2001-04-11 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
April 117 2001 — Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Welcome to new ARC Commissioner Vern Edstrom
4. Approval of February 14, 2001 Minutes
5. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Continued Revision of Airport Noise Video Script
6. Acicnowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Notice of Cancellation of March 27, 2001 MASAC Meeting
b. Materials from March 27, 2001 MASAC Municipal Caucus
c. Memorandum from Barret W. S. Lane of Minneapolis dated March 30,
2001
d. Appointment of Councilmembers Krebsbach and Dwyer to the
Reconvened Joint Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Zoning
Board
e. March 7, 2001 Star Tribune Article: "MAC studies new choices for jet -
noise insulation program."
£ Notes from March 7, 2001 ARC Meeting (no Quorurn)
g. Eagan ARC Agenda for April 10, 2001
h. Airport Noise Reports
7. Other Comments or Concerns
8. Ad.journ
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabflities are available upon requestat 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
FEBRUARY 14, 2001
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, February 14, 2001, 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 Bea and Commissioners Joe
Leuman, Liz Petschel, and Ellsworth Stein. Commissioners John Roszak, Gregg Fitzer
and Vern Edstrom were excused from the meeting. Staff present were City Administrator
Cari Lindberg and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the
minutes.
fu I I►�11J1 Y �`!
Commissioner Leuman moved to approve the January 10, 2001 Minutes with revisions.
Commissioner Petschel seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO
The Commission reviewed the draft video script provided by Mr. Hollister and
recommended revisions.
Commissioner Petschel said that former WCCO reporter Dave Nimmer confirmed that he
would be willing to lend his voice to the video for a nominal fee, on the condition that he
be allowed to "tweak" the language to make it sound better if necessary. Commissioner ��gy„
Petschel added that it would be good to hire a teelmiea�aritex or professional editor to
review and edit the language of the script to make it flow better and to make it more
understandable for the general public.
Chair Beatty said that at his office he has hired individuals to do that type of editing for
$300-$500. Chair Beatty suggested that the Commission should complete the script as
far as content is concerned first, and then pay someone up to $500 to polish the script for
public presentation. Chair Beatty said that it is also important to have a "fact -checker"
for the script to make sure that everything stated in the script is accurate. Chair Beatty
added that the Commission should have a timetable written out for completion of each
step in the video -making process to ensure that the project moves along in a timely
fashion.
CITY OF MEND" I A HEIGHTS
MEMO
Apri15,2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Welcome to New Airport Relations Commissioner Vern Edstrom and
Congratulations to Returning Commissioner John Roszak!
Discussion
The City Council, at their regular meeting on February 6, 2000, appointed Vern Edstrom
and re -appointed John Roszak to the Airport Relations Commission. The Commission
should congratulate both of them appropriately at the April 11, 2001 Commission
meeting.
Action Required
Congratulate both new Commissioner Vern Edstrom and returning Commissioner John
Roszak!
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COI\/MHSSION
t�s Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
*tot
6040 - 28th Avenue South v Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
oe
0Aooa
MEETING NOTICE
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
THE MARCH 27, 2001 MASAC MEETING
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
Please refer to the enclosed memo for further information.*
*If you prefer not to receive further MASAC-related notices, please contact Melissa
Scovronski at 612-726-8141 or at mscovron(a�mspmac.orq.
l tic Metropolihn Airport Commission is an aftvmotive action employer.
�� �� n.mspafrportcum
Ref Ai�,nrts AIRLAKE • A\OKA COU[vTY/6LAIN[: CRYSTAL FI \'I�'G CLOUD •LAKE EL�IO = SAth'T PAl'L DOI� \TO�A'N
MASAC
MEMORANDUM MASAC
TO: MASAC
FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor
SUBJECT: Cancellation of March 27, 2001 MASAC Meeting
DATE: March 20, 2001
Since the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel
has met with the airlines in an effort to establish the airline representatives on the Blue
Ribbon Panel. Since that time the airlines have stated they will not be appointing
representatives to the Blue Ribbon Panel. Although the airlines have stated they will not
participate on the Panel, MAC staff remains committed to resolving this issue.
Discussions are ongoing in an effort to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and
communities and determine whether an organizational structure could be developed to
address the various concerns.
As a result of the Panel's status, the March 27, 2001 MASAC meeting is cancelled.
Future meeting status and updates on the future of MASAC will be provided as
information becomes available. Please note that this notice is with respect to the
regularly scheduled MASAC meeting and is not related to the proposed NIASAC
Municipal Caucus meeting scheduled for the same date.
MAC staff has continued the production of the Technical Advisor's Report. The February
2001 Technical Advisor's Reports and Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor
Reports are available on the Web at www.macaysat,ora/MASAC/report_table2.htm1. If
you wish to receive a hard copy of the report, please contact Melissa Scovronski by
phone at 612-726-8141 or via e-mail at mscovronC mspmac.org.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6328.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
April 5, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Continue Work on Air Noise Issues Video Script
Discussion
At the March 7, 2001 unofficial meeting of the Airports Relations Commission, the
Commissioners reviewed the draft script of the airport noise issues video. The
Commissioners recommended some revisions to the script, which were incorporated into
the draft and submitted to our professional scriptwriter, Lisa Bartels -Rabb.
Commissioner Petschel, Administrator Lindberg, and I then met with Ms. Bartells-Rabb
on March 29 to discuss the script. Attached is the most recent draft submitted by Ms.
Bartells-Rabb, who will be back from vacation on April 19.
Action Required
Review the attached script and continue revision of the Airport Noise Issues Video. Staff
will convey any input from the Commission to Ms. Bartells-Rabb when she returns from
vacation.
Eottelf-Pobb
Communicotionf
31!6 twenbj-ninUi Hvenue, I.
nneopolif,, Mfl 55406-1922
<_62> 729-3033
DATE: Apri14, 2001
TO: Patrick Hollister
FROM: Lisa Bartels -Rabb
RE: Airport noise video script
Patrick, here is a first draft of the script. I have read through it aloud several times, to both time it
and evaluate the overall flow. As best I can tell, the script is approximately 18 minutes long. This
time could change depending on the visuals used, how long they are shown and the announcer's
speaking style and rhythm.
I've indicated some ideas for visuals in the left column of the script, but there is more to be done in
this regard. Please ask the commissioners to give their suggestions. I think Scott has already
identified some very good images to be used, but I didn't get them all integrated into this draft.
I will try to check my e-mail once or twice while I am in Europe, but I'm not certain exactly when I
will have access. I will be back in my office on Thursday, April 19.
I hope this draft sets us in the right direction. I look forward to hearing your feedback and making
the next round of revisions.
Thanks,
Lisa
Takeoff or landing video.ti-r,,,,,
Pt�rp�i
[Video of plane, with woosh
of noise, over residential
area]
Float in logos for the FAA and MAC
j 0001C a \„ems
NJMA wev%�.
Footage of meeting
ith an average of #�
a day, the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport is
the tenth busiest commercial airport in the United States.
In the 10 years between 1985 and 1995, the number of
landings and takeoffs a year at the airport grew by 25
percent. In 2001, flights daily are expected in and
out of the airport. Current estimates for the year 2005:
1,575 flights a day. �)
A busy airport —while good for the local and state
economy —is not without its disadvantages.
One of the biggest of these is noise.
%
i �icfl,Ce.
C(Y�1t+cib�
The problem of airport noise is nothing new. Since the
advent of the jet age in the 1960s, the federal government
has created laws and regulations to address noise issues
at large airports and their surrounding communities.
In Minnesota, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, or
MAC, serves as the governing body for the airport. Its 16
commissioners are appointed by the governor from
throughout the state. The MAC was created by the state
legislature in 1943 to manage area airports.
The City of Mendota Heights has its own Airport
Relations Commission, which monitors proposed
airport rules, procedures and programs that impact air
noise levels within the community.
The Airport Relations Commission created this video
program to help residents of Mendota Heights and
neighboring communities better understand current
causes for a r noise and what is being done about them.
Map, ai/rplane video Airport noise in the area is not likely to go away anytime
soon. In 1996, the Minnesota legislature ended the "dual
^i 1 a1b4 prepow A track" planning process. Until that time, the MAC was in
VtAj*AANiP*\ COALCY the early planning stages for construction of a major new
.51na.J vi2�-ed �a,.�w.t? airport in southern Dakota County, while at the same
time improving and expanding the existing MSSP airport.
Awla
.g uchhn— Improvements to MSP have continued, A it will remain
the only major airport serving the metropolitan area to
the year 2020 and beyond.
[Shorten bullet points and list on
screen as: The three basic approaches to mitigating aircraft noise are
to: /o�
Manage flight tracks + Manage flight tracks to distribute the traffic as equitably
as possible over the entire metropolitan area.
• Make planes quieter -� Make the airplanes quieter; and
• Install sound insulation and
conditioning] Provide sound insulation and airconditioning for homes,
schools and other public buildings located in areas most
greatly affected by aircraft noise.
Every time a plane takes off from an airport runway, its
departure from the end of that runway is a carefully
2
Graphic or map illustrating MSP
runways and flight tracks coming off
of them
.— Contour map with Eagan -Mendota
Heights Corridor highlighted
C L,."
��
,{�;y,
V' C5 G 0*
WN450c)( cc� 1\4
tM.�nu�¢�JJJdI � �`tn`VJ ) ?1o,�c
er
orchestrated event. As aircraft leave the runway they
follow predetermined paths, called "flight tracks."
Each airport runway has its own set of flight tracks, which
fan off at different angles from the end of the runway,
almost like spokes. Each flight track is identified by a
"degree" reading.
The flight tracks above Mendota Heights spread over an
area roughly bounded by highway 110 on the north and
nterstates 494 and 35E on the south. As aircraft fly
repeatedly through the flight tracks in this area, it
becomes relatively easy to identify the air corridor and
where the greatest concentration of air noise will occur.
A number of factors determine which runways and flight
tracks will be used. One of the most significant of these
s "prevailing wind." Departing into the wind optimizes
aircraft performance during takeoffs. During winter,
when prevailing winds tend to be out of the north, the
majority of departures occur over Minneapolis. During
warmer months, when the winds come out of the south,
more planes depart over Mendota Heights and Eagan.
During the busy daytime hours of 6:00 am to 10:30 pm,
both parallel runways receive maximum use. Planes take
off simultaneously from the ends of both runways using
pre -assigned flight tracks. _ -� tS'�
L I
{,ten
Footage of head -to -head operations
(from MAC, #30 in original draft)
M&,r I
vn,�P.u[ lJl3l r,> i {'
an��l�� L
2000 Overall MSP Average Runway
Use diagram
During nighttime hours, from 10:30 pm to 6:00 am, the
tower may move to what is called head -to -head take offs
and landings. This means that both ends of the parallel
runways over Mendota Heights and Eagan are being used
for take -offs AND landings during the same period of
time. A plane taking off on the Mendota Heights runway
needs a safe separation from a plane landing on the Eagan
runway. Head -to -head operations do not occur on the
north end of the parallel runways, AA
re
Because of the current Runway Use System, or RUS
deployed at MSP the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor
ceives many more overflights than other communities.
}
This corridor annually receives4& percent of all t[ 21
araf
departures and arrivals to MSP. The .r rnP15
y'I'&
tw approximately ercent of departures
and arrivals. Only 3 percent of flights are directed over
4he,Bloomington , while less than I percent fly
over St. Paul.
1
n1o_tsrv�a
[MAC graphic of last five years' total?] TheApercentage-point difference in the portion of flights
&,5T%k1S 04 arriving and departing in the Eagan -Mendota Heights
Ll� �ni s a Nipt 5.
corridor as compared with the ^' Fme, y
p>
doesn't sound like much. But those.' percentage points
Cd,A equate to 15,000 more flights over Mendota Heights and
Eagan, than over South Minneapolis. That's an average of
about 41 more flights a day.
r"" 4
CWt C�5
a.tOK
�At (ill
VI01i 0, I
A
s the airport has become busier over the years and the
ends of both parallel runways have become heavily used,
fanning patterns and flight tracks off the ends of the
Mendota Heights and Eagan runways had to be precisely
defined. The flight tracks over Mendota Heights
fit, ..
WxLe r a.�,.
resemble a symmetr'cal fan. The - over Eagan,
w x.t IS SV" c�a i 0-cw Tt"icWOA c i
i�
t of
wu
fgggjp�ta,S-Can1�LLt it n r��'c�raawhich tiarPc back to
theJS70s.
The end result is that, during busy times when weather
conditions and prevailing winds necessitate the flights
depart to the south, the number of aircraft directed over
Mendota Heights will be greater than that directed over
Eagan.
rr
Sound mitigation is an objective that communities,
� 4Q . -his s e irs use o S)
MAC and the Federal Aviation Administration
s
co
or
hare in common. One of the positive results from the
llaboration between Mendota Heights and these
ganizations is what is called the
cr
tr
49
ossing-in-the-corridor procedure. One of the flight
acks over Mendota Heights runs primarily over Highway
4, and is very close to a similar flight track coming off
the Eagan runway. During slower times, particularly at
night, the contfd tower can now direct aircraft to
"crossover" from the end of both runways and fly through
5
pc 9 wl,*4
this freeway track, resulting in apnoise reduction
012 esitrae for residents.
Fleet Composition
Photo of hush-kitted aircraft Many airlines flying in and out of Minneapolis/St. Paul 4
�tfi j� vjfcvw+ International Airport continue to use older jet aircraft. Oc19
M To meet current noise limitations, these aircraft have
{Z�,1,j 5i'ti been retrofitted with Stage 3 Hush Kits to make them 5
quieter. RM
�p
Shot of newer Stage 3 aircraft Newer planes already include technology to meet Stage 3
standards. They use larger and more powerful engines
that produce less noise than even the older engines that
have been retrofitted with hush kits.
Video with sound of 727 departing W
�a
and then same with A320
(MAC or N D C 18) While the transition to Stage 3 standards is a step in the
right direction, it does not alleviate all noise problems.
Future elimination of hush-kitted aircraft and the step into
Stage 4 standards is hoped to eventually reduce noise
levels even further. [Wh n is thi expected to
happen? 5 years? 10 yea ? 0? No one knows,
but it's a great idea if it Id happen? Can we
give viewers an idea when? LBR]
Illustrate tracking system Because it isn't possible to entirely eliminate noise from
aircraft or direct flights so that they never fly over
residential areas, it is especially important for agencies
like the MAC to know which neighborhoods receive the
most noise.
0
Show various aspects of system Every plane that arrives at or departs from the airport has
its flight track monitored as well as the aircraft noise it
`J generates. Sophisticated tracking and listening devices
cV /� �+"` make this possible. Each month t� L makes this
information available so that aircraft performance and
adherence to assigned flight tracks can be evaluated.
Most current DNL contour The cumulative effect of all this technical information is
Y the ability to identify what is called the "Day and
�-[ Les", S
Nighttime Laaelings" or DNL contour. The contour
\ refers to the total of every aircraft event that occurs over
U=(C ) a particular community monitor and the decibel level of
�the noise it generates. The airport defines daytime as
6:00 am to 10:30pm and nighttime as 10:30pm to 6:00am.
When every flight operation and the noise it generates is
grouped cumulatively, flight and noise patterns can be
mapped for each neighborhood near the airport.
P>oi of b < These patterns or contours reflect the average sound
decibel levels that communities are exposed to. And they
are used to determine which homes and other buildings
may be eligible for sound mitigation assistance.
Video of new window installation Fri192� to 1999n»` the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (verify) spent $174 million to install sound
`5 insulation and air-conditioning systems in homes lying
within the D N L 65 or greater noise contours. The MAC
bought an additional $51 milllion worth of homes in the
worst noise area , , enabling the
residents of these areas to relocate.
7
Most of the homes in Mendota Heights that qualify for the
rLSE Par* = sound insulation program have already been
to tL.t fa, oyvr.
insulated. But updates
.2099 may mean that the insulation program will eventually
expand to homes in the DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise
contours.
Video of new runway construction The new north -south runway, currently under
construction and scheduled to open in 2003 is expected
x to reduce the percentage of flights over Mendota Heights
and other communities in the corridor. But because the
X
new runway will also substantially increase the airport's
�p overall capacity, it is possible that the actual number of
`� takeoffs and landings over our community, may not
deiwn. �s to t owP . tAr%.¢)IVY
L
It seems all too true that airport noise is here to stay.
But it is also true that much can and should be done to
alleviate as much of it as possible for residents and
businesses in our community. The Mendota Heights
(� Airport Relations Commission meets monthly to
address aircraft noise issues, as well as economic
development and land use issues related to the expanding
MSP International Airport. Each year, the commission
develops and revises its goals and objectives to help
prioritize the city's efforts to mitigate noise in the
community.
[Visuals for this next section could be
what Scott suggested in his original
draft, perhaps with captions for each
bullet point]
65 tAlc::�D
Current priorities of the commission include advocating
for:
greater equity of the current runway use system.
F�Zb
expansion of ""—arc-FJv sound insulation to homes
in the DNL 60 contour
• reduction of take -off noise through the use of
_alternative departure techniques and technologies, such a,�
global positioning systems to direct planes over
unpopulated areas;
• elimination of head -to -head operations;
• speeding up the replacement of older hush-kitted
aircraft with much quieter manufactured Stage III and
Stage IV aircraft;
• reducing the number of nighttime flights over the area;
• monitoring expansion
plans and
activities
at the airport,
to ensure that the noise
problem
does not
become even
worse for Mendota Heights residents and their
neighbors.
• And supporting other reasonable efforts to reduce
noise from airport operations, such as using ground run -
enclosures, sound barriers, reducing the thrust of
0
departing aircraft and expanding noise -monitoring
technology.
�hTnumber(t at residents of Mendota Heights
a Lar d=�<
and its nearest neighborsde� share
of aircraft noise. Unfortunately, there are no simple
solutions, because so many factors affect the direction and
flight tracks of planes coming in and out of the airport.
Some of these, such as wind and weather, are beyond
human control. Even so, there remains much more that
can and should be done. And the Mendota Heights
Airport Relations Commission will continue to work to
ensure that it is.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION regarding PART 150 PROGRAM
Draft No. 2 dated March 27, 2001
WHEREAS the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is developing a
proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting FAA's approval
of an expansion of the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Program) into the 60 to
64 DNL contour areas; and
WHEREAS the existing Program was developed using an open public process that
relied to a great degree on the input of the Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement
Council (MASAC), which included representatives of airlines and other business
interests as well as citizens representing each affected community; and
WHEREAS MAC's Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Program, which
included representatives of each affected community, was instrumental in
resolving controversies that arose during the early implementation phases of the
Program; and
WHEREAS the Part 150 Program has now achieved public support and typically
receives a very high approval rating (97% to 98%) among homeowners whose
homes have been treated under the program; and
WHEREAS MAC has discontinued the PAC for the Program and has not replaced
MASAC after its industry representatives decided to stop participating; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of
the City re -affirms its support for expanding the Part
150 Program to the 60 to 64 DNL contour areas, subject to its comments
previously submitted to MAC.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of urges
MAC to work with the effected cities, not just the industry interests, in developing
any changes to the Part 150 Program.
msp150
MASAU MUNICIPAL CAUCUS
March 27, 2001
1. Discussion of MAC position on TvIASAC restructuring
2. Discussion of MAC's proposed 60-65 dnl insulation package
3. Consideration of draft resolution language
4. Announcement of public hearing dates on insulation program:
April 3, 2001 at 1 p.m., the regular meeting of the MAC P&E Committee at
the MAC offices, Lindbergh Terminal
April 11, 2001, at 7 p.m. at the Thunderbird Motel, 2201 E. 78th Street
5. New business
6. Adjourn
v V_x=C�Tle: 0 2iC_
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
Tl M 14
FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director— Planning & Environment (72&8187)
SUBJECT: PART 160 SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM — 60-64 DNL CONTOUR
DATE: February 27, 2001
The following summary br efly describes the events and decisions lending to the Ar1AC
commitment to a residential sound insulation program in the 2005 DNL 65+ and DNL 60-64
contours.
In 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature finalized the Dual Track Airport Planning Process with a
decision to improve and enhance MSP International Airport rather than building a new airport.
Throughout the Dual Track Planning Process, MAC examined the potential environmental
impacts that could reasonably be expected to arise by either enhancing MSP or by building a
new airport. MAC's initiatives in examining environmental impacts in areas beyond the DNL 65
contour -at MSP were given impetus and direction by the Legislature in House File Number 3012,
which was signed into law by then Governor Carlson -on April 12, I996:-The Leg is16ture—directed `
the MAC to assemble a sound abatement advisory committee to prepare a recommendation that
shall examine mitigation measures to the 60 Ldn level."
In response to this direction from the Legislature, MAC formed the MSP Noise Mitigation
Committee, which had representation from the MAC Commission, the Mayors of the
communifies surrounding the airport, the Metropolitan Council, Northwest Airlines, and MASAC.
The Committee produced a report titled the."MSP Noise Mitigation Program' in November 1996,
In the report recommendations the Committee proposed that, "(1) The residential sound
insulation program for the area encompassed by the 1996 DNL contour be completed on the
currently approved schedule. (2) The program be expanded after the completion of the current
program to incorporate the area encompassed by the 2005 60 DNL (3) The 2005 60 DNL
contour be based on the most accurate projection of traffic levels and the appropriate use of
ANOMS data." The full report of the Committee was submitted to the State Advisory Council on
Metropolitan Airport Planning in keeping with the provisions of the Dual Track legislation.
In February 1997, State Senator Keith Langseth and State Representative Bernie Lieder, co-
Chairs of the Minnesota Advisory Council on Airport Planning acknowledged receipt of the "MSP
Noise Mitigation Program, November 199T and documented that the Advisory Council "reviewed
the recommendation, and concurs with the commissions recommendations" regarding,
proposed noise mitigation activities to the 60 Ldn level at Minneapolis -St. Paul International
Airport and in the neighboring communities (Minnesota Statutes, section 473,661, subdivision
4)."
_x=C ilv- 0;FICr 1d. l 6E P. 6
2005 DNL 60-64 and 65+ Housing Counts.
The 2005 Part 150 Noise Exposure Map indicates that there are 300 single family homes in the
2005 DNL 65+ contour which were not inside the 1996 DNL 65+ contour, and a total of 12,420
single family homes in the 2005 DNL 60-64 contour. Of the 12,420 homes in the 2005 DNL 60-
64 contour, 2,370 will have been completed under the 1996 program, leaving 10,040 single
family homes in the 2005 DNL 60-64 contour that hove not been previously involved in the
residential sound insulation program modifications or construction.
In addition, there are 4,420 multifamily units inside the 2005 DNL 60 64. O the 4,420 mutifamily
units, 310 will have been insulated under the 1996 program, leaving 4,110 multifamily units in the
2005 DNL 60- 4 contour that have not been previously involved in the residential sound
insulation program modifications or construction.
The number of single family units in the implementation program found inside the 2005 DNL 60-
64 is 12,416 (rounded here to 12,420), while the number of single family units reported in the
Part 150 Update is 11,212, a difference of 1,204 housing units. The implementation program
number is higher because under the implementation definition of "single family' dwellings one,
two, and three unit structures are included. The number of multifamily homes in the
implementation program found inside the DNL 60-64 is 4,416 (rounded here to 4,420), while the
number of multifamily units reported in the 2005 Part 150 Update is 5,620, a difference of 1,204.
The difference in the numbers between the two definitions of single and multiple family units is
the same (1,204). The'1,units--simply 204 shift from :one category to another depending upon
whether one is considering the Part 150 implementation definition or the Part 150 Update
definition.
Summary of Insulation Package Options
In order to complete the MSP Part 150 Update Document including mitigation
recorgmendations, the Commission must select the sound insulation package strategy for homes
within the 2005 65-75 DNL and 60-64 DNL contour areas. This selection must then be
incorporated into the MSP Part 150 Update Document before it can be submitted to the FAA for
their review.
In an eFiort to reach a resolution on 2005 65-75 DNL and 60-64 DNL residential insulation
packages, staff considered a variety of insulation package options, based on past program
experience and input from the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). The
options presented conform with the primary goals found in the "Guidelines for the Sound
Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operationspublished by the FAA. The
Guidebook" states "the two primary goals of a residential sound insulation program are the
improvement of the noise environment for community members and better relations between
the installation and its neighbors."
A. 2005 65.75 DNL Sound Insulation Package Option.
It is recommended that MAC continue to provide homes wthin the 2005 65 75 DNL
contour the same 5-Decibel reduction package currently offered to homeowners in the
1996 65-75 DNL contour.
2u;1i :� =S! �`,C Ex=Cui(v; G; iC
Cons
level of treatment to homes across areas that nave
Option 2 provides nearly the same
impacts. Traditional Part 150 mitigation generally provides a
significant differences in noise
higher degree of treatment to areas in high impact and a lesser degree of treatment in areas
of lower impact.
Option 2 also represents a high cost per home in areas of lower impact, with only a nominal
reduction in costs compared to Option 1, costs exceed the established funding mechanisms
for the Project by a wide margin.
3. Window, Door and Vent Package
Under this option, MAC would continue to provide homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL
contour the same acoustical effectiveness of the original 6rDeclbel reduction
,package, without central air conditioning. With the exception of eliminating air
conditioning, this option represents a continuation of all acoustic treatments found in the
original &Decibel reduction package consisting of window and door treatments, wall/attic
insulation, roof vent baffling and IAOJventilation modifications* With windows closed, this
package option would represent the same degree of acoustic reduction provided for homes
within the 1996 6545 DNL contour areas (Option 1) but without air conditioning.
The estimated cost of this option for the 10,040 single family homes in the 2005
60-84.DNL contour, at an average of $33,800 per home (construction and
administrative costs) is $339,352,000,
Pros
Option 3 may meet current Dublic expectations despite the absence of air conditioning.
• Option 3 maintains current Program contractors, suppliers, with the exception of mechanical
and electrical subcontractors.
Option 3 represents a reduced cost compared to Options 1 and 2, due to the elimination of
air conditioning modifications.
Cons
• Option 3 provides the same level of treatment to homes across areas that have sign scan
differences in noise impacts, when the windows of the home are closed. Trod tional Part 150
mitigation generally provides a higher degree of treatment to areas in high impact and a
lesser degree of treatment in areas of lower impact.
During the summer open windows are likely In homes without air conditioning. Under Option
3 modifications, because of the lack of air conditioning, no acoustic reductions or
improvements in interior quiet are achieved.
Despite reduced costs gained by eliminating air conditioning modifications, the estimated
costs associated with Option 3 still exceed the established funding mechanisms by a wide
margin. �_—
Pros
• By creating a cost share mechanism, Option 5 significantly reduces costs to the MAC for the
Program.
• Option 5 provides the full noise mitigation package, and will meet expectations of the public
in that regard.
Cons
• Option'5 requires homeowner cost participation.
• Option 5 introduces complex Project bookkeeping, payment, and accounting issues.
• Option 5 may reduce homeowner participation levels, due to the need for homeowners to
contribute funds to the project.
• Option 5 introduces payment and cost share inequities in that the percentage contribution
levels will be applied to a wide range of program per house costs, which can vary from
$20,000 to $100,000 per home in a given bid cycle.
6. Air Conditioning Package
Under this option, MAC would provide homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL with central
air conditioning, if not already present. This option would represent a significantly
different mitigation strategy. With windows dosed, however, this option would represent a
significant noise reduction during the "open window season" of May through October.
Tne estimated cost of this option for the 10,040 single family homes in the ZOOS
60-64 contour, at an average cost of S13,500 per home (construction and
administrative costs) is $135,540,000,
• Consistency with Differing Noise Exposure Areas (DNL65-75 vs. DNL60-64: Of the six
insulation options, implementation of the air conditioning package for homes within the
2005 60-64 DNL noise exposure areas is the most consistent with traditional Part 15C
Sound insulation Program mitigation strategy, where the degree of insulation modifications
should match noise exposure levels (higher degree of treatment for higher noise exposure
levels). In addition, this option is more consistent with the Metropolitan Council land use
guidelines for 65-75 DNL and 60-64 DNL contour boundaries.
• Package Effectiveness and Homeowner Advantages: An air conditioning package would
provide significant acoustical reduction benefits to homeowners, by allowing them to close
their windows during the May through October time period. Since It is estimated that
approximately 60% of ZOOS 60-64 DNL homes lack central air conditioning, this insulation
option would provide significant benefit to the majority of eligible homeowners.
• Simplification of Program Management: Implementation of an air conditioning package will
primarily utilize the services of mechanical and electrical contractors and may require
specialized consultant construction management responsibilities due to specialization of
construction services. Other implementation methods may be available to expedite the
number of homes completed and reduce overhead costs to the Par, 150 Program.
[] T T -0
D O N N N N N 0
N tll D) N DI DI
CD N
(D 2 m m m m m m
17 0 O (n A W N
o cD0 wU'
O D0 0O O
3 O ? CD CD
a 3 m o CD m o X X
0 CD a
m m
d o G o o
CD 0
jw tin) CD
CTf O ^' O O
ffl G 0N d U
m o m O m CD
F m
5. 3 0 m
N O
3 _ G o
lD
O O COD
m 7 =1
O CD
y O N
° 3 m
7
G - mo
3 0
O CD
0
O <
N O
3 C
N (D
c
o
m a
Ct N
y C
N O
� c
O 3
� C
CD O
CD G
� D
O N
G
(� G
O
3 ^^�
O 1G
Cl
O n
O O
o
c
O
O
CDa
0
CD
a
CD
D
C
N
D
G
o
D
G
<
CD
d
^
lG
N
C
O
s
O
O
O
z
O
m
D
0
o
a
(D
CD
c
G
N
m
o
WE
(0
m
A
c;
cri
a
Cn
co
N
Fly
Cnn
A
N
N
0
W
P
R
Li9
VA
D a
G
� T
O C
r C
m G
CD
(7 CD
O D
3 n
3_CD
G
m a
o
m
m
C
e
Cam]
O
O
0
0
O
O
C
E»
r
0
c
c_
A
N
C
U
00
o
A
'
0
O
O
C
D
Efl
0
x
A
O
C
O
A
N
C
O
O
Efl
ii
rt
W
-a
CI
W
O
P
O
O
o
O
G
O
N
V
O
O
00
Oa
A
O�
O
T
O
Li
O
O
n
O
O
E�
February 2001
MASAC EaganiNtendota Heights Departure
Corridor Analysis
--
r�
r
16.
it
R
- $
i
Ir
It
It
s
Metropolitan Airports Commission
258 (5.9%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During February 2001
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South -Corridor
- 02/01/2001 00:00:00 - 03/01/2001 00:00:00
256 Tracks Crossed Gate: 123 (47 7%):
m 6000LL
5
m
= 5000 9
is 4000 .. "- .. .. ... . —
0-1
I
m 3000 O ..O.c; s _ 0.... ... INN
��pO_
0 1000 ...... u J.."0_. '
a ¢ 0 $ `
_2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate Miles (RWY Mid-Pom[)
( ) ._
Arrival 0� Departure ElJOverflight
Monthly
EaganNlendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Pale 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12L and 12R Departure Destinations for February 2001
Airport,. 1—
- Ca _ I-
City _
Pleading
(deg.). .�
p s
Percentof
Total Ops-.
Kansas City
Monthly EaganNlendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Paee 5
Ntetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Table of Contents for February 2001
Complaint Summary
Noise Compla nt Map
FAA Available Time for Runway
MSP All Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carver Jet Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carver Jet Fleet
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Carver let Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators by
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage
4
G
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Carver Jet Amval Related Noise Events 16
Carver Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 18-27
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircrafr Ldn dBA 23-29
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Ntetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
MSP Complaints by City
February 2001
-City , x
Apple Valley
A5 rival r,
In
_ _Departure -s
0 0 _ -
Number' of
Com taints
P -
1 -
�utnber of"
7 Cam Plamarits J
1 D -
°�o of Total_
PCom Taints
_ ..
02%
0
6
1.7%
Bloomington
9D
0
9
9 r_
0
2
4
0.0%
Blaine
D
' 0
0
,_
i9 -=_
59 _y=
103
5
i '
19.4%
Eagan
22
3
3
0
0.6%
Edina
0
'�
p
In
0
4.0%
Heights
2
Orin
19-
-
21
2
�
Lake Elmo
5
O+
0
-.
[b
0.2%
Lakeville
1
�[T
0=
1
1
y§
1
53%
Maple Grove
0
17
28
w
r
=6 -
0.8%
Mendota Heights
1
t' ff '.
3ILI
P --
4
2
_51Minneapolis
64.8%
19
'y
68
92 _
345
30
0
4
0
0.8%
Plymouth
0
4
0
0 � �-
1
- l
_0 _
02%
Richfield
0
I
0
2
2
0.4%
South St. Paul
0
2
.=_
_Q
0=
1
0
L
0.2%
St. Louis Park
0
C
0
0---.:�:
2
1
'0
0.4%
St. Paul
0
7
00__
=
s
'
S301M
72
99 9
Total
261
269
_
Nature of NISP Complaints Time of Day Complaints by Airport
Complaint,= ;Total T>mes; >Total „ Airport - Total
n_
In
Excessive Noise 129 209 `- 0000 - 0559 17 9_` N[SPIn-
538
Early/Late 41 i 4 ,. 0600-0659 13 31 a Airlake 0
Low Flying g 25 0700-1U9 ti 705_ - Anoka 2
Structural Dist. I =.- 1200-1559 18 12= - Crystal 0
Helicopter p 1600-1959 35 t 79= s Flying Cloud I
0 '-<
Ground Noise 3 5 -= 2000-2159 52 ,' '77.Z - Lake Elmo 0
Engine Run-up 2 j .0 2200-2239 20 18 St. Patti 0
Frequency I 7 67- -
Other p I 0 2300-23i9 7 16 Misc. I
� Tota 538
ota 538 otal 542'
Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet
A Product of the Nletropoli[an Airports Commission ANOMS Program
2 A Product of the Mettopolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Pro�-am
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (NIASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Available Time for Runway Use February 2001
FAA Runway Use Logs)
Month 2000 FAA Airport Traffic Record Counts
2000 Daily Counts
2001-Daily Counts
Ai[Cun-ier
1 ',30 1
721
Commuter
J15
313
General Aviation
352
' 15
Military
H
S
j-- Total
A Prodttnt of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANONtS Program 3
N[etropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report February 2001
0.3
n
Ai nvaU
-
Count '
Count
y, i
-
RWY
Dejbartnre`
OverfliahtArea
erAtio'ns,
AAA
erahons`.Percent'
.
-O
.Percent_.9
4
Arr
I So. Richfield/Bloomington
0
0.0%
32
0.2%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
1956
14.5%
2563
18.0%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
2362
17.5%
2931
20.6%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Hiahland Park
1
0.0%
43
0.3%
30L
Arr
Eagat Mendota Heights
4834
35.8%
4765
335%
30R
Arr
EanamNtendota Heights
4338
32.2'%
3904
27.4%
Arrivals
13491 ;-
1000%
14238
100.0%
,Tdfal
4
Dep
St. Paul/Highland Park
2
0.0%
7
0.1%
12L
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
2105
15.8 %
2605
18.4%
ZR.
Dep
Eagan[Mendota Heights
2253
( 16.9%
3058
21.6%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloornington
37
0.3%
188
1.3%
30L
Dep
So. Minneapolis tNo. Richfield
4894
36.6%
4769
33.8%
30R
Dep
So. Nlimteapolis/No. Richfield
4070
30.4%
3505
24.8%
Total Departures
(` 13361"
100.0%
14132
1100.0%>
Total Operations
26852 •
28370
"
a
I :
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANON[S Program 5
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Nighttime All Operations 10930 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report February 2001
�`
Last
_
�,LastYear
Coun£
C nt
Year
Arnvall
r
0 '6rations.
Percent O er'ahons
Bercen '
=RWY.
De arture,
_ ..OviYflr htArea
4
Arr
So. Richfield/Bloomington
1
0.1% 32
2.6%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
100
83% DO
10.6%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
145
12.0% 194
15.9%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Highland Park
4
03% 14
1.1%
30L
Arr
Eagan /i lendota Heights
599
49.6% 646
52.7%
30R
Arr
EaganMendota Heights
358
29.PYo 209
j 17.1%
Total Arrivals
1207
{ 100.0 % '. '1225 -
{ 100.0%'
4
Dep
St. Paul/Highland Park
6
0.6% 11
12L
Dep
Eagan'Niendota Heights
157
16.40/(1, 192
( 17.8%
12R
Dep
Eagai: Mendota Heights
189
19.8% 274
25.5%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloomington
1 20
2.1% 28
1 2.690
30L
Dep
So. NlinneapolislNo. Richfield
291
30.4'% 313
291 //0
30R
Dep
So. Nlionea olislNo. Richfield
294
30.7% 258
24,0%
Total Departures..
957
100.0% 3076
{ 100*60/u`'
j Total O erations
2164
_ 2301
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANONtS Program 7
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
February 2001 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m
Total Nighttime Jet
O ' peratwb ns y Hour 1
2230
575
2300
422
2400
I 150
00
54
200
31
300
12
400
100
500
306
`- T650 "-
.TOTAL"
Airline::
ID
Stage
--Type':
Count._
American
AAL
3
F100
31
American
AAL
3
MD30
25
Airborne
ABX
3
DC8Q
22
Airborne
ABX
3
DC90
36
America Trans Air
AMT
3
B72Q
24
America Trans AiTI
AMT
3
L101
1
America West I
AWE
3
A319
4
America West
AWE
3
A320
32
Champion Air
CCP
3
B72Q
57
Com Air
COM
3
CRJI
51
FedEx
FDX
3
B720
27
FedEx
FDX
3 I
A306
24
FedEx
FDX
3
DC10
46
FedEx
FDX
3
MD11
2
Kitty Hawk
KFA
3
B72Q
22
Northwest
NWA
3
A319
10
Northwest
NWA
3
I A320
266
Northwest
NWA
3
1 B72Q
35
Northwest
NWA
3
B752
251
Northwest
NWA
3
DC10
6
Northwest
NWA
3
B742
19
Northwest
NWA
3
DC9
231
Omni .Air
OAE
3
DC10
29
Ryan
XYNI
3
A320
21
Ryan
RYN
3
B72Q
74
Sun Country
SCX
3
B72Q
86
Sun Coutury
SCX_
3
DC10
13
Air Tran
TRS
3
B712
29
United
UAL
3
B720
17
United
UAL
I 3
6733
I 1
United
UAL
3
B73Q
S
United
UAL
J
B735
I
UPS
UPS
3
B763
1
UPS
UPS
( 3
DCSQ
( 49
UPS
UPS
3
I B752
5
UPS
( UPS
B72Q
2
�I Total
1568
Nate: The top IS nighttime operators represent 95.0% of the total nighttime operations.
A Product of the v[etropolitan Airports Commission ANOUIS Program
N(etropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
Leeend
IRemote Monitoring Tower
A Product of thz Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program IS
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
February 2001
c
Departure
Departure
Departure
Departure
events
Events
Events
dents
x�yT�
s
p
ID
City
ri address`
?65dB
>SOdB
?90dB
?1O9d$4'
P
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St.
776
68
0
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
982
116
1
0
3
Minneapolis
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
2085
234
17
0
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Ave. &49thSt.
1 2566
330
1 20
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St.
6372
1749
384
3
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St.
7596
2166
540
16
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
4387
928
92,
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
2430
430
7
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
58
3
2
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
27
5
2
0
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
38
2
0
0
12
St. Paul
Alton St. &Rockwood Ave.
62
1
0
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
I 1467
91
2
0
14
Eagan
1st St. & Mckee St.
( 2429
433
39
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexin ton Ave.
1865
195
1
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
2480
635
132
0
17
Bloomington
84th St. & 4th Ave.
214
11
2
0
18
Richfield
75th St. & l7th Ave
266
39
9
0
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
I65
15
2
0
20
Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
429
12
0
( 0
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St,
I 640
34
0
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
737
1 N
0
( 0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kenndon Ave.
2706
752
153
0
24
Eagan
Chanel Ln. & Wren Ln.
1791
172
2
0
25
Eagan
Moonshine Park li21 Jurdv Rd.
993
18
0
0
26
I Inver Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
880
54
0
( 0
27
Minneapolis
AnthonySchool 5757Irving Ave. S.
1790
224
1 7
0
28
Richfield
6645 16th Avenue S.
4713
1 295
( 5
0
29
-Minneapolis
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
1613
153
( 0
0
Total Departure Noise Events;,.- --
52556_
9192 .
f ; .;1419
19
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program t 7
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Feb-01
(RMT Site#4)
Oakland Ave. & 491h St., Minneapolis
Date/Time
Fliaht Number
Aircraft Type
- AmvaU
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/8/200117:28
UAL339
B72Q
D
30R
96.9
2/4/200113:01
NWA19
B742
D
30L
95.1
2/14/2001 13:25
NWA19
B742
D
30L
94.6
2/21/2001 11:28
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R
93.6
2/9/200111:27
NWA1271
B72
D
30R
92
2/14/20019:26
NWA671
B72Q
D
30R
91.9
2/2/2001 11:23
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R
91.8
2/12/200110:43
SCX844
B72Q
D
30R
91.7
2/8/2001 17:15
DAL1624
B72Q
D
30R
91.7
2/6/2001 11:27
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R
91.2
(RMT Site#5)
12`h Ave. & 581h St., Minneapolis
Date/I'ime
Fliaht Number
AircraftType
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/25/20011:38
CCP201
B72Q
D
30L
100.7
2/2/2001 12:43
NWA83
B742
D
30L
100.3
2/12/20019:32
CCP201
B72Q
D
30L
100.3
2/12/200113:20
NWA19
B742
D
30L
99A
2/12/200110:09
SCX31
B72Q
D
30L
99.2
2/12/20019:57
CCP901
B72Q
D
30L
99.1
2/2/20017:06
CCP160
B72Q
D
30L
98.9
2/22/200111:39
CCP950
B72Q
D
30L
98.8
2/19/2001 13:02
NWA19
B742
D
30L
98.8
2/28/2001 22:04
CCP970
B72Q
D
30L
98.4
(RMT Site#6)
25`h Ave. oc 57`h St., Minneapolis
Date/I'ime
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/2/200111:22
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R
101.8
2/6/2001 11:26
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R -
101.8
2/12/200110:42
SCX844
1372Q
D
30R
101.5
2/4/200111:14
NWA1271
B72Q
D
30R
101.2
2/21/2001 11:27
NWA1271
1372Q
D
30R
101.1
2/8/200117:27
UAL339
B72Q
D
30R
101
2/10/200114:27
NWA672
B72Q
D
30R
100.9
2/4/2001 21:09
NWA1273
B72Q
D
30R
100.6
2/28/2001 20:53
NWA1273
B72Q
D
30R
100.5
2/12/20011453
NWA624
B72Q
D
30R
100.4
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANONIS Program 19
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Feb-01
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/11/200112:47
NWA83
B742
D
4
95.7
2/13/20017:09
BMJ48
BE80
D
4
92.6
2/l/20010:52
AJ19154
B73Q
A
22
87.3
2/18/200116:45
NWA1046
DC9Q
A
12L
86
2/14/20011:01
RYN710
B72Q
D
4
84.8
2/14/20016:55
BMJ48
BE80
D
4
81.9
2/5/200122:56
FDX1244
B72Q
D
30L
80.5
2/13/20017:19
BMJ62
BE80
D
12L
79.7
2/22/20016:33
NMS3209
SF34
A
30R
78.1
2/21/200123:43
Unknown
LJ60
A
22
76.3
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St, Paul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
- Lmax (dB)
2/18/200116:45
NWA1046
DC9Q
A
12L
81.7
2/11/200112:48
NWA83
B742
D
4
812
2/26/20019:52
NWA620
DC9Q
D
30R
80.3
2/14/20016:56
9MJ48
BE80
D
4
79.1
2/13/20017:20
BMJ62
BE80
D
12L
78
2/27/200122:42
NWA612
DC9Q
D
30R
75.7
2/5/200122:55
FDX1244
B72Q
D
30L
75.5
2/27/20017:24
BMJ48
BE80
D
30R
75.1
2/3/20017:49
BMJ70
BE80
D
12L
74.1
2/l/200119:16
iil J69
BE80
A
30L
73.6
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. an
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmae (dB)
2/18/200119:51
NWA1267
DC9Q
A
12L
863
2/24/20018:29
BNU48
BE80
D
12L
79.3
2/5/200122:56
FDX1244
B72Q
D
30L
77.3
2/14/20011:01
RYN710
B72Q
D
4
76.8
2/16/200119:24
BMJ65
BE80
A
30L
76.7
2/8/2001734
BMJ48
BE80
D
12L
76.5
2/18/200117:40
IVIES3385
SF34
D
12L
76
2/19/20017:15
MES3251
SF34
D
30R
76
2/8/200113:26
NWA747
DC9Q
A
12L
75.9
2/3/20017:48
BNIJ70
BE80
D
12L
75.8
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Proeram 21
Ntetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Feb-01
(RMT Site#16)
e.ral, n Avn R, Viln.e T.ane. Eaean
Dat&Tftne
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
De arture
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/24/200114:19
SCX748
B72Q
D
12R
99.7
2/8/200114:38
SCX748
B72Q
D
12R
97.7
2/12/20016:59
CCP160
B72Q
D
12R
97.5
2/12/2001 6:58
AMT304
B72Q
D
12R
97.2
2/7/2001831
CCP905
B72Q
D
12R
96.4
2/18/200119:38
SCX581
B72Q
D
12R
96.2
2/24/2001 16:15
CCP504
B72Q
D
12R
96.2
2/7/200117:42
SCX787
B72Q
D
12R
96
2/5/2001 8:32
CCP201
B72Q
D
12R
95.9
2/24/2001 16707
SCX233
B72Q
D
12R
95.7
(RMT Site#T7)
Qn+t, cr R. Atli AvP 111nominortnn
Date/Time
Flight Number
AircraftType
Arrival/ _
Departure
-Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/18/2001 13:09
NWA19
B742
D
22
93.8
2/3/2001 13:23
NWA19
B742
D
22
92.9
2/17/2001 21:29
NWA56
B742
D
22
90
2/18/20016:53
SCX463
B72Q
D
22
88.9
2/28/20011333=NWAIVB74242
D
22
85
2/5/200123:132Q
D
30L
84.1
nown
D
22
83
nown
D
22
81.3
2Q
D
22
81.2
72Q
D
22
80.6
(RMT Site#18)
75rh Rr Rr 17th Ave. Richfield
Date/I'ime
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmac (dB)
2/18/2001 13:09
NWA19
B742
D
22
99.2
2/3/2001 13:23
NWA19
B742
D
22
99.1
2/28/2001 0733
NWA19
B742
D
22
97.7
2/17/2001 21:29
NWA56
B742
D
22
95.4
2/18/20016:52
SCX463
B72Q
D
22
94.5
2/1/20011:28
CCP7003
B72Q
D
22
913
2/18/20016:56
SCX501
B72Q
D
22
90.6
2/27/20017:22
BNIJ56
BE80
D
12L
90.1
2/14/200111:06
Unknown
I Unknown
D
22
90.1
2/13/2001 7:16
BMJ64
BE80
D
22
89.9
A Product of the Ntetropolit an Airports Commission ANONIS Program 23
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VINP
Feb-01
(RMT Site#22)
w,r.,.:e r,-.�:1 TnvAr (:rnva T-Te;Qhrs
Date/rime
Flight Numbery
V Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/18/200113:50
NWA446
B72Q
D
12R
85.2
2/3/20017:35
SCX701
B72Q
D
12R
85.1
2/16/20019:00
Unknown
C750
A
30R
84.8
2/3/20015:47
CCP907
B72Q
D
12R
83.5
2/18/20019:58
AMT525
B72Q
D
12R
83.3
2/22/2001 23:18
NWA358
A320
A
30L
83.2
2/3/200115:34
2/18/200113:47
CCP504
Unknown
B72Q
GLF3
D
D
12R
12R
82.9
82.3
2/3/200114:15
NWA446
B72Q
D
12R
82
2/5/200115:26
SCX229
B72Q
D
12R
81.9
(RMT Site#23)
C. A , 47T7 .."Ai n AxrPrnP Mrntlnta Heights
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Runway
Lmax (dB)
Departure
2/12/20018:28
NWA738
B72
D
12L
100
2/18/2 001 9:51
NWA200
B72Q
D
12L
98.2
2/5/2001 7:23
NWA718
B72Q
D
12L
97.4
2/5/200115:28
NWA654
B72Q
D
12L
96.9
2/5/200110:22
SCX844
B72Q
D
12L
96.7
2/12/20017:40
NWA718
B72Q
D
12L
96.6
2/7/200111:25
NWA200
B72Q
D
12L
96.4
2/18/20019:24
NWA671
B72Q
D
12L
96.4
2/13/20017:26
NWA718
B72Q
D
12L
96.2
2/18/200118:52
NWA628
B72Q
D
12L
96.1
(RMT Site #24)
rhar,Pt T :,ne Rr Wren Lane. Eagan
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Runway
Lmae (dB)
Departure
2/3/2001 18:16
CCPI01
B72
12R
91
2/3/2001843
CCP240
B72Q
12R
90.8
2/5/20011258
NWA19
B742
12R
89
2/3/20017:34
SCX701
B72Q
12R
88.9
2/18/20018:38
CCPI01
B72Q
ED
12R
88.5
2/3/2001651
CCP165
B72Q
12R
88.4
2/3/200t 12:26
NWA921
B742
12R
88.3
2/5/2001 15:26
SCX22
BB72
12R
8822/23/20011132
DAL1057
B72Q
12R
88
2/25/20019:45
NWA1047
B72Q
30L
88
A ProducC o9 the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 25
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Feb-01
WY1I Site#28)
F645 1 Fth Avenue S.. Richfield
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/l/200121:31
DHL142
B72Q
D
30L
94.8
2/2/20017:01
BMJ56
BE80
D
30L
94.2
2/5/200123:16
ABX139
DC9Q
D
30L
91.7
2/23/20010:24
RYN7102
B72Q
D
30L
91.6
2/9/20011531
NWA1176
B72Q
D
30L
90.7
2/28/200122:42
KHA1772
B72Q
D
30L
7
892883
2/6/200121:56
KHA1772
B72
D
30L
7
2/22/200122:20
FDX1244
B72Q
D
30L
7
2/28/200121:14
AMT334
B72Q
D
30L
5
2/22/20017:50
NWA601
DC9Q
D
30L
(RMT Site#29)
-mpmpntn <, 4rhnnl 4115 31st Ave. S.. Minneapolis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax (dB)
2/2/20017:25
SCX625
B72Q
D
30R
89.4
2/25/200113:43
NWA624
B72Q
D
30R
88
2/16/200115:25
SCX741
B72Q
D
30R
87.2
2/25/2001832
SCX621
B72Q
D
30L
86.9
2/22/20011730
CDR8682
F28
D
30R
86.5
2/4/200110:23
UAL1860
B72Q
D
30R
86.2
2/28/200115:14
NWA138
B72Q
D
30R
85.8
2/6/200119:15
NWA1298
B72Q
D
30R
85.5
2/22/200122:36
KHA1772
B72Q
D
30R
85.3
2/19/200113713
NWA672
B72Q
D
30R
85.3
February 2001 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for February 2001 were comprised of
91.7% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 727 Hushed with
68.6% of the highest Lmax events. Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight
track data.
Note: Missing FAA radar data for 1.3 days during the month of February 2001.
A Product oY the Mztropotitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 27
Yletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Lan aBA
February 2001
Remote Monitoring Towers
Dale '
#16
685
#17
56.3
#Z8
61.6
_#19
60.6
#20
50A
#21
4T8
#22
56.3
48
61.3
!41.
#6_
50.
#271
57.6
63 2
58.9
2
69.5
44.9
52.1
46.7
40.5
55.8
56.7
68.5
62.4
52.7
56.8
59.3
57.8
54.9
3
693
51.1
55.6
43.5
42.1
55.9
60.3
68.4
65.5
55.2
62.1
n/a
52.6
n/a
4
66.1
40.8
36.7
32.2
47.9
30.6
57.6
49.4
60.5
41.1
48.6
57.9
62
56.9
5
71.2
57.1
51.3
49.4
60.3
54.1
58.5
67.5
64
55.5
56.7
53.7
65.6
56.3
6
67.8
52.4
55.4
53.7
57
36.2
563
55.6
60.9
51.9
43.5
61
64.7
61.3
7
70.8
42
42.4
32.2
33.9
58.2
59.7
69.3
65
58.4
60
63.7
65.2
49.8
8
71.8
35.9
40.1
36.1
39.5
53.5
58.1
65.9
62.2
593
55.1
59.4
66
53.6
9
68.1
46.1
46.6
40.8
53.5
26.7
56.1
59.6
613
42.6
46.7
61.5
64
58.9
10
66.7
42
50.5
44.9
39.7
52.4
53.2
61.9
59
47.9
53.4
603
56.4
523
11
66.5
33.6
42.3
n/a
n/a
53.1
53.6
65.5
60.5
52.3
56.1
39.2
55.3
n/a
12
711
43.8
45.4
34.7
41.4
471
56.4
63.7
613I53.8
47
62
62.5
58.5
13
643
41.5
48.3
30.7
n/a
47.5
51.8
61.8
61.9 153.4
53
n/a
41.4
n/a
14
64.4
44.5
51.4
46.1
42.1
40.1
50.7
49.9
58
43.7
43.9
64.6
62.1
56.8
15
633
54
47,1
47.9
58.1
43.4
51.5
56.6
56.2
48A
47.4
56.9
61.3
59.9
16
67.3
40.7
47.5
51.7
45.7
263
53.7
50.9
59.6
42.8
46.6
61.8
60.9
57.5
17
66.6I49.5
52.8I44.5
45.9
42.6
49.5I50.7
57.4
44
42.8
583
57.6
1 55.9
18
67.6
61.5
66.1
59.6
472
56.7
57.9
70.6
623
53.4
56.9
n/a
50.6
n/a
19
167.2
463
42.2
45.2
148.2
29.2
57.2
56.8
60.6
49
45.6
1632
63
60.2
20
67.5
54.9
41.7
49.9
55.4
42.5
53.2
60
59.4
43.1
51.7
56.8
6 2. 2
60.6
21
675
50.3
54351.9
49
56.3t59.
69.4
[60.9
60.8
48.4
53.8
58
56
49.9
665
(.51.6
141.9
392
56.4
38.5
61.6
147.6
48.9
64.1
165.6
61.6
23
70.5
41.4
46.4I
40
44.4
53
56.7I69.3
645
56.3
57.6
57.1
63.7
51.9
24
69.7I
n/a
323
I n/a
n/a
54.7
573
68.4
60.7
I Si3
593
145.5
160.8
132.7
25
68.3
4 .9
39.8
35.9
54.6
n/a
60
56.3
625
(513
463
26
67.4
52.6(
39.1
47.7
55.9
39.1
483
49.7
55.2
46.1
4:7
127
68. l
48.9
46.9
38.5
5L9
37.6
5 L8
54.6
56.9
j 48.6
48.3
B62
28
67.9
j52.6
57.6
54
573
44.6
52.6
63.5
60.1
55.7
50
1l52:7
51.5j56.SI64'.8
61A152:8
54.5
3
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
29
City of Minneapolis
City Council
Barret W.S. Lane
Council Member, Thirteenth Ward
350 South 5th Street - Room 307
Minneapolis MN 55415-1363
Office (612) 673-2213
Fax 673-3940
TTY 673-2157
MEETING NOTICE
MASAC Municipal Caucus
March 27, 2001
7 9PM
Minneapolis City Hall
350 South Fifth Street
Room 220
Enter the building on the 4`h Street side; other entrances
are closed after 5 PM. A map is enclosed for your
convenience. The closest parking ramps are the Haaf
Ramp and the Gateway Ramp. There is limited street
parking.
For more information, please call Council Member
Barret Lane at 612.673 2213,
�r,wi ci.minnaapolls.mn.cs
A.Rima;ive Action En:p!og=
MASAC Municipal Caucus
Attendance Roster
February 27, 2001
Neil Clark
5917 Grass Lake Terrace
Minneapolis, MN 55419
612,869,5614 (B)
612,869.0891 (R)
n.clark2mieee.org
Jan Del Calzo
4844 Aldrich Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55409
612.827,4240
delcalzoai(c�aol com
Pam Dmytrenko
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2598
612,861,9708
PDmytrenko0mci richfield mn us
Will Eginton
10 High Road
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
651,552.1010 (R)
cweginton(@,yahoo com
John Enger
7328 Bloomington Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
612.861,4630
Ted Gladhill
1153 Blue Heron Court
Eagan, MN 55123
651.683.0309 (B)
ted.gladhill@,ncr.com
John Hatla
1872 Wellesley Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
612.348,9689 (B)
651,699,0955 (R)
ianisenhalla@,vahoo.com
Leo Kurtz
4916 11 `h Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55417
612.824.7530
lckurtz(c),us; et.com
Barret Lane
350 South 5`h Street
Room 307
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612,673.2213
bswlane(@mr.net
Larry Lee
2215 W Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
952.563,8947 (B)
lleeRmci.bloomington.mmus
Petrona Lee
2215 W Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
952.948,8970
glee .ci.bloomineton.mn us
Carine Lindberg
1101 Victor a Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651,452,1850
CarineLindberg a hotmail.com
Dean Lindberg
5335 39`h Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN 55417
612,721,4993
ndean(@earthlinkr.net
C.E. Mertensotto
2371 Rogers Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
651:222.5589 (B)
651.454.3394 (R)
rowlando,,teintemet. com
City of Minneapolis
City council
Barret W.S, lane
Council Member, Thirteenth Ward
350 South Sih Street - floom 307
Minneapolis MN 55415-1383
Office (612) 673-2213
Fax 673-3940
TTY 673-2157
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MASAC Municipal Caucus Members
FROM: Barret W.S. LanI�
RE: Proposed resolution re Part 150 Sound Insulation
Package
DATE: March 30, 2001
At the February Caucus meeting, we discussed preparing a
brief resolution for Caucus municipalities in support of the
current Part 150 program. The idea was to have as many
municipalities as possible express their support to the MAC
P&E committee before it made its recommendations on Part
150 to the Commission.
I presented a draft resolution at the March Caucus meeting
this week. In light of MAC staffs apparent preference for an
"air-conditioning only" sound package in the 60-64 DNL
contour. the consensus was to narrow the language
somewhat. I enclose a copy of the draft resolution for your
consideration as it was modified at the Caucus meeting.
The P&E committee is holding two additional meetings for
public comment on the sound insulation program: April 3,
2001 at 1 p.m. at the regular committee meeting, MAC offices,
Lindbergh Terminal; and on April 11, 2001 at 7 p.m. at the
Thunderbird Motel, 2201 E 78th Street in Bloomington.
It was the sense of the Caucus that those municipalities which
wish to express their opinion on this issue, whether by means
of the proposed resolution or otherwise, should do so no later
than April 11, 2001. We recommend that if your city council .-
cannot act on the resolution before then, you send a letter to the
MAC with substantially the same language as the resolution
signed by the elected officials who would support the
resolution.
The City of Minneapolis' Transportation and Public Works
Committee adopted this resolution yesterday and I anticipate
that it will be adopted by the full City Council at our April 6,
2001 meeting.
Thank you for your
continued
participation and
support. If you
have any questions
about the
resolution, please
call me.
-- BWSL
www.ci.m inneapolis.mn. us
Attirmalive Acllon employer
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Citv Council March 23. 2001
FROM: Can Lindberg, City Administrator
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION No Ol- _ APPOINTING MENDOTA HEIGHTS
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE RECONVENED JOINT ivlPv NEAPOLIS
ST, PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ZONING BOARD
DISCUSSION:
In 1979, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota
Heights, Mendota, Minneapolis; Richfield and St. Paul created the Wold-Chamberlain Field
Joint Airport Zoning Board. The creation of the Board was mandated by Minnesota Statutes
360.063, subd 3(e), which requires the Metropolitan Airports Commission to establish a joint
zoning board for each airport under its authority.
The Board met from mid 1952 until early 1934, when it adopted the iVlinneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance established:
(1) height restrictions proximate to the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport as required by
Federal and State law to protect aircraft operations; (2) land use safety zonim; for the Runway
Protection Zones for the then existing runways as required by Federal and State law, (3) land use
safety zoning for other zones related to the then existing runways as required by State law; and
(4) administration and enforcement mechanisms to implement the height and land use controls.
A neiv ntnwae (Runwav 17-3�) is now tinder construction at the Airport. Height and lard use
controls need to be enacted for Runway 17-3j which are consistent with the Ordinance's
provisions. Additional amendments may be necessary to reflect changes at the Airport over the
period since the Board adopted the Ordinance in 1954. The kletropolitan Airports Commission
s now requesting that the City of i lendota Heights appoint two representatives to the
reconvened Board.
�Iavor N[ertensotto has requested that the City Council appoint Council \Members Mike Dwtier
and Sandra hrebsbach to the Reconvened Board.
IhECONINIENDATION:
[t is the recommendation of the iV'Ia}°or that [he CinCouncil appoint Council (embers Sandra
krebsbaeh and \titre Dwyer to the Reconvened Joint�Iinneapolis-St. Paul ]ntzrnational =Airport
Zoning Board.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, iNlinnesota
RESOLUTION NO. Ol-
RESOLUTION APPONTING NIENDOTA HEIGHTS REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
RECONVENED JOINT MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT ZONING BOARD
WHEREAS, in 1979, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the cities of Bloomington,
Eagan, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Richfield and St. Paul created the Wold-Chamberlain Field
Joint Airport Zoning Board as mandated by Minnesota Statutes 360.063, subd 3 (e); and
WHEREAS. the Board met from mid 1982 until early 1984, when it adopted the Minneapolis
St. Paul International Airport Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a new runway is now under construction and there are issues that need to be
addressed since the Board last met in 1984; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is requesting that the City of Mendota
Heights appoint two members to the reconvened Board; and
WHEREAS, it is the request of Mayor Charles Mertensotto that the City of Mendota Heights
appoint City Council Members Sandra Krebsbach and Mike Dwyer to the reconvened Joint
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Zoning Board.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that Council Members Sandra Krebsbach and Mike Dwyer are
hereby appointed to the reconvened Joint Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Zoning
Board.
Adopted this 3rd day of April, 2001.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mike Dwtier
Acting Manor
ATTEST:
Kathleen N1. S«anson
City Clerk
Mar 08 01 02:10p Charles E. Mertensotto (612) 222-4755 p-1
MAC studies new choices forjet-noise insulation program Page 1 of 2
11 0 e Nawm
MLIT04WIPH
MAC studies new choices for jet -noise
_ , insulation program
>f�irhe.cve IT
Dan Wascoe Jr. / Star Tribune
Metro
Six options for muffling jet noise in thousands of additional houses
near Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport received their first
airing Tuesday before a panel of the Metropolitan Airports
B� Jet noise insulation Commission (MAC),
s o P --
(ion
They range from the current package of air conditioning, insulation,
new windows and doors, and roof -vent baffles to one with just air
conditioning. Another would have interested property owners pay
some costs.
Most of the choices carzy enormous cost and political implications
Ueyond the MAC current program, which in eight years has
insulated 6,200 houses for $164.1 million and is7not complete.
The options described by the MAC's staff Tuesday would cover an
additional 10,040 single-family houses, mostly in Minneapolis but
also in cities such as Richfield. Bloomington and Eagan.
The additional houses are in an area expected to receive jet -noise
exposure averaging 60 to 64 decibels after a new north -south
runway opens in late 2001. The current program applies to houses
exposed to an average of 65 or more decibels. Exposure is
calculated under a complicated formula required by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA).
Insulating to the 60-decibel level was part of the 1996 decision by
the Legislature and Gov. Arne Carlson to expand the airport rather
than build a new one elsewhere- The cost of the six options ranges
from $135.5 million for central air conditioning only to S451.8
million for the full package.
MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiei endorsed the air-
conditioning -only option because simply closing windows can
reduce interior noise to what he called an acceptable average level
of 45 decibels.
Another option would require property owners in the 60-to 64-
decibel area to pay between 14 percent and 70 percent of the cost,
or about $6,300 to $;I,500, depending on noise exposure.
Participation would be voluntary.
http:/'tvww.startri.../article?thisSlttg=MAC07&date. 07-Mar-2001&word=airport&word=airport 3/S/O1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
UNOFFICIAL MEETING NOTES
MARCH 7, 2001
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was
scheduled on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall,
1101 Victoria Curve. No official meeting was held due to the lack of a quorum. The
unofficial meeting began at 7:00 p.m.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty and Commissioners Liz
Petschel and Ellsworth Stein. Commissioners Joe Leuman, John Roszak, Gregg Fitzer
and Vern Edstrom were excused from the meeting. Staff present was Administrative
Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the notes.
I��I7� •►[�] 6�D19117 �[�7
The Commissioners reviewed the drafr video script provided by Mr. Hollister and
recommended revisions. The Commissioners asked Mr. Hollister to fax the materials
created by Consultant Dave Sebastian to Lisa Bartells-Rabb. The Commissioners also
asked Mr. Hollister to inquire with the MAC about whether any out -takes were available
from the production of the MAC Part 150 video. The Commission also viewed the MAC
Part 150 video again and Mr. Hollister took notes on which scenes the Commissioners
thought were the most useful.
The unofficial meeting ended at about 8:00 pm.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS C(
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Communications Plan
B. Runway Contract
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Board Appointments
VI. STAFF REPORT
VII. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA
A. MAC Part 150 Mitigation Public Hcar ing/Thonderbird Hotel —Wednesday,
April 11
B. Runway 17-35 RMT Task Force Meeting — Thursday, April 12 at 9:00 a.m.
Co ARC Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 8
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids forpersons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice
of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 3
ANCA
AIRLINES, AIRPORTS, COMMUNITIES DEBATE
SUCCESS OF ANCA AT NOISE SYMPOSIUM
Has the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 been a success? That question,
crucial to how noise mitigation should be addressed in the future, was debated by
representatives of the airline industry, airports, and com n u n ities at the 16�'
annual Airport Noise Symposium, held in San Diego Feb. 15-28 and sponsored by
the University of California at Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies'
Technology Transfer Program.
ANCA was landmark legislation born out of the airlines' frustration with the
proliferation of airport noise restrictions and airports' need for a funding stream
for development projects. It has effectively blocked the imposition of new airport
noise restrictions in the United States.
John Meenan, senior vice president, Industry Policy, for the Air Transport
Association, rated ANCA a success because it raised the level and quality of
debate over aircraft noise and met the three goals that Coneress set in the legisla-
tion: (1) to quiet airports by removing Stage aircraft from the fleet; (1) to impose
a legal structure (the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161 cost/benefit
study process) to "rationalize and systematize" the process of imposing new noise
(Cwrrinued on p. 31)
Noise tYletrics
NOISE METRICS CHANGING TO REFLECT
SINGLE EVENTS, NUMBERS OF OPERATIONS
-The whole nature of the aircraft noise game is changing because we now have
higher numbers of quieter aircraft," David Southgate, director, Airports, Sydney
Environment Department of Transport and Regional Services, asserted Feb. 28 at
a public forum in San Diego on the value of supplemental noise metrics in aircraft
noise analysis.
Metrics are moving toward numbers of events, Southgate told the forum, which
was sponsored by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN)
and held in conjt:nCtion with the i6o Annual Airport Noise Symposium spon-
sored by the University of California at Berkeley.
FICAN has turned its focus to supplemental noise metrics in response to [he
strong public criticism of averaged noise level metrics, such as the Federal
Aviation Administration's Day -Night Average Noise Level (DNL), which are well
suited for land use planning exercises but do not rNlect theway people experi-
ence aircraft noise events and are not sensitive to large increases of relatively
quieter Stage 3 aircraft operations.
In recent years. the FAA has recognized the value of using suoolemeutal noise
metrics in environmental impact studies to provide a fuller picture of aircraft
noise impact but has done little to encourage their use.
:Australia. however. w;ts pushed to the forefront in developing supplemental
( Con + ill uerl on P. _ 37
iVlarch 9, 2001
In This Issue...
Conferences ...The ques-
tion of whether the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 has been a success is
debated by airlines, airports,
and communities at the 16th
annual Airport Noise Sympo-
sium, held Feb. 25-28 in San
Diego.
it
The Air Transport Associa-
tion points to the significant
reduction in the number of
people in the 65 dB DNL
noise contours around airports
as evidence that the act has
been successful. But airports
and communities counter that
reducing the population in the
65 dB DNL contour has not
solved the noise problem.
Getting rid of hushkitted
a rcraft, they say, would allow
progress to be made on airport
capacity expansion - p. 30
Noise iYletrics ... The change
to higher numbers of quieter
a rcraft movements is leading to
the development of new noise
metrics that consider numbers of
operations, participants at a
public forum on the value of
supplemental noise metrics in
aircraft noise analysis, spon-
sored by the Federal Inter-
agency Committee on Aviation
Noise (FICAN), are told - p. 30
March 9. 2001
32
ANCA short of achieving all of its key goals."
`Where we have not been effective — and where I would
raise the challenge for this and future conferences is — you
tell industry what needs to be done to resolve our infrastruc-
ture shortfall in solid. businesslike terms, what real commit-
ments as to what will be required by all parties to the
debate. We need certainty, clear expectations, and a
commitment to stay the course once a decision is made."
Problem Not Solved
Nol surprisingly, Richard Marchi, senior vice president for
Technical and Environmental Affairs for the Airports
Council International — North America (ACA-NA), did not
agree with wleenan's evaluation of ANCA.
"Reducing the population in the 65 dB DNL contour is
not solving the problem," he asserted. The noise issue
remains unresolved at the 20 U.S. airports that are the heart
oI the delay problem and where 90 percent of delays occur.
Marchi said he disagrees with bleenan's view that the
noise problem is unsolvable, that it is purely a NIMBY
issue, and that there is no way to satisfy people in terms of
noise reduction. Hushkitted aircraft are the problem, Marchi
said, because they can still cause single event noise levels
of 30 dB 10-12 miles from the takeoff roll, far outside the
65 dB DNL contour. "Citizens feel that impact."
"Single events are a problem; if we address them, it will
go a long way to lightening the load," he said.
The expectation of airports in 1990 was that hushkits
would be used but that increasing fuel costs would force the
retirement of 727s, 737s, and DC9s. "That has not hap-
pened." Nf archi explained. Airports promised communities
relief but the reality is that fuel prices did not increase and
there are still 1,000 to 1,100 relatively noisy hushkitted
aircraft in the fleet that are hampering the ability to expand
airport capacity.
"We can't make progress on capacity unless we remove
the noisy aircraft." the ,ACI-NA official asserted. He also
predicted that the failure of the International Civil Aviation
Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection (CAEP) to address the issue of requiring the
phase out of marginally compliant Stage 3 aircraft, includ-
ing hushkitted aircraft, could spur more local airport noise
restrictions.
The Federal Aviation .Administration, the airlines, and the
airline manufacturing industry all hailed the recent CAEP
meeting a success contending the committee achieved I I of
the 12 goals it set and agreed on a new Stage 4 noise
standard that is cumulatively 10 dB below the Stage 3
tandard.
But Marchi said that most of the CAEP goals were "pretty
minisicrial" and that there were only two big issues: the
retirement of Stage 3 aircraft and the new Stage 4 standard.
CAEP was not successful in terms of those two issues, he
said, adding that the Europeans will push further to restrict
Sete, 3 aircraft. AC1-N A had sought a new Stage 4 standard
of 14 dB cumulatively below the Stage 3 standard.
Regarding FAA's Part 161 cost/benefit analysis process.
�l archi said it is the airports' sense that it was never
intended that any new noise restriction would ever get
through the process.
Goals Neutralized
"What has ANCA done for communi ti es'." asked Arlene
ibf ulder. mayor of Arlington Heights, IL. and chair of the
O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. "Little, if
anything," she said, explaining that operational increases
have "neutralized" the goals of ANCA and that the long
phase out period for Stage 2 aircraft resulted in residents not
noticing the drop in noise.
Mulder contended that ANCA was ineffective because of
the "hushkit loophole." "AII we did was put mufflers on
Stage 2 aircraft," she said.
Her goal, Mulder said, is to put the issue of the quality of
life of residents near airports on the radar screen. FAA
always ties together the goals of safety and efficiency of the
air transport system and then considers quality of life below
them, she said. Efficiency should be separated from safety
and considered on a par with quality of life, she said.
ANCA Fostered Hushkits
Steven Pflaum, of the Chicago law Eirm McDermott, Will
& Emery, said that ANCA is the reason that so many
hushiited aircraft are flying. "We would not have
hushkitted aircraft but for ANCA," he told the conference.
The billions of dollars that have been spent on residential
sound insulation programs also is partly because of ANCA's
ban on new local noise restrictions, he said. "Airports had
to do something and couldn't restrict and communities
re used to be ignored." He said there is a need to consider
whether the billions put into sound insulation programs has
been money well spent or has been "a boondoggle."
We care about noise because it annoys people. We need
to know the extent to which soundproofing reduces the
percentage of people highly annoyed ... The scandal is that
we have spent billions on [sound insulation) programs and
don't know if they have worked."
Ultimately, Pflaum said, Congress will have to decide
whether it wants to go beyond the CAEP recommendation
anti require that all airplanes eventually meet the Stage 4
standard. Echoing Marchi's assertion, the attorney, who
serves as counsel to the O'Hare Noise Compatibility
Commission, said that additional airport capacity will only
be achieved if noise impacts are reduced.
Pflaum said that Congress should require that the Stage 4
standard apply to all manufactured aircraft by 2003. A
phase out of hushkitted aircraft also should be considered
by Congress and the economic consequences assessed, he
said, adding that such action could ha•: e in "anti-conape[i-
tive" effect on the weaker carriers.
Copies of many of the presentations made at the svntpo-
n mill be available at w w w its_„rleie v.adu/techiranslCr
after\1 arch 19.
Airport Neae Repot
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 9
FAA Forecast
FAA ANNUAL FLEET FORECAST PREDICTS
OVER ONE BILLION PASSENGERS BY 2010
Annual U.S. airline passenger levels will soar [o more than one billion by 2010,
with strong growth in regional commuter airline service, the Federal Aviation
Administration predicted in its annual Aerospace Forecast for fiscal years 2001-
2012, which was re -eased M arch 13 at the agency's 2n' Annual Commercial
Aviation Forecast Conference, held in Washington, DC.
"Commercial aviation will continue its tremendous growth rate over the next
decade, further underscoring our nation's reliance on this vital form of transports
Lion, " Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta told conference partici-
pants. "Of course, guaranteeing the safety of the traveling public is and always
will be our number one responsibility. However, working together to close the
gap between demand and the capacity of our transportation infrastructure is a
central challenge for us in the aviation community."
According to FAA predictions, the total number of domestic passengers on U.S.
air carriers is expected to grow by 3.6 peryear, increasing from 604.1 million in
2000 to 927.4 million in 2012. In addition, U.S. air carrier international
enplanements are projected to grow by 5.9 percent per year, increasing from 54.6
(Continued on p. 35)
Naples
FAA AGREES WITH REMEDY PROPOSED
TO FIX PART 161 STUDY DEFICIENCIES
The Federal Aviation Administration has opened the door to dropping its
criticism of the Part I61 cost/benefit study done by Naples Airport to support its
the first -ever ban on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb. but has once again warned
the airport that it Must pay more attention to the question of whether the restric-
tion violates federal grant agreements.
The FAA agrees that the scope of work prepared by the airport for a supplemen
tal analysis to the Part 161 study "provides a sound basis on which to proceed to
amedy the Part 161 deficiencies," Paul L. Galls, FAA's deputy associate adminic
trator for airports, told Theodore D. Soliday, executive director of the City of
Naples Airport .Authority, in a March 14 letter.
But Galis emphasized that remedying the Part 161study deficiencies "will only
partially resolve" issues of federal law that apply to Naples Stage 2 ban. "The
more difficult substantive issues of Federal law, namely the outstanding grant
compliance issues" outlined in a Feb. 16letter to the airport (13, ANR, 25) must
still be resolved, he said. "I strongly encourage you to give grant compliance
issues the level of attention and resolution that you have given Part 161 issues
before investing more time and money in a Par[ 161 supplemental analysis," the
(Continued
March 16,?001
In This Issue...
Forecast ...By 2010, more
than one billion passengers
will fly annually in the United
States, FAA predicts in its
yearly forecast - p. 34
Naples ...FAA agrees to
scope of work in supplemental
Part 161 study analysis opening
the door to its approval of the
cost/benefit study but warns
airport to pay attention to grant
agreement requirements - p. 34
Sarasota ...FAA approves
controversial change in depar-
ture path procedure that will
steer aircraft over Longboat
Key resort area - p. 35
Cincinnati ...New runway
needed to reduce delay will not
have significant noise impact
but will require buyouts of 250
properties, FAA concludes in
Draft EIS - p. 36
Port Authority of NY/NJ ...
A record $30 million to provide
sound insulation at 33 schools
in New York and New Jersey
s approved by the Port Author-
ty Board - p. 36
Capacity ... The airlines will
consider rerouting aircraft to
less congested airports, an ATA
official tells a House panel ...
I he Senate Commerce Comm -
tee approves legislation to
enhance competition -_p- 37
March 16.2001
36
3. To consider costs and benefits and feasibility of
non-restrictive alternatives, such as land acquisition of
residents in the 60 contour, relocating residents to other
locations, locally complicating factors that might increase
acquisition costs, sound insulation costs, and voluntary
compliance with fly quiet operating procedures.
She told ANR that said though the FAA was trying to
define the conditions at Naples so specifically that it would
be difficult for other airports contemplating similar Stage 2
restrictions to duplicate them in their Part 161 studies,
making it more difficult for them to pass FAA muster.
The airport board also directed airport staff and legal
counsel to work with the FAA to address the agency's
concerns about compliance with grant agreements.
Aviation industry observers note that FAA officials are
arguing internally over how to proceed in reviewing the
Naples' Part 161 study. The main issue, they say, is that the
airport is seeking to mitigate noise to the 60 dB DNL noise
contour, which is beyond the federal land use guideline of
65 dB DNL for compatible residential land use near
airports.
Peter Kirsch, Naples' counsel on the Part 161 study, said
that FAA needs to recognize that Naples is not the only
airport where the 60 dB DNL contour will be an issue. Most
of the airports considering Part 161 studies are general
aviation facilities where noise in the 60 dB DNL contour is
a significant issue, he told ANR.
Additional Part 161 Guidance
Galis noted in his letter that, at a Feb. 20'" meeting with
Naples Airport officials and counsel, the FAA had agreed to
provide additional guidance concerning two Part 161
matters: (I) the process for providing public notice of the
supplemental analysis and (2) the format for the supplemen-
tal analysis.
The FAA said that a formal six-month public comment
period will be required for the supplemental Part 161
analysis. But Galis said the FAA does not believe that it is
necessary for the airport to provide direct notice to every
party that commented on the Part 161 study that it is
preparing a supplemental analysis nor does the airport have
to advertise the supplemental analysis in every venue
previously used,
Regarding the format for the supplemental Part 161
analyyis, Calls said that it need not be combined with the
airport's original Part 161 cost/benefit analysis in a single
document.
"Whatever format is used should facilitate a comparative
review of the costs and benefits of the Stage 2 ban and all
the alternatives. In this regard, we suggest that in addition
to the detailed anal; sis of non-restrictive alternatives. (he
supplemental document also include a comparative
summary of all the alternatives, incorporating and referenc-
ing material from the original Part 161 study where appro-
priate. The original and supplemental documents together
would comprise the full cost -benefit analysis required by
Part 161."
Cincinnati Int'1
FAA ISSUES DRAFT EIS
ON NEW 8,000 FOOT RUNWAY
A new 8.000-(act north runway at Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport needed to reduce
flight delays will not have a significant noise impact in
tight of residential sound insulation and buyouts, the
Federal Aviation Administration concluded in a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued March I.
About 250 properties in the 65 dB DNL noise contour of
the new runway would have to be bought out to clear a path
for the construction of the runway, Barbara Schempf,
manager of noise and government affairs for the airport,
explained. In addition, she said, approximately 20 homes in
the 60 dB noise contour meet the federal criteria for
significant noise impact because they would be subject to a
greater than 3 dB DNL noise increase. The airport will offer
buyouts to these homeowners also, she said.
The new fourth runway, which will give the airport three
parallel runways, is expected to cost S250 million and to be
operational in 2005, if finally approved.
The airport began discussing the need for the new runway
in 1991 and it took 32 months for the DEIS to be released.
A final FAA Record of Decision approving the new runway
is expect in November.
Public workshops on the DEIS are set for April 3 and 4.
The FAA noted in the DEIS that several studies have
shown that the existing airport runway system is operating
beyond its capacity and that additional runway capacity is
needed in the near term. Operations at the airport are
forecast to increase from 44),276 in 1999 to 598,235 in
2005 and 675,980 in 2011.
Port AutTzority of Nf%tVJ
RECORD $30 MILLION APPROVED
FOR SCHOOL SOUNDPROOFING
A record S30 million to provide quieter classrooms in 33
schools in New York and New Terse}' has been authorized
by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's Board
of Commissions.
Funding was approved for 2 t New York schools near JFK
International, and 12 New Jersey schools near Newark and
Teterboro airports. It is the largest number of schools to be
authorized for school soundproofing funds in a single year.
the Port Authority said.
Recent research showing that exposure to aircraft noise
can affect children's ability to learn may have helped spur
the funding increase.
Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg said. "This
expenditure continues the commitment xt-e began in 1983
ro make sure students have a quiet ltaruin l cu%'ironmenl.
During this time. the Board has committed a total of S150
Airport INoi,c Repon
�3-
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13,Numher 10 March 23, 2001
Capacity
AIRPORTS PROPOSE WAY TO STREAMLINE
REVIEW OF RUNWAYS AT BUSIEST AIRPORTS
Seeking to streamline the environmental review process for new runway projects
at the most congested U.S. airports, the airport trade groups have developed a
legislative proposal that would bar consideration of off -airport alternatives to
capacity -enhancing projects, such as construction of new airports or high-speed
rail, but would encourage mitigation of the environmental impacts of new
runways, including limits on their use and the diversion of funding to communi-
ies.
The Expedited Airport System Enhancement (EASE) Initiative was developed
by the Airports Council International - North America (ACI-NA) and the Ameri-
can Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) with assistance from environmen-
tal, airport planning and development professionals, key Federal Aviation
Administration staff. ACI-NA environmental and governmental affairs steering
groups, and environmental and aviation law experts.
The initiative recognizes the new runways at the most congested airports will
most likely have to be restricted in some manner and extensive environmental
mitigation provided in order to gain community acceptance of them.
(Continued on
p. 39)
Capacity
DEVIL WILL BE IN THE DETAILS
IF AIRPORTS' INITIATIVE PUT INTO LAW
Attorneys who have represented communities challenging airport expansion
projects reacted generally Favorably to the airport trade groups' legislative
proposal to streamline environmental review of capacity -enhancing projects at
the nation's most congested airports but warned that the devil will be in the
details if the initiative is embodied into law.
The National Organization to Insure a Sound -controlled Environment (NOISE),
whose members include many smaller cities located near major airports, was wary
of the proposal. however.
"This proposal raises very serious concerns by empowering a'czar' to limit, and
in some cases eliminate, airport environmental review in some of the most
densely populated areas of the country," said Dennis McGrann, executive director
oI NOISE. "Obviously new runway will have to be constructed in some areas to
increase capacity. But the neighbors of those airports have a right to know
whether their homes will be habitable once that runway goes in without begging
a `czar' to grant them a last wish."
Steven Pflaum of the Chicago law firm McDermott, will C Emery, called the
EASE initiative "bold and balanced." He told ANR that what he finds most
impressive about the proposal "is that it mould streamline the project review
(Continued
on p. -FDI
In This Is3 tte...
Capacity ...Airport trade ',
groups release a legislative
proposal aimed at speeding up
construction of new runways
and other capacity enhancing
projects at the most congested
airports in the country.
It would bar consideration
of off -airport alternatives to
new runways at these airports
but would encourage airports
to enter into agreements with
local governments to mitigate
impacts, would allow diver-
sion of funding to communites
for mitigation projects, would
direct FAA to make binding
commitments on runway and
airspace use, and would allow
restrictions to be imposed
without going through the
Part 161 process - p. 38
Capacity ... Reaction to the
airport trade groups' proposal by
attorneys who have represented
communities in airport expan-
sion battles is favorable. They
calI it bold, balanced, and
creative.
But the National Organization
[o Insure a Sound -Controlled
Environment fetus investing a
capacity'czar' with the power to
it or eliminate environmental
reviews of runways projects in
densely -populated areas - p. 38
n;r�,-Ph')1 ?001
40
of the restriction. The airports also noted that FAA has
been unwilling to approve any actions under Part 161.
Major Components
The other major components of the EASE initiative are:
Priority Processing of Projects — The initiative
would require by law or executive order that the FAA and
other agencies conduct environmental reviews of Critical
National Capacity Projects on a "highest priority" basis.
Much of the delay in environmental processing occurs at
agencies other than the FAA, the airports explained in their
proposal. The initiative would compel the agencies to
provide adequate staffing and funding to insure coin pliance
with existing deadlines established by the Council on
Environmental Quality;
Capacity Council or Czar — The initiative also
calls for the creation of a council or "czar" appointed by
and reporting directly to the President "to coordinate
review of federal agency actions as they affect capacity
enhancement and environmental review." The council/czar
could examine any aspect of the aviation system that
impedes the volume of air traffic and could be granted the
authority to exempt projects from environmental and other
regulations that are seen as "unnecessarily hindering
capacity enhancement." The trade groups want the council/
czar to have real power, recommending that it "not be
simply another level of review";
Airport Funding of Reviews — The initiative seeks
by law, executive order, or FAA action, to "allow airports to
provide funds to FAA to hire additional, project -specific
staff to supervise and implement reviews of Critical
National Airport Capacity Projects. The additional staff
would work exclusively under FAA's supervision and
would have no obligation to the airport." This proposal "is
solely a funding mechanism to allow the airports (and
through them, the airports' users) to pay the cost of acceler-
ating project reviews," the airports explained;
Expansion of Categorical Exclusions — The
initiative seeks by law, executive order, or FAA action to
"direct FAA to institute national procedures for excluding
specific airport project actions from National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (NEPA) review- "Many, if not most major
airport projects. receive approval for categorically excluded
elements of the project." the proposal notes. "While
extraordinary circumstances and controversy can and do
prevent a specific project category from being universally
excluded. apron expansions, taxiway expansions, and other
capacity enhancing project elements are customarily
approved. Legislative expansion would formalize consis-
tent application of \EPA that allows specific categories of a
project to be escluded from review based on historical
impact findings'.
Require Reaiistic Air Quality Plans — The initia-
tive would require State (air quality)Implementation Plan
,SIP) inventories to be revised within ISO days of enact-
ment of legislation to base air quality' emissions inventories
at airports having Critical National Airport Capacity
Projects upon FAA's Terminal Area Forecast for that airport
or an alternative forecast approved by the FAA:
Eliminate Requirement for Governor's Certificate
The initiative would "eliminate, in its entirety. the
requirement that each state certify that federally funded
airport projects comply with applicable air and water
quality standards."
Facility of Agreements with Local Governments —
The initiative seeks legislation which "would allow
directed interpretations of policies on revenue diversion
and use of passenger facility charges, noise and access
astrictions for Critical National Airport Capacity Projects
to improve mitigation ofenvironmental impacts."
Capacity, from p. 38
process without gutting [he environmental laws, while also
providing important environmental and even economic
mitigation to communities impacted by airport noise."
The real genius of EASE," he said, "are the proposals ( I )
to facilitate enforceable limits on the operation of new,
runways, and (2) to permit airport revenue to be used to
reach mitigation agreements with neighboring communi-
ties. These proposals wisely recognize and remedy an
unfortunate aspect of the legacy of the Airport Noise and
Capacity Aet's restriction on airports' ability to impose
noise restrictions. ANCA took some of the pressure off
airports to address existing noise problems because airports
are largely powerless to control those problems. But
ANCA's legal straightjacket has made it difficult for
airports to convince communities not to oppose expansion
projects because airports can offer little in the way of
meaningful or assured mitigation. EASE has the potential to
change that."
Of course. he added, .'the devil is always in the details. It
will be important to see how the majestic generalities of
EASE get reduced into statutory language."
When citizens are unhappy about airport noise, they
usually direct their anger at the local airport rather than of
airlines or the FAA," Pllaum said. But as EASE indicates,
and as we have seen in the [process of developing more
stringent International Civil Aviation Organization airplane
noise standardsj. airports are probably the loudest voice in
[he aviation community when it comes to supporting
measures to reduce noise impacts."
`Give a Little to the Community'
Barbara Lichman of the Newport beach. CA. firm Cheva-
lier,Allen &Lichman, expressed some concern that the
proposal targets only large congested airports and will cater
to special interests in that regard but she strongly supported
the idea of imposing restrictions on the use of new runways.
The best thine for the airlines is to give a little to the
community- she told ANR, contcnding that the airlines
Airport \oi%l F; ec,�rt
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 11 March 30, 2001
Legislation
HUTCHISON BILL WOULD REQUIRE DOT
TO STREAMLINE REVIEW OF NEW RUNWAYS
Legislation intended [o reduce or eliminate the red tape that airports must cut
through to build new runways or other facilities to expand capacity was consid-
ered by the Senate Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee on March 29.
The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S 633) was introduced March 27 by Sens.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the new subcommittee chair, and Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D-W V), the subcommittee's ranking minority member.
"Unfortunately, the process for making capital improvements to existing
airports is painfully slow and easily thwarted by well -organized groups who delay
a new runway until it becomes impossibly expensive and too much trouble to
build," Hutchinson said in opening the hearing.
Her bill would instruct the Secretary of Transportation to develop a procedure
[o ensure that the approval process for new runways and other airport facilities is
streamlined and that federal, state, regional, and local reviews would take place
simultaneously, not one after the other.
"In no way would this mean that environmental laws would be ignored or
broken," Hutchison said. "The bill does not limit the grounds on which a lawsuit
may be filed. It simply provides the community with a reasonable time line to get
an answer. If that answer is 'no', then the region is free to explore other transporta-
tion options."
The bill would grant the airlines a limited antitrust exemption so that they could
consult with each other, subject to the Secretary of Transportation's approval, to
reschedule flights from the most congested hours to off-peak times.
Peak Hour Pricing
Hutchison's legislation also would direct the Secretary of Transportation to
study the busiest airports and [o make recommendations to reduce congestion and
over scheduling, "Any such program would have to be imposed with a sensitivity
toward small communities and the maintenance of their aviation links to the rest
of the country," the Subcommittee Chair said.
Sen. Olympia J. Snow (R-Maine) noted that Hutchinson had removed a
reference in her bill to the controversial option of peak -hour pricing to reduce
congestion and delay. Snow strongly opposed such action as the solution to the
congestion problem, noting that it would degrade air service to rural communi-
ties.
Representatives of the Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Associa-
tion, and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, also said they opposed
peak hour pricing.
"Our concern with congestion or peak hour pricing is that these regimes focus
on demand management rather than capacity management," explained Edward A.
Merlis, the Air Transport Association's senior vice president for legislative and
(Continued on p. 43)
In This Issue...
Legislation ...The Senate
Aviation Subcommittee
considers legislation intro-
duced by Sen. Kay Bailey
Hutchison (R-TX), the new
subcommittee chairwoman,
which would instruct the
Secretary of Transportation to
develop a procedure to ensure
that the approval process for
new runways at congested
airports is streamlined - p. 42
Legislation ... Two noise -
related bills are reintroduced in
the House. They would bar
Stage 2 business jets at airports
in the 20 most -populated metro-
politan areas of the country and
would reestablish the EPA's
Office of Noise Abatement and
Control - p. 44
News Briefs ... FAA review-
ing Part 150 airport noise
compatibility programs for
Phoenix Sky Harbor Interna-
tional, Williams Gateway
airports ... FAA seeking partici-
pants to serve on newly -formed
National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group ... Public
comment sought on Juneau
application to impose PFC ...
FAA will hold airspace work-
shop on proposed revisions of
airspace near Anchorage Inter-
national Airport - p. 44
March 30,2001
44
more runway capacity with the goal of accommodating dual
i ndependent jet operations and to improved a constrained
taxiway system;
San Francisco — Airport planners are in the early
stages of a project to add new runways in San Francisco
Bay;
Seattle -Tacoma — A new third runway is in the
final environmental approval process and is expected to be
in service by 2006;
• St. Louis Lambert— A new runway just received its
final environmental approvals and when completed in 2006
is expected to increase hourly operations by 43-51 percent;
Washington Dulles — Two new runways are in the
design phase and are targeted for completion by January
2006 and December 2011. They are expected to reduce
delay by 50 percent;
Former military bases — ATA said that the FAA
must take a leadership role in the cause of expanding
commercial aviation infrastructure through the military
base conversion process.
Legislation
BILLS WOULD REVIVE ONAC,
BAR STAGE 2 BUSINESS JETS
Two bills that have languished in committee in the past
have been reintroduced recently in this session of Congress.
One would refund the Environmental Protection Agency's
dormant Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC)
and the other would bar the operation of Stage 2 jets under
75,000 lb. from operation at any of the 20 most -populated
metropolitan areas in the United States.
On March 20, Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY), along with 16
co-sponsors, introduced the Quiet Communities Act of
2001 (HR I I 16),which would reestablish the EPA's noise
office at a funding level of $21 million for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006.
It would require the EPA to conduct a study of airport
noise to examine "the selection of noise measurement
methodologies by the Federal Aviation Administration, the
threshold of noise at which health impacts are felt, and the
effectiveness of noise abatement programs at airports
around the nation."
The bill would authorize the EPA administrator to enter
into contracts or other agreements with independent
scientists with expertise in noise measurement, noise
effects, and noise abatement techniques to conduct the
study, which would have to be submitted to Congress
within two years after the date of enactment of the legisla-
tion. The report also would have to include specific
recommendations on new measures that could be taken to
mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding
communities.
The legislation notes that "as population growth and air
and vehicular traffic continue to increase, noise pollution is
likely to become an even greater problem in the future. The
health and welfare of our citizens demands that the [EPA],
the lead federal agency for the protection of public health
and welfare, once again assume a role in combating noise
pollution."
On Jan. 30, Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ) quietly reintro-
duced the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act of 2001 (HR 299),
which simply states that "no person may operate after the
date of enactment of this subsection any civil subsonic
turbojet that fails to comply with Stage 3 noise levels to or
from an airport located in any of the 20 most populated
metropolitan areas in the United States, as determined by
the Secretary [of transportation]."
Rothman's bill is targeted at Stage 2 business jets, which
were exempt from phase out under the Airport Noise and
Capacity Act. That legislation only required the phase out
of operation of Stage 2 aircraft weighing more than 75,000
lb. by Jan. I, 2000.
A formal announcement of the bill is expected in the next
two weeks. It has been delayed because the congressman
recently underwent back surgery and has been recuperating.
A spokesman for Rothman said he expects the bill to have
more than the 24 co-sponsors it had when first introduced
last session.
in Brief ...
Phoenix Part 150 Under Review
The Federal Aviation Administration announced March
22 that it currently is reviewing the proposed Part 150
Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, and that its review will be
completed by Sept. 7.
The public has until May 10 to comment on the proposed
program.
For further information, contact Brian Armstrong, an
airport planner in the FAA's Western -Pacific regional
office; tel: (310) 725-3614.
Gateway 150 Under Review
The FAA announced March 2 that its review of the
proposed Part I50 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for
W ams Gateway Airport in Mesa, Ariz., will be completed
by Aug. 13 and public comment on the proposal will be
accepted until April 20.
or additional information, contact Brian Armstrong at
the telephone number listed above.
Overflight Advisory Group Established
The FAA announced March 12 that it will establish with
[he National Park Service a National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group to provide continuing advice and counsel
regarding commercial air our operations over and near
national parks.
Airport Noise Report