„ � � j `: �:'�� . N ;t-:'` ' ,.i�..::; � . 1I111�II�1 1 \ '� ' '.: � �� ` R I . ` � - ,'�� J r.�� :�-�; , - � � ��.�z - -- T,�j'' `. i . ,,i — .-.._ . ,i � case=� ,� ( .� , ��1� `: a.7 ' � i-S:T'�1`,�' �� ' .��,a, � • T .o,., ��'� � . ., a..,...:�=n,-�,.sa...�.:.� 1 ( e o- aa r�►..a... s.. ar r.--..—_. —' _..._.__._. _. _...._....__._.�_- '] ioi�a 0t* - '•�@iFa�iL!N�Y , .. •ir!I::-�-��1�...1__f��•"�l:�1 � . � ' ��\`�'�-��:�:�- - _ ;:�-.,,;.� ;; �.i : ! . '`� ��: �y� i _ `\ � . \ . ` `" `\ � 'yq'.dr �'�' �j� e .i-- !t \ \-_ \t_\ � \'--.. Case f14 ; i , ' � � � ' •. � �- 'T{� ,- _ �`Y` ` r �, j' c''�'"'� ''��.- � ' .'\ I .'� ' F��--,�j�:,�%_ �•, �_ - \ ; � �ri . . . YtL�7:�;-�!"^.�'- ^•�. .� .1 - .�` ),i''.% ��1� ��\.J \i i, - ._... '�,��.�,,��<: .e ay : ' ' �_� r._;o. �.:�IR-3 F� s r n id. a_ 3" �___.�_ _ Case #5 � Residential Sound Insulabon Program boundaries defined by individual parcels intersecting the DNL 60 contour �-Eliminates usage of the biock as the smallest geographic unit for contour boundary c7etermmat�on �An� parcel touched by the contour is inc uded CaSe #5 -�-Analysis • 14,955 single family homes included in Residential Sound Insulation Program (7655 additlonai to 1992 Sound Insulation Program) • Duration of program = approx. 8.5 years + Reduces time for completion of program by approx. Z3 years • Provides program boundary that more accuretely reflects DNL 6� contour • Eligibility area likely to be considered unfair and �subjective by homeowners at edge of contour + � �T, i 9 -3 0 ,� �.a,....,...�.,�.�. ::: _.. _._ _ __. .._. _ _. ... ..... _. .. .... -- -----------_- - — . _-- -- ,�aa��,a�w ..-•IZII��IF;yr . . .�.:i. ..��i�..f �t.. •,is �I � .+ . T � ; `�. _.. _` Case #5 — � �o - - . _ r. � i:.�..... \ � . ,a .+ �� • I: _,� ----'t .\ - � — —""j:: �: — - � �_ : : I -_. .; ?'� _ � / � j� _ .�:1.�...... ._' r � - -� :-;=_,;t ; �.. � — ; ; �. ; ;: :I:`::=:`-��— ; , ; :�...� � _ , i ;:.; .v�- �� ..- _ � ;' i:,�^: , ..:� / � :�:_.. � � s:;,�,..: - — � � :�.. � ..•�,;o...�iF= �a� � i via.. .d.�,.I ]rfGb 24Sx..•.• b�F?� _3,_3`.t�;K: . - . ....- .Ir !.1'..�t�.v�—�'.+'C1:'-CI�. . ' � . �. ,� .;�µt!"J�� .. _ .'-��aa��,�'.++fiT�' E1 ::1� 3� i.'350 r'%5 ` �� tl:.�i;� � ?�,�'r�n� . •'+ � ��;5.;.;%:.., ., � rr�� . � _p: � � _:Fti � �"j�` s �. ` � � � �..�'? • . t� Y \ — ' � J. .. . - • L ` ��: .. � :�� ;. L •\ . . � �-3 �� O � �' ��. �' l ; � 1 :r 't`'�\` t. ' ��~� .,�' \� � ` \"�. �_.. ._._._.:, •. �,.� �. i `� ; : `,;.; '_'� 1 � •�' ~f' �yil F:i�•'.. ,�..I._, i.�.ri._ .. ' �'�" • \\.��\Z�� ' '��y n�ll•' iJ�. J:.i1� � �`, I� f/'�\ \ � e�..(�m:u:�.�*.1�6��i�nl0.a.d.�1'. � .. n. w v.. �... w.. s.` r+. x. . .. � aas�> wm.x...:-.IOIF� iG:N�K. � . _�r;A.l'..E.r....w J�,�-(�Ca�� "t:r:�� ':"�� . -s^.--_»� � a A \ \ . . J �� )� � r::': ._�� , �a � t �\ �:.k': d^ i �,� 'i.� .\. .� . r+��.\:.,_;;� �j;:.�� • M ']�:._~,�"' �,.. �:� � � 1 � '� ;:L•[:.,,'�.::: � � i t 1':'" �-1tv�i�•y�?'a`'.�i �' 1 � „ .� ., ' - �-•�-�'4�y�"+'4 ^ ( � t .. ^ r�'.:r..i • `' �� \ / � � �� -:k . � �' a . ' !!5 -�-� �\ • .- '-- i ��. ..1'�y.�:_.�t i � �� :� _ ' � ��."i, � � �'-i� (t ��, :.��' ��"' �: �C�se r�5 '_„�,�':: ;�'c' ,_-,. �w .�,_ ( i ..N�. _,��;" \ ` ;; ��5 '� � ^,h . ' `` .', �'`��.F,..'"�C � - � �t�•=3 �� .'-.^�y' . e: •�+� � y ' J�Y.`f A'`��:u\M>�� . ' J '" ' �._,��...p.a-o. Fc�n s r v�A, a.d.�.t -, � C� a:ms.uar.a.k.v+.y.':""., "'..�. .. ..__.. .........._...._.__._.._ " . .__._..._..__�_._�__....._ -._._......_._._ ._.._.._ ___......_._._�....._� �uoi�>O�* - ��;IFT��Ci++fMr � . rr._�..I,r.i•...��i+�l—Rl:rc�li.�l'" ' . .. . s. :.`.'Sit,rF'-'l• ,ti:�='.;'^p. '� ��` `� ' � j. ' � a � \..' � ' '4 j4'3 .� k. 1 -+.�.�;• t ti � _ � � � � � '�'a�,'� y. �� 'i,� c q � . �\ "�� \.'` � � i ti..i^� .' ��:.. a J G 1�•„`�` \ � �� \ �HI'i4�:s-r5�•`� �) y� — ^\ •.` �. ..\ _... _ "i:�,k..-it,�� r-... �. � �� ` \�., -�.'" O .;t...•'"{".,,�;; ":•�_ ___ ....� " � � L'3SC#5 � 11 �\ � 1 ' ��' d .: . ... '�., ,' :_ . � � '�\ � \. �� . :.:,. :_ �'._._.. _ ! � � . . .. , .'- � � "� ." . ^. '.. �u .— ' , `..A'4 . � ��. � I. ` , -, � �rr-^--r�'t� � � �'� . .�' �T ♦ I � / �n..�.�— �� '•� , ' ` _ � / r/ _`= .� ~� `"�'i_,��-.�:y=-"1 _,-�.''.,w--�� r ��:�-".,`_'::�.u�' `�a"' �,�"`- _-�i_. ^. i � ,.��!, , � ..� •.. -�i�^';?.. .::r��"�;`�:: ; _L--.- �:,._ ....�►�,�a.�.u:��l,iun.r_,e._.i . . . Case #6 �-Residential Sound Insulation Program boundaries defined by natural boundaries outside the DNL 60 contour where it is feasible -�-Eliminates usage of the block � Case #6 �- Methodology for Natural Boundaries: • Naturally occurring features (i.e. lakes, creeks, rivers, open/green space) within reasonable distance from contour edge • Major throu�hfares with wide rights-of-way (i.e. freeways, highways, raiiroad, county roads • Major city streets • Where no reasonable natural boundary exists: - use DNL 60 contour line � Case #6 Analysis . • 20,830 single family homes included in Residentlai Sound Insulatlon Program (13,530 additional to 1992 Sound Insulation Program) • DuraHon of program = approx. 15 years • Lengthens progtam completion time by approx. 4.2 years • F.utends program boundaries well beyond DNL 60 contour in some locations • Has histotically caused significant review delay k� and rejecHon by FAA �• Couid place approval of contlnuing sound �i.t� msulation oroqram in ieopardv 1 Con�our Boundary Adjustments �Action Request�d: i MASAC approve the Operadons Committee recommendation and continue to use the current FAA endorsed Intersecting Block Contour Edge determination (Case #3) method at MSP for the Part 150 Update. 2 •. - • - -=.:___.__: . Sound Insulation Priorities �At the 7uly 28, 2000 MASAC Operatians Committee Meeting a Review of Possibie Priority Options was Provided �At the August il, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting the Following Sound Insulation Priorifij was Endorsed and Farwarded to MASAC for Approval a� ` � �.. � l Sound Insulation Priorities -� 1. Complete the sound insulation of single farnily and du�tcr homes within the I996 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise concours -i� 3A. Complete the sound insulation ofmulti-famity residentia! structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise concours in conjunction with priority ?$ and then sequencing to 3C 6elow upon Fr1A approval of the Pazt I50 Update Documen[ ^� �. Complete the sound insularion of sinele family and duplex homes that fall within the 3005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours � J C �. i Sound insulation Priorities -� 3C. Complete the sound insulatiun of eligibte single family and dupfex homes that falf within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contoius ^} 3. Comptete the soimd insuladon of multi-faznily residenhal structures within the Z005 DNL 65 and ereater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority ZC above upon FAr1 approval of the Part 150 Update Document ^?� 4. Comptete the sound insulation ofmulti-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 tn DNL 64 noise con[ours + j �'..�.Tl L�-_3 Saund Insulation Priorities -� 5. Complete the soimd insulation of nursing homes, churches with regular weekday daycardnursery school pro�rams within the 2005 DNL 60 contour Sound tnsulaGon Timeline (S3bSM Annual �.�.��, ------------ __�._.�_�. .�, :e,:y....�.bn., _. � am�,.r..vmw..� __ � � �+'ow r�r inum�� ..o� �� --� am�.,�....i....R„ -- t-- J i' i i 3 L S • . . . � r , i � . . i . � . � ? . . a r i . i t � . 'Nac .�,6wc Jaw a�e wbja� �o cb;mgc. l DRAFf 8/11/00 �'(. � � �. ..----,:—... � � _��1'� a�ri_ _ „ �� . . �� i � ��R� .� �I!*'�� . ��. . �� `'�'p'� � ��0�� .... :::�� `:' �B ane,wrws�ru�rwrw �.._'.:..'.. ' _' �r.. � m ,,,,�� +� "._aa�s �,_ , —3"i�i� - ---..�= ,,,+ ara.aw.i.+sa..r«rr�wro� � as� ..,» � u„ � d � IGf�>.C3laG7ti �.; ra.n ;: _ t ":.� .. . ::I , i" ..' '._ _ . III�} '.:� -a� F4^__�.,� I �� I � 1� ' �R r-.' j}�` 1 C 67 =iCiCC7l:![:CI'�..';:i:_Ikil>;jtt3l��L'liLi ��m.�o�;irrir�rci:o - - - �•�: � ' -- .��'�� ii��;,,�'1�::.;'• �.. c�:;�",�,y�,�� . .�'�%�..,.``�.��r ,� �;�`? �� ;-^�,;, I�L + Yr�iti� �R � ��aum�t� ca�-iuou■ro - ..... —•-'—_ ;;:.��:;:�;�, �� a L'�4 IL19�aFF,t s _ $f""_�'_, �n'' .4 ^.,'� '� �G� �,� a, � 1� aF.�aS?.is�r.�_� :l��,'`.'w.__ ''w �' � /• / ._. ... ;�w1 � :1� � � 2 ] H?��C; t:lOi:l �� -:il<IFA'.: l'31�+ U k.i .'�. Illl�t_K.c7o=i"'i!lCCCY�O .. r• ��.. � r�wn ':.�?��'.:.. ��M� %,r,: ._: �:,.�;�..._.. �;, � �� i �� ,,� � �ir • _.,•_,�,..""� ' � � .. S1�T:� �_� ti�' :ur '��4� .� Sound Insulation Priorities 1 Action Requested: MASAC approve the Outlined Operations Committee recommendation for insulation priority which is consistent with the 1996 MSh Noise Mitigation Program and forward this recommendation as part of the Part 150 Update. � 3 C _ C , MASAC Members Chairman: Charles Mertensotto (Mendote Heights) Firn Vice Chairman: J� Nelson (Bloomington) MASAC Operatians Commirtee Chairman and Second Vrce Chairman: J� Nelsoo (BloomingtonJ Airborne Espress: srian ssces ALPA: Ron Johnwn Ciry oj8loomingron: Petrona Lec v�� w�a�ox Ctty of Bumsville: Charles Van Guilder c;ry opEagan: Jamie Verbrugge r.��e s�;� Ciry of /nver Crove Heights: Chatles Egiaton City of Mendota Heights: diu sm;w Kevin Batchelder City of Minneapolis: Barret Iane Dean Lindberg � Joe Lee r�e� st,�a s�a,g cd.� xoY Nta� c�� Ciry of Richfield Kristal Stokes Dawn Weitml Ciry of St. Louis Par.i x��c nnan.� c;ry ofsf. Pa�r: John Halls City of Sunfish Lake: Cynt6ia l'utz-Yang De1ta Airlines lnc.: ��Y ��B Dxtar�Qys: Brian simooson Federa! Ezpress: Jo6n Schussler MAC Sraff.• Roy Fuhrmann MBAA: Robert P. Johnson Mesaba Northwest Airlink: P6i1 Burke Northwest Arrlines: Jennifer Sayrc Mary Loeffet6olz Steve Holme Nancy Stoudt St. Paul Chaniber of Consmerce: Rolf Middleton Sw Counrrv Airl'wes: Gordon Gcaves United Airlines Inc.: Kevin Blsck United Parcel Service: Michael Geyer U.S. Airways /nc.: I.arry Yandle MASAC Advisors Metrapolitan Airports Commission: Chad Leqve Merropofitan Airports Commissian: Comcnissioner Altoo Gasper Federa! Aviatinn Administrarian: Ron Glaub Cindy Gteene Air Transportatton Associatinn: Paul MeGraw MNAirNatinnal Guard: Major Roy 7• Shetka U.S. Air Fnrce Reserve: Captain David J. Gerken Secretarv: Melissa Scovronsld Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpose 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the e�cient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan azea in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfaze of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold- Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corparafions, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad L,eqve, ANOMS Coordinatar and Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Specialist questions or comments may be directed to: MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 6040 28�' Avenue South Minneapolis MN. 55450 Te7: (612) 725-6328. Fax: (612) 725-6310 MAC Endvonment Department Home Page: www.macavsat.org The Airpo��t 24-hour Noise Ho[line is 726-941 L Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in airport activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information oudet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday — Friday. C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Table of Contents for July 2000 Complaint Summary Noise Complaint Map FAA Available Time for Runway Usage. MSP All Operations Runway Usage MSP Carrier Jet Uperations Runway Usage � MSP �arrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage g �MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 i MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitori.ng Tower Site Locations Map 15 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-27 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C� C� Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MA3AC) Technical Advisor's Report r �, �'� � ��' Number o� Numbe r of % of Total City Arri�al Departur� Complainrs _ Campiainants Complaints Apple Valley i � 0 1 1 �• 1`�� Blaule 0 � 1 1 3 O. l �b BloorrIlngion 3 �' 6 - 10 4 O.�Cr Bumsville 0 ( 1 �' 1 1 � O.iCr Eaean 18 �: 51 74 32 �.3`�c Eden Prairie 0 j ? `' 3 0.1 �i'e Edina � 0 j 14 �-: 71 l� � 4._'c;� Falcon Heigh[s 0 � 1 ` 1 1 0•1`%� Inver Grove Heights 13 E $3 97 l� 5.7`7� Ial:e Eirno 3 � 3 � 5 1 0.3�%c Maple Cso��e li 14 29 1 k 1.7`7c E � �„ Ivlaplewood 0 1 �' 1 1 0.1;c Marine on St. Csoi 1 0 1 1 ( O.l�lc Mendoca Heigh�s 0 27 � 27 '1 1.6�/c Minneapolis 168 f 1 4;1 �. 1241 238 72.9�/c Minnetonl,�a 8 (: 2 10 � 0��Io North Oaks 0 - 1 1 1 0.1% Plymauth 6 �; 0 l; � 4 0.8�/0 Richtield 4 3y C 43 �9 �a`�Q _ _ Rosemount 0 � 1. � 1 1 0.1% Roseville 0 f 1 f i 1 0.1�7e St. L.ouis Park ?i 2 � 27 7 li% St. Paul > 24 � 31 23 1.�`�� Sunfish Lake 0 i 1 1 0.1`�� West St. Paul 1 ( 8 � 9 3 0.5�Io V�`hite Bear L.al;e 0 ( 1 1 1 - 0.19c Total 699 , 1003 ; 17U2 �#,(} lOUA �o : Nature of i�ISP Complaints Time of Dati� I Compiaints b�� Airport i Natur� of Complaint Total Time Total Airpart Tiital ExcessiveNoise 783 I �60 0000-0�59I 49 `�2 MSP 1709 Early/Late 149 j 25 (�00 - 06i9 I 29 �� Airlal:e I 0 I.��wFlyino 37 j 18 0700-I1>9; 333 216 Anol:a � _5 Structural Dist. ( 3 � 2 1200 - 1��9 � 139 58 Cryscal � 0 � 0 l6(� - 19i9 � 177 1'9 Flying Ctoudi 3 Helicop�er Q � � Ciround Nuis e I 7 � 0 2000 -? 1_>g � 1�6 133 Lake F1mo � 0 En�ine Run-up � 0 � 0 �2p0 - 2?iy j 8� � 59 St. Paui I 0 Frequency I �i3 � 91 i i Ocher I p 1 ?;pp -2359 ; =1; 1� Misc. � 0 Total 17U9 Total I 17f}y 7'otal I 1717 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet A Froduct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program I Metropolican Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . , �• , �' . , . •.�� ArrivaU RWY De ur 4 � Arr 12L Arr 12R � Arr 2'? j An tOve r.E So. Richfie So. Minneap So. Minneap St. Pau]/� Richfield Richfield Park 30L � Arr I Eaean/Mendota Heiaht� 30R ( An � Eaaan/Mendota Height� � :� I 1?L � 1?R � ?� i 30L ' 30R � TotaI Arri��als , Dep i St. PaullHighland Park Dep ' Eaaan/Mendota Heights Dep Ea anlNlendota Hei�hts Dep So. R.ichfiekUBloomington Dep ' So. Minneapolis/No. Richf'�Id Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield Tclt:il Departures Total Oue ratinns 104 0.59'0 5282 24.O�Ic 5112 23.3�7� 40 0.2°Ic 5673 25. R�/c 5763 26.29� 21y1� 1-t){t.() �'lo 59 0.3�7� 5141 23.9�Ic 5340 2=�.8% 360 1.7�'Ic 5363 ' 24.99� 5235 24.4�% 21�98 1p(t.!) "Ic 4 ��72 I06 6038 4729 S37 424fi 5788 21��4 111 _5428 187 10035 581 4693 21U3� �2479 -r..�t : _�Tear.; 'Pe rce nt' 0.4% 28.2�`Io 22.1 % 2.5% 19.8°I'c 27.09'0 1i}0.{).nlc 0.5�'l0 25.8°Ic 0.9% 47.7�`lc ?.8C/o 2?.3�� 11)tl.{f t% 4 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Regort . • • � � • . 1 � �' , • !� • 1 1 � �' `� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 5 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report � � � � ,. , . .. � �,� � FAR Part 36 Take . .. : ; - T otrtvoise L�oet � ` A,ireraft Descn tion ''. S' e Count - Pereent B7�3? ( 110.0 Boein 747-200 ' 3 191 i 0.6 ic B741 109.4 Boein� 747-100 ! 3 46 ; 0?�c DCS 10� � McDonnell Dou las DC$-�00/600 � '_ ' 0 � 0.0`'0 B743 105 � Boein 747-300 3 �5 I 0.?�7� DC10 103.0 McDonnell Dou las DC10 3 1211 i 3.89c B727 ( 102.4 Boein 727-200 I ' 0 � O.Q�'� B7� 101.6 Boein 747-400 3 3 I 0.0�'� pC:$Q 100J McDonnell Douglas DC8 (Modified S��. 3) 3 190 � 0.6C� L101 993 Lncl3�eed L-1011 3 i l 0.0`%c IX'9 98.1 McUonnell Douglas DC9 2 0 � O.Or� B732 97.7 Boein 737-200 � ? 0' � O.O�o BA l l 97.0 ( British Aeros ace (BAC) 1-11 2 0 � 0.0�I� A�=10 96.2 Airbus Industries A340 �' 3 0 I 0.0�'c MD11 9j.3 McDonneilDouQlas MD11 3 3 � 0.0�% B763 95.7 Boeins �67-200/3Q0 � 3 0 f 0.0�/0 DC87 9�.� McDonnellDou�las DC$-70Q 3 21 � Q1�I� g72Q 94.5 Buein 727 (Moditied Sts. 3) 3 4162 13.090 B772 943 Boeine 777 3 0 O.Q�Io A306 9�.0 Airbus Industries A300B4-600 3 70 0.2�I� F28 92.9 Fokker 28 �tempc smm �ticA t< �s,000 msa 2 163 � O.��In A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 � 3 3� O.l�Io B73Q 92.1 Boeina 737 (Modified St . 3) 3� 898 ( 2.S�lo MD80 91.� McDonnell Douelas MD-80 3 802 2•�90 B7�2 91.� Boein 757-200 3 3238 102% DC9Q 91.0 McDonneil Dou las DC9 (Modified Sc�. 3) 3 9872 � 31.0�/0 B734 gg.9 Boeing 737-400 3 10 0.0�/0 A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 �110 16.0% B738 g7.7 Boein= 737-800 3 10 0.090 B73� 87.7 Boein 737-500 3 453 1.4�/0 B737 87 i Boein 737-70� 3 4 � O.O�Ic 8733 87.; Boein 737 �300 3 8G6 ` 27�7a A319 87.� Airbus IndusCries A319 3 $l� 2.6°Ia BA4b � 3�.9 British Aeras ace 14b 3 2051 ` 6.4% B712 83.0 ( Boein 717-200 � ( 3 326 � 1.0°Io F100 81.8 Fol;l:er 100 3 91� i.9% El�i 81.8 F.�nbraer 14i 3 98 ( 03�1e F70 80.1 Fokker 70 3 4 ( 0.0°In CRT 1 79.8 Canadair Re ianallet 3 279 0.9�Io Tatals i3.19`Il -=';:10U.4�Z'o:. � St�,?e II Stage III Staee III Manufactured "1'otal St�e Itt �ount : Curce'nt I.�.st Yea 163 0.� C'c ( 1 l 3`'"c 15122 47.4°Ic { i7.9�Io 16626 �'.1% � 50.3�Ic 317-�8 99.� c'c ( 2ili.7 �i� Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III mteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36.'Ihis Includes hushkit engines, engine revofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. ( •The Provided Noise leveis from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft [ype during take-off ineasured in EPNL dBA (Effective �, Perceived Noise LeveO. ' •EPNL. is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-cmrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A- weighted decibels. ( A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Meuopolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report . � • • ;, � ,� ;• . ,1 �' � 1 , 1 `� � � . ; � ,, ; . � . �� ;��, A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram 7 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Repcnt . Nighttime Carrier Jei Operations 10:30 p��r�. to 6:00 a.m ` I2unway Use IZeport July 2000 firrivaU R�'VY . I?e �artnre � C)�erfli `ht:Area 4 � Arr � So. Richfield/Bloomin on 1?L ( An � So. Minnea lis/No. Richf'�ekl 1?R � Arr � So. Minnea lis/No. Richiield 2� ( Arr � St. PauUHi hland Park 30L � Arr � Ea�an/Mendota Hei hts 30R An ; Easan/Mendota HeiQhts � Tatal Arricals `_ 4 ( De � St. PauUHi hland Park P _- 12L ; Dep � �Ea�an/Mendota� Heights 1?R � De i Ea�an/Mendc�ta Hei�hts 2? � De ( So. Richf'�ekUBloomin�ton � 30L � De j So. Minnea �lis/No. Richfieki 30R � Ue � So. Minnea lis/N�. Richfieki Total De • ` s Z otat oaeraho�s 32 2.79� _ 40 203 17.59� 323 244 20.9�� 61 12 1.0°In 216 329 28.29� fi� 347 29.7% 57_5 T167 ' 1[}t}.tt°I'c: 1279 I 0.19c 12� �26 27.89� 29? ?38 29.3% 1 35 4.39� 616 184 22.6ck 14 129 15.99� 300 '�13 1t}1l.{F:�Q` 1Z35 19$0 ?�5.1� -.Lasf ; Year ` <Perceint:: 3.1 % 25.29� 4.8�'I'c 16.99� 5.0�'l0 47.0�'70 l{ii}:{)% 1.0°Ic 23.6cIc O.i% 49.9�� l.l�% , �4.39c 1{1t}.1) �i'a 8 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report ; July 2000 Top 15 Actual l�tighttirne �et C)pea�tors by T'ype 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m Airline ` ID S e T Count � American AAL 3 F100 43 American AAL 3 MD80 28 Airborne ABX 3 DCS 19 Airbome ABX 3 DC9Q 2� America West AWE 3 A320 �� Arr�erica West AWE 3 B7�2 1 Cha ion CCP 3 B72Q 27 ComAir COM 3 CRT 1 �'_ Total Nighttime Jet O rahons by Hour -Hour _ Count 2230 � 61S 2300 � 635 24�Ob � 339 100 � 71 200 � 37 300 ( 7 �00 � 93 i00 � �80 TOTAI. � 1980 Delta DAL 3 B72 30 Delta DAL 3 87�2 1 Delca DAL 3 MD80 8 FedE�c FDX 3 B72 9 FedEx FDX 3 A306 23 FedEx FDY 3 A310 13 FedEx FDX 3 DC'10 26 FedE.Y FDX 3 1 Northwest N�'A 3 �I Northwest NWA 3 417 Nonhwes[ NWA B72Q 44 Northwest NWA 3 Nonhwest NWA B742 3 ' Northwest NWA 1 Northwesc NWA 3" Northwest NWA 11 Nonhwest NWA DC9Q '09 �� R an RYN 3 B72Q 80 � Sun Countrv SCX B7' 132 I Sun Count SCX '3 ; Air Tran '1� �yQ 1 � Air Tran TRS �� i Trans W orld TW A ( DC9Q 27 j Trans W orld TW A 7 � United UAL 1 i United tJAL � 3 28 . ; Uniced LJAL 9 � United UAL 3 United L)AI. 1� i UPS UPS 6 ; UPS UPS ��Q � Van e u ard VGD � � � Total 18C5► MDl1 A319 A320 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 B741 B74� $7i? DC10 � 1 B712 I� Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 94.4% of the total nighttime operations. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 9 1 � a 0 .1:� CC L 6� G � � O L d .Cf �" � � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatemeni Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report July 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m ��,v e-.��}. �� G�4 c,o� �4y ��.�'e-4�,� ��- �.4,s �,�e� �Qv Jqs a�� Airline . Stage 2 ❑ Stage 3 � Manufictured Stage 3 July 2000 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m to 6:00 am Au�iine S ;. � � ; : AAL 0 ABX 0 AWE 0 CCP 0 ' co�i o DAL 0 I FDX 0 NWA 0 ��_ RYN . 0 S hC 0 i TRS 0 TWA 0 ; UAL 0 ' UPS 0 V GD � 0 � Total (i 71 4'7 53 �� 52 39 72 1061 80 155 29 34 S9 50 40 18C�y 10 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — July 2000 7ul 9 thru 16, 2000 — 4126 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jul 9 thru 16, ZQ00 — 4054 Carrier Jet Departures Ju19 thru 16, 2000 — 282 Nighttime Carrier Jet Airivals Jul 9 thru 16, 2040 — 196 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 12 A Product of the Metropolitan AirPorts Commission ANOMS Program Me[ropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Airpor� Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — July 2000 Jul 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3760 Carrier Jet Atrivals Jul 17 thru 23, 2000 — 3742 Carrier Jet Depaztures Jul 17 thru 23, ZQ00 — 272 Niahttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jul 17 thru 23, 20d0 —179 Nighuime Carrier Jet Departnres A Praluct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 13 , ,.;,�-.�„-. _ _._ ..._ . _ _._. ..______. .__..___� _. _ _ .. • •.-- . ��^�+,■ �• _�,��4�� Y. •; . '!rs'•�'+ti ��t`7u! �` i1 4ti �. .�,? KC,..�+ � -• � - . �'� ' 4�. ��; q, ..r� T� "� .' . �"� j�- �-y y �.o-y,t::� 0,y Y� r+i� `3_ ti 2;. �� Iir.. .�.• ` ��.�"'r,,,,� :- �� ,# �r,r� �� Z,,f• �. �� . r +�r� '^r: J .�� ' �.'� •. t � �'; �''�'f � ' � • �,+ ,� �' �' r • �� • �+ � � 't t y �� ' +•. . • 'b, �I �� • ._ � � '� 4 -��«� i .��'� W i��4 .1 •• �'.. �♦ � S � '�.' ti• = � � • y!'N'' �� . . � < � � ti . . ' . . - . � - . .. .. . ..,._. '.. � '. .. . .. . "\. 4 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Remote l�Io�toring Tower Site I.,ocations Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System '�,. � � . : ._.., ��, — .-�-:,,�,�,,;_ -- - i . � :. : � ,`— ti. t �_" � i — y µ— `� ) y � �. �r �:.�J�. �_.-Y -_'. - - ._ _ �� ll-`:_� � � ..�. � � �:�.`._^` '��_ '�-.�'_'�\�y-l�` 'r ��"y 'J...+. .� -�-'-- _ `� -l� ��. ___=:=�,ve✓ ._ _' - — .i��. .�'--, . � J — _ �-..- - . : .- � � . t . .. - � `. _ � _ , . . � .� "" � ; r ... . _ . i ."' i , . ��\ ` ' �'� — Y�� . . � a � •."2.- � _ . �� ^ _ .. - � �-. . � .-- ' . _ . _ . ._ . _., i :-1l �/ _ ._ . __.�.._ . . `.��.. ; . � �ti.,:�..: . - . _..._ .; � �sa. � _ �4 -___�� —. �;! � � 1-. �� ---� ra — �- -` ... u ^ '�.^ "'�"� .�.��`'.=�� _..=�' • ' .,y- � _�-i��` _-t-'� �`-- �� r.�'-,, =-,-.----�=i-------.�',=� ��;�j-'.-�� ,--�i I � � �^,` (i` i i � �� . i � ii'"'�+ � h�"� � ~l" — �_ . /n;l}"r , _ �' �. :A �'""'� ~i i i � � ` t � l t _ ' � i _ ..� I C— , ! //l !_� �,`:',, 1 �: `�— 1 �J�' Tj .L� �/( ��..�'�_ �— — �, � '^ . ,,-_,(�__ �K� � �JI� � , 4;/ f ✓ ' .� =t� r � _ �•lillll�.: r-. f �—*. i �'' �! — _ -�-��`�I`'"', ,,�� ` ' ' ' ` � ��y �.i r�l �i j� •' --_ -- - - � � - �s_,�_ �� (�„ ~ _ 1,---- , / / , ._ — - r - ~-�,r' � I� - J62 ; , i -�. tl ..,�� r� �', ;%% � _ _�- sZ �-= � �-^ - , ; � �� ` ,�t• ��/ ,!.' = : \ -'�-- J 1 P �'1 �'" / �'�.w 1 —� �'" \ -- - 6 ��*:'�� -�� ' �',`) ' -��£i�t�Q�&=-�_= `_-'_ �� , ,,�._ �.;:.� � '�r. , �-`'�-��. , -�s--�- �� ;'�, �'=� � �—'- '�5 �:� 5 , r%:�! ,=- - - '_ :;�- = _ -= ' � �_ �� X �, � I . ,r Il _ ; ,� • . : J - ., , �: : r , � ,� �-��. _-�, - : �� :., �� : l. �..� "�T"`*'--'� (i� r"_, �_ .� �%t c..�,/� .� 4 ` , �� r� � � . �...� .i.:n �L�1� _ � �£�IeI � v�,�. , .% .^ � � '• ` = •^ �� ,, � �1`�`.�, �� .}� ��.�� a,-" _ � ;1 �, � J � o � ;..,,j� .=..;f —..._.� � i.:: � _ � t .. � ��..:_ ' 'i"�:� �+.''.a �'� A^-1f,��-- � i _ �rt-��-`a-^' 'C-�-'�t�� , i .(�; � y. ` t,--- �ii%.--.c �:.- • _• ='^�' �r.�f,�f. ! .T�-��.-- - L; •? '''�...'�=�._r—� `' ��T _ - - - .-�� ` _ -� ,%s � � `�::: �:; . �� ' �� _- y�.,-_ .C, �' cJ _ � � . _ -r.� t,_„� /�'�� - �-s1 � ._--`:�-�� . a`� _ � � � JJ�i '_ � _.y.-t. � i � � ! ! L . _ _� ' �1 : - . -�� ' ' . ' a v � " ''L. - �-� Offiill�t011 ' � � k� `� .� � ,j� �: � _ `;� r �« � "`� ' _ : ...,! ' � _, 1 n� � t= _ ( ' �``� ~.�-: ,� � ' - �� ` ;t r '_. -ri - _ . r 1- � � ��' ' �,u � � _ � _��^�--� l ' _ � � _ _ ' � \. - 1' � � _. �'� � ~�� _ �'I--`♦:��.�_ _ _�,� r��- ` _ � -_. � � ~ �' . �;,%'f ,--1 . �''� .... ' .�/ p � .1. 4'R� ' � , . : :�- - U�� `'_ i, _ /"� � yi. /J.� p'�,: ! �-...,J /. J �--, � �„� � •� = -- — ��,,'�r ',' ;;�:'=' - �-;- .�, - -?3. ' - '` • ''o _ _ 'G �. ,- � . _ _ ` , c � � -' 1 _ j^'� _,,,.. k ` ' =1 ~ ` �^.-,-l1.�.' � - - � • �..._- ~-, y !+ '� " _ 'J' _ -- - '-. — - - Y�~�....,-� / - bi_ 17 _ I .�, ---, , - r -- �--� _ . _ `Jirt��'.r�..''�! -.+'J��:'tF YT—= '—yr' _ ��41.'. . �� __ '_._ '__-- ,=; �: �l.L� _�`" ' �._ _ r`:I.......'� ' hPn - '.=_ _ _.-.��Gt' �� `._.� Cj^•i �-' , - . 7t � � �;-- � '_iJ .- =..^�"..�"� � -�4 . _ . � L s ; CrI _ : : : ' _ .., l� � ��!_F- _ '_ � l � _ .\ ` '�J�✓ C U t �"+.0 �..' C _ _ . . � �. �_ - - G _,,-.�� C�"1- _.�- _ _� _ —. _,_ . �. - -- _ - — — �. _ . _ _ .. - - - --- �' �-' - , , _ _ ,-_ ;- ":'-�, �- .c: �- � . . � ._ - — - f ^�;� C) ' �,.,,,,,,_� ` > _ ' , _�,.--, n � -- - .'- _� . _ • - --' . . . .. - . - _ " ` " �� L� �,�_.. Remote Monitoring Tower A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 15 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASACj Technicai Advisor's Repon Carrier Jet A�rival Related lOToise Events Jul 2000 � y Arrival Arrivai=:. :' tlrrival Arrival RMT " Events : �E�ents : E�rents'- ' Events, ,. , •ty Address .:; r:>65dB , . >84dB , >90dB >10UdB � ID . , Ci 1 Minnea olis � Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. b304 32 1 0 2 Minnea olis � Fremonc Ave. & 43rd S[. i240 � 34i 0 0 3 Minnea olis � West Ilmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 5296 1927 3 0 4 Minneapolis � Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 5393 1036 2 0 j Minnea olis � 12th Ave. & 58th St. �4�9 ( 42?1 4�' 0 6 Minnea olis � vth Ave. 8r. �7th St. 5667 4669 5�2 0 7 Richfield � Wentwonh Ave. & 64th Sc. 198 7 2 0 8 Minnea olis � L.onQfellaw Ave. & 43rd St. 117 1 0 0 9 �t. Paul � Sarato a St. & Hartford Ave. 47 14 0 0 10 Sc. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. �+4 26 ? 0 11 St. Paul � Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 24 1 0 0 12 St. Paul � Alton St. & Rocl.tivood Ave. 15 2 0 0 13 Mendoca Heish�s � Southeast end of Mohican Court 59 � 0 0 0 14 Easan ( ist St. & Mckee St. 7294 42 1 0 1i Mendota Hei�hts Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 168 3 0 0 16 Eaean � Avalon Ave. & V'�las Lane 5768 2306 6 1 17 Bloorrnn�ton � 84th St. & 4th Ave. 1�7 30 0 0 18 Richtield ( 7�th St. & 17th Ave 130 ( 21 0 0 19 Bloominscon � 16th Ave. & 84th St. 4S 11 0 0 20 Richtield � 7��h Sc. & 3rd Ave. 29 ( 6 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heiehcs � Barbara Ave. & 67th St. lil 0 0 0 ?? InverCsove Heish[s � Anne Marie Trail 3�09 24 4 0 23 Mendo�a Heieh�s i Fnd of Kenndon Ave. 1843 14 3 1 24 F��an I Cha el In. & Wren Ln. 7092 � 89 2 0 ( 2i Ea�an ; Moonshine Park 1321 Jurd Rc1. 216 I 1 0 0 ` 26 Inver Grove Heights ! 6796 Arl�nsas Ave. W. 852 7 0 0 27 Minneapulis I Anthony School i7�7 Irving Ave. S. 86 5 0 0 ?8 Richrie(d � 664i 16ch Avenue S. S76 2� 6 0 29 Minnea olis � Fricsson�F�em-Schoo14315 31st Ave. S. i� 2 0 0 Total Arrisal Noise E;rents 618{t2 14867 1f)41 '? . � 16 A Pratuct of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Carrier Jet I)eparture R�latecl I�oise Events July 2000 � De�rture Depart�re Departua�e Departure RNIT ' Evants .- Events Events _ Events � ID . ��ity � .Address � ` - ' .>65�IB >SO`dB. . . . `>94dB >140dB 1 Minnea olis Xenses Ave. & 41st St. 1156 218 ? � ? Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1�07 � 367 9. � 3 Minnea olis West IImwood St. & Belimnt Ave. 3065 610 36 0 4 Minnea olis � Oal:land Ave. & 49th St. 3739 97? 61 0 5 Minnea olis ( 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6627 ( 2659 707 16 6 Minnea olis � 2�th Ave_ & 57ch St. 8181 3372 1411 Z� 7 Richfeld Wen[worth Ave. & 64th St. 4213 � 1346 83 0 8. Minnea olis i.on fellow Ave. & 43rd St. 274� 733 '7 0 9 St. Paul � Sarato a S[. & Hartford Ave. 84 � 2� 10 0 10 S�. Paul � Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin S�. 87 4� 3� 11 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 77 31 9 0 12 S�. Paul Alton St. & Rocl.�vood Ave. 84 � 1 0 13 Mendota Hei h�s Southeast end of Mohican Coun 3471 389 8 0 14 Ea an ( lst St. & Mckee St. 5300 1375 16� 0 1� Mendota Hei hts Cullon St. & L.exin con Ave. 4018 668 23 0 16 Ea an Avalon Ave. & V'�las Lane 5167 2019 �14 1 17 Bioormn�ton � 84th St. & 4th Ave. 217 58 2� � 18 Richfield � 7�th St. & 17th Ave 3�0 147 78 � 19 B(oomin ton 16th Ave. & 84th St. 2b4 78 18 � 20 Richfieid � 7�th St. & 3rd Ave. 318 � 15 4 0 21 Inver Grove Hei hts � Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 2037 i l 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heiehts I Anne Marie Trail 1831 80 0 0 23 Mendota Heigh[s � Fnd of Kenndon Ave. �6?0 2053 837 1 24 Easan � Cfia el Ln. & Wren In. 4127 596 11 0 2� Eaean � Moonshine Park 132t Jurd Rd. � 262k3 � 38 � � 26 InverGrove Heiohcs i 6796Arl�nsas Ave. W. 2530 2� 1 1 0 27 Minnea olis � Anthon School �7�7 Irvin Ave. S. ( �924 I 631 22 0 28 Richfield ( 6645 16th Avenue S. 4�7U � 161 • 7 0 29 Minneapolis I Fricsson IIem.Schoo1.431� 31st Ave. S. ( _14ll � 154 2 0 Tota1 De ure Noise EFents 783�5 19177 �112 268 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proaram l� Date/Tix� 7/9/00 6:15 7127/00 833 7/11/00 7S5 7/7/00 17:43 1128/Q01138 7/1/0016:09 l/19/00 21:14 7/19100 10:09 7/19/001135 Date/Time 7/13100 9S6 7/1/0016:09 7/19/0010:09 7/14J0016:19 �i2voo io:is 7/17/0017:09 7/21/00 9:32 7/20/00 17:03 7/19/0011:42 7/20/0011:46 Da[e/Tar�e 7/1/0013:49 �i2aao lo:�z �i2a�oo io:�s 7/ 1?J0010:21 7I9/00 15:40 7/2Gi0012:C2 7/30/00 9:12 7/24/0012:C11 7/21/00 21:15 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP , j u1-00 (RMT Site#1) Xences Ave. & 41�` St, M�neapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA704 A320 D 22 SCx710 B72 D 30L MFS3181 BA46 A 12L Unkown C750 A 12L NWA619 B72Q D 30R DAL1624 B�2 D 30L NWA615 B72 D 30L NWA 19 B742 D 30L UAL1519 B72 D 30R NWA585 B'72 D 30L (RMT Site#2) - Fremont Ave. & 43rd St, Minneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway De arture SWI715 B72 D 30L DAL1624 B72 D 30L UAL1519 B72Q D 30R DAL1624 B72Q D 30R UAL1519 B72 D 30R NWA1269 B72 D 30R SCX715 B72 D 30R NW A 1277 B72 D 30R NWA271W B72 D 30R NW A 1271 B72Q D 30L (RMT Srte#3) West Ehnwood St & Belmont Ave., l�tinneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA19 B742 D 30L SCX748 B72 D 30L UAL1519 B72 D 30R UAL1519 B72Q D 30R UAL1519 B72Q D 30R KLM664 B743 D 30L NWA23 B742 D 30L SCX715 B72 D 30L NW A624 B72 A 12R NWA56 B742 D 30L Imax (dB) 91.8 91.6 90.4 89.3 88S 885 882 � 87.6 ��< .: 93J 91.9 91.4 91.1 90.8 .Tj Lmax (dB) . 96.1 95.1 943 93.7 935 932 93.1 93 92.8 _ 18 A Product ofthe Metropolitan Airports Commissian ANOMS Program Date/Tirre 7/21/00 9:31 7/19/00 19:58 7/5/00 16:12 7/26/0015:4b 7/t/001555 7/26/00 7:23 7/26/00 9:06 7/19/00 17:24. 7/ 13/00 19:53 7/27/00 7:59 Date/Time 7/20/00 7:13 7/ 1/00 9:09 7/28/00 17:25 7/27/0011:42 7/26/00 14:57 7/30/00 7:10 7/31/00 9:14 7/ 16/0011:59 7/ 19/00 9:19 7/28/00 19:50 Date/Time 7/ 19/00 16:58 7/5/00 7:32 7/8/00 13:54 7/ I 6/00 1339 7/22/00 13:45 7/IM00 12:01 7/ 19/00 11:52 7/21 /00 9:31 7/9/00 13:43 7126/00 8:58 Metropolitan Aircrafr Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report � Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for M[SP Jul-0o (RMT S ite#4) Oakland Ave. & 49`h St,. Minneapofis Flight Number Ai�raft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture SCX'715 B72 D 30R DAL1683 B72 D 30R DAL1624 B72 D 30R SCX74g g72 D 30R SCX745 B72 D 30L DAL941 B72Q D 30L CCP203 B72Q D 30L NWA1589 B72 D 30L DAL1683 B72 D 30R ATN824 . DC8Q_ D 30R (ltM'I' Srte#5) 12`h Ave. & 5$`h St, Mmneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture CCP124 B72 D 30L � SCX791 B72Q D 30L SCX403 B72 D 30L NWA1271 B72 D 30L NWA315 B72 D 30L CCP 124 B72 D 30L SCX791 B72Q D 30L Unlmown Unlrnown D 30R SCX791 B72Q D 30L NW A964 B72Q . D 30L (l2MT Srte#6) 25`h Ave. & 57`h St, Mmneapolis Flight Number Aircraft Type AmvaU Runway De arture Unlmown Unknown D 30R SCX710 B72 D 30R NW A 1296 B72 D 30R NW A 1296 B72 D 30R NW A 1296 B72Q D 30R NW A585 B72Q D 30R NW A619 B72 D 30R SCX715 B72 D 30R NW A 1296 B72 D 30R SCX227 B72Q __ D 30R Lrnax (dB) 97.4 96J 96.7 96.4 95.7 95.1 94.3 94.3 939 93.8 Ilrrax (dB) 102 101.3 101.1 101.1 101 1(30.8 100.7 100.7 100.5 100.5 Lr�x (dB) 105.7 105.5 105.3 105.2 105.1 105.1 105.1 104.8 104.6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP ,T ul-UO (RMT Site#�) Wentworth Ave. & 64`h St, Richfield Date/Tirne 7I26/00 8:58 7/19/001659 7/5/0015:54 7/17/00 8:02 7/28/0019:12 7/2 U0014:20 7/21/00 16:01 7/27/00 7:33 7/ 17/00 752 7I9/00 18:32 Date/Time 7/210015:04 7/29/0015:30 7/29/0016:06 7/15/0016:01 7/28/0016:03 7/ 1M00 21:30 7/9/GO 1936 7l29/00 22:18 7/20/00 15:12 7/8J00 16:19 . • �-�. � �-I� • � , � ii,-.�� , � ,� . . • • . 'll�� _ �� - � . �� .., :�� .� . � ��,�� ,1�'_i1ii+��'a��J_ � ` �M''' '�� ' • �� . �► '*�� . s �'��1�. �� : �3! • � �� Z�! � • � � �M YT� � • � . 1 ��►.s�T� � • � � � �M_•1c: � • � � (RMT Site#9) Saratoga St & Hartford Ave., S� Paul Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA83 B742 � D 4 NWA83 B'742 D 4 KLM664 B743 D 4 NWASb B742 D 4 NWA588 B72 D 4 NWA56 B742 D 4 NWA19 B742 D 4 NWA20 B742 A 22 Lmax (dB) 97.9 95 94.7 943 94.1 933 932 92.6 92S 92.2 Lcnax (dB) 96.4 94.2 93.8 93S 91.8 91.6 88.1 ?p A Product of the Me[ropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �� Metrogoliran Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IVISP .Ju�-oo (RMT Site#10) Ttoera e�,P Rr Rnwrinm St_ SL Paul (RMT Srte#11) F;nn �t. Xz Scheffet Ave., S� Paul (RMT Site#12) A'1*.�,., C't A. 1?n��rcvnnf� AvP �Y pAll� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � 1 Date/Time 7/25/00 8:05 7/24J00 8:02 7/26/00 5:17 7/4/001151 �iiaoo az:�c 7/2M00 7:49 7/3/00 21:11 Date/Time 7/10/00 9:01 7/15100 9:07 7/28/00 7:16 7/22/0011:57 7/25/00 19:28 7/6/001154 7/6/001322 7I17/0017:48 7/10/0016:24 7/10/0016:23 Date/Time 7/5/001432 7/2M0012:14 7/7/00 7:20 7/9/00 5:27 7/2M0013:23 7/26/00 5:17 7/2M00 20:49 7/30/00 20:03 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report 'd'op 'Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP ,tu�-oo (RMT S�e#13) _ Soutl�east End Of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights Flight Number Aircraft Type Arriva]/ Runway De arture UAL1473 B72 D 12L NW A 1296 B72 D 12L SCX749 B�2 D 12L SCX710 B72 D 12L RYN610 B72Q D 12L NWA585 B72 D 12L NWA 1545 B�2 D 12L � NWA738 B72 D 12L NWA615 B72 D 12L NWA1545 B72Q D 12L �vrr s�#14� lst St & Mckee St, Eagan Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture � SCX407 B72 D 12R SIX409 B72Q D 12R CCP101 B72 D 12R NWA23 B742 D 12R NWA588 B72 D � 12R NWA1271 B'72 D 12R NWA584 B72 D 12R Unirnown Unimown A 30L DAL1624 B72 D 12R SC"X743 B720 D 12R (RMT S�e#15) Cuilon St & Lexuigton Ave., Mendota Heig_hts Flight Number Aircraft Type Arriva]/ Runway De aiture NWA624 B72 D 12L NW A 1255 B72 D 12L DAL941 B72 D 12L "RYN610 B72Q D 12R NW A 1546 B72Q D 12L SCX345 B'72Q D 12L NWAlC�9 B72 D 12L NWA588 B72 D 4 NWA68Q DC D 12L NW A 1546 B72Q D 12L_ _ Lmax (dB) 92 91.1 91 90.3 90.3 89.9 I.max (dB) 97.2 96.9 95.9 95.8 95.8 95.6 95.4 Q�� 95.4 94 935 93.4 93.� 92.7 92.7 925 92 2� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � i �, _ � Date/Tin�e 7/ 17/00 :17 48 7/8/0018:42 7/3/00 9:13 7/22/0011:57 7/9/00 9:07 7/3/0016:03 7/18/00 12:08 �/1CV0017:46 7/9100 9:06 7/1M0015:41 Date/'Time 7/1M0016:24 �/9/001528 7/1/001153 7/25/00 15:17 7/8/0012:03 7/4/00 15:45 7/8/0012:01 7/23/0015:03 7/1/00 14:12 7/11/00 15:17 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP .tu�-oo (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & V�as Lar�e, F - Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU De artur Unlrnown Unlrnown A SCX785 B72 _ D S(�'7g0 B72 _ D NWA23 B742 D SCX409 B72Q D NWA19 B742 D NWA23 B742 D crsrer��z R��n D A587 (RMZ' S�ee#17) 84th St & 4th Ave., Bloom'rr Fligh Nut mUer Airc� �� _ , De�ar[ur NWA19 B742 D NWA19 B742 _ D NWA23 B742 ,,_„ D NWA19 B742 D NWA585 B72 D NWA 19 B742 D NWA23 , B742 ...__ D NWA19 B742 D NWA446 B72 D NWA19 B742 D (RMT Site#18) �Srh �t X� l 7th Ave. Richfield Runway � m � 0 m m m m m Lmax (dB) 102.6 100.7 99.6 99.1 98.9 985 982 98.1 98.1 98 94.7 94S 94.4 Date/Tur�e Flight Nunr�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway L.max(dB) De arture 7!1/001153 NWA23 B742 D 22 101.2 7/25/0015:17 NWA19 B742 D 22 101.1 7/8/0015:25 NWA19 B742 D 22 100.5 7/23/0011:59 NWA23 B742 D �22 100.2 7/25/0021:08 NWA689 B72Q D 22 100.1 7/31/0012:19 NWA23 B742 D 22 99.9 7/1M0016:24 NWA19 B742 D 22 99.3 7/9/00 6:18 SCX463 B72 D 22 99.3 7/9/0015:28 NWA19 B742 D 22 99.1 7/1/001�:44 NWA83 B742 D 22 99.1 A Product of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram �3 Date/Time 7/2?J00 6:17 7/25/00 22:05 7I25/00 21:05 712ll00 23:24 7/2?J00 531 7/30/00 8:13 7/8/0015:49 7/9/0010:59 7/11/00 15:35 7/23/0012:00 Metropolitan Aircraf[ Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten L.oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP .T u1-00 (RMT S rte# 19) _ 16th Ave. & 84th St, Bloommgton Flight Nuu�ber Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De azture SCX749 B72 D 22 ABX353 D 22 NWA1049 B72 D 22 CCI1739 B72 D 22 SCX345- B72 D 22 CQ395 B72 D 22 KCM664 B743 D 22 RYN738 B72 D 22 NWA874 D 22 NWA23 B742 D 22 (RMT Site#20) 75th St & 3rd Ave., Richfie�d Lmax (dB) 95.7 94.9 .94.6 943 93.8 93 92.8 91.6 Date/Time Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway Ltrrax(dB) De arture 7/9/00 6:18 SCX463 B72 D 22 91.8 7/1/001538 KI.M664� B743 D 22 91 7/ 1/00 5:42 RYN610 B72 D 22 90S 7/9/0010:56 NWA772 D 22 90.1 7/30/00 759 Unlmown Unlrnown D 30R 89.6 7/9/00632 NWA709 D 22 88.1 7/9/0017:34 NWA628 B72 A 30L 871 7/9/00 621 SCX537 B72 D 22 86 7/8/0013:12 NWA581 B72 A 30L 84.9 7/28/0017:36 NW A 1298 B72Q A 30L 84.8 (RMT Site#21) Ba.rbara Ave. & 67th S�, Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture 7/2M0012:24 NWA585 B72 D 12R 7/7/0018:22 NW A 83 B742 D 12R 7/10/00 7:41 SIX710 B72 D 12L 7/25/0011:56 'NWA23 B742 D 12R 7/5/0012:05 NWA23 B742 D 12R 7/11/0021:16 NWA56 B742 D 12R 7/8/0021:15 NWA615N B72 D 12R 7/6/00 7:31 SCX710 B72 D 12L 7/2M0012:07 NWA23 B74? D 12R 7/6/0016:24 DAL1624 B720 D 12L Imax (dB) 865 862 85S 84.9 84.8 84.6 84.6 83.9 24 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program C � (' 1 Date/Tirr�e 7/12100 7:35 7/5/00 7:36 7/5/00 7:36 �iivoo s:l� 7/12100 7:35 7/19/00 17:10 7iiaoo Zo:�o 7/13/00 8:02 7/ 17J00 17:46 7/13/0020:31 Date/Tune 7/5/00 1951 7/5/0013:06 7/7/0016:06 7/510012:19 7/2?J00 11:29 7/ 10/00 7:40 7/5/0014:32 7/23/001737 7/M0017:16 Date/Ture 7/8/00 19:41 7/ 1'7/00 17:47 7/27/00 17:15 7/23/00 9:14 7/2S/00 14:48 7/ 15/00 21:15 7/8/00 6:13 �iiaoo i2:m 7/2J00 11:57 7/23/00 16:17 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP ,Tu�-oo (IZMT Site#22) _ Anne Marie Tra�, Inver Grove Heights F7ight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture MES3181 SF34 A 30R NWA1794 A 30L NW A 1468 D A 30R NWA395 A320 A 30R MES3181 SF34 A 30R NWA114 A320 A 30L NWA190 A320 A 30L AMT246 B72 A 30R Unlrnown Unlrnown A 30L COA 1481 B735 . A 30R pZMT Srte#23) End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights Flight Nurnber Aucraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture � Unlrnown D 12L Unlrnown D A 30R NWA1515 . D D 12L DAL1624 B72 D 12L NWA619N B72 D 12L NW A619 B72 D .12L SCX710 B72 D 12L NWA624 B72 D 12L NWA611 B72 D 12L NW A611 B72Q D 12L (RMT S rte#24) Chapel Lane & Wren Lane, Fagan Flight Number Aucraft Type AmvaU Runway De arture NW A588 B72 D 12R Unlrnown Unlmown A 30L Unirnown Unlrnown A 30L SCX791 B72 D 12R NW A592 B72Q D 12R NWA56 B742 D 12R SCX749 B72 D 12R NWA23 B742 D 12R NWA23 B742 D 12R SCX741 B72Q D 12R Lmax (dB) 92.3 91 90.7 905 89S 89.3 89 88.7 88.7 88.� Lmax (dB) 101.1 99.7 99.7 992 99.1 99 9$.7 98.7 98.7 Imax (dB) 93.4 93.2 93.1 91.8 91.4 91.3 91.2 91.1 91 90.7 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25 Date/Tiu� - 7/7/00 2254 7/5/00 9:14 7/7/00 22:49 7/7/00 15:07 7/5/00 920 7/10/0014:55 7/5/00 9:19 7/25/00 7:19 7/2U0010:19 DatelTur� 7/18/0015:08 7/28I00 637 7/7/001822 7/11/00 8:58 7/5/0012:04 7/28/00 ?:43 7125/0011:55 7/6/0012:16 7/8/0017:36 7/22/00 11:57 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP ,Jul-OU (1ZMT Site#25) _ Moonshuie Park, 1321 Jurdy Rd., Fagan Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU Runway De arture NW A 109� D 12R 3GX227 B72 D 12R SCX711 B72 D 12R DAL1731 B72 D 12R SCX407 B72 D 12R DALi731 B72Q D 12R C'�P203 B72 D 12R SCX521 B72 D 12R NW A728 A 30L crsr-»i R72n D 12R Date/Time 7/20/00 9:13 7/17/0015:01 7/2�I00 16:05 7/6/00 6:43 7J28/0017:26 7/2fi/00 17:42 7/5/00 22:28 7/1/00 7:19 7/20/0014:58 7/19/00 9�2 (RMT S�e#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights Flight Nu�er Aircraft Type Arrivall Runway De arture ' NWA19 B742 D 12R UAL1077 B72Q D 12L NWA83 B742 D 12R S(�407 B72 D 12R NWA23 B742 D � 12R SCX710 B72 D 12L NWA23 B742 D 12R NWA585 B72 D 12R NWA611 B72 D 12R NWA23 B742 D 12R (RMT S�e#27) Anthony Midd� School, 5757 Irving Ave. S., Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU De arture SCX791 B72 D SCX748 B72 D DAL1624 B72 D UAI:I077 ' B72Q � SCX403 B72Q D SCX785 B72Q D SCX711 B72 D CCP 101 B72 D SCX748 B72 D c�am R72(� D Runway � ��'"� 93.$ 93.6 91.9 88.9 87.6 872 86.8 865 I c •: .� � 89.6 89 88.6 88.1 879 Lmax (dB) 93S 93.4 93.4 93.1 93 92.8 92.7 925 91.8 ?6 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program � i Metrogolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technicai Advisor's Report Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for NISP Jul-OU (][2MT S]Te#28� f 64_5 16th Avenue S., Richfieki Date/Time 7l21/0015:05 7/21/00 651 7/26/0018:23 7/lf�l00 23:19 7/ 1 fa/0017:02 7/21/00 9:15 7/lE�/0015:02 7/12/00 19:51 7/5/00 21:37 (]ZMT' Site#29) Ericsson Eler�ntary School, 4315 31st Ave. S., Flight Number Aircraft Type ArrivaU SCx749 NWA1734 NWA967 NW A 1288 Runway � Lmax(dB) Julv 2000 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary . � 11 . 88.6 88.6 88S 87.7 87.1 The top ten noise e�nts and the euent ranges at each RMT for July 2000 were comprised of 89.7% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with 57.9% of the highest Lmax events. Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight track data. July 2000 Technical Advisor Report Notes Note: Missing FAA radar data for 0.2-days during the month�of July �000. A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program �� Metropolitan Aircra.ft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report „ Analysis oi Aircraft Noise Events -�ircraft Ldn dBA � July 2000 Rermte Monitoring Towers ':Date .: : #1.; - #2 . ;:;#3 .#�, ..:#5 #6' .#?.. �,#8',' ..#9 '#lU �#I1. #T2; ;#13 `#14 .#13 1 �8.1 �9.fi 64 � 6�.6 73.1 76.1 63.7 62.4 38 � 40.4 3�.4 40.1 56.4 � 64.7 62 ' S9.3 623 6�.9 64.2 70.8 70.8 5� 56.9 55.7 61.9 47.3 34.9 61.4 69.9 63 3 59.7 61 _7 66.2 62.9 703 69 38.8 35.3 44.6 50.1 43.1 3�.8 62.6 669 63.9 4 �8.4 60_3 6�.5 61.7 69.8 67J 47.9 395 n/a _;4.1 n/a :�.7 61.4I66.6 63.3 5 62.3 62_7 66.8 66.8 74.2 76 66.3 63.8 40S 4i.8 43.7 40.6 5�8 � 66 61• 6 59.3 633 64.8I6�3 71.4 71? 64.6 5�.1 47.9 60a �1.8 473 61.9 70.3 63.7 7 635 67.6 68 68.4 71.9 73.9 48.2 47 54.8 60.2 46a 49.2 64 66.8 66.9 8 61 60.� 68 63.3 73.4 71.8 60.4 55.8 58? 61:? 49.6 38.2 �9.� I 69.1 633 9 60.7 �9.9 6�.7 63.6 72.9 72.9 61.8 60.9 57.2 61.4 44.7 36.7- 59.3 � 6�9 63.7 10 �9.8 63.4 669I 6�? 7�.7 71.6 60 5� 47.1 59.1 49.i 41.5 64 70 63.7 11 61 63.8 6�.9 6�2 69J 71.1 42.7 44 38 37.� 37.8 42.6 63.? 67 6�.8 12 60.6 62.� 6�.7I66.9 74.9 77 68.4 66 46.7 58.6 41 n/a 48.i 63.8 49.9 13 �7.2 60.6 61�.2 65.7 75.1 7�.? 68.9 6�.1 37.8 37.1 43.$ 34.4 343 6�.1 452 14 59 60.� 6� 66.7 75 � 76.4 69.1 63.2 53.6 60.1 57.6 41.6 38.9 62.9 54.1 l� 58.6 60J 66.4 63.9 72.4 69 59.7 44.1 �3.1 61.8 53.2 42.2 61.8 70 62 16 �8.8 613 64.9 663 72.8 74.7 66.9 63.1 46 48.8 46 36.1 �43 6�J 57 17 �7.9 �9.4 63.2 6�.8 73.4 75.8 70.3 66.6 43.6 57 52.6 36.6 n/a 6�t�.2 32.1 18 61.9 64.8 66.7 64.9 71.1 70.6 4$.8 n/a 40S 43.7 39 44.1 64.4 70.5 6� 19 60.7 6-1�.� 66.1' 69 74.1 78S 69.2 67.1 48.9 50.6 42.2 46 54.7 67.2 i6.4 20 �9.4 61.8 6�.7 66.8 74.7 76.9 70.7 66.8 �0.8 58.2 44.8 44.6 4�.1 66 50.6 21 i9.4 61.7 64.? 67.1 72.7 77 � 69.1 67 43.7 SSJ 4b.3 n/a 38 67 46.9 ?� �7.9 59.8 633 � 62.3 71J 74.3 64.1 61.6 54.5 �6.6 40 � 49.8 58.y I 66.5 59.9 23 i93 62 6i.7I 6�.7 69.3 71.1 42.7 37 48.4 41.8 52.1 47.6 62.6 69 64.6 24 60.6 6�2 66 � 67 ? 69.9 72.6 49 48J 52 i 57.7 35.8 4b.6 643 693 67.5 ?� 61.7 63.2 67.8 6> > 71.� 71.8 39.1 46.2 I 49.7 50.7 47.8 51.3 � 61.7 ( 66.6 63.7 26 61.9 6,.6 67.� � 68.8 74.4 78.4 68.1 6�.2 47.8 i8J 42.7 38.4 623 65.7 63.1 27 �9.9 61.2 67.5 � 665 76.4 77.2 69J 65.3 363 54.4 56.2 335 45.3 64 50.3 2� 623 63.9 69.1 � 67.8 76.1 77.3 6f3.7 63.1 53.1 E�.2 �9.8 443 I 53.7 � 66.2 �4.6 29 i7.9 60 66 � 63.1 73.7 74.2 60.8 54.2 62.6 653 5?J 50.1 ( 57.9 6li.� �8.1 �i0 �5.2 �9.7 6�.4 62.4 72:Z 71.4 663 �6.9 49.7 61 � 54 53.6 I 60.> i 68.� 61 J 31 60.3 61.? 66.? I 6�.7 74.1 753 693 62.� 41.6 45.7 47.4 30.9 46.8 63.4 �.> Mo. Ldn 60.2 b2.5 66.1 6�9 73Z 74.7 659 6�.1 52.6 S$:2 �l).8 45.�i 6t1.1 �(i7.� 62.1 28 A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�ram �. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report Analysis of Aircraf� Ivoise Events - Aircraft Ldn dBA July 2000 _ Remote Monitoring Towers , ;Date , #16. _#17, #1$ :#19 #20; .#21 #ZZ :#f23 #�4 :#kZ5 #2�6 `:#27 #28 .#29 1 � 68.2 I 60•1 68 61.8 60.1 51.6 56.� 68.4 6?.7 46.� �6.6 64.� 563 53 � 2 72 60 ��.3 3j.8 30.5 56.2 58.� 71.7 6�.� �7.7 60.3 �33 �7.5 43.9 3 71> I 60.2 �6.1 47.1 n/a 58.6 �6.4 72.9 62.4 I 57.ti 59:? 4? 5� �0.$ 4 69.� � 60.? �8.6 4=�? 35.i �� i6.7 72.1 62.7 � �6.6 60J 47.1 �-�6.9 n/a 5 68J ( 51.9 i4.9 49 � 432 54.6 58 70.2 62.4 I 57 i 58.8 6�.> 61 �7 6 72.8 � 49.9 I 47.7 3�.6 44.4 59.4 59.8 72.6 66_3 ��9.4 60.� 63.4 �9.7 4;.8 7 68.8 I 49.8 I ��_6 52.1 33.4 55.7 ».9 72S 63.1 69.4 58.8 46.2 58.? 37 8 69.6 � 60.4 63.7 �4.9 46.3 57.1 60.2 70.5 64.9 � 50.7 61.4 59.j 54 4�.9 9 71 I 57.2 70.9 54.9 64.1 5�.7 �8.3 70.? 62.9 ��.1 57.7 60.3 60.7 � 1.7 10 73.� � �1.2 �02 39.4 41.1 57a 59.9 72.6 66 59� �8.3 57.2 60.6 47.1 11 69.9 �2.7 i7.4 53.1 38 57.9 58.6 73.1 63.8 61.1 61.3 41 56.1 n/a 12 68.3' 46.6 54.8 47.7 48.4 43a 59.6 60.6 62.6 36 �8.1 6�.6 62.1 i8.� 13 693 �1.8 �3.7 48.1 �2 45S 57.4 54 62_8 �0 �3.4 6� 63.4 61.3 14 69.7 ( i9.7 �6.3 �3.9 �4.5 54.1 56.9 53.4 62.4 37.8 4�.7 64.4 63 5�.9 li 72.4 473 �4.? 44.3 33.9 �8 57.7 71.7 6�.2 58.8 62.4 52.7 593 40.2 16 68.8 j9.5 62 54.7 47.3 54.7 �7.9 64.9 64 52.3 �6.4 62.1 60.6 59.i 17 68.3 I �0.9 �23 48.1 49.6 37.3 �7J 53.� 62.6 38J 50.7 64.6 63.9 61.1 18 73.4 �0.4 47.8 43.2 n/a 62 60.9 74.7 67.7 62.8 62.7 34.3 �6.4 n/a 19 68.1 I � 1.4 ��.7 41.7 44.7 51.2 6�.3 64.> 6�.6 50.9 54.8 6�.6 62.6 60.3 20 67.� 43.2 I 513 49j 50.4 43.7 59.2 62.8 64.7 44 54 i 6j3 65.1 61.1 21 67 �>6.7 6�.2 64.7 �4.9 42.7 �$.6 59.? 64.6 45.1 �2J 64.6 64.1 63.9 22 68.9I 62 I 68.9 69.1 4�.9 �7.8 56.2 70.1 63.4 �3.5 59.4 62.3 59.6 5�.8 23 71.4 I_i9.3 60.6 51.2 40 � 59.1 60 72.2 6j 54.5 62 i 44.1 46.1 n/a 24 70 i 3�.7 ( 33.7 38 i 46 59.8 60.2 74.i 65.7 I�93 62.2 34.6 44.3 43 � ?� 70.7 � 61 69S 68.2 �0.2 57J 58 72.3 64 � 61.6 59.2 39.1 583 38.6 26 68.4 I�2.1 � 52 46 49.8 �7.7 58.6 69.9 63.7 I 48.9 62.7 6� 63.2 �9.7 i I 27 66.8 ! 48.1 (�4.9 4�.8) 47.9 4�.1 �8.1 62 63.8 f 43.9 �6.1 6�.9 66.4 6U.6 28 70.4 � 47 � 48.3 47 i 1.3 I � 1.5 60.8 65.4 64.6 � 53.7 61 C�.S 62.7 i2.1 29 72.i i 47.7 49.8 4�.i 39.2 5.5.7 60.1 68S 64.5 i8.1 62.3 62.4 58.8 3�.8 30 71.� ��0.9 i�.4 i7 i0.8 57.8 57.4 71.1 63.7 ��6.2 60.9 60.> 59.7 48.3 i 31 67.� �7.3 � 6�.9 63.? 52.7 40.4 ��.9 j7.� 61.3 I 45.8 >1.3 6�.5 i 61.1 j5.2 Ma.I.dn 74.3i�6.G C��.3 �8.9 5?.6 a6.3 �9.1 7t�.2 64.�i�S8.a �9.5 6?.3 fi1.0 56.� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29 � �; ♦ �� ,, •: �, ,; � ,; • '' � � • i' , : , � �. , ` , .� ' 1�; 1''1 ` � � ;_ � � .- s '��s , r : -r y `�" _ ' � -.�t _ F, f � .' .:,x, �� {� ��: �� P i:v i � j- ��- � . . .. .. ..<r.� � . .. r � r ^.- � . . z; �[i � ` l / � i i ' �� '�� s�� {r � � � _ ..�: -.. �� : - T'z�J 4 i''' � �Z: ,:Lr` „G_Y" + . � f�� .: � i 1�Y �� ' � , :-��- � �I'� '^—ti•.. � w � -Yr • �. A A� t '��i`� • i' S TY� .. } . � a� _� �� / 5.�� y j�:'.^�.�.y r�°'��"y-( �:�� ••� �� ' ��'tksk� ~,~"i��_. C C� Metropolitan Airports Commission 49 (0.6%> �au�way �2�, a�a �2�a carr��r Je� �e�a�ture o�e�atio�s were l�orth of the 090° Corridor �ounciary Durfng July 2000 Page 2 Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor -. 07/01 /2000 00:00:00 - 08/01 J2000 00:00:00 �� 49 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =18 (36.7%), Right = 31 (63.3%) ,_ „ �:.� �:_- �. ,'..... .. _� _.. _ .. __ . _._:., + 6000 d d � 5000 , � 0 � 4000 d W 3000 � 0 °� 2000 �Q y 1000 0 .e a 0 ...................:.................................... :... . .......... .................................� ........ ..�.,.a ..�................ O� . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .c4 .� . . � � . . . �. p�. �. .Oo.� ;�o . . . . . . . . . . . . O � ............... �. ..p ..��J...�.............. ................ . : � • : -2 -1 0 1 2 (Runway End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nauticai Mile��orridor End) + Arrivai O Departure ❑ Overfiight � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis ■ . � C ' Metropolitan Airports Commission 79 (le0%m> �ae�n��y �2�, a�a �.2� �a��-�er ,Tet �e��°t�re ��eratio�s were 5° South of the Corriclor (5° S�uth of 30L, Loealizer) l�uring July 2000 Page 4 Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg 07/01 /2000 00:00:00 - OS/01 /2000 00:00:00 79 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 38 (48.1 °/a), Right = 41 (51.9%) � 6000 a� v 5000 c 0 m 4000 > m W 3000 � a a 2000 a 0 1000 � 'a 0 ....n�.G...:;Q'�..... .. .�. ............ : ................. c.P p:o � �� : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . .r��=0 _ _ _ _:' .�.J.��u�� . v� . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . —2 —1 0 1 2 i (Corridor End) Deviation From C�nter of Gate (Plautical Mi��s�Y Mid-Poinc)� � + � Arrival C - Departure ❑ Overflight � � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis C ; Metropolitan Airports Commission '�op 15 I�unway 12L and 12I2 Depa�ture I�estinations fo� July 2000 � . -- , ; •,i •Oi ' �� ., i i Ai ORD Chicago - O'Hare 124� 460 5.9% DEN Denver 2370 219 2.8% STL, St. Louis 160° 208 2.7% DTW Detroit 105° 205 2.6% DFW Dallas - Ft. Worth 193° 200 2.6% MDW Chicago - Midway 124� 200 2.6°Io p'I'L, � Atlanta 149° 168 2.1 °lo BOS � Boston q�o 140 1.8% MCI Kansas City Iggo 137 1.8% EWR Newark 106° 126 1.6% CVG Cincinnati 127� 125 1.6°Io MKE Milwaukee 114° 123 1.6% SEA Seattle 2780 123 1.6% LAX Los Angeles 2380 122 1.6% CLE Cleveland 109° 111 1.4°l0 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 5 August 24, 2000 Mr. Patrick Hollister City of Mendota Hei�hts 1101 Victoria-Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Hollister: 6098 17th Street North Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Thank you for your telephone call notifying me of the next Airport Relations Commission (ARC) meeting on September 13, 2000. I appreciate the advance notice. I am afraid, however, that I am no longer going to be able to handle the minutes for this meeting. In September, my vacation begins on the 7th, and I will be out of town on September 13, 2000. In October, I begin teaching a 32-week class at my churcli, which will require a lot of outside preparation. With my other workload, I do not believe I can �ive the ARC minutes proper attention. � My recommendation would be to contact Carla Wirth at TimeSavers. She hires secretaries to produce public record minutes for cities. I have worked with Carla myself and know her work to be of a high quality. Her telephone number is 612/421-8999. Thank you for the many kindnesses extended to me over the last year and the opportunity to work for the Commission. I wish you much success in all of your endeavors. Sincerely, ,�� L�%"G'� Deanne G laoui C � OPEN HOUSE � � . • � � I . � . �, 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISSUES _ ON THE CO�fVEYANCE OF THE FORMER BUREAU OF MINES, TWIN CITIES RESEARCH CENTER WHEN: Monday, August 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. WHERE: Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, Minnesota AGENDA Description of proposed plans for the conveyance of the former Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center to the Metropolitan Airports Commission by a Department of the Interior (DOI) representative. Information on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the historical significance of the area, and the role of the National Pazk Service in the proposed Cultural Resource Studies and Culturai Resource Management Plan by a Cultural Resources Specialist from the National Pazk Service (NPS). Long term commitment to protecting and providing access to the Camp Coldwater Reservoir and Springs Area and participation of interested parties to accomplish the Cultural Resource Studies and future planning by a Metropolitan Airports Comnussion representative. Discussion and public comment. Representatives of the DOI, National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation O�ce and the MAC will answer questions and take comments. Comments may be provided in written or verbal form. Written comments may also be sent to the following address by the deadline of September 5, 2000: National Park Service 111 E. Kellogg Blvd, Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 55101 ( C • .1 � ' 1 ' ; ' • � 1f 1 1 • • • • ; ,i )''.' i • :1 1 . �. � '1 1 ' •'•, • i''�' • i 1 • The former U.S. Bureau of Mines, Twin Cities Research Center (Property), was closed by the federal government in 1996. The Property encompasses 27.32 acres and contains 11 buildings, 3 ore bins, a cooling tower, and one shed. It is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and lies within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park System. The Property includes the Camp Coldwater Springs and Reservoir Area, which is partially within and partially outside the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark/National Register of Historic Places District. Three federal appropriation acts authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey any property formerly ad.ministered by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to any university or gov- ernment entity the Secretary deems appropriate (Departrnent of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, Public Law 104-134, Apri126, 1996; Section 123 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-208, September 30, 1996; and Section 140 of The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-113, November 29, 1999). On July 17, 2000, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) passed a resolution to proceed with purchase, of the Prcperty and aut�orized MAC staff to execute the purchase documents. The U.S. Department of fihe Interior currently is negotiating with MAC for sale of the Property. The United States proposes to transfer titie to the Property to MAC by quitclaim deed. The deed would contain any legally required enviromnental covenants. The United Sta.tes and MAC also will enter into an agreement reflecting the sta.tus of the environmental cleanup and condition of the Properly and the parties' respective continuing obligations with respect to environmental matters. Either the deed or a separate recorded legally binding agreement would contain a covenant that would run with the land and address historic resource preservation and planning issues in compli- ance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The deed or other such legally binding agreement would incorporate key provisions of a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Bureau of Mines Closure Team, the Minnesota 5tate Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation arid the National Park Service. MAC would formally concur with the MOA: Other interested parties that have not yet been fully identified may also be invited to formally concur with the MOA. The United States and the MAC also will enter into a recorded agreement which would ( � require MAC, as owner of the Property, to work with the National Park Service, the � State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to perform various historic resource preservation and planning tasks. The National Park Service would conduct any associated research or oversee the conduct of any �, associated research by contractors retained by the National Park Service, provide technical assistance, and conduct required meetings. Cultural resource studies required by the deed or other legally binding agreement would include a Natianal Register evaluation to determine whether parts of the Camp Coldwater Springs and Reservoir Area that are not currently in the National Historic Landmark and National Register District should be included there. The evaluation wouid address the significance of that Area as: (1) an archeological properry tied to Fort Snelling after 1820, (2) an historic site associated with Fort Snelling between 1880 and 1946, and (3) a Native American Traditional Cultural Property. The National Park Service would use the results of the evaluation to prepare a Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Property, with participation from MAC and all interested parties. Under an e�sting Contract Pertaining to Limi�ts on Canstruction of a Third Parallel Runway (Contract), signed by MAC and the City of Minneapolis in November 1998, MAC would grant the United States a Conservation Easement for the Property through the year 2049. Except for a confined, seven-acre area that MAC could use for non- � public airport-employee parking and non-public automobile storage, the Easement would limit use of the Property to open space, wildlife habitat, and light outdoor recreation consistent with the Property's naturai, scenic, ope� space, educational, and � recreational values. The Easement could be enforced by either the National Pazk Service or the City. Under the Contract, MAC has agreed that should it acquire the Property all e�sting buildings would be demolished withi.n sixty months and the Property "returned to a natural vegetative sta.te consistent with the use of the [Property] for scenic open space and light outdoor recreation purposes." The Contract authorizes MAC to subcontract with an appropriate public entity for operation and maintenance of the Property. If the public entity concluded that the goals of the Contract could be accomplished without ., ,_. demolisfiing one or more of the existing buildings, the public entity could present to MAC and the City a comprehensive plan for that alternative use. MAC and the City would have to approve the plan before it could be implemented. MAC and the public entity wouid work with the State Historic Preservation Office and others to assure that historic sites on the Property were protected and made accessible to the public. Transfer of the Property to MAC under the proposed terms of sale would create an opportunity for providing more open space, wildlife habita.t, and light outdoor recreation in Minneapolis, while protecting the Camp Coldwater Reservoir and Springs Area. Input from ail interested public and private parties will be welcome in future planning for protection, site restoration and use of the Property. � The proposed sale of the Property will take place within September 2000. y{f11 ltllltilittitlti{'11jt1il►SI{Illit��'lii�tiiiii{il�i�i�i' li t t{ t�i t i t{ ( t 1 tl t t 8l lSB NW S1HJI3H b'lOQN�W �/ia/l� b1a01�i/1 lpGl S1HJI�H tJ10aN�W �O,�I� a�1Sil'10H �i�ltilb'd s8—� ' ON ZII�I2t�d ��Il�`�SS �yd �I�OIZ''dN az�a s�� s ��ezsoa zz� ss�rz� ssxz3 � �3�. zizb-�2t%r.-.'.c.. C 1^vT55 iQYd `Z[i�7d 'ZS •Qnzg ��ozz� ss�� ZZz ��It12i�S ?I2I5'd 'I�TNOIZ�TN _. l i� � Department of the Interior Conveyance of the �ormer �ureau oi li�[ines, �win Ciiies 12esearcb Center To the Metropolitan Airports Commission The deadline for comments on the historic preservation issues concerning the conveyance of the former Bureau of Mines property to the Metropolitan Airports Commission has been e�rtended to September 15, 2000. Please mail comments to: National Park Service 111 E. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55101 :!F iti �Iij tj ttt[ it(ti ff[ tit Eftt t fi(1 I �:.; r-;,�+? �•�` �� i� S� { 1 �. i�i �� ! � � ' ' 8l lS9 NW S1HJI�H b'lOQN�W �nan� eiao��in GOG� S1HJI�H b'10(]N3W �O ,ui� a�1S1�'lOH �l�lalt/d £8-� 'ON ZIInRi�d ��znx�s xx�a z��ozs�rN Cil�ld S��3 '3 ��FISSOd 'II�I SS�7Z� ZS2II3 TOTSS l�I `'IO.FTd 'SS ' Q11'Ig ��0'IZ�?I ZS�'3 I T Z ��I112t�S �d 'I`�iS0Is�7i� I , � ' t : � � 1� :• � :': �� 1 :t - - ,� voyi5 S'+� �P t '�'r ?2 + 9G i F � ` � z at t N O � N ° F o �, ',. .f. GO 9� 41RPORty August 29, 2000 Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 Jim Danieison, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Danielson: Each year the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) compiles its seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which outlines construction projects proposed for the Commission's system of seven airports. The projects shown in year one represent projects that have been reasonably defined for implementation in the upcoming calendar year. Staff will have authority to develop final plans and specifications and advertise for bids for these projecis. Projects in year two have been identified as a need or potential need but require further study in order to properly determine the scope, feasibility or cost of the project. Staff will have authority to develop plans and specifications for these projects to refine the projects for inclusion in ne� year's program. Projects in year three will be studied and preliminary plans and specifications prepared. The last five years of the program include projects that staff deems likely to be needed during this period. This portion of the program assists in financial planning and meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Council's investment framework. In 1998, new legislation was passed (MS 473.621, Subd. 6 as amended) concerning local review of the CIP. The legislation requires the MAC to complete a process to provide "affected municipalities" surrounding the airport the opportunity for discussion and public participation in the MAC's CIP process. An "affected municipality" is a municipality that is either adjacent to a MAC airport, is within the noise zone of a MAC airport as defined in the Metropolitan Development Guide, or has notified the MAC that it considers itself an "affected municipality." Your community has been identified as an "affected municipality" by Metropolitan Council staff based upon the criteria as defined in the statute. The legislation requires that the MAC provide adequate and timely notice incfuding a description of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include agendas and meeting minutes at which the proposed CIP was to be discussed or voted on in order to provide the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and participate in the development of the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received from the affected municipalities will be reviewed and a response developed. As was done in 1999, the MAC has developed a schedule that will allow the affected municipalities the opportunity to participate in the CIP process. The implementation schedule ) for the 2001 CIP is attached for your information. The shaded items represent actions/dates — that pertain to the CIP. You will receive mailings regarding the CIP review and approval The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. www.mspairport.com Relie��er Airports: AIP.LAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL D01VNT04VN process. Once the preliminary CIP is approved by the Commission, you will have 60 days to � provide comments on the proposed CIP to the MAC. MAC staff wiil be availabie to attend any public meetings to answer questions regarding the projects in the CIP. Ail comments regarding the CIP must came f�om the affected municipality and not from individuals. All comments and questions on either the process or the CIP should be addressed to: Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer Metropolitan Airports Commission 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 525 Bloomington, MN 55425 Phone: 612.726.8127 E-mail: rvorpahl@mspmac.org Since fy, ; Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E. Program Development Engineer Enclosures RJV/Irk cc: Nigel Finney, MAC Dennis Probst, MAC Gary Warren, MAC G/shared/bvorpahVCIPlCIP2001/CIPIV C TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Environment Committee Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director- Planning and Environment (726-8187) � PRELIMINARY 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM August 28, 2000 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, revised in 1988, requires that the Commission prepare an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) which assess the cumulative environmental effects of its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at each of the seven airports. In addition, Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) must be prepared for individual projects in the program that meet certain criteria. Where State and/or Federal Environmental assessments or impact statements have been prepared, that information is included in the cumulative assessment. The law provides for public review of the assessments in accordance with the rules of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The EQB rules set forth mandatory review (including holding a public hearing), waiting and decision periods that must be caordinated with Commission and Committee meetings of the MAC. In addition, in 1998, legislation was passed (MS 473.621, Subd. 6 as amended) concerning local review of the CIP. The legislation requires the Commission to complete a process to ( � provide "affected municipalities" surrounding the airport the opportunity for discussion and public participation in the Commission's CIP process. An "affected municipality" is a municipality that is either adjacent to a MAC airport, is within the noise zone of a MAC airport as defined in the Metropolitan Development Guide, or has notified the Commission that it considers itself an "affected municipality." The legislation requires that the Commission provide adequate and timely notice including a description of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include agendas and meeting minutes at which the proposed CIP is to be discussed or voted on in order to provide the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and participate in the development of the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received from the affected municipalities will be reviewed and a response developed. Staff has therefore developed a schedule that outlines the dates/actions required for the development of the CIP, the environmental review process and the local review by "affected municipalities" process. The implementation schedule for the 2001-2007 CIP is attached for your information (Attachment 1). The proposed 7-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) relating to construction projects on the Commission'sAirport System consists of the following elements: Capital Improvement Proiects - These are projects that have been reasonably defined for implementation in the upcoming calendar year (in this case 2001). Staff will request authority to develop final plans and specifications and advertise fo� bids for these projects. 2. Capital Improvement Program - These are projects that have been identified as a need or potential need but require further study in order to properly determine the scope, feasibility, or , costs of the project. Staff will request authority to develop plans and specifications for these � projects to refine the projects for inclusion in next year's program. 3. Capital Improvement Plan - This encompasses the last five years of the total program and consists of projects that staff deems likely to be needed during the per.iod. This portion of the program assists in financial planning and meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Council's Investment Framework. Staff will be requesting authority to study and prepare preliminary plans and specificationsforthe projects. Also included with this memo (Attachment 2) are the following: • Listing of projects (with associated cost estimates) in the major program categories in the 2010 Plan. This is a change in the format used in previous years. • Cost totals for each category. • Project narratives for years 2001 and 2002. It is necessary for the Commission to adopt the preliminary CIP for purposes of initiating the environmental review and to allow su�cient time for the "affected municipalities" to review the CIP. The attached project listing is overly-inclusiveto ensure that all potential projects are subject to the environmental process. Staff will continue to review the 2001-2002 projects to develop a more concise list to recommend for implementation. COMMITI"EEACTION REQUESTED (') RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW. FURTHER, THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZEDTO PROCEED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE BE DESIGNATED HEARING OFFICERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITiEE M EETI NG. 2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS Year 2001 Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program 12R Deicing/Hoiding Pad $16,500,000 This project will construct the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project wifl also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway B10. 12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Buildings Demolition $1,250,000 This project will provide the demolition of the Navy hangar, office and motor pool and the MAC Paint, Electric and Carpenter's shops to provide the a�ea needed to construct Taxiway B and the Runway 12R deicing/holding pad. 12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Taxiway B Construction $1,700,000 This project provides for the construction of Taxiway B between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M. Also included in this project is the removal of Taxiway T between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M and the construction of taxiway fillets east of Runway 4/22. 30R Deicing/Holding Pad $19,OQ0,000 This project provides for the construction of the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 30R to allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This praject will also include the construction of an adjacent snow storage/melting area, blast fences, screen walls adjacent to Highway 5 and the Inbound Roadway and a Ground Service Equipment (GSE) facility. (� ) Runway 17135 Program 66th Street Interchange - Phase 2 $3,950,000 This project provides for the construction of the final phase of the 66th Street interchange. Airfield Lighting Control Center $3,500,000 This project provides for the ai�eld lighting control center which will house the electrical controls for the Runway 17/35 runway and taxiway lights. Buildings Demolition $362,500 This project provides for the demolition of the Airport Medical Clinic and the McClay VFW. Infield Fueling Facilities $3,000,000 This project provides for fueling facilities within the midfield development for aircraft fueling. Infield Service Road $7,600,100 This project will construct the public service road from Longfellow Avenue east to the infield development area. Infield Site Preparation $2,800,000 This project provides for the site preparation including grading and utility construction for the infield area bounded by the infield apron, infield service road and Runway 4/22. Longfellow Avenue Landscaping $1,800,000 This project provides for the landscaping of Longfellow Avenue from 66th Street to 77th Street. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 1 ATTi4CH1ViENT 3 1�, _��) MAC Glycol Facilities $6,469,000 This project provides for the construction of the pond system used to store the giycol impacted storm water collected during the deicing season from the storm sewers on the ramp areas. Other General Construction This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Runway 17/35 lntersection Site Preparation/Paving $404,000 $17,500,000 This project provides for the site preparation and paving of the Runways 17/35 and 4/22 intersection including a section of Taxiway N. Runwray 17/35 Land Acquisition $40,000,000 During 2001, there will be a continuation of the acquisition of off-airport land as well as lease extinguishment required to provide for the Runway 17/35 Protection Zone (RPZ). Costs for these items will be tletermined based on negotiations with the impacted property owners. Runway 17/35 Site Preparation $17,500,000 This project provides for the site preparation for section of the runway and taxiway system located between 66th Street and the infield service road. Taxiway M $3,800,000 This project provides for the construction of Taxiway M from Runway 12R/30L to the infield taxiway. Taxiway W-Y Tunnel $'14,434,500 This project provides for the construction of the tunnel. for the service road under Taxiways W and Y. Trunk Storm Sewer - Phase 2 $5,158,000 This project provides for the constuction of the trunk storm sewer between 34th Avenue and Highway 5. Trunk Storm Sewer - Phase 3 $5,680,000 This project provides for the construction of the storm water detention pond system which will serve the Minnesota South (Runway 17/35 development) as well as the the Minnesota North (existing terminal area) drainage basins. These ponds will be constructed in the ravine adjacent to Highway 5. Trunk Storm Sewer - Phase 4 $3,948,000 This project provides for the construction of the outfall from the storm water pond facilities under Highway 5. Y-3 Connector Tunnel $16,301,000 Taxiway Y3 provides access for aircraft to the infield apron area. This project will provide a tunnel for the infield service road under this taxiway. Runway 4/22 Development Program North Side Storm Sewer $500,000 The extension of Runway 4/22 by 1000 feet to the no�theast will require the construction of a new storm water drainage system. The new storm sewer will be constructed from the Runway 12U30R and Runway 4t22 intersection to Snelling Lake. This project will provide for the construction of the segment from Highway 5 to Snelling Lake.. Runway 4/22 Property Acquisition $5,000,000 There will be a requirement to acquire property prior to proceeding with the extension of Runway 4/22. Runway 4/22 Reconstruction - Seg. 3 $9,800,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of the 2000 feet of Runway 4/22 and Taxiway C located northeast of Runway 12U30R. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 2 C� C Runway 4/22 Road Relocation $1,000,000 This project provides for the relocation of the interbase (US Airforce - MANG) roadway to maximize the expansion of the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Object Free area (OFA) associated with Runway 4/22. Noise Mitigation Program Remote Monitoring Unit installation $500,000 This project will p�ovide for the installation of additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) to monitor the noise environment associated with the new north/south Runway 17/35. Residential Sound lnsulation (lnside 65 DNL) $34,000,000 An ongoing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. Residential Sound Insulation -Multi-Family (Inside 65 DNL) $2,500,U00 This is the first phase in a program to insulate multi-family dwellings within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. This project will be a pilot project which will establish the procedures to be followed in future projects. School Noise Abatement Projects $2,000,000 This project will provide for noise insulation to Visitation school in Minneapolis. Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes $1,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in houses which were insulated in the period from June 1992 to April 1997. Airfield Rehabilitation Program �� ) Airside Bituminous Construction $500,000 An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. Inspection of the overlay on Runway 12U30R will be made in the spring of 2001 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $4,000,000 An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. This year's project will include the reconstruction of the apron adjacent to Gates E2 and E3 on Concourse E and Gates D1, D2 and D3 on Concourse D. Environmental Remediation Program Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds $5,500,000 A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit is expected to require additional storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesota River. This project will construct a new larger earthen dam and concrete spillway in the ravine near the Highway 5 embankment to provide the required storage. Green Concourse Extension Program Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 3 Concourse C Apron Expansion $4,8d0,000 This project includes the third and final phase of the apron construction associated with the expansion of the Concourse C. This project will include the construction of the pavement in the area of the existing Post Office once the new Airport Mail Center is in operation. The project also includes the installation of an underground fuel hydrant system. Fuel Hydrant Loop Extension $4,200,000 This project is the last phase in the program to install a fue! main between the Post Road fuel farm and the west end of Concourse C. This project includes installation of a 20-inch fue! line and communications duct bank from Gate D1 to the east end of Concourse A. Green Concourse APM - Emergency Walkway $800,000 This project will provide for the construction of an emergency walkway from the Green Concourse APM to the terminal building. Green Concourse Pfiase 1 Concessions $500,000 This proj�ct will add concessions build out on phase 1 of the Green Concourse. Post Office Demolition $400,000 This project will provide for the demolition of the existing Post Office once the new airport mail center is operational. Regional Terminal Demolition $1,000,000 This project provides for demolition of the existing Regional Terminal once the new facility is complete. Concourse Expansion S� Rehabilitation � , Concourse F Infill $3,000,000 `-.- In order to maximize the capacity of the existing terminal complex, it will be necessary to expand Concourses E, F and G. This project will add additional space by filling in the notch between gates 6 and 8 on Concourse F to provide for additional concession space, toilet facilities and phones and to provide storage space for the MAC and the airlines. Lindbergh Terminal Rehab � Development Program Lindbergh Terminal Flooring Replacement $�1,000,000 This project is a continuation of the program to replace existing flooring throughou the terminal which has deteriorated in condition and appearance. This year's project will replace the rubber flooring in the skyways and on the east mezzanine. Lindbergh Terminal North Addition $36,000,000 This project will provide for a two story expansion of the north end of the �indbergh Terminal. The first story of the addition shall extend the existing retail mall space to the north while including new public restrooms, public elevator and stair to mezzanine and an entry lobby to two second story airline preferred customers lounges. The second story of the addition shall consist of inezzanine ofFce space as well as two airline preferred customers lounges as well as additional MAC office space. �.indbe�gh Terminal Toilet Aclditions $1,500,000 There are no toilet facilities within the ticketing area of the Lindbergh Terminal which has been a source of complaints from the traveling public. A project to add toilet facilities to the ticketing area will therefore be completed. Printed 08/29l2000 9:06:15 AM Page 4 Security Camera Installation $500,000 This is a continuation of the security program to provide for the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the terminal complex. This project will install cameras in various locations in the terminal and on the concourses i 1 to enhance FAA security and public safety. These cameras will monitor and record events in areas that currently do not have CCIV coverage. Terminal Elevator Modifications $250,000 This project will provide for the installation of an elevator to serve the Com/Ops Center as well as modify existing elevators/escalators to meet the current codes as required by the State elevator inspector. Tug D�ive Floor Replacement $2,000,000 This project is the third and final phase in the replacement of the concrete floor in the tug drive area which has deteriorated due to water from melting snow being brought in by the tugs. West Mezzanine Finishes $1,00O,OOQ The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waiting area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the existing West Meuanine. A floor structure has been constructed over the extension with the concessions project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to p�ovide additional area for expanded office space. Humphrey Terminal Devetopment Program Ground Services Equipment Building $1,200,000 This project will provide for the construction of a building to house the equipment used for ground services at the Humphrey Terminal. Humphrey Terminal Concessions $2,000,000 This project will provide for the buildout of the concessions in the Humphrey Terminal. �andside Rehabilitation 8� Repair Program Landside Bituminous Construction $400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's bituminous roadways and parking lots. This year's projects will include the rehabilitation and expansion of the parking lot at the General Office. Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $2,000,000 An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will include the replacement of the flooring in the ticketing area. Parking Structure Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi-level parking structures. Projects typically include concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, and concrete sealing. This year's project will include continued painting of the ramp ceilings, painting of the concrete face between the new and old parking structures and the construction of a new entrance ramp from the upper level roadway to the Gold Ramp. Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement $1,700,000 A 1997 study of the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunction ith the development/revision of the concessions area. This program will be continued with the replacement of additional units on the center mezzanine. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 5 Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium r reductions. It will also allow for extension of sprinkled areas should space utilization changes occur. Terminal Efectrical Modifications $600,000 An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the Terminal Facilities due to the age and deterioration of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects to be completed in 2001 include installing switchgear meters and control packages on electrical substations, lamp and ballast retrofits throughout the terminal and concourses and revising ground fault settings for relays and breakers throughout the terminal. Terminal Exterior Rehabilitation $3,500,000 This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal including roofing and curtain walt systems. This year's project will include the repair of the curtainwall system on the airside of Concourses D, E and F. Terminal Mechanical Modifications $300,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability.. Projects to be completed in 2000 include replacing the sump pumps and controls in the Valet garage, installing new water meters, regulator valves and flow and pressure sensors throughout the Terminal, Concourses and Energy Management Center, and replacing steel waste and vent pipes in the tug drive area. Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications $250,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Many projects are small enough to be completed using purchase orders. --�� WestTe�minalArea Rehabilitation $200,000 �_ An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas wiihin the West Terminal Complex to meet the needs of the various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities. RelieverAirport Program Airlake . Pavement Rehabilitation $1,230,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This yea�'s project will include the mill and overlay of Runway 12/30 and crack sealing in the North Building Area. South Building Area Development $2,100,000 This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Building Area and partial parallel taxiway. This year's project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system. Anoka Airfield SignagelWindcone Replacement $1,250,000 This project provides for the installation of taxiway signage and a new windcone and segmented circle as well as the rehabilitation of the beacon and the furnishing of a backup ganerator for ai�eld lighting and MAC facilities. Building Area Annex - West $800,000 This project will provide for the construction of the West Building Area including sanitary sewer and water main and all required wetland mitigation. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM ' Page 6 C (- Building Area Development - East $500,000 This project provides for the relocation of Zylite/95th streets as the first phase in the construction of the East Building Area. Pavement Rehabilitation $1,300,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even•condition and improve overall opereting conditions. This year's projectwill include the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 and the pavement rehabilitation of the Runway 18/36 parallel taxiway and the south crossover taxiway. Crystal Pavemenf Rehabilitation $500,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surFaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's p�oject includes the pavement reconditioning of the Runway 14R/32L parallel taxiway. Security Fence Installation $50,000 The existing security fence in the wetland area on the northeast side of the airport will be replaced with 12- foot high fence to prevent deer incursions on the airport. Flying Cloud Ai�eld Signage and Electrical Upgrades $1,000,000 This project provides for installation of signage on Runway 18/36 and the installation of a new beacon, windcone and segemented circle. Pavement Rehabilitation $75,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through ( � bituminous ove�lays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, ---' even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will provide for the crack sealing and seal coating of the north parallel taxiway and connectors. Rwy 9R/27L ReconstructionlExtension &� Rwy 9L/27R Extension $8,500,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 9R/27L and the extension of Runways 9R/27L and 9U27R. The project includes pavement construction and reconstruction, VOR and MALSR light relocations, and signage changes to reflect the renumbering of the runways to 10/28. A backup generator for ai�eld lighting and for MAC facilities will also be provided. South Building Area Development $4,900,000 This project will provide for the first phase in the construction of the new South Building Area and will include grading and utility installation. Lake Elmo Pavement Rehabilitation $1,500,000 An ongoing project to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project includes the mill and overlay of Runway 4/22. St. Paul Building Area Redevelopment $3,000,000 This project will re-develop the T-hangar area in the West Building Area to provide a buildable corporate site for St. Paul Flight Center. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 7 Flood Protection $2,000,000 This project is the second phase in the p�ogram to provide flood protection measures at the St. Paul Downtown Airport. This project includes overlays on Taxiways E and A which will provide for partial 25-year ;' flood protection. MAC Building Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants. This project will include rehabilitation of the front entrance and re-landscaping of the around the building. Pavement Rehabilitation $2,000,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surtaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the mill and overlay of Runway 13/31 and the southwestern portion of Taxiway D. Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program Airlake Sanitary Sewer/Watermain Install.-N. Building Area $2,000,000 Airlake Airport is located on the south edge of the developed area of Lakeville. A study has been completed evaluating alternatives for extending public utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and water main to the � Northeast and Southwest Building areas. This year's project will extend these utilities to the Northeast Building Area. Anoka Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $200,000 This project will provide for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations. � j Crystal Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $200,000 This project provides for miscellaneous sanitary sewe� and water main lateral installations. Flying Cloud Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $4,500,000 Flying Cloud Airport is on the fringe of the developed area of Eden Prairie. Studies have therefore evaluated alternatives for extending municipal utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and watermain to the airport. With the adoption of the Sewer and Water Installation Policy for the Reliver Airports, negotiations are continuing so as to reach final agreement on the alternative to be implemented. If agreement can be reached in 2000, the project will commence in 2001. Miscellaneous Field & Runway 12R/30L Tunnel Mechanical Room Rehabilitation $2,250,000 The vehicle tunnel under Runway 12R/30L was constructed in 1970. Majo� rehabilitation af the two mechanical rooms located adjacent to the tunnel is now required. Replacement of inechanical equipment , lighting systems and the fire protection system is required as well as replacement of the existing access doors. Apron/ GSE Lighting Upgrade $2,000,000 This project will provide for the upgrading of the pole and building mounted light fixtures that serve the apron areas adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal complex. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 8 �� C � Miscellaneous Construction $400,000 An ongoing prog"ram to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside p�oblems requiring repair which come up unexpectedly. Secured Area Access Control System Field Gate Installation $400,000 This project provides for adding finro new electronically controlled field security gates and the rehabilitation of the existing aifield security access gates as required. _ Utility Modifications $1,100,000 'fhis project p�ovides for the slip lining of the 24 inch sanitary sewer between the Inbound/Outbound roadway and Highway 55. Miscellaneous Landside Program Central Alarm/ MonitoringJFiber Optic Cable Installation $12,700,000 This project is a continuation of the program to provide for the installation of the MUFIDS and BIDS systems, an ADA required visual paging system, a terminal complex fire annunciation system and a fully integrated central alarm monitoring system including all required fiber optic cable for the operation of the systems. East Airport Water Main Loop $150,Od0 This project will complete the multi-phase program to loop the watermain main on the east side of the airport to ensure that water pressure and service demands can be met. This phase will provide for the final connections to the existing water main system and includes the installation of an 18-inch main under the Runway 30R deicing pad to the existing 18-inch main at the south side of the 30R blast pad. Econo�otlEmployee Parking Structure $187,000,000 The construction of the southeast segment of Taxiway W will impact approximately 300 parking spaces in l ) the employee lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the EconoLot to serve the proposed " Humphrey facility as well as provide additional public parking for the Lindbergh Terminal. A new parking structure to serve both needs located at the south end of the EconoLot site. The facility will be sized to accommodate approximately 1800 employee spaces and 6000 - 8000 public spaces. This project will also provide for the demolition of the existing Humphrey Terminal and for the upgrading/construction of the road system providing access to the Humphrey Terminal as well as the new parking structure. New Projects Program 34th Avenue Reconstruction $5,400,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of 34th Avenue from 72nd Street to I-494 in conjunction with the construction of the LRT tracks. Buildings Demolition - Bureau of Mines $200,000 As part of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property, The MAC agreed to demolish the buildings on site to return the property to a more natural condition. This project will be the first phase in the demolition process. Cargo Projects Development Program $32,500,000 This program provides for the development of the building site and construction of the cargo buildings within the Runway 17/35 development area. These buildings include facilities for Federal Express, UPS, BAX Global, Emery Worldwide and DHL Worldwide Express. Cat. II/llla System Installations $8,000,000 This project will provide new instrument landing systems (ILS) to Runways 12L, 12R and 35 including navigational aids and in-pavement lights. This project will provide the I�S system on Runway 21 R. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 9 C� � r� Common Curbside Check-in Stations $150,000 This project will provide curbside check-in stations to be utilized by ali passengers of ail airiines. Concourse D Pod Modifications $4,000,000 This project provides for modifications to the Concourse D pod to accommodate the second bank baggage system. Ground PoweNPreconditioned Air $15,000,000 This project will add ground power/preconditioned air systems to all gates which will allow the airlines to shut down their engines when parked at a gate. The airlines will be responsible for their own ground power/preconditioned air equipment which would "plug in" to the MAC distribution system. Humphrey Fuel System Upgrade $3,600,000 This project includes connecting the Humphrey Terminal hydrant fuel line to the existing fuel tank farm along with the installation of five additional hydrant pits, a diesel fuel tank and all required controls. Humphrey Terminal Gates Addition $3,000,000 This project will provide for building modifications and jetbridge installation to add two gates (gates 1 and 10) to the Humphrey Terminal. ' Lindbergh Terminal Security Modi�cations $1,000,000 This project provides for the installation of a security barrier between the public space at the south end of the Lindbergh terminal ticketing and the sterile portion of the Concourse G as well as modifications to access points to further enhance security. Parking Ramp Escalator $1,250,000 This project will provide for the construction of an escalator from level 2 of the Short Term parking in the Green Ramp to the Ground Transpo�tation Center. Police Department Facilities Modifications $200,000 This project provides for adding additional operational space to the Badging/ Lost and Found area for storage of lost items and locating and remodeling a space for SIDA training. RAC Service Site Relocation $5,000,000 This project will provide for the relocation of the RAC service sites to a common location near the MTC bus garage on the south side of the airport. Security Breach Notification System $300,000 This project p�ovides for a security breach notification system for use in instances where the sterility of a concourse has been compromised. In such instances, all air carrirers will be notified of the breach so that they can implement their own security plans. Special Needs Passenger Assistance Area $950,000 This project will provide for the construction of a waiting area for passengers with special needs to store their luggage while they wait to be picked up or dropped off. There would be one area on both the Ticketing and Bag Claim levels. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 10 r2unway 17/35 Program 24th Avenue Bridge 2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS Year 2002 $3,3Q7,000 This project will provide for the construction of a bridge on 24th Avenue which wili ailow the frontage road traffic to pass beneath and keep the trefFc on 24th Avenue free flowing. 77th Street124th Avenue Interchange $6,375,000 This project will provide for the construction of the 77th Street/24th Avenue interchange and roadway system. Buildings Demolition $8,123,500 This project provides for the demolition of the Freight FonNarders facilities, the MAC glycol facilities, Federal Express, UPS and Bax Global. 1-494 Frontage Road $5,175,000 This project will provide for the construction of the frontage road along 1-494 from 77th Street to the east. MAC Equipment and Mate�ials Storage Building $6,885,000 This project will provide for the construction of a facility which will serve as both an equipment storage faciliy and a storaage facility for sand, salt, and other deicing agents to used on Runway 17/35 and the adjacent service roads. MAC South Fueling Facility $564,000 To provide fuel to all the equipment operaring on and adjacent to Runway 17/35, this project will construct a new fueling facility on the airport service road near the MAC equipment/materials storage facility. Other General Construction $404,000 This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Runway 17 Deicing Pad Construction $20,000,000 This project will provide the paving of the deicing/holding pad for Runway 17. Runway 17/35 North End Paving $25,000,000 This project will provide for the concrete pavement installtion on the north end of the runway and taxiway system. Sun Country/Mesaba Apron Construction $15,000,000 This project will provide the grading and site preparation of the ap�on to serve the Sun Country and Mesaba developments. Noise Mitigation Program Residential Sound Insulation (Between 60 and 65 DNL) $9,500,000 This is the first phase in the program to insulate residential homes between the 60 and 65 DNL. Residential Sound Insulation (Insid� 65 pNL) $8,100,000 This is the last phase in the program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour.l Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM PBge 11 C r� _ Residential Sound insulation -Multi-Family (Inside 65 DNL) $18,900,000 This is the second phase in the program to insulate multi-family residences within the 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. ) Airfield Rehabilitation Program Airside Bituminous Construction $500,000 An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L and 12U30R will be made in the spring of 2002 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $4,000,000 An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. This year's project will be determined based on pavement condition surveys and irnpact to ai�eld operations. Public ParkinglAuto Rental Expansion Program Public Parking - Roadway Landscaping Phase 3 $700,000 This project will provide for the final landscaping landscaping of the Inbound/Outbound Roadways. Concourse Expansion 8� Rehabilitation Concourse E Infill $2,500,000 i ) In order to maximize the capacity of the existing terminal complex, areas on en Concourses will be infilled. - This project will provide for an infill on Concourse E to provide additional space for concessions, toilet facilites, phones and storage space. Lindbergh Terminal Rehab 8� Development Program Commercial Roadway Bag Belt $1,000,000 There are currently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the east upper level roadway to alleviate traffic congestion on the upper level roadway adjacent to the terminal. One issue which must be resolved is the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminal bag make-up area. A project to provide the required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered. International Arrivals Facility Expansion $2,000,000 The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is therefore a need for additional office space and facility expansion to house the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the secondary inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and modifying the passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional seating and signage. The success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity of the entire facility to handle additional 747 aircraft simultaneously. Lindbergh Terminal Bag Make-up Area Addition $2,000,000 The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition of gates on the Green Concourse will put additional pressure on these facilities. A study wilt be completed and a project to increase the bag make-up space will commence in 2001. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 12 C r , Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation $1,000,000 The existing loading dock behind the terminal is congested and is becoming a focus of FAA from a security stand point. This project wiil relocate and expand the loading dock to a location outside of security. Landside Rehabilitation 8� Repair Program Landside Bituminous Construction $400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airport's biturninous roadways and parking lots. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. L.indbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the �indbergh Terminal. This project wi{I include the upgrading of the bag claim area corridor flooring, ceiling and toilet facilities. Parking Structure Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi-level parking structures. Projects typically include concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, concrete sealingand lighting improvements. This year's project will provide for upgrading the lighting system on the seventh level of the Green and Gold ramps to provide light levels equal to those on the new Red and Blue ramps. Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement $1,800,000 A 1997 study of the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunction with the development/revision of the concessions area. This program will be continued with the replacement of additional units throughout the Terminal Complex. Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is ( ) programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium - reductions. It will also allow for extension of sprinkled areas should space utilization changes occur. Terminal Electrical Modifications $600,000 An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the Terminal Facilities due to the age and deterio�ation of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. Terminal Exterior Rehabilitation $1,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the �indbergh Terminal including roofing and curtain wall systems. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 consstruction season. Terminal Mechanical Modifications $300,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications $250,000 An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for imProved reliability. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and will be presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 canstruction season. West Terminal Area Rehabilitation $100,000 An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas within the West Terminal Complex to meet the needs of the various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 13 C� c" Reliever Airport Program Anoka Building Area Development - Northwest $5,600,000 This project provides for the construction of one-half of the Northwest Building Area including ali wetland mitigation for the entire building area. Pavement Rehabilitation $350,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons} through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction of the East Building Area taxiway and access road and crack repair and sealcoating of the East Building Area taxilanes. Runway 9/27 Extension/Widening $6,000,000 This project will provide for the widening and extension to 5000 feet of Runway 9/27 including all required wetland mitigation. Runway 9/27 MA�SR/ILS $2,300,000 This project provides for the instaltation of the ILS and MALSR systems for the nw 5000 foot runway. Runway 9/27 Parallel TaxiwaylExtension $1,000,000 This project provides for the extension of the pa�allel taxiway to Runway 9/27 to match the extension of the runway. Crystal Runway 6L/24R Reconsttuction This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 6U24R. ( ) Flying Cloud Pavement Rehabilitation $850,000 $100,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overell operating conditions. This year's project will provide for erack sealing and seal coating of various ai�eld pavements to be determined. Runway 18/36 Reconstruction $750,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 from the Runway 9R/27L taxiway to the 36 end of the runway. South Building Area Development $4,600,000 This project will provide for the second phase in the construction of the new South Building Area and includes paving and final utilities installation. �ake Elmo East Building Area Development $3,500,000 This project involves the site development of the new East Building Area including grading, demolition of abandoned buildings and all earthwork associated with the new taxiways, taxilanes and roadway access. St. Paul MAC Building Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:15 AM Page 14 Pavement Rehabilitation $2,150,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, i even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the rehabilitation of Runway 9/27 and the reconstruction of the blast pad. Miscellaneous Field � Runway Miscellaneous Constructian $400,000 An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring repair which come up unexpectedly. Miscellaneous l.andside Program FirelRescue Station Replacement Facility $14,500,000 This project will provide the construction of a new fire/rescue facility on 34th Avenue north of the Humphrey Terminal. MAC Cargo Buildings - Air Freight Facility $4,000,000 In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct two cargo 6uildings which will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas to accommodate non-anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for cargo operators who operate to and from MSP on an infrequent basis.. � MAC Cargo Buildings-Airline Belly Cargo Facility $4,700,800 In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide fo� the construction of a"belly" cargo building including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas. Presently, a majority of MSP's airline belly-cargo is accommodated within a 36,000 sf multi-tenant cargo facility owned by Standard Air Cargo (Standard Cargo Facility). This facility is scheduled to be removed to accommodate the construction of the Humphrey Terminal and its associated infrastructure. Additionally, Delta Airlines has indicated a desire to move irito the proposed MAC owned belly cargo facility. Currently there are no other existing facilities at MSP that can accommodate the required airline belly-cargo operations. The�efore, a new facility must be constructed to replace the Standard Cargo Facility and house airline belly-cargo operations. New Projects Program Buildings Demolition - Bureau af Mines $400,000 As pa�t of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property, The MAC agreed to demolish the buildings on site to return the property to a more natural condition. This project will be the final phase in the demolition process. Cat. II/Illa System Installations $9,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to install new I�S systems on Runways 12L, 12R, and 35. This project will provide for the installtion of ILS systems on Runways 12L and 35. Maintenance Building Addition $'10,000,000 This project will provide for the expansion of the maintenance area including additional maintenace bays, expanded parts and receiving areas, expanded shop offices and support facilites and storage areas. Printed 08/29/2000 9:06:16 AM Page 15 New Air Traffic Control Tower . $1,000,000 ' With the construction of Runway 17/35 and the development of the adjacent buiiding areas, there wiil be a need to construct a new tail Air Traffic Control Tower in order to see ail parts of the runway and taxiway , � surfaces. This project wiU commence with a conceptional study in 2002. t ( 1 Printed 08/29/20�0 9:06:16 AM Page 16 , �Q C/ N O E � � � a O r O N Z � a � z w � w > O � 0. � J H a ¢ U f" _J(�� ; � °-p0 vaa � � Z � W Qao vaa � o I 0 N t0 O O N �n 0 N v 0 0 N M O O N O N O O N u W 'o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000a O tn O O � N !� O tD .- O� FA � � V� c 0 c '� � C E .o N i c � p U � n L° °' � n C O 'O .� C Q m !N .t � � Ip � � 0. 'v 'O 'C 'O '� � a a a a � c � � rnrnrnrn. c c c c a o 'v �p �o ''p C = o 0 0 0 � o, xxsx � v c c c c c 'y U ,U �U ,U � � 0 � R 0 � �� N T N O S �r- .- r� u � w 0 a� rn m d � � O O 4 O n p p � �t •- � �a0 O) � � O N fR t— y� Ki EA O O O O O O O p O O � O O O O O O I� T t� O�O (�O O O (�7 M e^ 00 tC) V' O V3 4i bM4 � � � � N � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O t� O� O O O O p O O O N O O O O Oi V� O O � O lD O O O O (p O O O O> �A C7 O(O c� c0 7 ef' tf') O bM9 �� 6M9 �� f9 � � t� O � � rn c . c m :o n c � m o � � rn � m o W a N � � o 1 N U ` � fn � O � C N L � C" �" N C�� Q N 0� C,O V � N �' O(� O � � � � � N y 'a f9 �U V'0 U' Q' Q� c��v�i � a: 0 14 � �n ti � a.�`-. o�i ¢ v � E a� m� c c c�_�o -� v aj N N`.n � <1 rn v �¢ Cj U�� m o`m � t6 =� o� o�= m� m o ��.c �� o� tL � a� c m a� U � U 5 � Z v a� � v o c E°' o, m�>� u. � � u� u� �n �n '� u� � � o..c °' � �•`-'a¢ E u- �'o�tMMr> > r� c iu m¢ rn Q c a� Z� a o�'� � n r � r ~ � 3 '� � � � � '- Q iA in � v c ti. �- </i tn m W C� c� � m m m m m � �_� ��°� `o v' v v v m c� t� �U `m 3 3 3 3 3 �c c v � r� '� '� '� °�t� w w �.�-.. � Q Q Q � > > > � � n- �, N t0 1� 'Q �C LO ! C C C J.� ,r,,,,,, .5,� O d' � LL' �' � N � � � o a��wAe s-nrse�r � C i Z g a � z w � W O � a � J F¢- a Q U H Z� �j� U�� a n- � � zN W t-4_- W W U�a � O O N (O O O N u� 0 N � 0 0 N M O O N O 0 N O 0 N � d 'o a` O O O O O O OD b O M M � �i' 69 � !/� O O O O O p N � V3 � 0 0� o 0 0 0 � O M� W V' O �n ao v_ co rn r� � � r � � � � � 4) 64 C O U � � C C C C O � � O C� N M st 0" � � O N ��/1 t�q N o. � n. w � � ¢ a a a _ ,c o, c ro � � � m � � � a � � � .., c m � a� a� w � Z t!� � � a�'i � a�i a�i a3i F" � � ��o ti� N O N � r Uj � � � � � = g � � � � � 7+ �. 1+ �!� `!� Ui f/� (� C 3 3 3� 3 U ro m,e x.Y o •� •� C C C M a � � in in in � � � ~ � i- � N rn O a � M r N C � � M° O .n � � O O O O O O � � 0 0 0 0 O O O O tt) O � O EA ' � V3 fR ch � � � O � � 'y � G O ._ � p p, O a+ � U ' ,—�''j U c � � Q ` o E �•°f'�� o t4 � a o v ,�., p U t0 � � w a � � �� N N N N N� N N N N N � tY' V�' �f' rt �� C 3 C c Z � � � OC � O O O O O O N ER O 0 0 O O M (D � 0 0 0 O O t!') � M fR O O O O O � f0 M N3 0 0 o, 0 0 � I � c� �I � 0 ' o 0 0 0 � (O M i � O O O O O� tp N r �H ffT �,�I�.,'',,. O O O � � m m � � V3 V� V3 O O O O O O O O O O � O t� O O t;) � � � � J 0 � tD � N � � N =N � �, 3 � E O Z T = � � � N � � � C N p� � �. 'D ' w � � O lD m C � � O � � t9 � o 0 o a:D �m m m a� E� 'c � > > � E � � c c c � � � C 'O 'O 'D fp `ot a '� _ > > t+ c ° o 0 o Q N Q COViU�ai Ni_ � � � O C O � � '� ..� .� O � � o v v v o= E N N fq ,= C N � � � � � � 'o Z 0 0 0 O O � (O � � O O O O O N � M � 0 0 0 0 0 � t0 I� Iv� 0 0 0 0 0 �n � M fR O O O O O U) ttJ � �3 0 0 O O 0 � t0 M � O 0 0 O O O O � f�0 � O o. c 0 �� Q1 � N N �O Z .%� 0 a � � 0 N N m IO 0. O O O N cTJ N � _ rn � T m v N N t� '� � c a` :: ro C�. (�. Z � a � z W � > O Q.' n. � J H a Q V � J W �2 1Q-W� QO� �aa � �y J E- a>� vaa � O O N � O O N � 0 O N v 0 0 N f�Y 0 0 N 0 0 I N II� 0 N U d 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn � c 0 u ' � N C 0 C) � d a c � O V U � p U U m >. 3 � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi � 0 0 O O O O t� N C) � � � O O O O O O O O O O � � �3 M V� 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� M � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v �n o �v .�- � O O O O O O O O O O O O a o 0 � o 0 � � O O 0 0 w o � � 0 0 � o v' va a m u� m 0 0 3 � " Q F`u � � � � o N c c a o 0 0 c V :9 :° '.4 c .10c .f0c N a� ;o � � � s in � � a � a�i m '0 ` > > � ¢ a a ¢ 0 0 O O O O �i' V3 O O O O O O �' V3 0 0 0 d 0 0 d� v� 0 0 0 0 0 � � O O O O 0 � � � O 0 0 0 0 � � 0 0 O 0 0 �n � O O O O O O �}' � � 0 0 0 0 0 N O � N N O1 � in v� �' J , O , �a N N m m E _ � �° � a � � � a o 0 c m m o •- •- � L .0 � � � f0 � E E � a> a> � a a � � O O 0 0 0 0 � � 0 0 u�i u�i � � � ' � a 0 0 a` y C � 0 0 � Z �p o a w � ' � o U � � 01 3 c o € '} v� c w E l`0 m 0 a c 0 .� 'O � m � :° c E c 0 .� c W m 0 .� � � E N �0 ' N o nL. a` � C •d o � c .� m � � J I w � `� 3 c .o � o. O � � ' Q � rn C �C � °' a ° v_ � _ a a � a 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 o c O O O O O G 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 o c co N � � � � � � � T � Y �N _ T O `�° = m O � U � � c c c° W V c O ctt N ` q, C � N C � `��Qa �c W ° o N w o a y°- o� � E � Q .� > > o� E U C1 0 0 � v� o o c� F 0 0 2 c c O � U v . � m a�i a°�i in c � ci�ic�c�a� � � 0 0 O �o 0 n v� E N � 0 a c 0 �N c .,.�. ' w a� � � U c 0 U c m w (7 :° � o� al �. �I � 0 M N O) N a 0 0 0 N 01 N N � rn � Q � m v N a� F= v � c a` v �a 0 C _ C. 0 O N � 0 0 N Z • a z w W� � N a � J H a 4 �� U O N M O ' ' ,,-..__.....� N . � J W � � F_-W� V�d � !- Z � W f�_- W W ��a � � O 0 N U N O a O O Q 0 0 � fV vi 0 0 0 0 O 0 M � c � a �o L � � C O � c c X W LL. w L� � d 7 � � 0 U V O O O D U U O O O 0 0 u� � 0 0 0 0 O 0 M � O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 vi v�i � ifl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' O O t(j U N O O tO � � N fn M fR (9 fR 69 E � m c 0 0 a ».. c � o N Q ro E o � E � p c Q � � y j a� o. � o 0 � +�+ X � N p ..+ .=� tq � m.� m m rn�° v C o � l�0 CD •N O> O'D ''�C N (0 �4.V-. N N � � y m ll. J Z~� p N N N '�+ tD t9 N t0 lU N C� N lL �p ro> c c c c c� p�� Q c .F � ; o . � � � � � � � � � � � m h � o.c .c .c .c .c U W � n� _ � � Ol 01 � � ro > N � N N lU N N� C `- .� °> E E 5 ' ',�p O+�+ C C C C C V�� d C U C J J_i _l J f!j j� {_ �j J 0 0 0 0 N O � ��,.......... ro o rn a � '" � c y � O E C0 ��n a G � N � a o y '� U � � � W c � � N '€ c � � F°' ~ � � d � a � � 0 E � _ x � � 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 � v o o � m � � a V! � O O O O Q O O Q 0 o a o v o o � EA � - fA fR V3 o a o 0 O O O p � � O � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C1 O O O O O � O O � � b! fR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O 6�9 � . � 6�9 Fff � O O O O O O O O O O O O O C7 O 0 0 0 o ci 0 0 0 0 0 v� o o m � v� in in 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O (7 � N O ~ � :R ER V� 69 E v, � c o, o o '� a U � o � o. o ro � � o � a c :a � � o �' � L C N O p. � .� � � � N �, `�� C p C Y = . °� ° a� m � � rn � o = � � _ � ¢ '�,, � Q' • `' .,'� � � m �� v .c ' E � '° a v� n � � � v = E � � � c� � � Q . V F- tV � N � C C C � �D ,p ,p ` C o y � �@�€ a �C J.J �. F- E- N m io J p i C. C� Z � 0. F- Z w � W O � a � J H n. U f-' J(Z`_2 I,uJ�i ¢ O � vaa � Z W � ajW vaa � t � � 0 0 N � I O , O , N ', � v O N c� O O N N O 0 N O 0 N aUi 'o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u� u� o <» � i � ifl d3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � tA O Efi � � � fH V> 0 0 0 0 oi� 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0', 0 0 o O ol � o � c�y �I va � v� v> e� ' e� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O QG � N O V'! r d� �. tfT b9 � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 � O M N N EEi r ffi d9 fA 69 O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O ll') O '�� ' EA ' o 0 0 0 0 ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ', o 0 0 0 0 '��.. O O O tl') O � � � � � ri � � c y o � c o � � o � O 0 t9 �.'y'�' ..@+ .� � � O ` U "' '� � .O O � L p � � � a. �p � V C N � � m ro Q � � � � e wu�� € c c c c F� � � � � � � 0 0 0 0 0 v 69 O O O O O V (H 0 0 0 0 0 � ri � 0 0 0 0 O i t0 i q' �,........ EFJ ' O O O 0 � M � O O O 0 t(') � � 0 0 0 0 O 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 c�i 69 O O O O O M � vi O O O O � M v> � O 0 0 0 0 t�0 p N c7 fA H9 O O O 0 O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o ci o 0 0 O N O O O (D � O M O � � � V� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � N W t� M fA tfl d3 � N9 b9 0 0 0 0 0 i» O O 0 0 ui o M t��j EA V3 O O 0 0 � � b9 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � O � V� � 0 �n a� rn m d `J+ tV C Q y � E °�+y c m o c v c � in � rn "x� a o N C N t0 O C �,1,► C � t`1 a W Z C `^ fl. N �' � � � � cp � c0 �`1 a�i o� c� a�i o�i � tn 3 �� N �, X O U E Q O C� O � 7 O. �. � O J H y � Cp t0 (jJ O �7 � >. =' C lU C N 61 N� C f� � �..�. V„�, .p � Q � �'O � � � C N N'n "�"' Q � Q � N C � li5 O � OC c�' .,�-o � v � � � '� c�v N a � N � � � � � � c Q'� Q Q Q � rn rn rn o �� rn� F' Q '3 �.�' m � rn rn rn a� >. T T 'G a� >, �, o� m � .. � E�� v c c c E m cv m �� m.� V� ro � d Y �n � a� m� v v v m 3 3 3� � 3� � rn• y � � m � o o `.0 � '� 3 c}c � > > �n .n m � n�i c `.0 m �- _ :cc)aacn c¢mmma�� pn.�u� ,.,¢s a� � ¢ Q U � �y A C ( _ C Z g a H z W � W O � a � J H n. U F- J(zjJ� F¢-W� C9 �- '� O U�a a � � Z W � f¢r-W W V�0. � n I 0 0 N (D O O N u� 0 N O O N O O N �� O N � d 'o , a O O O O O N3 0 0 0 0 . o 0 � � � O O p I � � o f/� � 69 O O O O O � N �ri v� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 va � CD � � � v� � � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �' � m u? O O� O � � � � � � � � W � h N � Q7 � o�{ C O .N c W E C a� g �� o 0 0� c � O C,�,,G' � > N C j� :� �. � C o � 2 � � 0 2 0 �� ' o :° o N ro 0:g v� w m> �;o `N (D ' 'O = m� � Q � m U"�' � a�i � o:n N � � 0 4� la t � O� C O1 � M N � Id �V Q1 N 0�0 h�p C�� N .ti. N�N., C d' C*' N � � C � V' f/� Q O.� C E� oai m � m E ro� �° c 0- m°� � � °� v a�i m� s� o � m m�� o�. �'g o Q � la��cn �wo.�a •mmu.�a ._1 t� 0 0 0 0 0 t� V� O O O O N � W 69 0 0 0 0 0 M � � 0 0 0 o, O ',, O ', m ,, � O O O � h � � 0 0 0 0 0 c� n: N K3 0 0 0 0 � O � E m rn O a � O e' Q > N N � :.4 O a � � O O O p N � � �} V3 y� c9 N d m C E D � 'S o 0 0 O m C c C a z a; n,' u? c � w W W o � � � �N c '� 'E 'm C N C X N .,�., w; � W � S � � ,'��'' ..�. 'D '� '� � � m m m 0 � � a tq tn fn � fA 4 ° � m m m U m � � � O � N � C C � ¢ � Qctn Utn �ti O 0 0 O � N tV � m� C � � '� � J � R N i lL � � O F w � � r IC �, c u � �L ' � � 0 � a� rn m � . o • o � N . cri N ) _ i m � ) ¢ . y, : �p i �° N _ � 7 � i � � °: > c 0 � a` � ro 0 C _ _ C. / Z � a F- z w � w > O � a � J N a Q U � Z J w �1¢_-W� U�� a o- � � Z� W J E- f^ W W U�a � O O N t0 O O N 0 0 0 O O � O O O O O V d� 0 0 0 �n o o v N � 0 0 a 0 0 N � O O O N � O N 0 N U m .o a O O O 0 O � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O G? o O o 0 o v � � (H ' 6N9 fA N N C N N :� 'O N lL .�4.I �, � � o Oi � O = 2 U N C C � C O rn V Q � J � �p !/j � Q 'O c � � � p U .,L_�S � 4 � in � O O O O O a�O 0 0 0 � o n � 6�9 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � o � � � V� � C O .� .�.. ,��+, C . - -' �U N � N .�' �' O U � •V .V N 'a � ti ti U p 2 � _ >, E � a� rn m � � a cn � d m o� o c� �' c � tL C J Y �. Q� � �o � a � ' ¢ 'O O � 1U p C G c � �' o� �� 'S °'� m m N �p 'C (L � O O � o � � rn rn a`.� EL J� i`v m @ � Q o � U U N N tU U � � U U N U W W ii. ��' � � � 0 h N O> (D � 0 0 0 0 0 O C7 N EFT O O O O O O � 0 0 0 0 0 DO O O O O ,�.. N V�' o O O N � � � b9 � 6i9 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 �n o 0 0 0�n o 0 0 0 0 �n o 0 � V N �17 O r O O(D O O N� O 69 69 � � � � � � � � V� V� � K? � 0 O N . a� o � ro c cf0i � o o`. � m ° � o•`= � o � � �' c� Q'o � v rc�' �.. � oi N C Rl C O C � Ql Q � d C N C � � � tD Y � O a y •� 'O � � � t�11 U ;�, � O -� � CO fl. � N�= 'n l0 V Q~ O°- V m N .a�+ � � y L O C�7 Vt d O V O � p � C C j C U� U V/ � m �;Q� N Q � � � v � � � O � � c° ��•� �� N 0- a a> � c= U W�� n' � � w tn � j � o ti F� €� m m�� F��- � � � � a ro o � o. ` ` � c�a ` � a�'i �Z v � 'p Q E o= E� c o. o. �� Q c� u� '3 o .. � v Q' . E c o E E v � 3� � V c .o a�'S m m o o�>> c m� m o �- c�n ��' m c� c� c.� c� c� = s �� z a n. �a � z `0 0 Z � a H Z W � W > O � 4 � J F�- n. ¢ U i- ,JW�s H W "- ¢ Q 0 U�a a � � Z� w a�w �aa � � 0 N fD O O N � 0 0 N et O O N M O O N N O N � u I N I 0 . � a 0 0 0 0 M � v� � N,..�,........ Q ', N�I....',..��.�..�,... T N',, � N ,, C Q O �, �; N �C , a� Z m L n' � a�°i m � .i.T Z .� � tq u'�� 0 0 � O O � M N � O O O O O O b9 0 0 0 0 V. N 4H 0 0 0 O h m bn9 E t` m O a � .p a m Z �° w a � � 0 0 0 ci 0 � `d' EA O O O O N � n fD � 0 0 0 0 0 0 � tD � 0 0 O O O O t� � 69 O O � � � f`'i � 0 0 M w�r � � N � 0 0 N (TO ,.....�,. N ,,, t�0 .....�I. d3 , O O O O O O � r i1) . t0 Oh� � V�' 1� N e- r (+j 0^0 'd' N 69 ER ' � N N N m ro m t�- F�- F�- 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� t+'i e= N N N a, 0 � a� rn m n. O O O N ai N N � rn � Q 7; t0 V a`�i F� v a� �. :; m C� 2001 Capital Improvement Program Implementation Schedule Initial CIP Meeting RequestsforClP Projects Departments/Airlinesdevelop CIP Projects Departments/Airlines CIP Projects to Airport Development Develop Draft Preliminary CIP Review of Draft Preliminary CIP/Develop Final PreliminaryClP ConsultantsprepareAOEEs and EAWs as required Majorityln InterestAirlineApproval Airpork Development Airport Development Di rectors/DepartmentStaff Directors/Airlines Airport Development Sr. Staff/Directors/Dept. Staff/Airlines Airport Development AS-BD/Finance/Airport Development AOEEs and EAWs to EQB Airport Development Public Hearing Notice Published in EQB Monitor Airport Development , , _ , , ..,:. Minutes of September Comrriission Meetmg rnailed to : Airport Development Affected Municipal:rties _; � � Public Hearing on AOEEs and EAWs at October P& E Airport Development Committee Meeting Thirty-day comment period on AOEEs and EAWs Ends Airport Development January 7 January 7 January 7-February4 February 4 February4-July 15 July 15-August 15 July 15-September 11 August 1 October 9 October 16 November4 November 14 ATTACN9VIENi' 1 NOTE: • All dates are tentative and subjectto change • Shaded Items represent actions/dateswhich pertain to the Affected Municipalities as defined in Minnesota Statutes 473.621.Subd.6 as amended pLIS g,y� } l! ?Q'PP t •y .o r "I' vG �' F � i � Z 0 , s t t in O j N 9 � / �� ,~ �,wnoa'Ts co � �� Airport Development TO: Community Officials FROM: Robert J. Vorpahi, Program Development Engineer DATE: September 5, 2000 �:E: 2G0'i Cr1t''-IiAL iP�IFtZGiiEME�IT in►9PL�E�IfEi�ii'f'1►T10N SCHEDUL� The 2001 Capital Improvement implementation schedule previously sent to you as Attachment 1 to the preliminary Capital improvement Program (CIP) memo to the Planning and Environment Committee contained the wrong date for the public hearing on the environmental affects of the CIP. Attached please find a new schedule showing the correct date of November 6 for the public hearing. My apologies for any inconvenience. RJV/Irk attachment C 2001 Capital improvement Program Implementation Schedule initial CIP Meeting Airport Development Requests for CIP Projects Airport Development Departments/Airlinesdevelop CIP Projects Directors/DepartmentStaff Departments/Airlines CIP P�ojects to Airport Directors/Airlines Development Develop Draft Preliminary CIP Review of Draft Preliminary CIP/Develop Final PreliminaryClP Consultants prepare AOEEs and EAWs as required . Majorityln InterestAirlineApproval Airport Development Sr. Staff/Directors/Dept. Staff/Airlines Airport Development AS-BD/Finance/Airport Development AOEEs and EAWs to EQB Airport Development Public Hearing Notice Published in EQB Monitor Airport Development M�nutes of September Comrniss�on Meeting mailed to A�rport Development; Affecfetl Municipalities Public Hearing on AOEEs and EAWs at November P& Airport Development E Committee Meeting Thirty-day comment period on AOEEs and EAWs Ends Airport Development January 7 January 7 January 7-February4 February 4 February4-July 15 July 15-August 15 July 15-September 11 August 1 October 9 October 16 �� . - .- . November 14 NOTE: � Ali dates are tentative and subjectto change Shaded Items representactions/dateswhich pertain to the Affected Municipalitiesas defined in Minnesota Statutes473.621.Subd.6 as amended ...................................... . \ / � ; �� /. � I � � PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ' Roger Hale, Chair Aiton Gasper, Vice Chair Coral Houle Dick Long Bert McKasy Georgiann Stenerson Paul Weske METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING UF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 5, 2000 1:00 p.m. Room 3040 Mezzanine Level Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field AGENDA CONSENT 1. F1NAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS a. Materials Storage Building (Robert Vorpahl, Prograrn Development Engineer) ,� b. Runway 9L-27R Reconstruction — Flying Cloud Airport (Gary G. Warren, Director �� — Airside Development) c. 1998 Pavement Rehabilitation/Airfield Signage — Crystal Airport (Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development) d. 1999 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) 2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS a. Parking Expansion: Core Building/Finishes, QTA, Ramp Stair Enclosures (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) b. Parking Expansion: Inbound/Outbound Roadway (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) 3. BIDS RECEIVED — MAC CONTRACTS a. 2000/2001 Glycol Recovery Program (Toni Howell, Manager — Environmental Affairs) b. Runway 12R/30L Tunnel Asbestos Abatement (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) c. Lindbergh Terminal Flooring Replacemen# (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) d. Package Express Services Relocation (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) e. Miscellaneous Ai�eld Electrical Upgrades — St. Paul Downtown Airport (Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development) f. Restroom Facilities: Crystal Airport and Anoka County-Blaine Airport (Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development) g. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program — August Bid Cycle (Joseph Shortresd, Landside Project Manager) � C _ __ � __ _ , 4. BIDS RECEIVED — MAC PURCHASE ORDERS a. Materials Storage Building: AOA Sand Storage Ventilation (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) b. Green Parking Ramp 7�' Level Lighting Upgrade (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) 5. REVIEW 4F UPC(�MING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BIDS Robert J. Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer 6. JULY 2000 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK Eric L. Johnson, Manager — Commercial Management & Airline Affairs 7. CHANGE MANAGEMENT POl.1CY AND PROJECT STATUS REPORT Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 8. EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL — ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development 9. AIRLAKE AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development DISCUSSION 10. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS �, ) Dennis Probst, Director — Landside Development Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development 11. LRT TUNNEL BIDS/SPECIAL MEETING Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 12. PART 150 NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN UPDATE — STATUS REPORT Roy Fuhrmann, Manager- Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs 13. LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITI"EE — FINAL REPORT Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 14. PRELIMINARY 20q1-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment �----`, > ;> , � � � � � � � ,` , � �, , � �` � � ' � , � � � � I � � _I 1 ' • � I � `� � � �' � � � � ;� I-L,� R �p � _� � , ��. .� � . �� C �� ra .�:, .. / , ,°1 � , � � � � � _� � ; A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 26 John Wayne Airport NEWPORT BEACH SEEKS EXTENSION OF NOISE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO 2025 The City of Newport Beach, CA, is seeking to extend until 2025 the curfew and flight restrictions agreed to in a 1985 settlement agreement that ended numerous lawsuits in state and federa] court over noise at Orange County's John Wayne Airport and imposed what are considered the most stringent airport noise regula- tions in the country. The settlement agreement was grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and has been amended since then to allow several cargo operations. Michael Gatzke of the Carlsbad, CA, law firm Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance, which represents Orange County on noise matters, told ANR that he does not feel than an extension of the agreement would be subject to a federal Part 161 study. He stressed, however, that the idea of an extension is only in the very preliminary stages, that the county has not yet considered the issue, and that it is far too early in the process to reach any kind of definitive conc�usian. He said the county has not discussed the issue yet with the Federal Aviation-�4dministration, The settlement agreement, set to expire at the end of 2005, limifed the number of annual passengers to 8.4 million, set a maximum of 73 daily departures, imposed a nighttime curfew on operations, and limited the size of the terminal and the number of parking spaces and loading bridges. ,, ' (Continued on p. I11) Flying Cloud PROPOSED NOISE RESTRICTIONS MEANT TO QUELL COMMUNITY FEARS OF GROWTH The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is attempting to impose nighttime noise restrictions at general aviation Flying Cloud Airport to quell community concerns that the extension of a runway will cause increased noise impact. : The airport consulting firm Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff (HNTB), based in Alexandria, VA, has already conducted a cost/benefit analysis in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions for two restrictions the MAC seeks to impose: (1) a ban on all jet aircraft that do not meet Stage 3 noise standards from using the airport between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and (2) a ban on all nighttime maintenance run-ups for all aircraft between those hours. Because there currently are no Stage 2 jets operating at Flying Cloud Airport, there is no cost associated with the first proposed restriction, which would bar them during night hours, an airport spokesman said. The proposed ban on night run-ups would have minimal impact because only about six such maintenance procedures are done per year, he said. However, he noted that one maintenance (Continued on p. 111) �� August 11, 2000 In This Issue... John Wayne Airport ... The City of Newport Beach wants Orange County to help it get an extension of the 1985 settlement agreement that imposed at the airport the . most stringent noise rules in the country. Newport Beach wants the settlement agree- ment, due to expire in 2005, extended unti12025 - p. 110 Flying Cloud Airport ... Part 161 study already done on proposed nighttime curfew on non-Stage 3 general aviation airplanes, ban on engine mainte nance run-ups - p. 110 Advisory Circular ... The FAA seeks public comment on a draft AC that reflects changes made to aircraft noise certifica- tion standards - p. 111 Conferences ... Florida Airport Noise Managers confer- ence set for September - p. 112 Part I50 Program ... The FAA. is reviewing programs for Tampa, Port Columbus - p. 112 News Briefs ... Vecchi joins Terrell, Hundley firm ... LAX appoints Johnson to newly- created post of environment director ... Fina1 EIS for Greens boro Triad Airport expansion to FedEx cargo hub due out in late Spring 2001 - p. 112 Au�ust 11, 2000 111 No more than 39 of the maximum 73 average daily departures can be louder than an MD-80 (89.5-100 dB Single Event Noise Levels) and no planes can be louder than 100 dB SENEL (the level of a Boeing 737-200). Beginning in 1981, the City of Newport Beach, with two community groups (the Airport Working Group and Stop Polluting Our Newport) was engaged in litigation against Orange County, CA, the proprietor of John Wayne Airport. The settlement agreement, which ended the litigation, can be modified by the consent of the parties. City Council Action On Aug. 8, the Newport Beach City Council voted 4-0 to adopt a resolution asking Orange County to cooperate with the city in its quest to extend the settlement agreement. County officials have not yet commented on the resolu- tion. The C�ty CounciPs resolution asks the County Board of Supervisors and the county supervisor to support the preparation of an environmental document by the City of Newport Beach "that evaluates the impacts of an amend- ment of the 1W A Settlement Agreement to extend the term with no change to the current legally permissible and authorized level of operations." Gatzke said that it is unlikely that the City of Newport Beach would conduct any kind of environmental assess- ment of an extension of the settlement agreement because Orange County is the party designated by the state to take such action. The City of Newport $each strongly advocates converting the former El Toro Marine Air Base into a commercial airport because it would reduce the noise impact on the city from John W ayne Airport. But the city realizes that such a conversion may never occur because county voters approved a ballot measuring giving them the power to control the location of airports. A clear majority of county voters is against the conver- sion of EI Toro to a commercial airport mostly because of fears of noise impacts. Litigation by several parties, inciuding the City of Newport Beach, challenging that ballot initiative is pending. Flying Cloud, from p. IIO firm said the ban on run-ups would cost it $50,000 to $75,000 per year. The affluent community of Eden Prairie, MN, located near the airport, the busiest reliever for Minneapolis-St. Paul International, fears that the extension of the south parallel runway at Flying Cloud by 1,220 feet to a total of 5,000 feet will set the stage for either commercial service or increased noise impact. The MAC says the airport does not have the infrastructure to handle commercial service. In addition to the new noise restrictions, the MAC wants to amend an existing ordinance already limiting the weight of aircraft using the airport to 20,000 Ib. to aliow Stage 3 aircraft that weigh up to 22,500 lb. to operate at the airport. C The MAC tried to convince the community that aircraft weight is not a good surrogate for aircraft noise, the airport spokesman said, but to no avail. The community understands, he said, that the final decision on the proposed restrictions rests with the FAA and they may have to be instituted on a voluntary basis. A public hearing on the proposed restrictions wil] be held on Aug. 15. Public comments on them will be accepted until Aug. 30. Advisory Circular FAA SEEKS COMMENT ON DRAFT NOISE CIRCULAR The Federai Aviation Administration announced Aug. that it is seeking public comment on a draft advisory circular it has developed that reflects changes in aircraft noise certification standards made in order to harmonize U.S. standards with their European counterparts. Entitled "Noise Standards: AircraftType and Airworthi- ness Certification," the draft advisory circular "contains information concerning the standards and requirements for aircraft noise certification and presents explanatory informa- tion, as necessary, to identify acceptabie means of compli- ance," the FAA explained in its notice. The draft AC, it said, contains a section-by-section review of the Part 36 aircraft noise certification standards and "presents acceptable noise certification procedures for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category small airplanes, transport category airplanes, and normal and transport category rotorcraft." On July 11, the FAA proposed the changes to its noise certification standards that are reflected in the draft AC (12, ANR, 94). The agency gave the public until Oct. 10 to comment on the changes it seeks to make. The agency also is giving the public until that date to comment on the draft AC. Copies of the draft AC can be obtained o the FAA's web site (http;//www.aee.faa.gov/ac-36-4c). For further informa- tion on the draft, contact Tom Connor in the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy; tel: (202) 267-8933. The FAA also announced on Aug. 9 that its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee will meet on Aug. 23 at 8:30 a.m. at FAA headquarters, Room 9, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591 to discuss the proposed changes to the aircraft noise certification standards. The meeting is open to the public but space is limited. For further information, contact An?ela 0. Anderson in the FAA's Office of Rulemaking; tel: (202) 267-9681. AirportNoiseReport August 11, 2000 112 Conferences FLORIDA NOISE CONFERENCE TO BE HELD IN SEPTEMBER The annual meeting of the Florida Airport Noise Manag- ers Association (FAMA), which has gained national stature in the past few years as it broadened its scope to encompass noise issues beyond the state, will be held Sept. 21 and 22 at the Holiday Inn Longboat Key, located near Sarasota, FL. The symposium will focus in concurrent sessions on � aircraft noise and other environmental issues that airports face, such as air quality, storm water management, and wildlife deterrents. The noise sessions will address: • � How recertified Stage 3 aircraft, the development of Stage 4 noise limits, and the technology of new general aviation jet aircraft will affect airports and how they address noise issues; • How navaids can be used to develop effective noise abatement instrument approach and departure procedures and improve compliance with flight tracks; • Demonstration of the latest computer simulation technology that can be used to simulate the potential noise impact of a runway extension project on a neighboring community; • � A panei discussion of recent advances in "Quiet Flying" programs and techniques; • Emerging noise issues such as restoration of natural quiet in parks, Part 161 case studies, and reuse plans for Homestead Air Force Base; • A panel discussion on how to effectively use residential sound insulation; and • Noise issues beyond the traditiona165 dB DNL threshold of residential compatibility. For further information on the conference, contact Lisa VJaters, Noise Abatement & Technical Services, Palm Beach International Airport; tel: (561) 471-7467; fax: (561) 471- �4z�; Emaii: lwaters@�bia.org. Part I50 Program FAA REVIEWING PROGRAMS FOR TAMPA, PORT COLUMBUS The Federai Aviation Administration announced recently that it is reviewing the proposed Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Programs for Tampa International Airport and Port Columbus International Airport. The FAA announced Aug. I 1 that revised current and future noise exposure maps submitted by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for Tampa International Airport meet federal standards. The FAA said that it currently is reviewing a proposed Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program submitted for the airport and that its review will be compieted by Feb. 1, 2001. Public comment on the program will be accepted until Oct. 3, 2000. For further information, contact Tommy 7. Pickering of FAA's Orlando District Office; tei: (407) 812-6331, ex[. 29. Port Columbus The Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program submitted for Port Columbus International Airport is under FAA review, the agency announced Aug. 10. The review will be completed by Jan. 10, 2001, and the public has until Sept. 12, 2000, to submit comments on the proposed program. Further information can be obtained from Mary Jagiello in FAA's Great Lakes Regional office; tel: (734) 487-7296. In Brief ... Vecchi Joins Terrell, Fiundley Terrell, Hundley & Carroll, Inc., the Duluth, GA-based consulting firm specializing in land acquisition and noise mitigation projects, announced July 28 that Steve Vecchi, former manager of the Part 150 Residential Sound Insula- tion Program at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, has joined the firm. Vecchi served for 23 years with the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as manager of noise abatement and environmental affairs and manager of the airport's Part 150 airport noise compatibility program. From 1990 to 2000, he managed one of the largest Part 150 residential sound insulation programs in the country (7,000 homes, $164 million budget). His responsibilities included development and oversight of both program and construc- tion areas as well as acting as liaison to five participating cities. In addition to his Part 150 responsibilities, he supervised severa] landside airport construction projects for the MAC AirportDevelopmentProgram. As director of sound insulation programs for Terrell, Hundley, Mr Vecchi is currentiy providing consulting services to the MAC, assisting in the development of noise mitigation strategies for the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours of MSP's update of its Part I50 program and for its 2005 DNL60 Noise Exposure Map. He also is coordinating the company's sound insulation programs around the country. LAX Appoints Environment Director The Los Angeles World Airports (LAW A) announced July 27 that it has appointed Roger Johnson to its newly created post of deputy executive director for environmental affairs, a position created to focus LAW A's commitment to the environmental issues facing its four airports. Reporting directly to LAWA Executive Director Lydia Kennard, Johnson is responsible for oversight of three divisions — environmental management, residential Airport Noise Report August 11, 2000 113 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office ofEnvironmentand Energy Federal Aviation Administration soundproofing, and residential acquisition. In addition, he is involved in the environmental processes in support of the LAX master plan develop- menC. � Johnson comes to his new position after serving as vice president of Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., an engineering company. He has 20 years of experience in environmental management, environmental engineer- ing, environmental regulatory compliance, hazardous materials/waste investigations, construction, and construction management. During the past 13 years, he has focused mainly on environmental issues facing the aviation industry and has worked in a consulting capacity for LAW A for much of that period. Finai EIS for Greensboro John C. Freytag, P.E. The FAA announced Aug. 1 that it expects to issue the Final Environ- Director, Charles M. SalterAssociates San Francisco mental Impact Statement for the proposed third runway at Piedmont Triad'International Airport in late Spring 2001 and to issue its Record of Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Decision on the project in Summer 2001. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance The FEIS has previously been scheduled for release this Fall. The FAA Carisbad,CA said the additional time will enable it to complete supplemental noise Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. analyses in response to comments received on the Draft EIS. The Envi- Cutler&Stanfieid ronmental Protection Agency, in particular, was critical of the noise Denver analysis done in the Draft EIS (12, ANR, 98). The Piedmont Triad Airport Authority has proposed building a new Suzanne C. McLean 9,000-foot runway, connecting taxiways and associated navigational ChiefDevelopmentOfficer TucsonAirportAuthority aidsand roadwork to support a new FedEx sorting and distribution center at the airport. ' John M. Meenan Senior V ice President for Industry Policy AirTransport Association Price Civil War Trilogy Completed For those of you following the successful literary career of Charies Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. Price, the former executive director of the National Organization to Eresident,MestreGreveAssociates _ --lnsure a Sound=controlled Environment(NO%SE) and-an occasional -- - Newport Beach, CA contributor to ANR, you will be pleased to learn that he has completed Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. the final book in his Civil W ar trilogy, which will be published this fall McDermou,Wi11&Emery by John F. Blair, Publisher in Winston-Salem, NC. Chicago Entitled "The Cock's Spur," the final installment in the trilogy centers Karen L. Robertson on moonshining in the western North Carolina mountains in the period Manager,NoiseCompatibitity0ffice after the war. The final book follows "Haiwassee," the first in the trilogy, Dallas/FortWorthlnternationalAirport and "Freedom's Alter," which won the prestigious Sir W alter Raleigh Award given by the North Carolina Historical Society for best historical Mary L. Vigilante fiction. President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Price still lives in the North Carolina mountain community of Burnsville, where he moved after retiring from his work as a W ashington, Lisa Lyle Waters DC, lobbyist. Manager, Noise AbatementProgram Patm Beach County Departmentof Airports AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personat use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. ;� I � � �:� �- -� �: �� ,; .." �� << � '��. � `� , _ A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 27 ICAO EU SEEKS DISMISSAL OF U.S. CHALLENGE TO ITS HUSHKIT RULE FILED WITH ICAO In what some consider a delaying tactic, the European Union has challenged on procedural grounds the document the United States filed with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) asking the aviation rulemaking body to resolve the dispute over an EU regulation barring hushkitted aircraft, which the United States contends was imposed to target its airlines. The ICAO Council only has power under the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Aviation to rule on the interpretation and application of the Con- vention, not to order the specific remedies the United States seeks, the EU said in preliminary objections filed with ICAO on Aug. 4. On March 13, after the EU refused to agree to a key concession in negotiations over its hushkit rule, the U.S. filed its formal request {called a memorial) with the ICAO Council asking it to resolve the dispute and putting in jeopardy the EU members' voting rights in ICAO (12, ANR, 39). The United States had insisted that the EU agree to let it file its chailenge of the hushkit rule with ICAO and then suspend it but EU officials refused to accept this condition. The EU objected to the U.S. memorial on the grounds that it was submitted without adequate nego[iations between the parties, that local legal remedies to (Continued on p. 115) Burbank Airport AIRPORT ACCEPTS CITY'S CONDITION ON SIZE OF REPLACEMENT TERMINAL The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority announced Aug. 14 that it has agreed to accept the City of Burbank's proposed size for a replacemeot passenger terminal — 250,000 square feet instead of the 330,000 sq. ft. the airport had sought — and has submitted a new appli�ation for the city to review to move the project ahead. The California Supreme Court recently upheld the City of Burbank's assertion that state law requires the airport to get city approval to build the replacement terminal on airport land that falls within the city's jurisdiction. "W e're trying hard to find reasonable middle ground while there is still time to do so," said Airport Authority President Carl Meseck. He noted tha[ the authority's legal agreement with the City of Burbank last fall settling litigation over the terminal requires the Authority to sell the property needed for the terminal because no final development agreement for a new terminal was reached by the May 24 deadline agreed to. "We can still salvage the terminal project if we can reach an agreement before the property sells," Meseck said. (Continued on p. I15) '�' August 18, 2000 In �'his Issue... Hushkits ... The European Union has responded to the United Staies' request that the International Civil Aviation Organization Council resolve a dispute over the EU's regulation barring hushkitted aircraft by asserting that the United States' request is pemature and should be dismissed on procedural grounds - p. 114 Burbank ... The Airport Authority a�ees to the smaller replacement terminal size demanded by the City of Burbank and resubmits its application for city approval in an effort to reach an agreement on the terminal before the land for it is sold - p. 114 Homestead AFB ... The Sierra Club criticizes Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who has an outstanding record on environ- mental issues, for not publicly opposing the conversion of the former Air Force base to a commercial airport - p. 116 Land Use ... Best practices being used to reduce commu- niry concerns over aircraft noise � identified in report prepared by National Association of State Aviation O�cials and FAA officials - p. 116 Au�ust 18, 2000 115 resolve the dispute have not been invoked, and that the scope of relief sought by the United States (to have the ICAO Council order the EU members to drop [he rule) is beyond ICAO's power. Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, under which the U.S. memorial was filed, makes negotiations between the parties on the disagreement to be submitted to the Council "an essential pre-condition" to be satisfied before the ICAO Council can be asked to assume the quasi-judicial adjudi- catory role which Article 84 provides for, the EU said in its objections. It asserted that the United States has not met this pre- condition because (1) the discussions held so far cannot be considered negotiations under the Convention; (2) the discussions "did not relate to what could be the proper subject of the dispute (the interpretation and application of binding obligations under the Convention) but, rather to policy questions"; (3) the European Commission has proposed to amend the hushkit regulation but the United States has been demanding its outright appeal; and (4) the scope for arriving at a satisfactory solution "has by no means been exhausted." The EU said it "firmly believes. that the scope for negotia- tion within and outside ICAO has not been properly explored and believes that a satisfactory solution to the problems which have given rise to this dispute can only be achieved through further negotiations." Local Legal Remedies The EU also argued that international legal precedent requires U.S. hushkit manufacturers and owners of hushkitted aircraft to use local remedies, such as challeng- ing the hushkit regulation under international courts or EC law, before putting the dispute before the ICAO Council. Two cases challenging the EU hushkit regulation currently are pending before the High Court of England and W ales and the High Court of Ireland. They have been referred to the European Court of Justice. "Various remedies exist in the EU for complaints of the U.S. against the [hushkit] regulation," the EU told ICAO. Additionally, it said, those who feel they have been adversely affected by an illegal act of the EC can bring an action for damages directly to the Court of First Instance of the European Commission with an appeal possible to the Court of Justice. EC law provides effective remedies for persons claiming to be advecsely affected by the hushkit regulation, ICAO was told. If the U.S. complaints against the hushkit regulation were well-founded, the regulation could be deciared invalid and damajes even awarded, the EU explained. Scope of Relief Sought The U.S. memorial asked the ICAO Council to do four things, the EC said: (1) determine that the EU is in viola- tion of the Chicago Convention and its Annex 16; (2) order the EU to comply with all provisions of the Convention; (3) order the member States of the EU to [ake immediate steps to procure their release from their obligation to comply with � the hushkit regulation; and (4) grant the United States ' further relief as the ICAO Council deems "proper and just." The EU asserted that the ICAO Council has no power to order specific remedies, such as ordering EU member states to procure their release from their obligation to comply with the hushkit rule. It only has the power to rule on the interpretation and application of the Convention. "The U.S. is asking the ICAO Council to deviake from its past practice and go beyond its proper function as set out in Article 84 of the Convention. Its request must be rejected as inadmissible," the EU argued. It asserted that the ICAO Council "is not a court of equity with wide ranging general jurisdiction. The ICAO Council can only rule on disagree- ments regarding the application and interpretation of the Chicago Conven[ion, the EU said. It cannot order States to take any action that it "deems proper and just," as the United States urges. The EU's official response addressing the substantive issues about the EU hushkit rule raised in the U.S. memorial must be submitted to ICAO by Aug. 4. On Aug. 23, the U.S. State Department will hold a meeting for interested U.S. parties to discuss the EU's action. It will be hosted by Assistant Secretary of State for Business and Economic Affairs Tony W ayne. Burbank, from p. 114 ��. In a letter to Burbank Mayor Bill W iggins transmitting the new application, Meseck appealed to the City Council to act on the application in a timely manner. "Bill, I hope you and your colleagues wili agree that we should have the elements of an agreement in place at this point," he wrote. Meseck cited numerous concessions by the Airport Authority intended to address community concerns about the future effects of the airport: • The Authority has accepted the city's demand that a curfew be in place before a new terminal can be built; • The Authority has accepted the city's condition that there be payments from the airport in lieu of the ]ost property taxes from the former owner of the terminal property; • The City Council would be guaranteed total control over the future fate of airport terminal facilities under the Airport Authority's application. • The Authority has agreed to no new aircraft gates and only a modest increase in terminal area from the present 170,000 sq. ft. to 250,000 sq. ft, as proposed by the city. "Ideally, the Authority would have liked to secure a terminal closer to the 330,000 sq. ft. we negotiated with Mayor Murphy and Concilman Golonski a year ago in the Framework for Settlement, and I hope our wiliingness to give Burbank all of its deal points on the curfew and siae of �: the buiiding shows the determination of the Authority to reach agreement," Meseck wrote. AirportNoise Report August 18, 2000 116 f�itt' '�i_:_ i� SIERRA CLUB CRITICIZES SENATOR'S AIRPORT POSITION Just two years after praising Florida Senator Bob Graham (D) for having the best environmental voting record in the South, the Sierra Club has attacked him for not publicly opposing the proposed reuse of Homestead Air Force Base near the Everglades as a commercial airport. The environmental group contends that turning Home- stead into a commercial airport would cause noise, water pollution, and development that would have a devastating impact on nearby Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park. If the former Air Force Base, damaged beyond repair by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, is converted to a commercial airport, it is expected to have 231,000 operations a year by Zors. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service have already come out against the base conversion to a commercial airport also arguing it would be too damaging to the environmentally-sensitive Everglades. Frank Jackalone, the Sierra Club's senior field representa- tive in Florida, told the Orlando Sentinel that he believes that Sen. Graham has already made a decision on the matter and is now lobbying behind the scenes in support of the base conversion to a commercial airport. "He needs to come out publicly and say what he is going to do," Jackalone told the paper. The Sierra Club's criticism of Graham came Aug. 3 as he was heading to Yellowstone National Park for a congres- sional forum on the future of national parks and at a point when he was on the short list of potential running mates for Vice President A1 Gore. "It's unfortunate about the timing, but the timing is based on reality," the Sierra Club official told the paper. "Sen. Graham is billing himself as a national champion of national parks at the same time this is coming down. It's highly inconsistent behavior." Graham's office said the senator is waiting for the results of an environmental study being done by the Air Force before taking a position on what should happen with the former air reserve base. "It has been my position that this process should be respected — not politicized," the senator said, adding that the secretary of the Air Force will evaluate the study in determining the most appropriate use for the base. "The secretary has indicated that impacts on Biscayne and Everglades National Parks will be major considerations in his final orders," Graham said. Land Use Planning EDUCATION OF PUBLIC FOUND TO BE WEAK LINK The area that states and Federal Aviation Administration regional offices appear to_be the weakest in in terms of land use planning around airports is effective public education and awareness, a report prepared by the National Associa- tioa of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) concludes. It was prepared under a Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) between the FAA and NASAO to explore ways in which the federal agency and state aviation agencies can work together to increase community understanding of � airport land use issues. The working group that prepared the report, "Cooperative Partnership Between the FAA and the State Agencies for Reducing Community Concerns Related to Aircraft Noise," consisted primarily of Ted Mathison of the Maryland Aviation Administration, Marlin Beckwith of the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, and Alan Trickey and Tom Bennett of the FAA. They conducted a survey of state aviation agencies and eight FAA regional offices to (1) define the roles and responsibilities, if any, of each state regarding airport land use planning, (2) idenkify some "best practices" or recom- mended ways for informing or education the public, and (3) develop a list of contacts for those who might w.ish to obtain more detailed information on specific items. Some 42 states and eight FAA regional offices responded to the survey, which was sent out in November 1998. It was concluded from the survey that "a number of states and the FAA regions are putting forth significant effort in dealing with aircraft-related noise problems," and that " a large amount of the focus appears to be developing and imple- menting regulations, guidelines, and controls for reducing aircraft noise and providing compatible land uses near airports." The survey concluded that "what appears to be the weakest area of involvement nationwide is in the area of effective public education and awareness. This may wel] be the subject for some further coordinated effort among the states and the FAA." Examples of Best Practices Following are some of the "more outstanding and unigue examples" of best practices being used to reduce commu- nity concerns over aircraft noise: • As part of Wyoming DOT's Land Compatibility Guidelines, they provide each Community Planning and airport with a copy of the document for their area and also a pamphlet describing actions the could take to enhance compatibility; • The California State Legislature enacted Public Utilities Code Sectior 21670 requiring the estabiishment of AirportLand Use Commissions within local county AirportNoiseReport August 18, 2000 117 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson M anaget,Sacramento0f�ce Harris M illerM iller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. 3piegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC James D. Erickson D irector, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder& Stanfield Denver Su2anne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan Senior Vice PresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransportAssociation Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, W ili & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort W orth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle Lisa Lyle Waters Manager, Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports governments; • In W ashington, the state established model ordinances that focused on preventing incompatible development from occurring. A matrix of recommended densities and uses was also developed; • In Connecticut, the state established a web site where noise information is provided to the public; • The Ohio Office of Aviation piepared a"Good Neighbors by Design" booklet on use of zoning to promote compatible land use around airports; • New Mexico's DOT invited concerned citizens to meetings of aviation groups such as local pilots associations and aviation commis- sions; • The State of Arizona passed a statute that authorized airports to establish Airport Influence Areas (AIA) around their airports. The statute authorized county recorders to annotate property owner's deeds within the AIA to note that the property was located in an area under the influence of aviation activity from an airport; � Hawaii established a state law that mandates the seller of real estate to disclose to the buyer any property that is within the 55 dB DNL noise contour, • In California, an Airport Commnnity Roundtable was created to provide a forum for discussion and implementation of noise mitigation measures at San Francisco International Airport; � Buffalo Niagara International Airport has instituted a program to receive and promptly respond to individual complaints/inquiries regarding aircraft noise around the airport; the responses often involve an education process regarding aircraft noise; • Personnel at FAA's Alaska regional office have briefed commu- nity councils, airport commissions, local planning and zoning commis- sions, and the Anchorage Assembly on airport noise and land use planning issues and the role local governments can play in adopting compatible land use zoning and ordinances and real estate disclosure laws; • In 1997, the FAA formed the Southern California Task Force to address community concerns regarding aircraft noise and how it impacts quality of life issues. The task force, comprised of high level representa- t'rves from local governments, industry, and the FAA, developed action plans to mitigate the noise impact on 11 affected communities that were identified. Many of these plans included air traffic route structure modifications and the design of new departure procedures. AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Pubiisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for interna( or personal use, or the internai or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. , ;� I.. � �� ° '� � � � , .' . :. ,. .. �, , ..� ` � � �' ,�f. � ��:. ��, �� , ' ": . A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological dev_elopments Volume 12, Number 28 Stage 4 Standard AIRPORTS IJItGE FAA TO SY.TPPORT 5 YEAR PI3ASEOUT OF �IUSHKITTED PLANES Older, louder aircraft that only meet Stage 3 noise standards by —5 dB, including hushkitted planes, should be phased out of operation within five years, the Airports Council International — North America told Federal Aviation Administra- tor 7ane Garvey in an Aug. 3 letter intended to influence the position the United States will adopt in the process of developing more stringent international aircraft noise certification standards. "As the United States prepares for the upcoming [International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection] ICAO CAEP meetings that will set the international standards in noise abatement for the next several decades, we are concerned that the discussion, to date, of the crucial issues has been fragmented and is inadequate to support development of a U.S. position that will solve the noise problem," David Z. Plavin, president of ACI-NA, told the FAA administrator. He urged the United States to "vigorously advocate" the foliowing positions at the upcoming CAEPS meeting in Montreal in early 2001: • Adoption of a"differentiated phase out schedule for various Stage 3 aircraft, "based on environmental benefits and economic reasonability, recogniz- (Continued on p. 119) Naples FAA DECLARES NAPLES PART 161 STUDY DEFICIENT; MUST RESUBMIT WITH CHANGES The Federal Aviation Administration has rejected Naples Airport's Part 161 study supporting a contemplated ban on light Stage 2 jets and told the airport it must provide additional analysis of non-restrictive measures and then resubmit the study, starting again the 180-day time period the FAA has to review it and forcing the airport through the process of sending out a new notice to the public and airport users on the revisions. The agency's action, which could significantly delay imposition of the restric- tion, is certain to frustrate the Naples Airport Authority as well as the many airports and communities eagerly watching Naples' attempt to be the first airport in the coun[ry to impose a ban on Stage 2 business jets and, more importantly, to be the first airport in the decade since passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act to impose a new airport noise restriction in the United States. Some view the FAA's action as a delaying tactic. As the agency notes in its letter to the Naples Airport Authority, "There has been no previous Part 161 proposa] in which the FAA has addressed the issue of the reasonableness of an access restric- tion designed to mitigate noise within the DNL 60-64 noise contour, with all land uses at DNL 65 dB and above being currently compatible." (Cantinued on p. 119) ,� r August 25, 2000 In �'his Issue... Hushkits ... A guick, five- year phaseout of hushk.itted aircraft and other planes that only meet the Stage 3 stan- dards by -5 dB should be the position the United States adopts in deliberations over a more stringent Stage 4 inter- national aircraft noise certifi- cation standard, U.S. airports tell the FAA - p. 11$ Naples ... FAA rejects the Part 161 study submitted by the airport in support of a ban on light Stage 2 jets contending that it fails to analyze the costs and benefits of non-restrictive measures and compare them to the proposed restriction. FAA tell the airport it must xevise its submission and repeat the public notice process - p. 118 News Briefs ... FAA extends the public comment period on the proposed revision of the agency's 1976 noise policy from Aug. 28 until Oct. 23 ... FAA seeks public comment on T.F. Green Airport's PFC applica- tion, which targets revenue to land acquisition for noise mitigation ... DC-9 hushkit manufacturer ABS announces FAA. certification of several new product enhancements to its hushkit - p. 121 Au�ust 25, 2000 119 ing that not all aircraft failing to meet the new standard may need to be phased out." Plavin urged a very quick, five year, phase out schedule for aircraft within —5 dB (cumulative) of the Stage 3 limits; a longer transition period for aircraft within —10 dB of the Stage 3 standard; and said other Stage 3 aircraft may not have to be phased out at all within that time period; � Separate the consideration of possible phase out schedules for S tage 3 aircraft from establishing the techno- logical feasibility of a new certification standard; � Adopt the highest possible stringency for a new Stage 4 certification standard, comparable to noise emissions of the newest technology, current production aircraft; • Acknowledge the need for periodic re-evaluation of the adequacy of ICAO noise certification, sufficient to assure continued progress at noise reduction; • Acknowledge the need for aggressive control over land uses in the vicinity of noise-sensitive airports. ACI-NA also urged the FAA "to undertake studies to determine whether today's commonly used descriptors of aircraft noise continue to be adequate, especially in light of the [community] opposition now occurring at exposure levels less than LDN65." The U.S. airports' call for the quick phase out of hushkitted airpianes is at odds with that of the U.S. airline and air cargo industry, which is pressing the FAA as hard as it can to support no phase out of Stage 3 aircraft in con- junction with the adoption of more stringent international aircraft noise standards. The U.S. position will have to be made clear soon. CAEP's steering committee meets in Seattle in September to try to narrow the options being considered for a new "Stage 4" standard. Some of these options include a concurrent phase out of the Stage 3 fleet. In early 2001, the full CAEP committee will mee[ in Montreal to hammer out a position on the tighter standard and whether it should be accompa- nied by a phase out of some or all of the Stage 3 fleet. Can't Just Add Quieter Planes Plavin told the FAA administrator that it will not be possible to make further progress in community noise reduction simpiy by adding quiet airplanes to the fleet. "If additional noise relief is to be achieved, it must come by accelerating the retirement of the noisiest airplanes," he told G arvey. The ACI-NA official also poked holes in two solutions to the aircraft noise problem advocated by the airlines: developing quieter planes through a joint FAA/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research program and using new navigational technology to keep aircraft on tighter noise abatement flight tracks. The "tremendous promise" of the joint FAA/NASA research program will not provide a solution to the noise problem for 30 to 40 years, Plavin said, and he character- ized as "wistful, if not wishful, thinking" the expectation that a new generation of navigation technology would solve the noise problem. "Near airports, where, after all, the airport noise problem resides, departure track dispersions are normally not so large � that entire populations could be avoided, were the tracks more precisely flown," he told the FAA administrator. "Air Traffic Control procedural requirements will seldom permit much new flight track flexibility — irrespective of the navigation accuracy available — within about five miles of the airport. This is particularly true in locations like Chicago 0'Hare and Midway, San Francisco, Seattle, 5t. Louis, Los Angeles and, as you well know, Boston ... where approach and departure procedural constraints do not permit much additional flight track deviation for noise abatement purposes." "Even if these new technologies were to permit additional flexibility in designing new routes, experiences with flight track changes (most recently in Seattle) reaffirm how difficult it is to move noise from one neighborhood to another, even when the net result is beneficial, overall," Plavin wrote. W arned Plavin: "If the United States Government fails to take an aggressive, affirmative position before the world aviation community [on aircraft noise], there will be no progress on this front." Letter to State Department In a separate Aug. 3 letter to the State Department, Plavin expressed concern over the United States' pursuit of a j remedy under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention on �- International Aviation to resolve the dispute between the United States and the European Union over the EU's rule barring hushkitted aircraft (12, ANR, 114). Such pursuit "has the great potential to mask the very real noise problem that underlies the EU regulation," Plavin told Under Secretary for Economics Alan P. Larson. "W e believe it is possible, and highly desirable, to require the phase out of the noisiest Stage 3 aircraft in a manner that, unlike the European rule is not discriminatory. However, in order to accomplish this, the United States' pursuit of the Article 84 complaint must recognize the very reai dimensions of the noise problem that the EU regulation sought to remedy, while supporting affirmative efforts to help communities around the world deal with the issue," Plavin wrote. Naples, from p. II8 The FAA told Naples that it will not make a final determi- nation on whether the proposed ban on light Stage 2 jet operations "would be reasonable, under the grant assur- ances, without full consideration of the views of airport users." The agency said that it will address, in separate comments, issues the proposed noise restriction raises under federal � laws other than the Airport Noise and Capacity Acf. Appar- � ently that letter has not been sent yet. AirportNoiseReport August 25, 2000 120 Non-Restrictive Remedies The FAA rejected the Part 161 study on the grounds that the airport did not document how it reached the conclusion that it has exhausted all reasonable non-restrictive measures to achieve its land use compatibility goals. The study does not meet the requirements of Section 161.205(a)(3) of the FAA's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions to describe alternative measures to the Stage 2 light jet ban that do not involve aircraft restrictions and to provide comparison of the costs and benefits of such non-aircraft alternative measures to the costs and benefits of the proposed Stage 2 light jet ban, the FAA said in an Aug. 21 letter to the City of Naples Airport Authority. "W hat alternative non-restriction operational measures were considered?" the FAA asked, noting that Gulfstream has developed a quiet flying technique for its Stage 2 GII aircraft, which involves thrust cutbacks on departure, and operators of Lear 24 and 35 aircraft have developed similar procedures in use at Van Nuys Airport in California. "Benefits and costs of alternative departure techniques such as this should be included in the analysis of non- restriction operations measures, or reasons provided why they were rejected at Naples Municipal Airport," Woodie Woodward, acting FAA associate administrator for airport, said. W oodward also said that agency has reviewed the 1996 and 1998 Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program analyses for the airport and neither document included information on the number and types of non-compatible land uses within the 60 dB DNL contour or any discussion of proposed non-restriction mitigation measures within that contour or why such measures are not viable. "There does not appear to be any available documentation with which to make the comparison of restrictive and non-restrictive measures in the 60 DNL contour, the FAA official said. The FAA also said that Naples' Part 161 study does not meet the requirement of 5ection 161.203 that it include information on how the proposed ban on Stage 2 light jet operations would be enforced. The revised submission should include such information, FAA said. The remedy for the deficiency in Naples' Part I61 study, Woodward said, "is to include appropriate analysis of non- aircraft restrictions, show the comparison, and publish availability of the revised analysis in a new notice, in accordance with the requirements of Sections 161.209(b) and (c). Section 161.209(b) of the Part 161 regulations requires airports to initiate a new notice to the FAA and the public on their proposed noise or access res[riction if they make a "substantial" chan�e to the proposed restriction or the cost/ benefit study supportin? it. A"substantial change includes, but is not limited to, a proposal that would increase the burden on any aviation user class." The FAA said that the changes it wants the airport to make [o its study are "substantial." Land Use Goals The FAA noted that Naples Airport Authority's objective in imposing the restriction on Stage 2 light jets is "minimiz- ing residential land within the DNL 60 dB, consistent with the City and County land-use policies." But, the FAA said, "it is not clear that the City of Naples and Collier County have in fact determined th-at residential use is non-compat- ible within the DNL 60 dB contour. Further, the agency said, the text of the city's ordinance states that land within the 60 dB DNL contour requires General Development Site Plan approval by the City Council, but, the FAA said "it is unclear what this means in terms of non-compatibility of residential use." "On its face, the ordinance does not clearly prohibit residential development within the DNL 60 dB contour." The airport's 1997 update of its Part I50 Airport Noise Compatibility Program approved a measure to use the DNL 60 dB contour "as a buffer to ensure that residential and noise sensitive uses are not developed too close to the airport," the FAA noted, but said the Part 161 study does not indicate whether any of the residential development cited as non-compatible within the DNL 60 dB contour was permitted by the city after establishing the buffer zone. 628 Comments Received The airport received 628 comments on the Part lb 1 study on its contemplated restriction. Some 437 were in the form of postcards from a local community anti-noise group. Lisa LeBlanc-Hutchings, Naples' noise office, said the airport received comments from many aviation associations, including the National Business Aircraft Association, the Nationai Air Transport Association, ]egal counsel for the Air Transport Association, Gulfstream Corp., and the Aircraft Owner and Pilots Association. These comments echoed the criticisms raised in the FAA's letter, she said. The National Air Transportation Association contended that the Parts 150 and 161 processes forbid the substitution of noise contours lower than 65 DNL for the purpose of assessing restrictions on operations. The FAA's letter to the airport did not include such a statement but it wil] be an important issue to clarify considering that the FAA prom- ised to "protect and support" ]ocally established noise buffer zones that go beyond the 65 dB DNL contour in the proposed update to its 1976 noise policy. Attorney Peter Kirsch, who helped Naples prepare its Part 161 study, asserted that there is no basis in law for setting separate thresholds of compatibility for land use and operations. The law is "crystal clear" on that point, he told ANR. He said Naples has already considered non-restrictive measures in three past Part 150 studies which were referred to in the Part 161 submission. He said the airport will respond to FAA's letter after the airport board meets to discuss it on Sept. 21. Asked whether the airport will comply with FAA's requirement that it resubmit the study and renotify the public, he said only that the airport plans to comply "with the Part 161 requirements." AirportNoiseReport August 25, 2000 121 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice Harris M i11erM iller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC James D. Erickson Director, OFfice of Environmentand Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority In Brief ... More Time to Comment on Noise Policy The Federal Aviation Administration announced Aug. 24 that it has extended the public comment period on the proposed update to its 1976 noise policy until Oct. 23. The agency had originally given the public until Aug. 28 to comment on it proposed policy revision, which was announced July 14. The agency got several requests to extend the comment period. T.F. Green Passenger Facility Charge The FAA announced Aug. 24 that it is seeking public comment on an application to impose and use the revenue from a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at T.F. Green State Airport in W arwick, RI, for projects at that airport as well as four other airports in the state. The agency said it will approve or disapprove the application by Nov. 27. It seeks to impose a PFC of $3 from April l, 2008, to Aug. i, 2012, to raise an estimated revenue of $41.6 million to support several projects, including land acquisition for noise mitigation at T.F. Green Airport. For further information, contact Priscilla A. Scott, FAA's New England Region PFC program manager; tel: (781) 238-7614. New ABS Hushkit Products Certified ABS Partnership, which manufactures hushkits for DC-9 aircraft, JoS n otVi cePresdentforIndustryPolicy announced Aug. 23 that the FAA has certified several new "product AirTransportAssociation enhancements" for its hushkits. They are aimed at simplifying the DC-9 � hushkit and improving the performance of the aircraft outfitted with Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. them, the company, based in Sparks, Nevada, said. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newpor�Beach,CA The new products "take advantage of the new slot[ed guide for the mixer" now offered by engine manufacturer Pratt & W hitney, the Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. company said. It developed its hushkit in conjunction with Pratt & McDermott, Will & Emery W hitney. Chicago The product enhancements allow certain ABS hushkits that were Karen L. Robertson previously limited to 40 degree approach flap settings to be operated at Manager,NoiseCompa�ibilityOfFice 50 degrees. They also allow many of the DC-9-30 and —40 hushkits that Dailas/FortWorthIntetnationalAirport used to require the installation of spacer cases between the engine and Mary L. Vigilante thrust reverser and modification of the lower aft cowl doors and pylon Presidenc,SynergyConsui�an�s trailing edges to be operated at the same heavyweight maximum gross Seattle takeoff weights without the spacer case hardware and modification expense, the company explained. Lisa Lyle W aters Manager, Noise AbatementProgram Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. /. _ , � � .. ; `:,. _ �.�. .. ' , , � �� '��` �` � �� A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 29 Memphis ONE MAN'S CHALLENGE OF SETTLEMENT IN CLASS ACTION 5UIT DELAYING PAYMENTS A landmark $22 million settlement of a class action lawsuit over noise filed by residents near Memphis-Shelby County Mu:nicipal Airport, the main cargo hub for Federal Express Corp., was reached in 1998 liut.the airport authority's dispersion of payments to over 12,000 property owners is being held up by one homeowner's crusade to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court his claims that the settlement is unfair and thaE (no kidding) the airport authority dropped raccoons on his house from an airplane. At a November 1998 public fairness hearing on.the settlement, Edmond Lindsey asserted that the airport authority caused aircraft to drop raccoons onto his roof, cut down a tree so that planes could fly lower over his house, and caused a mud slide onto his property. These arguments made sense to Mr. Lindsey but not to the U.S: District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, which approved the.settlemeatfollowing the hearing. � : � ' � Lindsey appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On Aug. 15, a three-judge panel of the court found his claims that the settlement's release, avigation easements, and allocation provisions were unfair to be "meritless." The panei said the district courE did not abuse its discre- (Continued on p. 123) Virginia Beach $2B COULD BE SOUGHT IN CLASS ACTION BEING READIED OVER NAVY F-18 JET NOISE As much as $2 billion in damages could be sought in an inverse condemnation class action lawsuit expected to be filed against the Navy in a few months by angry residents around Oceana Naval Air Station near Virginia Beach, VA, who will allege that noise from over 150 F-18 fighter jets recently transferred to the base has caused a taking of their property. Estimates vary as to how many people could be included in the class. The Navy estimates that 130,000 to I50,000 people live within the greatly expanded 65 dB DNL and higher noise contours of Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia $each and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake, VA. But Jack Ferrebee, the Virginia Beach attorney preparing the inverse condemnation and class action litigation, called that estimate "very, very conservative." He contended that the Navy arrived at an artificially low estimate of the number of people in the high noise contours of the base by using old census data and not foltowing its own procedures. � � Ferrebee believes the high noise contours aronnd the base could encompass 107 square miles and as many as 250,000 to 300,000 people, making the area the most severely aircraft noise-impacted in the country. The contour also includes 22 (Continued on p. 123) '� September 1, 2000 In This Issue... Memphis ... Dispersion of the $22 million settlement of the first class action noise lawsuit to be filed against an airport without its consent is being held up by one property owner who vows to appeal the settlement all the way to the Supreme Court - p. 122 Virginia .8each ... The Navy will soon be the target of a class action lawsuit by homeowners near Oceana Naval Air Station who are upset that the Navy transferred over 150 F-18 fighter jets to the base. As much as $2 billion could be sought in damages in the inverse condem- nation lawsuit expected to be filed in a few months - p. 122 AIP Grants ... The FAA releases noise-related Airport �' Improvement Program grants to 23 airports in August, including Anchorage, Phoenix, Burbank, Los Angeles International, Ontario, Sarasota, Atlanta, Boise, Baton Rouge, Shreve- port, St. Louis, Charlotte, Manchester, Las Vegas McCarran, Reno/Tahoe, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Westchester Counry, Cleveland, Allentown, T.F. Green, the State of Texas, and Reagan National - p. 124 September l, 2000 123 tion in approving the settlement agreement, which ended the first and only airport noise law.suit in the country to be certified as a class action without an airport's consent. Lindsey's attorney — who no longer represents him — said he plans to ask the full Sixth Circuit Court to review the three-judge panel's decision and, if it rules against him, to put the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court. W hile it is not expected that any of these appeals will result in the settlement being found invalid, the process of completing the appeals process could delay the dispersion of settlement payments to property owners for many months. "He's holding up everything," said R. Grattan Brown, Jr., of the Memphis law firm Glankler Brown, which represents the airport authority in the settlement. Luckily, he ad'ded, the airport authority did not agree in the settlement to pay interest on the $3 million to $4 million it will pay.to cover the fees of attorneys representing the property owners. The attorney said that the airport authority has issued bonds to finance the settlement, which means that the airiines operating at Memphis will ultimately pay for it. Court Notes Comments The Sixth Circuit panel noted that at the fairness hearing Lindsey testified "that all of his neighbors moved away years before, but he could not sell to the Airport Authority because the appraisal process was tainted and all of the appraisers, including those he himself hired, were in league with the airport. Lindsey testified that he and his family had been unnecessarily `held' in the area for 10 years and that the Airport Authority had discriminated and been vindictive against his family." Lindsey told the circuit court that he had opted not to drop out of the settlement because he had over $100,000 invested in litigation against the airport He also filed separate legal actions. He told the court he was willing to continue the fight indefinitely, asserting, "give me liberty or give me death." Regarding the raccoons, the Sixth Circuit panel said the following exchange took place at the fairness hearing: The Court: Do you honestiy believe that someone ... flew over your house in an airplane and dropped two raccoons on your house? Lindsey: Yes, sir. There's no other way it could have happened. Airplanes went over our house at the time this happened. So there's no other way it could have happened. The Court: Memphis has got a lot of raccoons in it. Lindsey: But to get on top of my house you've got to have an airplane to get up there or helicopter one [sic]. The Court: Raccoons can climb. [The raccoons were not available for comment.] Terms of Settlement The settlement agreement requires [he Airport Authority to pay settlement funds of approximately $22 million to the owners of 12,441 parcels of property in the class area who filed claims; to pay all costs associated with continuing the authority's voluntary acquisition program; to pay all costs of obtaining approval of the settlement, including � printing and mailing of written notice to all of the class ' members and of providing published notice; to pay ali costs of administering the settlement over a contemplated one ;� year claims period at an estimated cost of $3 million; and to pay all costs of sending additional notice regarding the claims process to the class members. Under the settlement, each ciass member is entitled to ..receive payment from the settlement fund for each piece of residential property based on a formula that takes into account the length of ownership. Oceana, from p.122 public schools and an undetermined number of early child centers, private schools, business, and as many as 65 churches. The noise impact of F-18s is significant. They are twice as loud as the F-14s they will replace, emitting 108 dBA on takeoff and 97 dB on touch-and-go landings, according to ` the Navy. Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise, a local anti- noise group, contends that the F-18s are four to eight times louder than Stage 3 commercial aircraft and have takeoff noise levels estimated at 117 dBA, 5 dB louder than the supersonic Concorde aircraft. Despite the significant noise impact of its military jets and the large number of people impacted, the Navy, unlike � civilian airport proprietors, is not required to mitigate the impact of the noise from its jet operations. The military does not have the legal authority to sound insulate civilian structures and has not asked Congress to give it that authority. So no sound insulation or home buyouts are being offered to those in the high noise impact areas. However, the Navy is not immune to claims of inverse condemnation. EIS Challenge Lost In July 1998, Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise challenged the Environmental Impact Statement the Navy prepared to support the transfer of the jets but lost its case in federal district court in Norfoik, VA. The group appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit but lost there also. In 7une, the court issued a short unpubiished decision upholding the district court's ruling. "All the appeals court said was that the district court opinion was well reasoned and they rejected all our argu- ments," Ferrebee said. He had challenged the EIS's analyses of safety, noise, aiternatives, cost-benefit, and cumulative impact. The appeals court also would not accept his contention that the Navy had plans to soon bring F-18 Super Hornets, which are significantly louder than F-18s, to Oceana and ( that the EIS should be revised to reflect this increased noise " impact. The attorney said he could not prove to the court with absolute certainty that the louderjets were going to be AirportNoiseReport September 1, 2000 124 transferred to Oceana. But, he told ANR, two weeks after he lost the case the Navy announced that it was going to hold a scoping meeting on the issue of where to base the Hornets. The Navy is going through a new environmental analysis, he said, but accused the service of making a mockery of the environmental review process. Ferrebee said the Navy was also not forthcoming about the cost/benefit analysis it did on the transfer of the F-18s. They did a very extensive analysis of the benefits of bringing the F-18s to Oceana, he said, but denied having done an analysis of the costs. The attorney said he found a memorandum in the administrative record indicating not only that the Navy had done a cost estimate but that the � conservative estimate of soundproofing just the homes in Virginia Beach would be $l.l billion. Ferrebee said that when he pointed this memo out to the court, the IVavy said it did not reveal the information to the public because it was only speculative. "There was nothing inthe record that said it was speculative," he told ANR. Ferrebee also said he was surprised that the courtaccepted the Navy's argument that the B ase Closure and Realign- ment Act, under which the Navy moved the F-18s, barred the Navy from considering the alternative of transferring some of the F-18s to two other bases in North Carolina, which would have reduced the noise impact at Oceana. The Court accepted the Navy's interpretation of the law even though there is no language in it to that effect, he said. Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise decided not to further appeal the Fourth Circuit's ruling. They are now devoting their resources to fighting the new proposal to bring the Super Hornets to Oceana and are meeting with Navy and Virginia Beach officials to try to find ways to reduce the noise impact, Ferrebee said. They want the Navy to build a new airfield in an outlying area to conduct touch- and-go operations, which are a major problem, he said. The Navy seems open to that idea of building an outlying field, he said, and acknowledged that it would significantly reduce the noise impact around Oceana. But the attorney said he is stiil preparing the class action suit. The motion for class certification must be filed in the court of claims at the same time the complaint is filed. Asked to comment on the legal challenge to its EIS, a Navy spokesman said�"the courts have decided that aii work done by the EIS met all established criteria. The EIS is a comprehensive statement comprised of 51,000 pages and three volumes." AIP Grants FAA AWARDS GRANTS FOR NOISE MITIGATION The following airports recently received Airport Improve- ment Program (AIP) grants from the Federal Aviation Administration during August for noise-related airport projects: The State of Alaska received a grant of $1.08 million released on Aug. 22 to install a noise monitoring sys[em at Anchorage International Airport; • The City of Phoenix received a grant of $5 million released on Aug. 1 to fund noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of .Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and to acquire land for noise compatibil'ity; • The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority received a grant of $5 million released on Aug. 4 to fund :.noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour in the cities of Burbank and Los Angeles and for sound insulation of a middle school; • The County of Los Angeles received a grant of $2 million released on Aug. 4 to fund noise mitigation measures for approximately 117 residences in Lennox in the 75 dB DNL contour of Los Angeles International Airport; • The City of Los Angeles received a grant of $1 million released on Aug. 4 for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 75 dB NL contour in the City of EI Segundo near Los Angeles International Airport; �. The City of Ontario, CA, received a grant of $4.5 million released on Aug. 4 to acquire land for noise compatibility within the 70-74 dB DNL contour on Ontario .International Airport; The Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority received a grant of $5,157,421 released on Aug. 3 for several projects including the acquisition of land for noise compatibility and the relocation of 100 persons within the 65-69 dB DNL contour; • The City of Atlanta received a grant of $17,010,632 released on Aug. 3 for several projects including acquisition of land for noise compatibility near Hartsfield International Airport; • The City of Boise, ID, received a grant of $3 million released on Aug. 1 to acquire land for noise compatibility and relocation of residents near Boise Air Terminal; • The Parish of East Baton Rouge, LA, received a grant of $4 million released on Aug. 2 to fund noise mitigation measures for residences near Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport; • The Ci[y of Shreveport, LA, received a grant of $6,848,000 released on Aug. 2 to acquire land for noise mitigation, for noise mitigation measures for residences, and to update the noise compatibility plan for Shreveport Regional Airport; • The City of St. Louis, M0, received a grant of $9,717,487 released on Aug. 11 to fund replacement of a high school near Lambert-St. Louis International Airport; • The City of Charlotte, NC, received a grant of $5 million released on Aug. 2 to acquire land for noise compatibility and relocate 40 mobile homes and 90 people in a mobile home park near Charlotte International Airport; • The City of Manchester, NH, received a grant of $2.5 million released on Aug. 2 for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL contours AirportNoiseReport September 1, 2000 125 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spieget& McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. SalterAssociates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke,Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan Senior Vice Presidentforindustry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office DaUas/Fort W orthInternationalAirport Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattie Lisa Lyle Waters M anager, Noise Abatement Program Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports of Manchester Airport; • Clark County, NV, received a grant of $843,264 released on Aug. 28 to acquire land near McCarran International Airport for noise l compatibility; • The Airport Authority of W ashoe County, NV, received a grant of $1 million released on Aug. 2 for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of Reno/Tahoe Interna- tional Airport; a separate grant of $2 million released Aug. 2 to acquire land for noise compatibility; and a third grant of $250,000 released on Aug. 28 to conduct an update to the airport's noise compatibility pian; • The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey received a grant of $300,000 released on Aug. 2 for noise mitigation measures for the design of sound insulation for an intermediate school; a separate grant of $2,645,321 released on Aug. 4 for noise mitigation of public buildings; arid a third grant of $1.4 million released on Aug. 2 to soundproof a school; • W estchester County, NY, received a grant of $450,000 released on Aug. 2 to instal] noise monitoring equipment for V✓estchester County Airport; • The City of Cleveland, OH, received a grant of $5 million released on Aug. 24 for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of Hopkins International Airport; • = The Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority in Allentown, PA, received a grant of $1,394,407 released on Aug. 3 to acquire land near Lehigh Valley International Airport for noise compatibility; • The Rhode Island Airport Corporation received a grant of $5 million released on Aug. 3 to fund noise mitigation measures for resi- dences within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of T. F. Green International r, ; \ Airport; � The State of Texas received a grant of $867,000 released on Aug. 3 to fund noise compatibility studies at Dallas Addison and Georgetown Municipal Airports and to conduct feasibility, airport master plan, and environmental assessment studies for a new airport at Houston- W aller; • The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority received a grant of $4.5 million released on Aug. 28 to acquire land for approaches and to conduct an update of the noise compatibility pian for Reagan National Airport. AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashbum, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airporinoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy iterns for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, . _ _ _.. _ is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. _ � i" � i, .., ;• I , � ... � �� . � � � _ '�. � ` �� A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 12, Number 30 September $, 2000 Slot Rules NEW YORK CITY OFFICIALS SUE DOT OVER EXEMPTION FOR REGIONAL JETS Concerned about the environmental impact of an essentially unlimited increase in regional jet operations at LaGuardia and JFK International Airports, New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Queens Borough President Claire Shulman have filed suit against the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration challenging the agency orders allowing the operations and declaring that they do not require an environmental assessment. The W endell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act (AIR 21) agreed to this spring by the House and Senate includes provisions that will extend the High Density Rule at the three New York City airports unti12007 rather than eliminat- ing it immediately as the airlines had sought. Under the High Density Rule slots at certain congested airports are restricted in order to reduce congestion and delay. However, the act directs DOT to provide exemptions [o the slot rules at the New York City airports for airlines using aircraft with 70.seats or less (regional jets) that wili provide service to small hub or non-hub airports or as a replacement for a prop plane. New York City's lawsuit asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to set aside four FAA orders which grant "blanket slot exemptions".to all carriers that have applied for them or that may subsequently apply for them ak JFK and • (Continued on p. 127) Helicopters HAI, CITIZENS, AIRPORTS TELL FAA HELICOPTERS SI30ULD BE KEPT HIGHER The Helicopter Association International (HAI), citizen and community groups, and airport proprietors a11 told the Federal Aviation Administration that helicop- ters need to be flown at higher altitudes over urban areas to reduce annoyance. However, while community groups seek a manda[ory minimum operating altitude, HAI only wants operators to be "encouraged" to fly between I,000 to 2,000 feet AGL (Above Ground Level). Comments to the FAA were submitted in response to an agency notice seeking input from the public and the helicopter industry to assist it in preparing a report to Congress required under Section 747 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Invest- ment and Reform Act, which reauthorized the programs of the FAA (12, ANR, 90). The act requires the FAA ro"conduct a s[udy (1) on the effects of non-military helicopter noise on individuals in densely populated areas in the continental United States; and (2) to develop recommendations for the reduction of the effects of non-military helicopter noise." Several community groups and individuals sharply criticized the FAA for giving the public only one month to provide comments to the agency on its notice, for issuing the solicitation in mid-summer when many people are on vacation, and for (Conti�tued o�i p. 127) In Z'his Issuee e s Regional Jets ... New York City sues FAA and DOT for giving "blanlcet" slot rule exemptions to regional jet operators at JFK, LaGuardia without doing environmental assessment of noise, air, traffic ' irnpact - p. 126 Helicopters ... Communities seek mandatory min;mum altitude for operations in urban ' areas. HAI contends voluntary Fly Neighborly programs are effective - p. 126 Seattle ... Second community group sues Port of Seattle over way air route changes consid- ered in update to Part 150 program for Sea-Tac - p. 128 Orlando ... Noise study among projects PFC revenue would support - p. 128 Part 150 Program ... FAA approves noise compatibility program for Waimea-Kohala Airport in Hawaii. Six of seven proposed noise mitigation measures accepted - p. 128 Appointments ... The Na- tional Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment announces that David F. Carbone, senior land use planner for San Mateo County, will chair the organization's program committee - p. 129 September 8, 2000 12'7 LaGuardia airports. The city alleged that the agency did not comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements to assess the environmental impact of the increase in regional jet operations prior to issuing the orders and that the FAA's award of blanket slot exemptions to all carriers that have applied or may subsequently apply is arbitrary and capricious and thus illegal. The FAA and DOT orders declared that the slot exemp- tions for regional jet operations were not a"major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" or otherwise requiring environmental assessment. "AIR 21 delayed the phase out of the slot rule at the three New York airports until 2007 but ailowed an unlimited number of regional jet operations to be added to small hub or undeserved airports," explained Hugh Weinberg, counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman. The DOT and FAA orders allowing the regional jet slot exemptions "essentially give carte blanche to the aviation industry to allow regional jet operations" without any structure being imposed on them, he told ANR. Weinberg said there have been 600 requests filed with the FAA to allow regional jet operations at LaGuardia and JFK. Although he does not feei the market will bear that number of operations, especially those seeking several trips to one small airport in one day, the attorney said that Queens does not want to wait and see what will happen in terms of an increase in regional jet operations. Susan Amron, an attorney in the New York City Corpora- tion Counsel's environmental law unit, said that the FAA and DOT did not conduct any assessment of the environ- mental impact of the increase in regional jet operations in the New York City area prior to issuing the orders. "They just issued the blanket exemptions without looking at the environmental impact," she explained. Our lawsuit contends that they should have conducted an environmen- tal assessment and that the orders are void because they did not do so, she told ANR. Amron said that the city is trying to get the court to order the FAA and DOT to conduct and environmental assessment and to look at air, noise, and traffic. If the environmentai assessment shows impact, then a ful] environmental impact statement should be prepared, she said. A briefing scheduie for the case, filed on June 13, is expected to be released next week. Helicopters, from p. l26 not widely disseminating its request for comments. The FAA has extended the comment period until Sept. IS officially and, unofficially, until Oct. 20 when it will hold a second public workshop on the report at FAA headquarters in W ashington, DC. An earlier workshop was held on Aug. 16 but was not announced in the Federal Register. Some 30 people attended that workshop. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), who was instrumen[al in gettin� the requirement to study the impact of helicopter noise on people included in the legislation, told the FAA that its published request for comment is "flawed and does not fulfill the mandate of the law." The study outline published by the FAA focuses on studying the types of helicopters that elicit complaints from individuals but, as required by law, she said, the focus shouid be on the effects of helicopter noise on individuals. Sandy Liu of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, who is coordinating the preparation of the report to Congress, said that the agency and Rep. Maloney have interpreted the language in the legislation requiring the study differently. The language did notspecifically address social or health impacts of helicopter noise and the report will not address those issues, he told ANR. Throwing the helicopter noise problem into FAA's court, the Aelicopter Association International (HAI) said it "has a very active educational campaign to encourage operators to fly as high as possible but FAA Air Traffic Control fre- quently cannot or will not permit helicopters to climb to optimum Fly Neighborly altitudes." "Despite the fact that helicopters are increasingly capable of entering the IFR (Instrument Flight Rule) system (which by virtue of higher altitudes, greatiy reduces noise impact on the ground), ATC procedures often fail to permit helicop- ters entrance into the IRF structure in a timely manner, or at all," HAI told the agency. The association urged the FAA to develop policies and procedures that encourage helicopters to operate at altitudes of at least 1,000 to 2,000 feet AGL over densely populated areas and to encourage helicopter operations within the IFR system whenever possible. Contending that complaint data do no provide "a valid or reliable measure" of community attitudes toward helicopter operations, HAI also recommended that FAA commission "a university-based socia] science research study of community attitudes toward helicopter overflight in a major metropoli- tan area, such as New York City.° HAI also contended that Eastern Region Helicopter Council's community outreach programs and HAI's Fly Neighborly program have demonstrated that "when the purpose and importance of low aititude helicopter opera- tions are explained to concerned members of the public, the level of concern drops dramatically and public acceptance of low altitude helicopter operations increases dramati- cally." Voluntary Measure Don't Work But several community groups and individuals told the FAA that Fly Neighborly programs have not worked and that a mandatory minimum altitude for helicopters (most urge at least 1,500 feet AGL) should be imposed by the FAA. "The hope of `self-regulation' by the helicopter industry has proven to be a failure, as has the industry's `Fly Friendly' program," Gerald A. Silver, president of Homeowners oFEncino, a group based near Van Nuys AirportNoiseReport � September 8, 2000 12g Airport in California, told the FAA. The FAA rejected an earlier petition by Silver to impose a mandatory minimum aititude on helicopters. He urged the FAA to also limit the number of helicopters that can be involved in news gathering operations, to not arbitrarily use freeways as helicopter routes, to require larger indentification information on helicopters, to limit the time helicopters can hover, to estabiish helicopter noise hot lines, to limit t6e frequency of sight-seeing and tourist operations, and to impose a nighttime curfew on operations. The Seattle Council on Airport Affairs, which includes 15 community groups, made similar recommendations, as did the Helicopter Noise Coalition of New York City. Dan Saltsman, a Portland, OR, commissioner, forwarded to the FAA a resolution passed by the Portland City Council on July 19 stating that helicopters flights below 2,000 feet AGL in densely populated areas should be prohibited without the consent of the "appropriate local government." Seattle-Tacoma Int'Z SECOND COMMUNITY GROUP JOINS LAWSUIT OVER ROUTES A second community group has joined the lawsuit filed in July by the Seattle-area Citizens for Airplane Noise Equity (CANE) which alleges that the Port of Seattle violated the State Environmental Policy Act in the way it considered air route changes in an update to the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Meanwhile, the Port of Seattle has successfully removed the case from state court to federal district court on the grounds that it involves federal issues, the Part 150 regula- tions. It is expected that the citizens groups will petition the federal court to send the case back to state court on the grounds that they are only alleging a violation of Washing- ton State law. � Eastside Citizens Against Aircraft Noise (ECAN) filed a lawsuit identical to CANE's on July 27 and a motion to consolidate their suit with CANE's, according to Seattle at[orney Knoll Lowney, who represents both groups. CANE represent Seattle neighborhoods impacted by aircraft noise from the current north departure procedure from Sea-Tac. ECAN represents suburban Seattle communities, such as Medina, W A, and parts of Belview, that also are impacted by this north departure procedure, he said. CANE filed its lawsuit in July after the Port of Seattle commissioners failed to approve a controversial "split-east" turn procedure recommended by a citizens advisory committee, which would have divided northbound takeoffs into two paths over Seattle-area neighborhoods, instead of the one path currently flown which directs aircraft over neighborhoods represented by CANE and ECAN. The procedure was strongly supported by CANE and ECAN because it would give �them some relief from the growing air traffic over ttieir heads. But the split-east turn procedure was strongly opposed by the communities, such as Mercer Island, that would have a new air route moved over them. The Port of Seattle is trying to reduce the noise impact from the northbound departure procedure by studying the feasibility of sending half of the planes that would have gone on the spiit-east turn-to an over water path. The FAA has convened a group to evaluate the idea and other operational changes approved by the commission, Ron Seymour, director of the Part 150 upda[e process at Sea-Tac, told ANR. That review is not expected to be completed until the end of the year, he said. Next week, Seymour said, the Port plans to unveil the rest of the staff recommendations for the Part 150 update. The air route change recommendations were released earlier that the other noise mitigation measures that will be proposed in the program update. Orlando Int'Z NOISE STUDY AMONG PROJECTS PFC REVENUE WOULD SUPPORT A Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility study is one of the projects Orlando-Sanford International Airport wants to fund through Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenue. The Federai Aviation Administration announced Aug. 31 that it is seeking public comment on the airport's application to impose a$1 PFC from 1an. 1, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2026, for an estimated revenue of $14,146,000 to support airport construction projects and the Part 150 noise study. Comment must be submitted to the FAA by Oct. 2 and should be mailed to the agency's Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL, 32822. For further information, contact Armando L. Rovira, a program manager in the office; tel: (407) 812- 6331 ext, 31. Part I50 Program FAA APPROVES PROGRAM FOR WAIMEA-KOHALA AIRPORT On Sept. 5, the Federal Aviation Administration an- nounced that it had approved the Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program submitted by the State of Hawaii for Waimea-Kohala Airport in Hawaii. The FAA approved six of the seven proposed noise mitigation measures for the airport. Outright approval was granted for five measures: • Use of comprehensive plannin� and zoning to maintain compatible land use; • Acquiring avigation easements from land owners that presently have compatible land but may become incompatible due to future development; • Acquiring development rights from land owners that presently own land that has a compatible land use; � Review and modification of subdivision regula- AirportNoiseReport September 8, 2000 129 ` ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R.Alverson M anager,Sacramento0ffice HarrisMillerMiller& Iianson John J. Corbett, Esq. 3piegel& McDiarmid W ashington, DC James D. Erickson D irector, Office of Environment and Energy Federal AviatiomAdministration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. SalterAssociates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. G atzke, D illon & B allance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler& Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean ChiefDevelopmentOfficer Tucson AirportAuthority John M. Meenan SeniorVice PresidentforIndustry Policy AirTransport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates NewportBeach,CA Steven F. Pftaum, Esq. McDermott, W ill & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort W orth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante Pcesident,Synergy Consultants Seatt(e Lisa Lyle W aters Manager, Noise Abatement Program Palm Beach County Departmentof Airports tions; and • Use of tax incentives to maintain compatible land use. The FAA disapproved pending submission of additional information a� land banking proposal under which the Hawaii Department of Transpor- tation would be allowed to purchase, in fee, existing compatible proper- ties to ensure that they would remain c.ompatible land uses. The FAA approved only as a voluntary measure that the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation's Airports Division remind pilots of the existing noise sensitive areas within the Airport environs and that the overflight of these areas should be avoided. Further information on the program and the FAA's review of it can be obtained from David Welhouse, and airport planner in the FAA's Honolulu Airports District Office; tel: (808) 541-1243. Appointments CARBONE TO COORDINATE NOISE .CONFERENCE PROGRAMS The National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (NOISE) announced that David F'. Carbone wiil chair the organization's program committee. Carbone is a senior planner for the County of San Mateo, CA, where he serves as the staff coordinator for the San Francisco International Airpord Community Roundtable and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. He also serves on the California Department of Transportation's Aeronautics Piogram Advisory Committee to update the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. He has been a profes- � sional planner for 23 years and has been involved in airport land use planning and aircraft noise mitigation for the 17 years. As chair of the NOISE program committee he will oversee the planning of the organizatiou's annual Summer Conference and Aviation Noise Symposium, including host city selection, program selection, and conference activities. He has served in that role for the past two NOISE conferences. NOISE President Mike Benallo of Commerce City, CO3 lauded the appointment. "Carbone has continued to be a leader in the fight to provide sensible aviation noise mitigation, both through his work for the San Francisco International Airport Roundtable, the County of San Mateo, and the NOISE organization. I am extremely excited to have someone of his stature and determination in the field of aviation noise mitigation representing our organization as we prepare for the future. His dedication and insight is a tremendous asset to our organization, and I look forward to working with him and sharing our ideas on this critical 1SSllC." AIRPORTNOISEREPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phane: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $549. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.