2001-10-10 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
October 1Q 2001 -- Large Conference Room
I . Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of August 15, 2001 Minutes
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Filming of ARC Meeting by NDCTV
b. Update on Airport Noise Video Progress
5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a.
Notice of Cancellation of August 28, 2001 MASAC Meeting
b.
Notice of Cancellation of September 25, 2001 MASAC Meeting
c.
Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated August
16, 2001
d.
Letter from Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission to Michael A.
Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee, dated August 22,
2001 V
e.
Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated August
3l, 2001
f.
Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated
September 12, 2001
Metropolitan Airports Commission 2002-2008 Capital Improvements Program
h.
Reconvening of the WCF Joint Airport Zoning Board
i.
Metropolitan Airports Commission Planning and Environment Committee
Agenda for October 2, 2001
j.
Eagan Airports Relations Commission Agenda for September 11, 2001
k.
Airport Noise Reports
6. Other Comments or Concerns
Public Comments
8. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than I20 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights oil I make
every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please
contact Cit` Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 2001
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, August 15, 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: Acting Chair Joe Leaman and
Commissioners Liz Petschel, Ellsworth Stein, and Vern Edstrom. Chair Scott Beaty and
Commissioners John Roszak and Gregg Fitzer were excused from the meeting. Staff
present was City Administrator Cari Lindberg and Administrative Assistant Patrick C.
Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes.
MINUTES
Commissioner Stein moved to approve the July 18, 2001 minutes.
Commissioner Petschel seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
AIR NOISE ISSUES VIDEO
Mr. Hollister reminded the Commission that at their July 18, 2001 meeting, Mr. Dennis
Raftery and Mr. Mark Oftedahl of NDCTV discussed with the Commission the logistics
of filming the video script. Mr. Hollister recalled that Mr. Raftery had told the
Commission that he thought that the script as currently written would yield a 1 5-minute
video, but that the video could be longer depending on the film footage, computer
graphics or other effects that the Commission inserted into the video. Mr. Hollister said
that the Commission had asked Mr. Raftery and Mr. Hollister to meet with Chad Leqve
of the MAC at his office to determine what resources the MAC would have to help the
Commission make this video.
Mr. Hollister said that he and Mr. Raftery had visited Mr. Leqve at his office on the
afternoon of July 26. Mr. Hollister said that Mr. Leqve had expressed his willingness to
help with the video and said that the MAC had a lot of information and film footage, but
that he would need a list of the specific items the Commission sought in order to assist
the Commission. Mr. Hollister said that he and Mr. Raftery agreed to provide Mr. Leqve
with this list as soon as possible. Mr. Hollister then distributed Mr. Raftery's preliminary
cost estimate for filming the video.
1. O'Hare Monitor, Second Quarter 2001
m. FliGht International, July 17-23, 2001: Noises Off
n. Airport Noise Reports
OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS
Commissioner Petschel asked Mr. Hollister to brim back the issue of the third parallel
unway contract to the September meeting.
ADJOURN
Motion made to adjourn by Leuman and seconded by Petschel.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
M ETROP L,ITAAIRPORTS C®MIMIISSIi i
o�s s Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
t 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-1799
=t
Phone (612)726-5100
F
� t
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
AUGUST 28, 2001 MASAC MEETING
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
�� �� ��.i spairportu,m
I I-. er ,\ir4-��rn_ alRl_.�I�E\\C�l:_\C-OL\ll'/IiL:\I\'�•C:R1'ST_:\I_•FLYI\G CIOUI)�L-\K�Et \IO•S\INT P�UI. DO\\\TOWN
MEMORANDUM MAC Department of Environment
TO: Former MASAC Representatives
FROM: Chad Leqve, MAC ANOMS Coordinator
SUBJECT: Update on the MASAC Review Process
DATE: August 21, 2001
The review of MASAC and the finalization of Dr. Brandl's associated report are nearing
conclusion. The final step remaining in the process is a briefing by Dr. Brandl to MAC
Executive Director Jeff Hamiel on the recommendations contained in the report. Due to
previous commitments, Mr. Hamiel has been on travel for the past two weeks in Europe,
thus Mr. Hamiel has been unavailable. Efforts are underway to coordinate this final step
in the process. Upon the conclusion of Dr. Brandl's briefing to Mr. Hamiel, meeting dates
and times will be established for the follow-on review and recommendation development
process outlined below.
The below documentation provides additional information with regard to background, Dr.
Brandl's review and the remaining process associated with this effort.
BACKGROUND
In a letter dated October 31, 2000, ten member airline organizations resigned from the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) citing concerns that the
council had become unbalanced. The signatories to the letter included Airborne Express,
DHL Worldwide Express, Federal Express, Mesaba, Northwest Airlines, Trans World
Airlines, United Airlines, United Parcel Service, US Airways and the Airline Pilots
Association. Concerns focused on the MASAC process and procedures. The letter read,
"...MASAC has become a community advocacy group and no longer provides a viable
framework for a thorough and balanced review of technically complex issues with
significant legal, environmental and economic implications for communities and the
industry." Specific topics cited included the Part 150 Update drafting process, the non-
use of proxy votes in the evaluation of possible improvements to the Ground Run -Up Pad
and comments developed for the Draft 2000 FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. An
eleventh member, Delta Airlines, resigned at a later date citing similar concerns.
Since its formation in 1969, MASAC has been the official advising body to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (NIAC) on aircraft noise issues for the past 31 years.
However, since MASAC's bylaws dictated that the council be comprised of equal
numbers
of user (meaning
users of
the
airport) and
public representatives, MASAC is
unable to
continue Council
business
until
this matter is resolved.
In a meeting on November 28, 2000, Jeff Hamiel, executive director for the MAC,
addressed some of the remaining MASAC members in regards to the resignations. Mr.
Hamiel explained the importance of user involvement with MASAC and the critical
nature of the situation relative to the future viability of MASAC and the success of
Council initiatives. As a result, Mr. Hamiel proposed the formation of a Blue Ribbon
Panel comprised of three airport users and three community representatives with a third -
party facilitator. The intent of the Panel was to reestablish a dialogue between the users
and communities and determine whether an organizational structure could be developed
to address the user concerns.
The Chairman at
the
time,
Mayor Mertensotto,
appointed the following community
(public) members
to sit
on the
Panel:
Barret Lane —Minneapolis
Jamie Verbrugge — Eagan
Jill Smith — Mendota Heights
It was determined at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, that until this matter is
resolved, MASAC cannot conduct business. Therefore, any MASAC or MASAC related
committee meetings were cancelled, pending the outcome of the Panel's deliberations.
Initially the airlines did not participate in the proposed Blue Ribbon Panel process citing
extenuating circumstances. Since that time, Mr. Hamiel has had discussions with the
airlines in an effort to establish airline representation on the Blue Ribbon Panel and in the
review process.
As part of this ongoing dialog, Dr. John Brandl, Dean of the University of Minnesota's
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affa rs, was reta ned as a mutually acceptable
third party review agent in an effort to establish possible organizational restructuring
proposals that will• address both the airline and community interests and concerns. Dr.
Brandl is a former South Minneapolis resident and thus has a first hand account of the
noise environment around Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
DR. BRANDL'S REVIEW OF MASAC
As part of his assessment and report generation, Dr. Brandl conducted an extensive
amount of organizational review and analysis. In addition to reviewing a substantial
amount of information relative to MASAC, including the history and activities of the
organization, Dr. Brandl conducted comprehensive interviews with approximately twelve
past MASAC members including representative samples from both the community and
airport user perspectives.
Dr. Brandl received an extensive amount of documentation and information about
MASAC, and based on the history and activities of the organization, incorporated
appropriate background assessments, in concert with his extensive public policy insight,
into the process of formalizing an organizational restructuring proposal.
Dr. Brandl is in the process of finalizing his report and will provide copies and an in-
depth briefing of the document at an informational meeting. All past MASAC members
will be invited to the informational meeting. The date, time and location of the meeting
will be forwarded to past MASAC members when they are available.
It is important to note as part of the interview process, Dr. Brandl expressed gratitude for
the gracious accommodations made by the past MASAC user and community members
who took time to meet with him. I would like to echo those sentiments, and thank the
individuals who contributed to this very important effort.
UPCONIING REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
The process that will be followed as part of the MASAC review effort is structured to
maintain the previously endorsed review methodology. In consideration of the
involvement of past MASAC members and in an effort to ensure appropriate information
dissemination to interested parties, Dr. Brandl will present a briefing of the report to
previous representatives of MASAC at the above -mentioned informational meeting. As
was stated, the date, time and location of this meeting will be forwarded to past MASAC
members when they are established.
The formal review process will enlist the Blue Ribbon Panel members, community
members, as previously identified by the communities, and airline representatives, as
determined by their respective constituency, to conduct a thorough review of the report
and discuss the findings. The initial meeting of the Blue Ribbon Panel will follow the
informational meeting. Past members who wish to provide input into the review process
should do so through their respective Blue Ribbon Panel members. The above -mentioned
nformational meeting is not intended to be a workshop or a forum for discourse relative
to differing viewpoints or conflicting perspectives on the report.
Following the review and determination by the Blue Ribbon Panel, the report will be
forwarded to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and subm ssion
to the MAC full Commission. The associated timing is predicated on the deliberations
necessary by the Blue Ribbon Panel.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6328.
In addition, MAC staff has continued the production of the Technical Advisor's Report.
The July 2001 Technical Advisor's Report and Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure
Corridor Report are . available on the Web at
www.macaysat.org/MASAC/report_table2.html. 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
nscovron@mspmac.org.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
October 4, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Filming of ARC Meeting by NDCTV
Update on Airport Noise Video Progress
Discussion
On Thursday, October 4, 2001, Chair Scott Beaty, Commissioners Liz Petschel and Vern
Edstrom, City Administrator Cari Lindberg, Dennis Rafery and Mark Oftedahl of
NDCTV, and I met to discuss continued progress on the Airport Noise Issues Video.
Dennis agreed to come to the October 4, 2001 meeting to film our meeting. We
would like as many Commissioners to attend as possible. (You do not need to dress
more formally than usual.) After the filming, Staff will provide an update on video
progress to date.
Action Required
Look sharp for the camera.
i°/IETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
r + °c6040 - ?3th Avenue South • Minneapolis, NIN 55450-3799
Phone (612) 726-8 100
0
*0
+ a
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE
THE REG��LARLY SCHEnILED
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 MASAC MEETING
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
The \ietropoli tan �\irporn Commission is an a(firmatice action employe.
«<� n mspaicport.com
1 I' ec �irp, 6--: a12L\KE ° .1.\'OFF COt,'\TY/BLAINE ' CKl'STAL • FLl'I tiC: CLOUD • L�\KL ELhIO •SAINT PaliL DOt\'NTOWN
MEMORANDUM MAC Department of Environment
TO: Whom It May Concern
FROM: Chad Leqve, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
SUBJECT: Status of the MSP Noise Organization Review Effort
DATE: September 17, 2001
The MSP noise organization review and reorganization effort has been the primary
contextual focus of the monthly MASAC cancellation and review update correspondence
memos. In a similar fashion, MAC staff has been adamant in the support and funding of
this review and reorganization process. Although the commitment and dedication to this
effort has, and will continue to be adamant, there exists certain occurrences that are
outside the control of all involved parties. It is with this prelude that the previously
anticipated (previous discussions focused on a September 25, 2001 informational
meeting) review of Dr. Brandl's report and follow-on Blue Ribbon Panel deliberations
are postponed.
Given the tragic turn of recent world events, the necessary coordination and time
appropriations are unavailable to facilitate the conduct of such a meeting at this time. I
regret the postponement of this effort, although considering the catalyst for this action
such regret is dwarfed by the tragic implications of our nations current state of affairs.
In addition, MAC staff has continued the production of the Technical Advisor's Report.
The September 2001 Technical Advisor's Report and Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure
Corridor Report are available on the Web at
www.macaysat.org/MASAC/report_ta6le2.html. 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
nscovron@mspmac.org.
Again, I apologize For the prolonged duration of this review/reorganization process.
Please extend your patients with regard to this important effort. As always, I will provide
additional information as it becomes available.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6326.
August 16, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c;o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
89 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Mr.
h lltrector
Titan Airports Commission
28"' Avenue South
:anolis_ MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
On August 1, 2001 the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) responded to our letter
of July 19. (You received a copy of this MAC letter, written by Roy Fuhrmann, and we
had previously copied you on our July 19 letter.) iiAC's response to our July 19 letter
is extremely disappointing. As you are the Executive Director of MAC, our committee
draws your attention to the following.
i�I.�C'S Ri�iT COVERAGE
Our letter of July 19 directed MAC's attention to public comments by Mr. Mertensotto,
Chairman of MASAC, acknowledging the existence of "holes" in MAC's noise monitor
Coverage (RMTS). (See in particular pages 78 and 42 from the November 8, 2000 hearing.)
1. In response to this, MAC's letter states in paragraph 3 on page 2: "Although you may
believe the relationship of your location to the RiiTs is unique..."
This misstates the basis for our petition for a noise monitor on Bluebill Drive. We claim
Bluebill Drive is one of the "holes" Mr. Mertensotto referrzd to and that this has caused
the noise levels assigned to our area to be wTongly calculated. Our belief does NOT arise
from a `unique' relationship to RMT monitors (unless MAC's language is meant to refer
to "holes" in their noise monitor coverage). Our claim is technical in nature.
The Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor is designated by the MAC for `unique,' disparate
exposure to high levels of airport noises. Our neighborhood, residing in this corridor, is
unique' from other corridors that have not been assigned such heavy volumes of airport
noise and primp facie our claims should merit IviAC'S attention, not rejection.
2. What is somewhat confusing is that b1AC's documentation (furnished with the
recent letter) supports the existence of a "hole" in the RIiT monitoring system over
Bluebill Drive. Attached herewith (marked Exhibit A) is MAC's RMT coverage map
which is titled "Current and Possible Future ANOMS Coverage."
Page Two
August 16, 2001
At the bottom, the significance of the map red circles is explained as: "Existing RMT's
and Associated Buffer's". Note that the red circles for Monitors # 13 and # 15 do NOT
overlap. There IS a gap or "hole" in RMT coverage between Monitors # 13 and # 15. One
of the roads underneath this "hole" is Bluebill Drive. (This `hole" is marked on Exhibit
A so that all persons getting a copy of this letter can see this coverage gap.)
3. MAC was present on the dais at that November 8 hearing. (This was in the person of
Mr. Fuhrmann.) If Mr. Mertensotto was mistaken when he stated there were "holes" in
RMT coverage, for MAC to have remained silent and let an error enter the public record
would have been unconscionable. We believe the reason MAC did not contradict Mr.
Mertensotto is because these "holes" in MAC's noise monitor coverage exist. We further
believe that one of these "holes" is over our neighborhood.
Mr. Fuhrmann was personally involved in some of Mr. Mertensotto's comments. The
record on page 42 of the November 8 hearing shows that --immediately prior to Mr.
Mertensotto stating "there still may be some [holes] out there" --Mr. Fuhrmann had a
colloquy with Mr. Mertensotto regarding RMT noise monitors. Never did Mr. Fuhrmann
(representing MAC) object or correct Mr. Mertensotto's statements about "holes" in the
airport's noise monitoring system at that public hearing. MAC's silence confirmed to
those in attendance or to any reading the published hearing record that "holes" exist.
It is too late in the day for MAC to now assert there are no `holes" in their noise
monitoring coverage. The public record (which is now closed) stands uncontradicted by
MAC that there were/are "holes" in their airport noise monitoring system.
Why does the MAC continue to deny this gap in noise monitoring coverage when your
own charts show that it exists? Why does MAC refuse to establish correct noise readings
for our neighborhood, instead of inferring that we want unique or special treatment?
THE ROLE OF MASAC
MAC's letter states in paragraph 3 on page 1:
"in October 2000, ten airlines withdrew from MASAC rendering the organization
incapable of conducting business"
and then building on this assertion concludes:
"This was the organization [MASAC] that would typically consider such a request as
yours... Since MASAC has not met since October of last year, unfortunately your
requests to the Chairman of MASAC ... have not occurred."
1. Where in the public record was our petition for a noise monitor on Bluebill Drive
assigned to the Chairman of MASAC? Our petition was presented at the November 8
public hearing. This public hearing was not solely a IYfASAC hearing. The page
headings on the published public record of these hearings all read: " b1AC/MASAC
Page Three
August 16, 2001
Hearing". In addition, the cover page states that the hearing was hosted by:
"Metropolitan Airports Commiss inn/Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council." Note that the MAC is always listed first (although alphabetically it should be
listed second) which reflects MAC's primary role (and de-emphasizes MASAC).
Our petition was presented to both MAC and MASAC at that public hearing. The
subsequent demise of MASAC had no affect on our petition, our petition did not.expire
with the demise of MASAC.
2. Mr. Mertensotto's comments throughout indicate NIASAC was not going to get
involved in technical issues regarding noise contours. Technical matters were the
responsibility of the MAC. Therefore our petition for a noise monitor to correct MAC's
noise contour map would have been assigned to MAC (not MASAC). Excerpts from the
public record supporting this assignment to MAC of noise contour issues are:
"Mr. Mertensotto: ...let me just say [his: If you have certain areas in your area that you feel are
way outside of the contour or have not been addressed by the contour, you know, they can
specifically refer those to MAC and they will take an independent look at them." (pages 41 and 42
of the November 8 public hearing)
"Mr. Mertensotto: I can't answer your question but I can tell you how you can get an
answer... direct your inquiry to Mr. Roy Fuhrmann who is to my left here at the Metropolitan
Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, and he will direct it to the
appropriate MAC staff member and they win respond back to you..." (page 73 of the November 8
public hearing)
At these November 8 and 9 hearings, our committee's (1) petition, (2) verbal comments
and (3) Exhibits presented by Mr. Heide did "specifically refer" our noise contour issue
to the MAC as requested by Mr. Mertensotto.
3. If MAC's letter is correct and MASAC was "incapable of conducting business" after
October 2000, then what was Mr. Mertensotto, the Chairman of MASAC, doing on
November 8 and 9, 2000 (a month later) chairing the public hearings?
The following comment by Mr. Mertensotto during the November 9 public hearing
regarding MASAC seems to contradict MAC's letter, at the very least his comments do
not show he felt "incapable of conducting business":
"And right norr we're [referring to MASACI up to 39 members. we have 18 from
each group, ,,We are the noise mitigation arm of the MAC commission." (page 25 of
the public record)
If Iv1ASAC was "incapable of conducting business" after October 2000, then these
November public hearines were a sham. This is a serious charge to make, but this
conclusion is inescapable if MAC's August 1 letter is correct.
Page Four
August 16, 2001
If MAC's statement is wrong, and MASAC was functioning in November 200 3 why is
such a confusing assertion made in MAC's letter?
ivIAC'S DEPARTURE i<L�PS
Our July 19 letter questioned the accuracy of the MAC maps that show all airplanes
making their turns East at or after the end of the runway. The reason for our concern is
that planes malting their 90 degree turn East before the end of the runway enter our
neighborhood at a more northerly latitude affecting more homes.
MAC's August 1 letter states that "the maps accurately reflect takeoffs from the airport."
The source of our information was an FAA controller. We will pursue this question with
the airport's control tower. If our information proves to be correct, and MAC's maps are
in error, this indicates another problem with MAC's mapping model'.
ALa.C'S DENIAL OF OUR NOISE MONITOR PETITION
MAC's letter denies our noise monitor petition (with 76 signatures) for Bluebill Drive.
MAC's denial forces us to initiate an independent process of obtaining a noise monitor
and securing competent staff to create an INM report acceptable to the FAA. Attached
herewith are copies of correspondence with Larson Davis Inc. and HNIB Corporation
(marked Exhibits B and C) initiating this process. This independent analysis should
confirm: (1) our neighborhood is in the DNL 65+ contour and (2) the 1996 Ldn noise
contour map was and is in error and our homes qualify for the DNL 65+ insulation
program.
If the independent analysis proves that MAC's noise footprint for our area is wrong, will
the MAC reimburse the out-of-pocket expenses incurred installing the noise monitor and
preparing the DIM report to the FAA specs? Our feeling is that MAC should reimburse
these unnecessary costs created by MAC's mapping error.
In closing I should observe that our petition for a noise monitor was submitted to the
MAC at the November 8 public hearing. W'hy has it taken over eight months just to
say No? It takes a year to make a valid FAA INM study —and almost a year has expired
waiting for this response.
CONCLUSION
We would appreciate further responses to these three questions:
1. How does MAC explain that the red circles (indicating RMT coverage) disclose a gap
in RlvIT coverage over Bluebill Drive in Mendota Heights? (Bear in mind that this
map was furnished by MAC)
Page Five
August 16, 2001
2. Was MASAC "incapable of conducting business" after October 2000?
3. Will MAC reimburse our costs if the installation of a noise monitor proves that
MAC's 1996 Ldn noise contour map for our neighborhood was wrongly drawn?
If the answer to question #2 is that MASAC was "incapable of conducting business" after
October 2000 (as stated in MAC's letter to us of August 1, 2001), we will correspond
directly with Chairman Nichols on the rewriting of Chapter 9 of the 14 CFR Part 1.50
Update. All the public hearings chaired by Mr. Mertensotto after October 2000 would
need to be deleted from this chapter as MASAC was not a responsible party to chair
public hearings, being "incapable of conducting business."
We had hoped to work cooperatively with the MAC, but regrettably this is not happening,
Mr. Hamiel. MAC's intransigence, displayed by their refusal to install a noise monitor, is
troubling action by a public agency. We look forward to your response to the above three
questions and our committee will begin the process of establishing a budget to install an
independent noise monitor on Bluebill Drive.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kosel
Attachments (3--Exhibits A, B & C)
cc: MAC (Charles Nichols, chairman, along with all 14 commissioners)
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager —Aviation Noise &Satellite Programs
Charles Mertensotto, MASAC Chairman and Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
John Brandt, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
EM)131 /I
X R) 51T J3
August 16, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
Mr. Michael A. Kosel
889 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Jessica Wood, Domestic Sales Manager
Larson Davis Inc.
A PCB Group Company
1681 West 820 North
Provo, Utah 84601
Dear Ms. Wood:
The name of your company was furnished us by Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, Manager —Aviation
Noise and Satellite Programs for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC). Our understanding from Mr. Fuhrmann is that Larson Davis
manufactured the noise monitors that were used by the MAC in preparing airport noise
"footprint` maps required by the FAA for various submissions to that agency. (A copy of
this correspondence is being famished to Mr. Fuhrmann as a courtesy so that the MAC is
kept apprised of our project.)
REQSIEST FOR QLOTE/PROPOSAL
The Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Abatement Committee requests a proposal from
Larson Davis for an airport noise monitor. I suspect you and your staff are well aware of
the requirements for this type of noise monitor, but the general requirements
for the installation are as follows:
Quantity: One (I) noise monitor
Equipment capabilities: The noise monitor must be capable of generating reports
which will be accepted as accurate by the FAA and which will famish all
documentationr'data required to submit a final report that will meet the Integrated Noise
Module (INM) specifications as set forth by the FAA.
Model: The model purchased by the MAC had (we believe) remote reporting
capabilities as MAC purchased a network of noise monitors. The level of sophistication
required for only one noise monitor (which we are requesting) may not require all the
capabilities of the equipment purchased by the MAC. We would request information on
a model (or models) that would meet the FAA requirements for the preparation of an
acceptable IN -NI analysis at a reasonable cost.
Page Two
August 16, 2001
Type of purchase: Our understanding is that an interval of one year is required to
prepare a report to the FAA under the P� M specifications as seasonality is a factor in the
final computations. Thus the noise monitor is only required for a period of thirteen (13)
months. (1) It may be more practical for us to lease a noise monitor, but we realize this
option may not be available. (2) If an outright purchase is the only option, then please
fumish us that pricing for the model or models you would propose.
FOB: Please specify any additional freight costs.
PURPOSE OF THIS \OISE ;1IONITOR
The purpose of the noise monitor is to supply independent confirmation of the accuracy
of formulas used by the MAC to extrapolate noise levels for neighborhoods that did not
have a noise monitor installed.
We realize that there may be some sensitivity at Larson Davis to supply a noise monitor
that will be used to verify analysis done by another one of your customers, namely the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). However, we do not believe this should be a
concern to Larson Davis as no one is questioning the accuracy of the noise monitors that
Larson Davis manufactured for the MAC. What is being questioned is the mathematical
modeling of airport noise exposures for neighborhoods that did not receive a noise
monitor. That is Nchv we began this letter with a reference to the MAC and advised you
that the NLAC famished us your name and address. The sale or lease of a noise monitor
to our committee should not affect your long-term relationship with the MAC.
But, if this is a concern to Larson Davis, and if Larson Davis would elect therefore not to
make a proposal, would it be possible for you to furnish us names of other manufacturers
that you might recommend that could meet our requirements? To repeat, we do not think
that Larson Davis should have any concerns, but we acknowledge that you might, and if
you do and wish to decline to quote, then we would appreciate the names of other
manufacturers of this type of airport noise monitoring equipment.
Thank-
cou for your attention to this request. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kosel
ec: Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, Manager —Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, MAC
August 16, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c. o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
S39 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Kim Hughes
HNTB Corporation.
99 Canal Center (Suite 100)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Your name was furnished us by Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, Manager —Aviation Noise and
Satellite Programs for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC). Our understanding from Mr. Fuhrmann is that HNTB Corporation was used by
the MAC in preparing their 14 CFR Part 150 b2dute report for submission to the FAA.
(A copy of this correspondence is being famished to Mr. Fuhrmann as a courtesy so that
the MAC is kept apprised of our project.)
I believe that I heard you give an exposition regardin, this document at the November 9,
2000, public hearing held at the Thunderbird Motel in the Bloomington suburb of
Minneapolis. So you and I have met --in a sense.
OtR COtiCER\
Our neighborhood is convinced that the airport noise levzls assigned ro our communii<
are too low.
�Ve are therefore pursuing the leasz.'purchasz of a noise monitor to independently conf7rm
the accuracv of the mathematical modeling used by the ivL4C in assigning noise
exposures to neighborhoods that did not receive the benefit of a noise monitor
nstallation.
OVIR REQtiEST
Airport noise studies must meet the FAA Integrated Noise Moduli (LV'M) specifications.
We understand that FLNTB Corporation famished this analysis service for the MAC.
Given your relationship with the MAC, we believe that it maybe difficult for HNTB
Corporation to perform a similar analysis service for our committee. We would not want
to put HNTB Corporation in that potentially awkward position.
Nonetheless, our committee is in need of this type of sophisticated analysis and report
preparation. Our request to you is to ask if you could furnish us the name of other
Page Two
August 16, 2001
companies: individuals that could create an INM report ti r us, acceptable to the FAA.
We realize that this project may take a year. We will then contact these other firms or
ndividuals and solicit a proposal from them for this service.
The furnishinU of this information to our committee should not affect your lone -term
relationship with the IvLAC. The MAC is aware of our independent efforts to confine
their noise calculations. In Mr. Fuhrmann's letter to us of August 1, 20011 he gave us
your name and telephone number. Mr. Fuhrmann also made this comment: "Ms. Kim
Hughes is the HNTB project Manager_. and may be able to help... identify competitors
within the industry However, rather than call you, we thought it would be best to
contact you in writing.
To repeat, our request is if you could furnish us the name of companies.`individuals that
could create an airport noise anal%sis, per the INM specifications, acceptable to the FAA.
Thank you in advance for Four attention to this request, Ms. Hughes. We hope you can
help us.
Sineereh.
Michael A. Kosel
cc: \tr. Roy Fuhnnann. �tanaeer—Aviation Eloise and Satellite Pro_*rams, �1AC
N=ROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
P tt Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
At Phone (612) 726-8100 Fax (612) 726-5296
11 t
. t �1-
R•oa August 22,2001
NIr. Michael Kosel
89 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Mr. Kosel:
I.am responding to your letter dated August
16, 2001. The Metropolitan
Airports Comrission
(MAC) would like to assure you
of our continuous
efforts to be sensitive to the feelings of those
who live in close proximity to the
Minneapolis
-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP).
There is no doubt the airport imposes an impact on its neighboring communities. As a result, the
MAC is continuing to explore ways of minimizing the impact on surrounding communities, as well
as working toward an equitable distribution of the resultant impacts from MSP.
I appreciate your comments with regard to the quantification of noise impacts around MSP and
your associated concern relative to the manner in which community concerns are addressed.
Although you request answers to three primary questions, I believe your diligence in the
preparation of such thorough comments warrants further explanation.
The appropriate location of Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) Remote
Monitoring Towers (RMTs) around the airport, in addition to quantifying noise impacts and the
role of MASAC are at the core of our noise mitigation efforts at MSP. I have spoken with our
noise staff, and understand that discussions regarding the location of ANOMS RA /lTS and the
contour generation process have been ongoing between your neighborhood and our staff. Although
those discussions, I am certain, did not provide the answers your were looking for, I hope they
were helpful in your quest for answers to these very complicated questions.
I understand that on June 13, 2001 Chad Leqve of our Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
office, in response to your request, provided a presentation to the Mendota Height Airports
Relations Commission, which you attended. In my review of the presentation it appears discussion
focused on the following:
• Continuing mitigation efforts at MSP
• Status of the present MSP Part 150 Program
• Part 150 Update — noise mitigation measures and land use measures
• Mechanisms for evaluating noise impacts
Tha \fatropolican _tinor[s Comciission is an affvmati-,s action amplo�er.
F.eliaver Ai: noes: �t:,L.�t, • A�OK-A CO;'FiLAIV£ • CP.ti ST.'\L > FL'i I\G CLOUO • ! ?�[ 3L\70 5 :I\-i' ?.tr'i. COIL\'r0'�\�i
Integrated Noise Model (INM)
• ANOMS and Remote Monitoring Towers and the location process
• Noise program Web site — www. macaysat . org
• MASAC review and reorganization
For your review, I have enclosed a copy of the presentation (Attachment #1) for your reference
Before I specifically address some of the points in your letter, I would like to provide some
clarification by way of background. It is important to note the impact that Federal policies have in
dictating the manner in which noise is quantified and addressed at our nation's public use airports.
In 1979 the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act established a congressional directive to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) calling for the implementation of a mechanism for the
development of noise mitigation programs at U.S. airports. The result of this congressional
direction was the development of 14 CFR Part 150. Through the development of Part 150, the
FAA endorsed the use of the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric as the appropriate
metric for quantifying noise impacts around airports. The endorsement of DNL as an appropriate
metric for quantifying impact is shared by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). DNL has been extensively evaluated over the years
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FAA and the Federal Interagency Committee On
Noise (FICON).
The Federally established mechanism for quantifying airport DNL noise impacts is the Integrated
Noise Model (PiM). The availability of federal or aviation generated funds for the purpose of
noise mitigation efforts (sound insulation) is contingent upon the development of a noise exposure
map (typically referred to as contours) that is consistent with the federal criteria for doing so (i.e.
INM and DNL). Having said that, it is imperative to understand the inputs and function of the
federally required I`i IVI DNL contour generation process.
The Integrated Noise Model (INNI) is used to specifically assess the noise impact of aircraft
operations. INM utilizes input files consisting of information relative to runway use, flight track
use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance/thrust settings, topography and atmospheric
information to generate a noise exposure map. The computer model generates contours that depict
areas of noise impact. The DNL contours generated are the focal point of any noise mitigation
measure proposed in a Part 150 program. The method for quantifying aircraft specific noise
characteristics in INM is accomplished through the use of a comprehensive noise database which
has been developed under the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As part of
the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject the aircraft to
a battery of noise tests (the Part 36 testing process is outlined in more detail in Mr. Legve's
presentation - Attachment #1). Through the use of federally adopted and endorsed algorithms this
aircraft specific noise information is utilized in the generation of INM DNL contours. A
justification for such an approach is rooted in national standardization of noise quantification at the
nations airports.
It is important to realize that the use of ANOMS RNIT noise data is an MSP unique initiative for
the purpose of ongoing quantification of noise impacts and the development of plans and
Tha Vitas ooiitan r\irnorts Commission is ao affvsa;i�:e acaon
Felie:er AUonr,,: Ai�LA:� • .�\bKA CO�i iil'r'FL�INE • CRFSTAL • FLYI\C CLOUD • La.KH tC�IO SAi\ : FAut. ➢OL9V"r0`.1l"
procedures
to address them. RNlTs and the associated noise data
are not a federally accepted
method for
the development of noise exposure maps that
require
federal or aviation generated
funding allocations. The use of such measures would require
federal
review, and approval.
Having stated the above information, below I have provided some specific responses to, what I
consider, the focal points of your letter. The responses are under the same headings as those found
in your letter.
NIACs RMT Coverage
The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (NISP) Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring
System (ANOMS) is one of the largest, most complex installations of its kind in the United States.
The system is a central element of a sophisticated, evolving noise and airspace management
program. ANOMS at MSP provides an objective tool for the purpose of assessing airport and
airspace utilization and the resultant impacts.
The system became operational in 1993, providing a level of noise and airspace management
capabilities previously unavailable. Since that time ANOMS has proven to be a critical component
of the MACS noise reduction missions. ANOMS has become the focal point for data acquisition
and dissemination for airspace and noise analysis.
The ANOMS program at NISP has received accolades both locally and nationally for innovative
and creative applications of the technology. The possibility of such achievement is predicated on a
solid foundation of system accuracy and sound scientific methods utilized in the installation and
ongoing procurement/enhancements of the system. A primary component of the mentioned efforts,
in recent years, has been the addition of more RMTs to the MSP ANOMS system. The RMT
location process is predicated on a solid, reproducible location analysis methodology (please refer
to Attachment #2). Understanding the location analysis process and the variables that go into the
process is critical to gaining a full understanding of the resultant capabilities of the ANNOMS
system.
Your reference to a gap in the At�tONIS coverage area around NISP, and specifically between RNIT
15 and 13, is the result of a misinterpretation of the representation of one variable, the buffer, used
n the RMT location analysis process. The noise monitoring coverage of ANNOMS noise monitors
s a complex function of the proximity of the noise monitor to the airport and the nature of airspace
use over the respective monitor. Because this is the case, a baseline RMT buffer or constant
variable has to be established, which can be applied to the location of noise monitors around the
entire airport. This was accomplished through normalization of the distance from one RZIIIT to
another predicated on a buffer radius established by half of the mean distance from one RNIT to
another based on the existing RMT coverage. The buffer, which you are referring to in the attached
graphic you included with your letter, is the normalized buffer, not the ANOMS monitoring
coverage footprint. In fact the actual ANOMS coverage area radius at RtMTs 13 and 15 (those
RNIT's closest to your location) is 2,500 meters at both sites. Additionally, the August 1, 2001
letter to you from Mr. Fuhrmann provided an in-depth analysis of the coverage area on Bluebill
Drive by RNITs 15 and 13, These analyses confirm that there is overlapping coverage of your area,
The �tah000htan aliraorts Cammission is an aifiama;ive a� iur employe-.
Rutie:-e�:llrour;s: r1Slr�.� • dvOCF1 COL" 7rY:�➢L-U�i E + C7<YST�L • FL5'iNG CLCUD . L.�t� Ei..\IJ � 511\ : P �L CDI�\ i OItT`
which is consistent with previous R1MT location analyses conducted by MAC staff and previously
approved by the MASAC organization in 1998.
In your letter you state that Mr. Mertensotto made comments at the public hearing with respect to
'holes" in the noise monitoring coverage of ANOMS at MSP. Furthermore, you reach the
conclusion that through his abstinence of comment, Mr. Fuhrmann was endorsing the comments
made by Mr. Mertensotto. I would offer the following for your consideration. Public Hearings are,
in essence, to do just that, hear from the public and not a forum for debate. I would therefore
deduct that Mr. Fubrmann's lack of comment following Mr. Mertensotto's comments was not an
action of concurrence but rather that of trying to conform to the due process of a public hearing.
It is with the above in mind that I say with a great deal of confidence that our noise monitoring
coverage around MSP is adequate and that a hole does not exist between RMT 15 and 13, as you
state in your letter.
The Role of MASAC
On August 22, 2000 MASAC endorsed the elements of the Part 150 Update document. MASAC
released the Part 150 Update document for public comment on October 6, 2000. The Part 150
Update public hearings were held on November 8 & 9, 2000. A letter dated October 31, 2000 was
submitted to the MAC regarding the resignation of various airline representatives from MASAC.
The extensive deliberations of MASAC throughout the Part 150 Update process occurred prior to
the resignation of the airlines. Furthermore, the Council established the public hearing dates prior
to the resignation of the airlines.
The public hearings that were held in November 2000 were consistent with the Council
commitment made prior to the resignation of the airlines. It is important to note that a public
hearing is not a requirement of the Part 150 development process and furthermore, there is no
requirement of the Part 150 Study sponsor to conduct such a hearing. Additionally, it may be of
nterest to note the purpose of a Part 150 study as defined by the FAA, that reads as:
"Part 150 promotes comprehensive noise evaluation and mitigation and is the primary program
under which the FAA supports local airport noise compatibility planning and projects. Part 150 is
a voluntary' program that allows airport operators to prepare noise exposure maps and to
recommend measures in a noise compatibility program to reduce noise and noncompatible land
uses. Airport operators may submit airport noise compatibility programs to the FAA for approval
under criteria established by ASNA and part 150. The FAA is authorized to provide Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding for airport noise compatibility planning (i.e., the
preparation of the noise exposure maps and the noise compatibility program) and for noise
projects (i.e., measures approved by the FAA in a noise compatibility program)."
With respect to the conduct of the Public Hearing, it is my estimation, that past YL=ISAC members
were honoring their previous commitment of sponsoring a public hearing through the donation of
their time to a process that would ensure adequate public involvement and the expeditious review
The `(e� ooli[an Airoorts Commissia� �� an aiEirmaa,e ac..on e:�ptoyer.
Emphasis added by author
Ratia�er rliruoc;>: .�iRL.-�� • :i�Ol.1 COIJ�'il`i➢L.�G1E CR15r.�1. a FLT I\'G CLCI'n L.1i:F FL\f0 Sni\ (' ^.,,, i. DO'+lT'COt�\
of the proposal. This represented an effort to ensure seamless continuation of Part 150 sound
mitigation efforts at MSP. I would offer that your frustration and dissatisfaction with regard to the
status of your home relative to the updated Part 150 would remain unchanged from the present,
regazdless of who sponsored or chaired the public hearing.
More specifically, with regard to Mr. Fuhrmann's comments, he is correct in his statements
regarding responses to public comments received from a public hearing and the manner in which
requests such as yours for noise monitoring were handled. Responses to public comments on the
Part 150 will be provided as part of the final document which will be submitted to the FAA in mid
October as a result of the Commissions' recent actions. A copy of the document and responses to
the comments will also be available to you and the petitioners of the Rogers Lake East area.
Additionally, in the past, noise -monitoring requests were typically reviewed by MASAC and a
determination on the request was made by the body with respect to the overall benefit that a
monitor would contribute to increased understanding of noise for the entire organization. Since the
remaining MASAC representatives, at the November 28, 2000 meeting, determined that they ,
would no longer conduct meetings until the airlines membership issue was resolved, this avenue
did not exist. With regazd to your comment being replied to as part of public hearing process, the
response is being prepazed via the response to public comment portion of the final part 150 Update
document, which is standazd protocol. In addition, the most recent correspondence sent to you
provides in-depth information regarding your public comments.
NIACs Departure Maps
The issue of developing INNI flight tracks for the purpose of contour generation is critical. As part
of the Part 150 Update process, extensive efforts were taken to use actual objective flight track
information in the development of I�i iM flight tracks. The development of the Ii 1M flight tracks for
the purpose of the Part 150 Update was predicated on the use of actual flight track locations as
collected by the FA.A ASR 9 radar located on the airfield at MSP. This radar is the same
equipment used on a daily basis by air traffic controllers to provide aircraft separation and safety
of flight criteria to aircraft departing from and arriving to MSP.
Through the use of this flight track positional data via ANOMS, the I�i 1NI flight tracks were
developed. Based on this highly reliable information, I continue to believe that the contour
development process is based on the best aircraft over flight information available. Therefore the
resultant contours do represent an accurate depiction of the most severely impacted noise areas
according to defined FAA assessment evaluation procedures. Although you may disagree with the
FAA's assessment criteria, after review of the information, I find the process and resultant
contours valid and in compliance with FAAs guidelines.
MACS Denial of Our Noise btonitorina Petition
Again, I apologize for your dissatisfaction with our position regarding noise monitoring in your
neighborhood. I do not believe, considering the framework of national policy and the extensive
monitoring program we have in place a NISP, that additional monitoring is warranted or thaC the
The \fatronviitan Air?orts Commission is av affirmatl•:e avtiov e•nptoyer.
Feliaver Aires s� . i.L4 �c • .A�:O�A COCJN-CYiDLa(`IE • CR}'ST:IL + FLYI�C CLCI'L + LASE cL�lO = JA!��-r PAUI. DO•.4ti'C0111
contour maps
that
have been generated
by a very reputable firm through the use of actual radar
data from the
FAA
are incorrect.
In conclusion, I hope the above information provides a comprehensive answer to the three
questions you raised in your letter. As a final thought, I offer to have members of our Noise Staff
review at the Mendota Heights City Hall with you, Mr. Scott Beatty of the Mendota heights
Airports Relations Committee and Ms. Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Manager, actual
RMT noise monitoring data that is available on the intemet of aircraft replay capabilities and noise
events, as yet another measure to assist you in understanding the RMT coverage capabilities of the
ANOMS system.
Once again, I assure you that MAC is committed to addressing noise impacts around MSP, today
and into the future. I hope this information is helpful and addresses the questions you raised in
your letter. If I can be of further assistance please feel fee to contact me at 612-726-8186.
cerely,
effrelj Hamiel
Executive Director,
Metropolitan Airports Commission
cc: YIs. Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
Mr. Charles Mertensotto, Honorable Mayor of Mendota Heights
Ms. Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Mr. Charles Nichols, MAC Chairman
MAC Commissioners
Mr. Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Comrission
Dr. John Brandl, Dean of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
The Mesopoii;aa Ai worts Commission is an aifi.-native ac:ioe emolo•ier.
Reliever Air:>ors: :it"i.L.��F. + .a.\OlA •i7L.-lR'E CRYST.�L . FLYI\G CLODU + La.::c F.i\IO - Sii\; F.�i;i. C011`h-['Ol',ti'
rr� August 31, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
PW Reduction Committee
cio Mr. Michael A. Kosel
89 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
;40
. Jeffre amiel
ecu e Director
oPolitan Airports Commission
28bAvenue South
neapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
On August 16, our Committee mailed a response to MAC,s letter of Au
refused to cooperate in evaluating the accuracy of airport noise projections over Rogers
Lake East. A response to the three questions raised in this letter r gust 1st which
been received from MAC.
gust 16 has not yet
We do, however, want to keep MAC apprised of our activities to create an independent
airport noise analysis --acceptable to the FAA.
To that end, attached herewith is a copy of our letter to the FAA requesting the necessary
computer program and government gengineers to proceedA cop
uidelines to allow our . v
Of our letter to the FAA is being seepresentative Oberstar, as he has ahvays been
aviaddition
proactwe in handling aviation nt to Ron issues in Minnesota and, in ad
direct oversight of the FAA. his committee has
Sincerely_ /
Michael A. Kosel
Attachments (copy of letter to the FAA)
cc: Roy MAC (Charles NicholsannM, chairman, along with all 14 commissioners)
Charles 1 �nensa Manager —Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
MASAC Chairman and Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Jane F. Garvey, Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Ms. Garvey:
August 31, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c, o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
839 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 551 20
senL to Your heir responsible department
ttmanagers that can f]I our reques. Garvey, with the gsest that it be forwarded to
We request (1) a copy of the IntegratedOUR REQUEST
6.Oa and (2) a co Noise Model (1N1v1) computer progr
ty P � "14 Code of Federal Regulations (C ) mp ISO �,' Version
Compatibiliplanning, `Airport Noise
Our community is troubled by airport
PURPOSE
ise. The above
an analysis of airport noise c nditio s over our our community, The FAA's initial reaction to
information is needed to conduct
our request may be that our
Therefore committee does not know what we are getting into.
we want to inform the FAA in advance that the two engineers who will
develop this analysis are well familiar with the complexities of this tv e
have the necessary background in computer analysis and
p of work and
mathematics (calculus, etc. ).
It is our understanding that the above information should
notshould be available upon request. We look forward to a response
n proprietary
near future as we are anxious to beo n to nature and
in. The Minneapolis/St. Paul M� opoliF Airports
in the
Commission (MAC) is aware of our activities and we are copying there on this letter as a
courtesy.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kosel
cc: Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director —MAC Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8� Distr ct
August 3I, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c/o Mr. Michael A_ Kosei
839 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Representative James Oberstar
Minnesota's 81h District
2365 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Oberstar:
Attached herewith is a letter, written to the FAA, requesting copies of computer
program (INM 6 Oa
Both are 2 ) and FAA's airport noise calculation
required to prepare airport guidelines
rport noise projections acce (14 CFIZ Pan
ptable to the FAA 150).
The Minneapolis; St. Paul
Committee Metropolitan Airports Commission is
requested e has undertaken and we are keeping them abreast of our
information should not be aware of what our
FAA in responding. proprietary and we do activities. The
not expect a problem with the
We are copvino
public record in addressing
Oberstar, as we are well aware
Minnesota. gavtation issues—especiall °fYour In addition, your position as the Ranking y those affecting distinguished
Transportation and Infrastructure Con Member on the your home
their Committee has state of
proczdurzs, given you fer on thi House
ty- with the FAA and
eoAlthough wz do not reside in the Minnesota's Eighth District, we trust that if we
u'or ass some challenges in obtaining our requests from the FA
You for assistance. do
A, that we can call on
Sincerely,
Michael A.
Kosel
September 12, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c, o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
889 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MINI 55120
Phone: 6> I-456-9513
Mr. Je
Director
�olitan Airports Commission
28`a Avenue South
apolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
I am in receipt of your letter dated August 22. This was delayed in amvim�, as I did not receive
it until August 11.
I do feel it necessan to comment on your letter. A 'point'counterpoint' element tends to creep
nto this type of correspondence. However, a contemporaneous paper trail of our objections
could be important at a later date. After MAC submits the 14 CFR Part I50 b% date, 14 CFR
150.31(c)(J) and (d) provides for a 180-day approval period at the FAA wherein our objections
could be heard by an appeal directly to the FAA. For that reason, this comment is necessary.
None of these comments should betaken personally by anyone at MAC.
'y1EETI\G TIME
We accept MAC's offer of a meeting. The venue at the Mendota Heights City Hall is fine.
Please have someone from your staff give me a call (my telephone number is given above) and a
convenient time can be set for all. This meeting is desired 'sooner, rather than 'later.' Attached
s an agenda (consisting of fire pages) with questionsconcerns for discussion at that meeting.
Your letter makes reference to a June l J meeting with Chad Leqve and Roy- Fuhrmann from
MAC. There was some confusion about the agenda for that meeting. We had requested a
meeting to obtain MAC's response to our November 8. 2000 petition requesting a noise monitor
on Bluebill Drive (over seven months having elapsed). Mr. Leqve (who is very knowledgeable
on airport noise) arrived with an hour and a half power -point presentation. While interesting,
this presentation was not why we came to that meeting. Out of courtesy, we listened for about an
hour and then interrupted as time was Betting aw av from the group. Eventually the petition was
September 12, 2001
Page 2
discussed, but considerable time was spent on general topics that were not our interest at that
time. The enclosed agenda should prevent a reoccurrence of that problem.
Your suggestion to meet is appropriate. Section 150.23(d) of the FAA's Part I �0 Regulations
requires `active and direct participation of the general public.' Part of the dictionary definition
of the word `direct' is: "with nothing or no one between; immediate: close, firsthand, or personal
(direct contact... )." This meeting with the MAC, without intermediaries, meets that requirement
of "direct participation." Your suggestion to include Scott Beatty and Cari Lindberg is well
taken if they are available.
Can a knowledgeable representative from HNTB also be present?
14 CFR 1 SO A 150.103(a) states regarding FAA approval of airport computer noise predictions:
"In considering approval... key factors include the demonstrated capability to produce the
required output and the public availability of the program or methodology to provide
interested parties the opportunity to substantiate the results." Our agenda contains questions
as to the `program and methodology" used by MAC so as to substantiate (or disprove) the noise
levels assigned to our community. We certainly meet the definition of an 'interested party
�IAC'S RESPO\SE TO OLiR QtiESTIO\S
MAC s August 22 letter was a response to our letter of August 16 that asked three questions.
Question \o. 1: Our first question had to do ��ith a 'hole in noise monitor (RMT) coverage
over our neighborhood. MAC s RMT coverage map has red circles that appear around each
noise monitor. The red circles over Monitors =13 and =15 (which straddle our community) ha%e
a gap or 'hole between these red circles. We felt this indicated a -hole' in RNIT cc%erase. Your
letters explanation of this `hole' is not clear. tvLAC's response seems to be that a 'buffer' was
established around each monitor to facilitate analysis of data from the underlying subset of 29
noise monitors. The red circles identify this 'normalized buffer'. Are the computer calculations
referred to here part of the tNM program? Does the INM system calculate based only on
readings from the 'normalized buffer"' Isn't this then a restriction in coverage over our
neighborhood?
The coverage map clearly showed a gap over our neighborhood between 'normalized buffers
around Monitors �li and � 1�. Doesn't this have am_ significance? If not significant, why are
the red circles drawn on a map labeled airport noise 'coverage'?
Monitors
#13 and #15 are key
to our locale in Rogers
Lake East.
The Ldn 65
noise contour
boundary
was drawn between
these two monitors. If
there is an
error in this
noise contour
boundary
(and we believe there is) then Monitors 913
and 415 are
involved in
the problem.
September 12, 2001
Page 3
MAC turnished an Attachment 42 written by Chad Leqve, dated June 19, 2001 where (in
footnote � 1) it states that the mean (average) distance between monitors is 5,767 feet. GPS
readings show that the distance between Monitors = 1 3) and =15 is 6,970 feet. This distance of
6,970 feet is 21% above the mean or average distance between monitors. The distance
separating Monitors 413 and 915 (which are key to our neighborhood) is not representative of
mean or average monitor spacing --adding to our concern.
MAC's letter rates a monitor's coverage as a radius of 2,500 meters or 8,202 feet (roughly a
radius of 1.6 miles). In analyzing MAC's geographic placement of monitors in the network, the
distance between Monitor 915 and Monitor'=23 is about 4,000 feet (approximately half of the
8,200 feet, 2,500 meter coverage rating of just one monitor). From a la}mtan's perspective, why
did MAC place monitors so close together if a monitor's radial coverage is really 8,200 feet?
Doesn't this more than double your cost?
Another example is Monitor "26, installed in the summer of 1999--logically to improve RMT
coverage of the original network installed in 1993. Monitor =26 was placed in the midst of
Monitors ' li, =24, =21 and =22. From a layman's perspective, if monitors can accurately cover
a radius of 8,200 feet (2,500 meters), Monitor =26 would be redundant. being placed in the midst
of four pre-existing monitors, all less than 16,400 feet (5,000 meters) apart. The same rationale
that leads MAC to deny us a noise monitor on Bluebill Drive (between Monitors 413 and =15)
would seem to preclude the placement of Monitor =26 in this position. This leads us to question
statements on the efficacy of noise monitors to a radius of 8,200 feet or 2,500 meters.
Could we obtain a Larson Davis technical manual for the monitor model used in Monitor -13
and Monitor = I5?
Question \o. 2: This question had to do tiaith the accuracy of MAC"s assertion in their letter of
August 1 that ivLASAC was "incapable of conducting business" after October 2000. That
statement was made to justit` an unconscionable delay. exceeding 8 months. in responding to
our petition for a noise monitor (presented on November 8, 2000). An explicit answer is not
given, but the letter seems to agree with our contention that the demise of MASAC does not date
to October2000.
Question No 3: MAC refused our petition to install a noise monitor on Bluebill Drive. FAA
regulations give all "interested parties the opportunity to substantiate the results' (14 CFR
reference cited earlier) of computer generated noise exposure maps. MAC's intransigence forces
US to purchase a noise monitoring service to "substantiate the results". Our third question was,
would MAC reimburse our noise monitor costs if the noise monitor proves that MAC's noise
exposure map is wrong. Your letter did not answer this question and we respectfully request
an answer.
September 1?. "_'001
Page 4
REMOTE JIONITORING TOWERS (RiITs)
MAC's letter describes the RMTs as being "at the core of our [MAC] noise mitigation efforts at
ASP." Comments of this tenor are made throughout the letter:
"one of the largest, most complex installations of its kind in the United States."
"AtiOi`IS has become the focal point for data acquisition and dissemination for...noise analysis."
"The AtiOAtS program at tVISP has received
accolades both locally
and nationally...predicated
on a
solid foundation of system accuracy..."
Attached herewith are pictures of Monitors #13 and =1 � (marked Exhibits A and B). It is
difficult to believe that these monitors are capable of generating accurate noise reports. Monitor
13 has an oak tree growing over it, shielding it from the sky. Monitor r 15 has a birch tree
growing over it, serving the same purpose. Monitor =I3 has been placed in a forest setting with
overgrowth surrounding it; Monitor"l3 is not much of an improvement.
/ Is not reverberation (the re-echoing or reflection of sound waves) a,signiticant factor in the
human perception of this noise? In residential settings, when jet noise descends between, say, a
garage wall and the neighbor's residential wall, does not reverberation take place extending the
duration of this event? How can these monitors, placed in park -like settings, surrounded by trees
and leaves that absorb sound, accurately reflect the human experience in a residential setting?
Can an_v confidence be placed in noise readings generated from Monitors =13 and =U in their
current condition of overgrowth?
Appendix A, Table A-1_ in the 1-I ('FR Part 1 ?O C'pdaie has a question from the FAA that the
MAC does not answer. The question is: '`Ifnoise monitoring was used, dots the narrative
ndicate that Part 150 guidelines were followed?'. The MAC does not answer this either Yes or
No, rather "N A."
The draft C-f�date uses reports from the RIv1T network to validate its INivi projections (see pages
-�3 and 3-24). l�4 CFR Al �0.1 states: `'Whenever noise monitoring is used, under this part,
t should be accomplished in accordance with Sec. Al 50.5 of this appendix." Then, Sec.
A150.5(b) states: "Noise measurements and documentation must be in accordance with
accepted acoustical measurement methodology, such as..." and then gives three acceptable
reference works.
Does the Ri'`4T network
follow `accepted acoustical
measurement methodology"
as required by
the F.4A?
This question cannot be answered "NIA" (as is done in the Appendix) --either Yes or No. We
believe the pictures of Monitors �13 and r15 (Exhibits A and B) herewith show violations of
September 12, 2001
Page 5
basic rules of `'accepted acoustical measurement methodology" and that RMT reports should be
discarded from the Update as not meeting FAA regulations.
Also, herewith, is Exhibit C showing our proposed location of a noise monitor on Bluebill Drive.
We believe its location meets the FAA requirements.
ANOMALIES IN ANO�IS REPORTING
As layman, let us give you an example of why we question the ANOMS system. This is not the
only one we have found, but it is one that is easy to follow. (Just to cite another example, one
could compare the lack of proportionality between July 2001 to July 2000 wherein departures
increased 18% and ANOMS Ldn data increased only .02% [two hundredth of one per cent].)
Rogers Lake East (our neighborhood) is in the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. In July of
1999, departures and arrivals in the Corridor were reduced (probably due to airport construction).
This dramatically reversed in July of 2000, the figures are:
Arrivals Departures
July 1999 10,034 5,615
July 2000 11,436 10,481
2000 vs 1999 4 11402 —41866
Percentage of increase +14% +87%
This is a 1�4ASSIVE increase in airport noise. Departures (the noisiest events) almost doubled
from July of 1999 to Jul' of 2000. What did the ANOMS system report. Does it reflect this
massive increase in noise?
We do not know where these planes went in the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor, all know
s that they went through the Corridor. Statistically, if you took all of thz RMT reports in the
Corridor from Julv 1999 and compared them to all of the RMT reports from Jul 2000, you
should easilv be able to detect a substantial increase in noise.
There are now ten monitors in the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor: Monitors �13, 141115,
161 r21, r2? R23, #24, n25 and k26. Since Monitors #26 and =26 were not operating in ] 999,
they are removed from the following tabulations. The following therefore is an 'apples to
apples' comparison between the eight monitors running in 1999 with the corresponding eight
monitors running in 2000.
July 1999 Monthly Ldn Grand Total (8 monitors) 519.1
July 2000 Monthly Ldn Grand Total (8 monitors) 509.8
2000 vs 1999 -9.3 decrease
Percentage of decrease 41 8%
September 12, 2001
Page 6
Is there any explanation for the ANOMS system reporting a DECREASE in Ldn levels when
the operation reports show a massive INCREASE?
PUBL[C HEARINGS
For some reason, MAC's letter stresses: "It is important to note that a public hearing is not a
requirement of the Part 150 development process and furthermore, there is no requirement of
the Part 150 Study sponsor to conduct such a hearing."
FAA revelations require "the active and direct participation of...the general public" (14 CFR
citation cited earlier). In this same section (14 CFR 150.23[e][4]) the FAA requires that MAC
give a "description of public participation..." and later in this section (150.23[e][7]) the FAA
requires: ',A summary of the comments at any public hearing on the program..." The FAA
obviously contemplated public hearings taking place.
True, the FAA does not order public hearings. But hove would MAC meet the FAA requirement
for participation by the general public without public hearings? Would you meet with each
citizen one by one?
CIi�HibLaN hiERTENSOTTO'S COMMIE\TS
Four letter dismisses comments made by Mr. Mertensotto at public hearings where he stated
there were "holes` in the lAAC's airport noise monitoring coverage. Our letter pointed out that
Mr. Fuhnnann (from MAC, present on the dais at these hearings with Mr. Mertensotto) had not
corrected or objected to this statement. Therefore our argument went that the public record
testified to the existence of -%holes' which provided a basis for our petition for a noise monitor to
fix the --hole' in coverage over our community.
You argue that Nir. Mertensotto's comments were made at a "public11 hearing and that the
purpose of these hearings was to "hear from the public" and not '`a forum for debate."
You would have a point if Mr. Mertensotto was a member of the "public." However, Mr.
Mertensotto vas NOT there as a member of the public. Mr. Mertensotto chaired the public
hearing and was then the Chairman of MASAC (MAC's -'primary advisor', see Update page
1-12). Mr. Mertensotto spoke from his own certain knowledge and not from the standpoint of a
member of the public. When you listened to Mr. Mertensotto, you were NOT listening to the
"public" invited to the hearing.
If Mr. Mertensotto was in error, it was unconscionable of Mr. Fuhrmann not to correct him. His
failure to correct Mr. Mertensotto would have acted to mislead the public, which is certainly not
the purpose of a public hearing.
September 12, 2001
Pace 7
The reason Mr. Fuhrmann did not correct Mr. Mertensotto at the public hearing is because Mr.
Mertensotto was correct. There are "holes1. in the airports monitoring system. What reason
would Mr. Mertensotto have to make false statements at a public hearing?
CONCLUSIO\'
I look forward to hearing. from you or your staff in the near future to set up the meeting you have
proposed. v
In closing, let me repeat that comments in the letter are not to be taken personally. To progress
on this issue, it is necessary to speak frankly.
ZO 141 z4
Sincerely
Michael A. Kosel
Attachments
cc: MAC (Charles Nichols, chairman, along �sith all 14 commissioners)
Rov Fuhrmann, Manaaer—Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Charles Mertensotto, N.-ASAC Chairman and Mayor of Mendota HeiLThts
Cari Lindberg., Mendota Heights Citv Administrator
Scott Beatv. Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener_ State Senator District 38
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8a' District
r
N,INANr
s
Nv
frd�~i�
�s
yYFit
jl�""N
Net VAX �e3
IN
♦. ... t
I N,
M
NN
}-' �`-
AGENDA
For Meeting Between
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee
l.) Please refer to Exhibits A and B which are current photographs of Monitors � li and � I5.
• Are Monitors 413 and i' I S capable of giving accurate measurements given the overgrowth?
• Were MAC and HNTB aware of these conditions of overgrowth'?
• Should not reports from these monitors be rejected?
2.) Page 3-27 of the I -I CFR Part 150 Upc(ate states: "There are several significant changes in
the new version [INM version 6.0a], including changes to the noise propagation algorithms,
which now account for humidity. An analysis showed that the algorithm change increases the
area within the 65 dB DNL contour by 13.1%... " The Update appears to be saying that the
previous program [INM version 4.111 understated the 65 dB DNL contour by 13.1%. After
compensating for this error in the 1996 noise contour map, Rogers Lake East would be included
under MAC's current noise insulation program that insulates homes in the 65 dB contour. (Our
blocks are right on the boundary and any increase would include us.)
• Should not the 1996 noise contour map lines be redrawn, correcting the omission of humidih
in the noise analysis, resulting in additional Rogers Lake East homes being insulated?
3.) Page 3-10 of the C"plate states regarding departure rules Dyer the Eagan -Mendota Heights
Corridor:
"aircraft departing from Runway 12L or 12R are not permitted to turn prior to reaching 3 statute miles
from the departure ends oC the runwa}'s...\LAC has demonstrated that over 95 % ofje[ departures
comply with Corridor procedures."
Jets departing 1'IL , following this departure rule, would not turn until reaching a point Dyer the
southeast comer of the intersection of Dodd Road and Interstate 49 1. This point is south of
Rogers Lake East by a substantial distance. Jets flying 3 statute miles from the ends of the
runways before turning would not fly over Rogers Lake East. Our noise problem would be
solved! But jet planes are NOT flying.' statute miles before turning. The C pdate claims that
95 /0 of jet departures are doing this and this is NOT HAPPENING.
• How do you explain this contradiction?
It Isn't flyine 3 statute miles before turning an FAA rule for -jets'
• Why is it not being followed?
• How can we get this rule enforced?
Agenda
Page 2
4.) A change in the northern boundary of the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor from 90 degrees
to 95 degrees would help Rogers Lake East. Rogers Lake East is very near the current 90 degree
northern boundary. However, Page 6-12 of the C%pdare rejects resetting the Corridor boundary to
95 degrees (from 90 degrees). The rationale given is:
",�NOM1IS data shows that approximately 78 % of the departure aircraft that use the 090.degree heading
are turboprop or piston prop aircraft. Because of the relatively quiet noise characteristics of these
aircraft, and their predominant use of the 090-degree heading, there was no significant change in the
DNL contour..."
In discussing our Corridor's departure rules, Page 3-10 (referenced above) makes a distinction
between "jet" aircraft and "turboprop" aircraft which "because of their quieter noise
characteristics, are not required to use Corridor procedures" (i.e. not required to fly 3 statute
miles from the end of the runway before turning).
In July of 2001, of the 12,320 departures over the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor, 9,�454 (77° o)
were "jet" carriers. Of the 2,866 departures that were not jet "carriers' a significant portion
would still have been "Jets," they just would not have been carrying passengers. Turboprop
planes must be a small portion of departures at MSP.
• Is your rejection of the 95 degree boundary based on MAC's assumption that only these few
`'turboprop" planes are flying over Rogers Lake East along the 90 degree heading? If so,
this is far from reality.
• Doesn't ANOMS data report the many noisy "jets' that are (in contravention of FAA rules)
approximating a 90 degree heading over Rogers Lake East?
• INIvi apparently does not base its calculations on actual flight paths. Rather, MAC enters in
pre-set standardized flight paths (based on destinations) and tells INIvf what departures are
following these preset paths. INM does the rest. Are these pre-set flight paths placed in
FI M, flight paths that assume "jets' are indeed flying 3 statute miles off the end of Runways
12L and 12R before turning? (This may explain the unusually low noise level INM assigns
to Rogers Lake East; however, `jets" are NOT flying 3 statute miles before turning.)
o Isn't the rationale for rejecting the 95 degree change in our Corridor's northern boundary
wrong? A change to 95 degrees (from 90 degrees) would help Rogers Lake East.
5.) Figure 6-� moves the DNL 60 boundary over Rogers Lake East, reducing the number of
homes in that contour. The move isjustified by reason of "Distant NADP." Page E-2 of the
Update states that "Unless otherwise instructed, airlines will typically use the Distant NADP.`
Page 6-23 states that "current practice" is for use of "Distant NADP on Runways 12L and 12R."
• "Distant NADP" is customarily used (per Page E-2) unless an airport mandates "Close -In
NADP". For NLAC to calculate a noise reduction by utilizing "Distant NADP" there must
have been a recent time when MSP mandated "Close -In NADP" on Runways 12Lr 12R.
When were "Close -In NADP" procedures ever mandated on Runways 12L and 12R9
Agenda
Page 3
• Since Distant NADP is already in place for RunwaNs 12L and 12R, how can MAC get any
future noise savings? How can youjustify moving our noise boundary for a noise abatement
procedure that is already in place? Aren't you taking credit for this noise abatement
procedure twice?
6.) Page 3-1 of the Update states: "The use of INM and computer -based noise modeling
allow for the projection of future, forecast noise exposure." "MM' must refer to NM Version
6.0a distributed by the FAA. However, the quotation refers to additional '`computer -based noise
modeling."
• What is this programming? Is it part of NM? Or are these programs in addition to INM?
Were all the "computer -based noise modeling" programs used by MAC approved by the
FAA?
• If the "computer -based noise modeling" program is not available from the FAA, we would
request a copy of this program from the MAC.
7.) Page 3-1 I of the Upda[a states: `rumvay use during the construction months is excluded
from the noise analysis in the Part 150 Study Update. Earlier, on Page 3-10, the C pdate refers
to the construction months as `summer months." The C pdate in a different subheading identities
the construction months as: April, May, June, July, August and September (six months. 5010 of
a calendar year). In a separate section, the Update points out that airport noise increases with
temperature, humidity and airport use. All of these conditions exist in the "summer months'
(heat, humidity and increased traffic).
• Can a noise analysis based on only 50% of a year be statistically acceptable° Especially
when the months left out are the noisiest ones?
• Is not describing 5000 of the year (six months) as just the "summer months" misleading the
FAA?
8.) Page 3-11 states that the Update excluded rumya� use' data from April through September
1999 (six months). Instead of dropping these six months (as done with 'noise analysis'), the
Cpdate went back two years and picked up `runway use' data from April through September
of 1997. Therefore, 50070 of the 1999 `runway use' analysis is based on data that is two _years old
from 1997).
• Since `runway use' figures into the computer modeling of airport noise, how did i-I]NTB
handle 6 months of data two years out of date (1997 versus 1999)'?
• If HNTB just imported six months of data from 1997 into 1999 without making any
adjustments (as the Update suggests) would this not ignore airport growth (hence additional
noise) over the intervening two years?
0 Would this not generate inaccurate, understated noise contour maps?
Agenda
Page 4
9.) Page 3-5 has a discrepancy in flight operations for 1999. In section 3.2.1 it states there were
over 510,000 annual aircraft operations. Then in the third paragraph, it states: "Twelve
months of ANOMS data for 1999, including over 450,000 flights, were used to determine...."
There are 60,000 flights (12%) missing in the ANOMS data analyzed for 1999.
• What do these 6000 flights represent?
• Is not the reference to "Twelve months of ANOMS data for 1999" a factually false
statement? Wasn't 50% (6 months) of the 'runway use' data from 1997?
• When the Update states there were 510,000 annual aircraft operations in 1999, is this the
actual total for the year 1999? Or is it the total constructed by using 6 months of air traffic
from 1997 and six months of air traffic from 1999?
10.) Page 3-18 of the Update states: "ItilVI only allows the primary headings to be
evaluated." This appears to represent an INM modeling limitation in depicting flight paths
(which we understand are entered in by your programmers and are not based on the actual flight
paths of departing planes). V
• What does primary headings' mean in this context?
• Is 1NM capable of generating calculations based on a curved flight path?
11.) Page 3-15, in the paragraph describing Figure 3-7, appears to have an error: -iViost aircraft
depart to the east, destined for Chicago and other cities on the East Coast. As a result, most
of the departure traffic from Runways 12L and 12R maintain an eastbound heading, as modeled
by ...Tracks B and C in Figure 3-7." Track C cannot be going east to Chicago as it is going
due north to Winnipeg. v
• Since this map purports to show departures over the Eagan4vlendota Heights Corridor, is
there not an error in this wTite-up as regards Track C?
12.) Page 3-3 of the C%pdate states: "terrain was modeled using 10-toot elevation intenals.'
GPS readings show that my home at 889 Bluebill Drive is at an elevation of 938 feet (97 feet
above the airport), Monitor r13 is about 100 feet above the airport and Monitor -15 is about 150
feet above the airport (being placed on a hill). Page 3-3 comments: "The terrain in the vicinity
of MSP is generally flat."
• What does "modeled using 10-foot elevation intervals" mean?
• We live in Mendota "Heights". Has your modeling program made allowance for this?
Agenda
Page 5
i3.) Page 3-15 of the Update states: 'Flight track use is expected to remain constant for 1999,
2000, and 2005." This seems to say that no growth is anticipated from 1999 to 2005 in airport
operations.
• Is this what the Update is saying?
• As referenced earlier, Page 3-5 said MSP had 510,000 annual aircraft operations in 1999.
What is included in "aircraft operations'?
• Is the MAC saying there will be 510,000 aircraft operations in 2000? And that there will also
be 510,000 aircraft operations in 2005?
14.) The Update's Appendix A is really an FAA questionnaire. In Table A-2, Question ILC3,
the FAA asks: Was there participation of the general public" prior to and during development
of NCP and prior to submittal to FAA?" The FAA requires public participation before the
development of the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP), before the publishing of a complete
draft document. FAA regulations prevent the public from being presented with a draft NCP
that is a fait accompli—an accomplished fact, a thing already done, so that opposition or
argument is useless. FAA regulations are designed to prevent the situation from developing
where the airport operator (MAC in this case) pours in a lot of time and expense developing a
complete draft NCP, becoming wedded' to that draft in the process. Then, when the "general
public" becomes involved, changes or criticism are rejected as the draft report has been
published. Instinctively, no one at MAC wants to reopen the draft document which they have
taken ownership of. We do not believe that we participated "prior to" the development of
anything. When hearings began in the Fall of 2000, all the noise contour maps were done and
the draft report was wTitten. We attempted to exert an influence through a petition and by
submitting two exhibits in the public hearing process which demonstrated the inadequacy of the
noise contour maps. But our efforts appear to be futile.
• Is not MAC's affirmative answer to the question false'
• If not a false answer, prior to November of 2000. when were the citizens of Rogers Lake East
(a community in Mendota Heights) invited to participate prior to the development of the
NCP?
I5.) In Chapter Nine, "Public Involvement", the IvfAC summarizes testimony from Public
Meetings nl, �2 and n3. MAC omits in all these summaries any reference to public comment
that MAC's noise contour maps are WRONG. Members of our committee were not the only
ones at these hearings that stated their objections to MAC's noise contour modeling. Transcripts
of the public hearings are replete with criticisms of the noise exposure maps. Yet never once
does MAC include this public comment in their hearing summaries.
In Chapter Nine, why do MAC's summaries fail to list public comments rejecting the
integrity of their noise exposure map modeling?
METROPOLITAN AIRPOR'TS COILVIISSION
i.� Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
5q60-t0 - 23th venue South • Minneapolis. NIN 55450-2799
Phone(612)—126-8100
r +
F
September 27, 2001
Cari Lindberg, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106 =
RE: 2002-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Dear Ms. Lindberg:
As previously communicated to you in my September 20, 2001 letter, discussions have been in
process to reassess the 2002 Capital Improvements Program.
Attached you will find the latest information regarding proposed program revisions.
This will be a discussion item at the October 2, 2001 Planning and Environment meeting as
indicated on the attached agenda for the meeting.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Vorpahl
Program Development Engineer
RJV/lrk
Attachments
c: Nigel Finney, MAC
Denny Probst, MAC
Gary Warren, MAC
I .�:\ir -. .\I!:t-�:t.-\\O�\COL\Tl%IiL\�F-•CI:1tiT.-\rr•FIII�C:
CIOt:D•t>IE
FI.\10 .5�1\T I':\�L D��.`:\TCI�`:�
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning and Environment Ccmmittee
ITEM 12
Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director— Planning and Environment
(612-726-8187)
2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISIONS . .
September 26, 2001
In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, and its impact on the airlines and air
transportation, staff has carried out an evaluation of the 2002 Capital Improvement Program to
determine which projects could be deferred to a later date. This review is based on the facts that
aircraft and passenger activity will be significantly lower in 2002 than previously expected with
consequences for MAC of significantly reduced revenues (parking, concessions, auto rental, etc.)
and an airline industry that is unable to absorb substantial additional costs for either airfield or
terminal improvements. In addition, it is advisable to reduce or eliminate the need to sell bonds
in 2002 given the current state of the industry.
The following provides examples of impacts to MAC resulting from current conditions:
1. Parking revenues have decreased approximately 60-70%.
2. News and Gifts/Food and Beverage are estimated at a 30-40% reduction in revenue for
the 41h quarter.
3. Preliminary revenues for auto rental indicate a decrease of 30% in the 4� quarter.
4. Restricted (reduced activity at the reliever airports is expected to result in reduced
revenue of $200,000 - $400,000.
5. Overall revenue at year-end is projected to be down $10-12 million.
6. PFC's will be reduced this year by $10-12 million based on fewer passengers.
The CIP as presented to the Commission in September, 2001 for environmental and community
review contemplated expenditures for 2002 of approximately $371 million spread over a variety
of projects at MSP and the reliever airports. The staff review has focussed on funding sources for
these projects, with particular attention to those projects proposed to be funded from the
2000/2001 GARB issues, and projects without a defined revenue source. The results of this
review indicate that projects approximating $295 million, leaving a Capital Improvement Program
of approximately $76 million, should be deferred. In addition, a number of projects that were to
have been carried out in 2001 are also recommended for deferral. The proposed changes are
shown on the attached spreadsheet.
It is not the intent of staff to recommend elimination of these projects from the Capital
f the
Improvement Program at this time, but to defer their implementation until a bet er sense o
timing and extent of industry recovery is available. It is anticipated that the projects would be
further reviewed during the process for preparation of the 2003 Capital Improvement Program,
however if the industry recovery is more rapid that expected and revenues recover more quickly,
staff would review individual projects for earlier implementation.
11
o, O
�I
0
N
Z
�j�
a
O
GO
�
K
U
�
�
z
`
w0
Cl
ELww
OC
U
K
0
c
U
°
Q
<
c
�
E
r
m
FL
—
E
E
_
c
>
C
O
O
000a
0000
O
O
O
�e
w
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
p
p
oap
O
O
O
O
aaao
0
0
0
0
o
'
o
_
o
w
w
n
w
O
O
O
0
0
O
00
0Cl
0
0
O
0
O
o
p
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
h
I
w
w
w
w
w
w
cNi
to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
0 0 C
p p0 O O O O o 0 0
O O
0 0 0 0 0 C
eA trci� o O �, O w O - u to O y3 O w
w l
-
U I
0
c
c E K ¢ t
a 9 m m -o c o '° c y m a
y�No�ERNE w w z
a
n - o
u
a, U m '° s > a 0 > E E E
o n o— — o w Q
=� n r N G U u E c c G ¢¢ G G c G m F=
c c c o
s E E E E E _ ____
Z O c C
G
J � �
*PLEASE NOTE NEW MEETING LOCATION**
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
William Erhart
Coral Houle
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
Paul Weske
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 2, 2009 _ _
1:00 p.m.
MAC General Offices
6040 28N Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN
AGENDA
CONSENT
FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Green Concourse Expansion — Phase 1 General (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
Project Manager)
b. Lindbergh Terminal Hazardous Material Abatement — Air Handler (Todd Oetjens,
Facilities Architect)
C. Parking Expansion: Snowmelt System (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project
Manager)
d. Parking Expansion: RAC Exit Ramp (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project
Manager)
e. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program: Ventilation Fans 2000 (John Nelson, Part
150 Program Manager)
f. Runway 17-35 West Cargo Apron (Allen Dye, Airside Project Manager)
g. 66t' Street Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Demolition — Phase II (Allen Dye,
Airside Project)
h. Miscellaneous Airfield Electrical Modifications — St. Paul Downtown Airport
(Bridget Rief, Airside Project Manager)
i. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (John Nelson, Manager - Part 150 Program)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Lindbergh Terminal Concourse Renaming Project (Todd Oetjens, Facilities
Architect)
b. Parking Expansion — Revenue Control System (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
Project Manager)
C. Longfellow Avenue (Allen Dye, Airside Project Manager)
�IETROP�LITAN AiRPOi2TS CO�'EtiIISSit�
- lYlinneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
r r '-+� 60�0 - 28th .4cznue South • �linneapulis, �I\ ii-li0-'_79)
Phanz(6121736-SI00 -
August 29, 2001
Cari Lindberg, Administrator --
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106
Dear Ms. Lindberg:
Each year the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) compiles its seven-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) which outlines construction -projects ;,proposed. for .the _
Commission's system of seven airports. The projects shown in year one represent projects that
have been reasonably defined for implementation in the upcoming calendar year. Staff will
have authority to develop final plans and specifications and advertise for bids for these projects.
Projects in year two have been identified as a need or potential need but require further study in
order to properly determine the scope, feasibility or cost of the project. Staff will have authority
to develop plans and specifications for these projects to refine the projects for inclusion in next
year's program. Projects in year three will be studied and preliminary plans and specifications
prepared. The last five years of the program include projects that staff deems likely to be
needed during this period. This portion of the program assists in financial planning and meets
the requirements of the Metropolitan Council's investment framework.
In 1998, new legislation was passed (MS 473.621, Subd. 6 as amended) concerning local
review of the CIP. The legislation requires the MAC to complete a process to provide "affected
municipalities" surrounding the airport the opportunity for discussion and public participation in
the MAC's CIP process. An "affected municipality" is a municipality that is either adjacent to a
MAC airport, is within the noise zone of a MAC airport as defined in the Metropolitan
Development Guide, or has notified the MAC that it considers itself an "affected municipality."
Your community has been identified as an "affected municipality" by Metropolitan Council staff
based upon the criteria as defined in the statute.
The legislation requires that the MAC provide adequate and timely notice including a description
of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include agendas and
meeting minutes at which the proposed CIP was to be discussed or voted on in order to provide
the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and participate in the development of
the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received from the affected municipalities will be
reviewed and a response developed.
As has been done since 1999, the MAC has developed a schedule that will allow the affected
municipalities the opportunity to participate in the CIP process. The implementation schedule
for the 2002 CIP is attached for your information. The shaded items represent actions/dates
that pertain to the CIP. You will receive mailings regarding the CIP review and approval
�'", ,: c>Con.......... ..... e.i;km.,.n�..�„,
,.,,.,.,,_..�.�.T��,ai_-�_•a;�sr,•ri.u�ca.o�u•r.,��Fei.�io.�,�i�Tr_�.��t_eo:�:�ro�c�
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
William Erhart
Coral Houle
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
Paul Weske
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE"
Tuesday, September 4, 2001
1:00 p.m.
Room 3040, Mezzanine Level
Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field
AGENDA
CONSENT
1. FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS
a. EMC Boiler/Insulation Removal (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager)
b. Parking Expansion: ADA Tunnel/D Street Bridge (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
ProjectManager
C. Green/Gold Parking Ramp Security Cameras, CFA (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
Project Manager)
d. Ramsey Middle School — Noise Abatement (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
e. 2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (John Nelson, Manager - Part 150
Program)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. MAC Data Transport System (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect)
b. New HHH Terminal (BP#2) Concrete Structure (Myrene Biernat, Facilities
Architect)
C. New HHH Terminal (BP#3) Building Shell, Systems, & Public Space Build -Out —
Mechanical (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
d. New HHH Terminal (BP#4) — Exterior Building Components, Interior Build -Out
and Systems (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
e. MSP Airport Mail Center: Mechanical Construction (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
f. House of Prayer Preschool — Noise Abatement (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
DISCUSSION
15. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Gary G. Warren, Director — Airside Development
Dennis Probst, Director — Landside Development
16, PRELIMINARY 2002-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment
2. Capital Improvement Program - These are projects that have been identified as a need or
potential need but require further study in order to properly determine the scope, feasibility, or
costs of the project. Staff will request authority to develop plans and specifications for these
projects to refine the projects for inclusion in next years program.
3. Capital Improvement Plan - This encompasses the last five years of the total program and
consists of projects that staff deems likely to be needed during the period. This portion of the
program assists in financial planning and meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Council's
Investment Framework. Staff will be requesting authority to study and prepare preliminary
plans and specifications for the projects.
Also included with this memo (Attachment 2) are the following
• Listing of projects (with associated cost estimates) in the major program categories in
the 2010 Plana This is a change in the format used in previous years.
Cost totals for each category.
• Project narratives for years 2002 and 2003.
It is necessary for the Commission to adopt the preliminary CIP=for purposes of initiating the
environmental review and to allow sufficient time for the "affected municipalities" to review the
CIP. The attached project listing is overly -inclusive to ensure that all potential projects are subject
to the environmental process. Staff will continue to review the 2002-2003 projects to develop a
more concise list to recommend for implementation.
COMMITTEE ACTION_REQUESTED
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF THE ATTACHED
PRELIMINARY 2002-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PURPOSES OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. FURTHER, THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND THAT THE PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE BE DESIGNATED HEARING OFFICERS FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING.
NOTE:
All dates are tentafive and subject to change
Shaded Items represent actions/dates which pertain to the Affected Municipalities as defined in
Minnesota Statutes 473.621.Subd. 6 as amended
Io;
:9
�I
3 I
W o 0 o S
w o 0 0
w O Q h h a
> o
a
J
O
QQ Op O O O O
U C do N N
N N O
N_ _ C6 O O
O O O OI
0 C 00 o
- o 0 0 0 0
o _
h o 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w2 o
" 0 0
¢ 2 o 0 0 0CT o 0 0 o o o
E= j C7 o N m(6 V7 C5 -
0 0 N to CD c ri n
USG w n a
da
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
Z o C
S2U -
00 0 0 00
W _ uoi o o_ o - - 06
U� d o wtri sv
z a
O z J m rn rn
cozz� E E o 0
-
m o o o c
E � o
a a o E E o Q o
m___ m_ ax c c m a` E a` H i W o y
7yj
n> c oo = cE mm>i6 o °o c U m - --c 0 ` o o m mWo
--
Nm m-
mEcE- LccE
4
o uc
c c c c E m m m
E m 0 " `
m 7;aGUmm
3
Uc Ulo y
a0mvH o a>w
o N!-
E - J
.o K F to .o C Cm' N'inl z ~ tq 'C < a aiN; a a cn' W ZIN U U�tn, J U
i
(�
\
\�
2
ƒ
\
/
m<00
C)
---
=G\\
<00
)
!
\\
■■
�
\
„
\E
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 2002
2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS
ear
Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program
12R Deicing/Holding Pad $1870001000
This project will construct the airports deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the efficient deicing of
aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will
also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway B10.
12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Buildings Demolition $1,2503000
This project will provide the demolition of the Navy hangar, office and motor pool and the MAC Paint,
Electric and Carpenters shops to provide the area needed to construct Taxiway Band the Runway 12R
deicing/holding pad. I'
Runway 17/35 Program
24th Avenue Bridge $3,200,000
This project will provide for the construction of a bridge on 24th Avenue which will allow the frontage road
traffic to pass beneath and keep the traffic on 24th Avenue free flowing.
66th Street Interchange - Phase 2 1$4,1003000
This project provides for the construction of the final phase of the 66th Street interchange and includes the
ramps on the west side of Cedar Avenue.
77th Street/24th Avenue Interchangell-494 Frontage Road $11,600,000
This project will provide for the construction of the 77th Street/24th Avenue interchange and roadway system
and the frontage road along 1-494 from 77th Street to the east
Buildings Demolition $81123p500
This project provides for the demolition of the Freight Forwarders facilities, the MAC glycol facilities, Federal
Express, UPS and Bax Global.
Infield Fueling Facilities $42600,000
This project provides for fueling facilities within the midfield development for aircraft fueling.
Lease Extinguishment $22300,000
In addition to the acquisition of property for the construction of Runway 17/35 and the Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired.
MAC Equipment and Materials Storage Building $6,885,000
This project will provide for the construction of a facility which will serve as both an equipment storage faciliy
and a storaage facility for sand, salt, and other deicing agents to used on Runway 17/35 and the adjacent
service roads.
MAC Glycol Facilities $43200,000
This project provides for the construction of the pond system used to store the glycol impacted storm water
collected during the deicing season from the storm sewers on the ramp areas.
MAC South Fueling Facility $5643000
To provide fuel to all the equipment operaring on and adjacent to Runway 17/35, this project will construct a
new fueling facility on the airport service road near the MAC equipment/materials storage facility.
Printed 08/28/2001 5:06:15 Pitt Page 1
Residential Sound Insulation (Inside 1996 65 DNLI $311500,000
An ongoing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour.
Residential Sound Insulation Multi-familv(Inside 1996 65 DNL) $5,000,000
This project provides for insulation of multi -family dwellings within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour.
School Noise Abatement Proiects $27000,000
This project will provide for noise insulation to Visitation School in Minneapolis.
Airfield Rehabilitation Program
Airside Bituminous Construction
$500,000
An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area.
Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L, 12U30R, Taxiway C and the tunnel service road will be
made in the spring of 2002 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required.
Pavement Rehabilitation - Aprons $510007000
An ongoing program to replace sections of concrete pavement in the aircraft operational areas that have
deteriorated to a point where maintenance is no longer a viable option. This years project will include the
reconstruction of the apron adjacent to Concourse D, Gates D1 and D2, Concourse E, Gates Eland E4,
and Concourse C, Gates C10 and C11.
Environmental Remediation Program
NPDES Discharge Project $3,000,000
This project provides for the construction of a pumping station and piping to allow for the flow to the Phase 3
pond located adjacent to Highway 5 to be bypassed to the MCES system during summer months for
treatment.
Green Concourse Extension Program
Concourse C Apron Expansion
$3,300,000
This project includes the final of four phases of the apron construction associated with the expansion of
Concourse C and provides for the construction of the concrete pavement in the area of the Post Office.
Concourse C Concessions $1,5003000
This project will provide for the development of concessions in Phase 2 of the Concourse C project.
Lindbergh Terminal Rehab &Development Program
International Arrivals Facility $500,000
This project provides for the replacement of the carpeting throughout the public areas of the International
Arrivals Facility.
Lindbergh Terminal North Addition Concessions $4,100,000
This project will provide for the development of the concessions in the North Terminal addition.
Printed 08/28/2001 5:06:15 PM Page 3
Terminal Mechanical Modifications $3007000
An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the Terminal Facilities requiring attention due to age
and deterioration of existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. This year's project
includes replacement of non -compliant steam pressure relief valves, replacement of a steam pressure
reducing station and providing communications from the Hub Building water heater to the Plumbing Control
System.
Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications $11550,000
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the Terminal Facilities to keep abreast with
changing requirements, This may be a series of individual projects to meet the requirements of the various
tenants or may be consolidated into a single project when possible. This work is typically done by purchase
order as the projects are small in scope and cost There will be some larger projects, however, including
the expansion of the Landside Operations Office, the construction of common curbside check -in stations,
modifications to the Police Department space, installation of a security breach notification system and the
construction of a special needs passenger assistance area.
WesTerminal Area Rehabilitation " $100,D00
t
An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas within the West Terminal Complex to meet the needs of the
various tenants/general publiclMAC departments utilizing the facilities. This year's project will provide for
tuck pointing repairs to the building exterior.
Reliever Airport Program
Airlake
Maintenance Office Repair/Reconstruction $3003000
This project provides for the repair/reconstruction of the walls of the maintenance office which are
deteriorating due to moisture. The moisture is being transmitted from the ground via the concrete footing
and is causing the concrete block wall structure to deteriorate and mold to grow on the interior walls.
South Building Area Development $2,100,000
This project is the second phase in the program to develop anew South Building Area and partial parallel
taxiway. This year's project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system.
Anoka
Building Area Annex -West $1,000,000
This project will provide for the construction of the West Bung Area including sanitary sewer and water
main, accomodation of storm water drainage and all required wetland mitigation.
Building Area Development East (Roadway Relocation) $1,3001000
This project provides for the relocation of Xylite/95th streets as the first phase in the construction of the East
Building Area. Construction of a berm and wetland mitigation are also included.
Runway 9127 ExtensionlWidening
$6,500,000
This project will provide for the widening and extension to 5000 feet of Runway 9/27 including all required
wetland mitigation.
Runway 9/27 MALSR/ILS
$2,600,000
This project provides for the installation of the ILS and MALSR systems for the new 5000 foot runway
ncluding all required wetland mitigation.
Runway 9/27 Parallel Taxiwaw/Extension $1,0003000
This project provides for the extension of the parallel taxiway to Runway 9/27 to match the extension of the
runway.
Crystal
Runway 6tJ24R Reconstruction $$50,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 6U24R.
Printed 08128/2001 5:06:16 PM Page 5
Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program
Airlake
Plane Wash & Restroom Facilities $150,000
This project will provide for the construction of a plane wash and public restroom facilities.
Sanitary Sewer/Watermain Install.-N. Building Area $21000,000
Airlake Airport is located on the south edge of the developed area of Lakeville. A study has been completed
evaluating alternatives for extending public utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and water main to the
Northeast and Southwest Building areas. This year's project will extend these utilities to the Northeast
Building Area.
Anoka
Sanitary Sewer and Waterrnain Extensions $200,000
This project will provide for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations.
Crystal
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $200,000
This project provides for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations.
Flying Cloud
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions $4,500,000
Flying Cloud Airport is on the fringe of the developed area of Eden Prairie. Studies have therefore evaluated
alternatives for extending municipal utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and watermain to the airport With
the adoption of the Sewer and Water Installation Policy for the Reliver Airports, negotiations are continuing
so as to reach final agreement on the altemative to be implemented. If agreement can be reached_ in 2001,
the project will commence in 2002.
Miscellaneous Field 8
Miscellaneous Construction $400,OD0
An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond Lite capabilities of the maintenance
personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring
repair which come up unexpectedly.
Miscellaneous Landside
Fire/Rescue Station Replacement Facility $14,50D,000
This project will provide the construction of a new fire/rescue facility on 34th Avenue north of the Humphrey
Terminal.
MAC Cargo Buildings - Air Freight Facility $4,0001000
In conjunction with the construction of Runway17/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will
construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the
construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas to
accommodate non -anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for cargo operators who operate to and from MSP
on an infrequent basis..
Printed 08/28/2001 5:06:16 PYt Page 7
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 2002
2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS
r
Runway DeicinglHolding Pad Program
12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Taxiwgy B Construction $1,900,000
This project provides for the construction of Taxiway B between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M. Also included
in this project is the removal of Taxiway T between Runway 4122 and Taxiway M and the construction of
taxiway fillets east of Runway 4122,
Runway 17135 Program
Buildings Demolition $11,200,000
This project will provide for the demolition of the Metro Office Park, the Sun Country Hangar, the Mesaba
Hangar, the Amoco gas station, the Super America gas station, the Double Tree, the Sheraton, the Excel
Inn and other miscellaneous structures within the Runway Protection Zone.
Lease Extinguishment $3,800,000
n addition to the acquisition of property for the construction of Runway 17/35 and the Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired.
Other General Construction $4043000
This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities.
Runway 17 Deicing Pad Construction $20,00%000
This project will provide the paving of the deicing/holding pad for Runway 17.
Runway
17135 Construction -South End $1570002000
This project provides for the site preparartion and paving of the runway and taxiway system south of the
Runway 4/22 intersection.
Runway 4/22 Tunnel $49,000,000 .
This project provides for the construction of the vehicle tunnel under Runway 4/22 which will provide access
to the midfield development area. This project also includes the construction of service road adjacent to the
Taxiway D and W intersection.
Snowmelters $1,600,000
This project will provide for the installation of additional snow melters within the Runway 17135 development.
Tunnel Site Construction $23600,000
This project provides for the utility construction, pavement removal and replacement of Runway 4122 and
Taxiways C, D and M along the alignment of the Runway 4/22 tunnel.
Runway 4122 Development Program
Buildings Demolition -Bureau of Mines $400,000
As part of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property, The MAC agreed to demolish the buildings n site
to return the property to a more natural condition. This project will be the final phase in the demolition
process.
Printed 08/28/2001 5:06:17 PM Page 9
International Arrivals Facility $1,500,000
The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add
additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is therefore a need for additional office
space and facility expansion to house the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the secondary
inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and modifying the
passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional seating and signage. The
success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity of the
entire facility to handle additional 747 aircraft simultaneously.
Lindbergh Terminal Bag Make-up Area Addition $21000,000
The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition of gates on Concourse C
will put additional pressure on these facilities. A study will be completed and a project to increase the bag
make-up space will commence in 2002.
Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation I r $1,000,000
The existing loading dock behind the terminal is congested and is becoming a focus of FAA from a security
stand point. This project will relocate and expand the loading dock to a location outside of security.
West Mezzanine Finishes $110001000
The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waifing area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the
existing West Mezzanine. A floor structure has been constructed over the extension with the concessions
project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to provide additional area for
expanded office space.
Landside Rehabilitation &Repair
Building Exterior Rehabilitation_ $1,000,000
This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal and other MAC
buildings including roofing and curtain wall systems. Projects will be evaluated in 2002 and will be
presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2003 construction season.
Landside Bituminous Construction $4002000
An ongoing program to reconstruct the airports bituminous roadways and parking lots. A specific project or
projects have not been identified at this time. Bituminous pavements will be evaluated in the spring of 2003
to determine whether a bituminous repair project is required.
Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $21500,000
An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will include the
installation of a second two-story escalator from the Ground Transportation Center (GTC) to the ticketing
level of the Lindbergh Terminal.
Parking Structure Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi -level parking structures. Projects include concrete
repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, and concrete sealing.
Terminal Air Handling Units Replacement $5007000
A 1997 study of the existing mechanical equipment in the Lindbergh recommended that mechanical units
that were installed in 1960 be replaced. Some of the units were replaced in conjunction with the
development/revision of the concessions area. This program will be continued with the replacement of
additional units throughout the Terminal Complex.
Terminal Complex Sprinkler System Modifications $100,000
An ongoing program to address areas in the terminals which are not currently sprinklered. This item is
programmed to allow for further analysis of areas, which, if sprinkled, would allow for insurance premium
reductions. It will also allow for extension of sprinkled areas should space utilization changes occur.
Printed OS/28/2001 5:06:18 PM Page 11
Sayfieid Street Rehabilitation $200,000
This project provides for the rehabilitation of Bayfield street from the MAC Administration Building to Mercury
Avenue including subgrade and pavement replacement.
MAC Building Modifications $100,000
An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings
or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants.
Miscellaneous Field & Runway
Miscellaneous Construction $400,000
An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance
personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring
repair which come up unexpectedly.
New Projects Program
Cat wilia System Installations $9,000,000
This is a continuation of the program to install new ILS systems on Runways 12L, 12R, and 35, This project
will provide for the instailtion of ILS systems on Runways 12L and 35.
New Air Traffic Control Tower $1,000,000
This is a continuation of the program to construct a new Air Traffic Control Tower.
RAC Service Site Relocation $5,0003000
This project will provide for the relocation of the RAC service sites to a common location near the MTC bus
garage on the south side of the airport
Printed 08/28/2001 5:06:18 Pbt Page 13
Commission Meeting — September 17, 2001
Page Two
Management and Operations Committee
B1 Request Approval for Purchase of Transit Bus from Gillig Corporation
B2 Request Approval to Retain Abandoned Property
63 Temporary APCOA Contract Extension
64 Authorization to Issue an RFQ for a Public Relations Continuing
Consultant
B5 Request to Bid for Telephone Equipment and Services
B6 Request for Authorization to Negotiate New "F" Concourse Infill Retail
Agreements
B7 MN State Lottery Sales Lease Renewals
a) Lottery Booth Agreement with MN State Lottery
b) Non -Profit Organization Lottery Booth Lease with Minnesota
Public Airport Foundation
B8 Airport Emergency Plan Exercise at MSP
ll. D/SCUSS/ON ITEMS
Finance Committee
C1 Reports
a) Monthly Operating Results
b) Summary of Investment Portfolio
c) Summary of Air Carriers Passenger Facility Charges
C2 2001 Budget Adjustments
C3 Resolution No.1938 — Ratification of Terms of Sale of MAC General
Obligation Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 14
III. NEINBUSINESS
1) Oath of Office —MAC Police Officers
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. ANNOUNCEMENTSICOMMISSIONERCOMMENTS
(Information Only - No Action Required)
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Planning and Environment Committee
September 4, 2001
Page 22
requires that the Commission provide adequate and timely notice including a description
of the projects in the CIP to each affected municipality. The notices must include
agendas and meeting minutes at which the proposed CIP is to be discussed or voted on
in order to provide the municipalities the opportunity to solicit public comment and
participate in the development of the CIP on an ongoing basis. Comments received
from the affected municipalities will be reviewed and a response developed.
Staff has therefore developed a schedule that outlines the dateslactions required for the
development of the CIP, the environmental review, process and ,the local review by
"affected municipalities" process: Mr. Finney reviewed the implementation schedule for
the 2002-2008 CIP.
The proposed 7-year Capital, Improvement Program (CIP) relating to construction projects
on the Commission's Airport System consists of the following elements:
1. Capital Improvement Projects These are projects that have been reasonably
defined for implementation in the upcoming, calendar year`(in this case 2002),
Staff will request authority to develop final, plans and specifications and advertise
for bids for these projects.
2. Capital. Improvement Program -These are projects that have been identified as a
need or potential need but require further study in order to properly determine the
scope, feasibility, or costs of the project. Staff will request authority to develop
Plans and specifications for these projects to refine the projects for inclusion in next
year's program.
Capital Improvement Plan This encompasses the last five years of the total
program and consists of projects that staff deems likely to be needed during the
period. This portion of the program assists in financial planning and meets the
requirements of the Metropolitan Council's Investment Framework. Staff will be
requesting authority to study and prepare preliminary plans and specifications for
the projects.
The Committee package also contained the following:
• Listing of projects (with associated cost estimates) in the major program categories
in the 2010 Plan. This is a change in the format used in previous years.
• Cost totals for each category.
• Project narratives for years 2002 and 2003.
It is necessary for the Commission to adopt the preliminary CIP for purposes of initiating
the environmental review and to allow sufficient time for the "affected municipalities" to
review the CIP. The project listing is overly -inclusive to ensure that all potential projects
are subject to the environmental process. Staff will continue to review the 2002-2003
projects to develop a more concise list to recommend for implementation.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Y
S41'
_s
a Y
September 11, 2001
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. IVIN n54i0-2799
Phone(612; 726-8100
Cari Lindberg, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4106
RE: 2002-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Dear Ms. Lindberg:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the minutes of the September meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee which summarizes the action of the Committee regarding the MAC's
preliminary 2002-2008 Capital Improvement Program as well as the agenda for the September
Commission meeting.
Also included is a revised copy of the 2002 Capital Improvement Program Implementation
Schedule as some of the months shown in the left column were in error on the previous copy
sent to you.
Since ely
Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E.
Program Development Engineer
RJV/Irk
Enclosures
cc: Nigel Finney, MAC
Dennis Probst, MAC
GaryWarren, MAC
The ]I. hopali tnn :\irpor;; Q,m misiun is an a(iirma[icc ac;io,•. m,ploay.
,, ,,,,.mspai rper:.cum
R:Iir�i•r .>irE„r.:: :\IP.L.�I:E • :\\Ui::\ COIL'\TV'l8LA1\E • Ct:YST:\L • FLl'I\G CLOL'U Lal'E EL�IO • 5.-\I\T I':\l L U� \Y\T����\
09/05/2001 13:00
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties of the Commission
N0.674
/,x9eld
Mcvopolits , Airports Commission
FROM: Mark Ryan, Airport Planner (612) 72"129 4W
SUBJECT, Reconvening of the WCF Joint Airport Zoning Board
DATE: August 31, 2001
The Metropolitan Airports Commission ("Commission") announces the reconvening of the Wold-
Chamberiain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board ("Board"). The creation of the Board was mandated
159 Minnesota' a u es' §360,063; sutid_ 3(e), wfiich requires tfi6-C6' uss�on to establisfi a joint
zoning board for each airport under its authority. The Board is comprised of representatives from
the Commission and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis,
Richfield, St. Paul and Hennepin County,
In 1984, the Board adopted the Minneapolis-SL Pau! lntemational 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 zoning 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)eadministration and enforcement
mechanisms to implement the height and land use controls.
A new runway (Runway 17-35) is now under construction at the Airport. Height and land use
controls need to be enacted for Runway 17=36, consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Additional amendments may be needed to address changes at the Airport over the period since
the last meeting of the Board.
The Board will reconvene on Thursday September 13, 2001 from d:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the
t indbargh Room of the Commission's General Offices located at 6040 — 2K Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55460. At this rrieeting, tthe 6oardis expected to discuss organizational and
procedural matters, as well as a future mesting(s).
For further information regarding this notice, please contact Mark Ryan, Airport Planner for the
MAC at 612-726-6129,
**PLEASE NOTE NEW MEETING LOCATION**
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
William Erhart
Coral Houle
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
Paul Weske
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR
MEETING
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday; October 2, 2001 _.
1:00 p.m.
MAC General Offices
6640 28" Avenue South _
Minneapolis, MN
_ AGENDA
Ile
CONSENT
&ele e I_ .,
1, FINAL
PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a.
Green Concourse Expansion — Phase 1 General (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
Project Manager)
b,
Lindbergh Terminal Hazardous Material Abatement — Air Handler (Todd Oetjens,
Facilities Architect)
C.
Parking Expansion: Snowmelt System (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project
Manager)
d.
Parking Expansion: RAC Exit Ramp (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project
Manager)
e.
Part 150 Sound Insulation Program: Ventilation Fans 2000 (John Nelson, Part
150 Program Manager)
f.
Runway 17-35 West Cargo Apron (Allen Dye, Airside Project Manager)
g.
661h Street Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Demolition — Phase 11 (Allen Dye,
Airside Project)
h.
Miscellaneous Airfield Electrical Modifications — St. Paul Downtown Airport
(Bridget Rief, Airside Project Manager)
i.
Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (John Nelson, Manager- Part 150 Program)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Lindbergh Terminal Concourse Renaming Project (Todd Oetjens, Facilities
Architect)
b. Parking Expansion — Revenue Control System (Dennis Kowalke, Landside
Project Manager)
c. Longfellow Avenue (Allen Dye, Airside Project Manager)
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Noise Attorney
V. STAFF REPORT
A. Part 150 Update
Be Joint Airport Zoning Board
co RMT Installation Progress
D. MASAC Update
VI. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA
A. Next ARC Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 11, 2001
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids forpersons with disabilities will beprovided upon advance nonce 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.
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation,
Volume 13, Number 28
BWIInf'1
and technological developments
STATE LAW PROVIDES LIP IN RESTITUTION
FOR EACH TAKEOFF OR LANDING AT BWI
Unique and unprecedented legislation signed into law in Maryland recently
will provide S 1 for every aircraft takeoff or landing at Baltimore -Washington
International Airport to communities near the airport as restitution for noise,
pollution, and congested highways caused by airport operations.
As airport operations grow, so does the funding pot, which has been approved at
an initial level of S316,702, based on the total number of operations that occurred
at BWI last year. '-- But the amount of"restitution" funding available to communities could
significantly increase in the future because BWI is one of the fastest growing
airports in the country, It is undergoing a five-year, $1.8 billion expansion
program that will add 16 gates, triple parking, and widen access roads. Operations
are projected to increase significantly.
"Communities deserve to get something back outside of the airport's noise
abatement program," said Maryland Sen. lames E. DeGrange, Sr., (D) author of the
legislation (Senate Bill 276), the Citizens Committee for the Enhancement of
Communities Surrounding BWI Airport.
(Continued on p. 121)
Minneapolis-SL Paullnt'1
PUTTING ANOMS DATA ON INTERNET LETS
PEOPLE GENERATE THEIR OWN REPORTS
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport has found a way to make much fuller
use of the data from its Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
(ANOMS) by transferring it to the Internet where anyone can access the informa-
tion to generate their own tailor-made reports on a wide array of topics, such as
noise levels, flight tracks, runway use, and airline fleet mix.
Users also have the ability to replay aircraft operations and to see the resultant
noise events on a map. In addition, the application allows real-time written
communication on the same map view between multiple users.
"This represents the next generation of information dissemination" to the
public, said Chad Leqve, ANOMS coordinator for the Minneapolis -St. Paul
Metropolitan Airports Commission's Noise and Satellite Programs.
The use of data sets from ANOMS and the Geographic Information System (GIs)
and the information dissemination flexibility that the Internet provides, he said,
has allowed the MAC to address airport noise impact issues in a proactive manner
that supersedes traditional methods and capabilities.
It also is a way to demonstrate to the community the benefits of the investments
the airlines are making in quieter fleets, he added.
(Continued on p. 131)
August 24, 200]
In This Issue...
BWIInt7.., A new
Maryland law will provide $1
for every aircraft takeoff or
landing at BWI to com-
munities near the airport as
restitution for noise, pollution,
and road congestion - p. 120
Minneapolis... Putting
ANOMS data on the Internet
allows communites, airport
users to generate their own
tailor-made reports on noise
impact, flight tracks - p. 120
. MSP Airports Commis-
sion approves plan to expand
eligibility for its residential
sound insulation program to
homes in the 60-64 dB DNL
noise contour - p. 121
Flight Delays ... DOT seeks
public comment on feasibility,
effectiveness of using market -
based approaches to relieve
airport congestion - p. 122
feips Briefs ... Coalition of
communities opposed to new
m way at Sea-Tac challenges
state decision to grant key
environmental permit ... Ill.
eovernor says he will not meet
Sept. I deadline for offering
counter -proposal on Chicago's
O'Hare expansion plan ... Final
EIS out on new runway at
Atlanta Hartsfield Intl - p. 123
2001
ranging from only adding central air conditioning to homes
in the 60-64 dB DNL contour to providing the same full
sound insulation package that homes in the 65 dB DNL and
higher contour get.
The MAC decided to provide the full sound insulation
package to homes in the expanded contours but only to the
extent that the S 150 million would support such efforts.
The program will start with homes in the 64 dB DNL
contour and work outward to less impacted homes and stop
when the money runs out.
However, the MAC did approve a recommendation to ask
the state Legislature to fund the shortfall. It also directed its
staff to update the MSP International noise contours in
2005, based on the most current fleet mix data, which could
result in the contours shrinking and homes coming out of
them.
Like homes in the 65 dI3 DNL contour, those in the
expanded area may receive a variety of insulating treat-
ments, including new or reconditioned windows and doors,
wall and attic insulation, central air conditioning (if none
exists), roof vents, and baffles. _. _
The commission said it will develop a unique acoustic
design for each homes based on its pre-existingconditions
- (windows, doors, insulation, and mechanical condition).
The goal is to reduce interior noise levels by 5 dB or more
and to maintain interior air quality.
The expanded program will be phased in between 2003
and 2010.
Flight Delay
DOT SEEKS COMMENT
ON MARKET -BASED FIXES
The Department of Transportation issued a notice Aug. 21
seeking public comment on the feasibility and effectiveness
of using market -based approaches to relieve airport
congestion and flight delays.
The notice, and others to follow, are intended to help
provide the department with data and perspectives on a
range of policy alternatives to address the problems of
congestion and delay. .
The public has until Nov. 19 to submit comments on the
notice, which seeks responses to 22 specific questions DOT
has posed on market -based issues.
iviarket-based approaches are pricing systems that can be
implemented at airports to encourage air carriers to use
scarce airport capacity more efficiently, DOT explained in
its notice. Such pricing systems have been used in other
industries to achieve a better balance between supply and
demand, resulting in a facility or service being used more
than otherwise during off-peak hours, DOT said.
DOT did not mention environmental impacts in its notice
but moving tights to off-peak hours or into late night hours
is certain to have noise impacts.
1b4arket-based pricing may be one part of the puzzle
toward reducing congestion at some key locations in the
122
near term and this action allows us to better understand how
market -based options might work," Secretary of Transporta-
tion Norman Y. Mineta said.
DOT said that, in addition to other department analytical
efforts, public response to its notice will help policy makers
better understand the implications of market -based pricing,
including its possible impact on reducing flight delays, as
well as on airline competition, general aviation, airfares,
and small community access to air travel markets.
The DOT notice is not airport specific nor does it endorse
a specific market -based approach —such as congestion
fees, auctions, or flat fees — or any specific regulatory
approach.
Comments on the notice are due in 90 days and should be
submitted to Docket Clerk, Docket No. OST-2001-9849,
Room PL-4 01,US Department of Transportation, 400 7 6 St.,
SW, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the following Internet address:
DMS.dot.gov.
The DOT notice and comments received on it may be
obtained via the Internet at hip-//dms dot.go docket
number OST 2001-9849.
In Brief...
Communities Challenge Permit
The Airport Communites Coalition (ACC), comprised of
5ve cities and a school district opposed to the Port of
Seattle's plans to build a third runway at Seattle -Tacoma
Intemational Airport, filed an appeal on Aug. 23 of a state
decision to grant the Port a key environmental permit
needed to move forward with the new 8,500-ft., S773
million runway.
The Washington Department of Ecology last week
approved the Port's water -quality plan for the new runway
but imposed additional measures to reduce water contami-
nation-
The state permit was required as part of the Army Corps of
Engineers' construction approval process for the runway.
The corps is expected to make a decision on the runway in
about two months. Construction of the runway requires
essentially filling in a valley with 20 million cubic yards of
material.
ACC contends that the state agency was under political
pressure to approve the permit and that the Port did not
provide complete information to it. It appealed the permit
to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board, which will
now hold a hearing on the matter.
O'Hare Expansion Plan
Illinois Gov. George Ryan said Aug. 23 that he most
likely will not meet the Sept. t deadline imposed by the
Senate Aviation Subcommittee for offering a counterpro-
posal to Chicago's S6 billion plan to expand O'Hare
Airport Noise Report
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Humber 29
Yan Nzrys
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE UPHOLDS
VAN NUYS STAGE ZNON-ADDITION RULE
In another major defeat in court for the National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA), a U.S. District Courtjudge Aug.27 upheld a restriction at Van Nuys'
Airport in Los Angeles limiting the number of Stage 2 jet aircraft under 75,060 lb.
that can be based at the general aviation airport, the busiest in the country:
"Today's court decision is a major victory for the City of Los Angeles and the
communities near Van Nuys Airport," Selena B. Birk, manager of the airport, said
in a prepared release. "We believe the Non -Addition Rule effectively addresses
the concerns of airport neighbors, while balancing the economic concerns of the
airport tenants"
Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino and the Stop the Noise!
Coalition, told the Los Angeles Daily News he was "pleased but not surprised
with the decision because the city was on firm ground with the restrictions." He
predicted the ruling would bolster the city's ability to totally phase out Stage 2
operations at the airport, although the city is not actively trying to do that.
In a two -page order, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, said that NBAA and the other plaintiffs "had not
(Cwainued orr p. 125)
GVestchester County
FAA WITHOLDS PFC INCREASE PENDING
FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANCA
The Federal Aviation Administration is withholding approval of Lestchester
County Airport's application to increase its Passenger Facility Charge and
appears to be withholding the release of already approved Airport Improvement
Program grants on the grounds that the agency cannot make a positive determina-
tion that the county is in compliance with it's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and
Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions.
Responding to a complaint filed in April by the Westchester Aviation Associa-
tion, the FAA gave the county until Aug. 4 to respond to agency concerns that it
has violated federal grant agreements and skirted the Part 161 process by using
(ease agreements and the early morning closure of a parking garage to coerce
airlines and business jets to adhere to the airport's voluntary midnight to 6:30
a.m. curfew on aircraft operations (13, ANR, 103).
FAA officials met with Westchester County's attorney and commissioner of
transportation on Aug. 29 to discuss the matter but no resolution was reached,
according to Dave Bennett, director of the FAA's Office of Airport Safety and
Standards. He declined to discuss the meeting but said he felt the matter could be
resolved in the near future.
(Continued wt p. 135)
August 31, 2001
In This issue...
'an Nuys ..: A federal
district court judge upholds a
Stage 2 non -addition rule on
business jets imposed by the
City of Los Angeles at the
busiest general aviation airport
in the country, handing
NBAA its second major court
defeat on the issue - p. 124
iVestchesterCounty... FAA
is withholding approval of
PFC increase and delaying re-
lease of AlP grants until
county can demonstrate com-
pliance with ANCA. County
challenges FAA's legal reason-
. p. 124
AJP Grants ... FAA an-
nounces awards to 11 airports
for projects related to noise
m [iation - p. 126
Islip ... Town is considering
mposing $50,000 surcharge
on late -night flights in effort to
keep out quieter planes that are
able to meet noise level limits
set in grandfathered curfew.
FAA gives town 15 days to
provide specific terms of
surcharge - p. 126
Part 150 Prgratn ... FAA
announces its approval of Part
150 airport noise mitigation
program for Williams Gateway
Ai port in Nlesa, AZ - p. 127
August 31, 2001
fact, FAA's own Part 161 regulations recognize in Section
101(d) the County's right to negotiate terms in agreements
"with one or more aircraft operators that restrict the opera-
tion of Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft," she asserted.
"The County believes that it has the right to seek inclu-
sion of a clause on voluntary compliance with the night-
time curfew in its airport leases through a voluntary
negotiation. If the FAA disagrees with this position, we
would like to understand the legal reasoning supporting
such disagreement ...." she wrote. -
"Acceptance of the axiom that any use restriction (even
when negotiated in good faith) is illegal overstates the
FAA's own regulations," Indelicato told the agency.
She noted that the county has already met with representa-
tives of the National Business Aviation Association and
Westchester Aviation Association to discuss the lease issue.
AIP Grants
FAA AWARDS AIP GRANTS
TO 11 AIRPORTS FOR NOISE
The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded
grants under its Airport Improvement Program AIP) to the
following airport proprietors for noise -related projects:
City of New Orleans received a grant of S561,848
on July 10 to acquire land for development and for reloca-
tion assistance for homeowners near New Orleans Interna-
tional Airport;
City of Chicago received a grant of S228,000 on
July 10 to soundproof an elementary school and ajunior
high school near O'Hare International Airport;
City of Atlanta received a grant of S 17,249,368 on
July 11 to acquire land for noise compatibility in the 70-75
dB DNL noise contour around Hartsfield International
Airport;
City of Cleveland received a grant of S27,61 L000
on July 19 to construct runway 5L/23R and for environ-
mental mitigation;
City and County of San Francisco received a grant
of SL5,9901000 on Aug. 9 to conduct an environmental
impact statement study for the proposed expansion of San
Francisco International Airport;
City and County of San Francisco received a grant
of S2 million on Aug. 14 for noise mitigation measures for
residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of San
Francisco International Airport and for miscellaneous noise
mitigation measures:
City and County of San Francisco received a grant
of S2 million on .Aug. 14 for noise mitigation measures fora
public school within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of
San Francisco International Airport;
Guam .Airport Authority received a grant of
S1,296,226 on Aug. 23 to acquire land for noise compat-
ibility/relocation within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour
of Guam International Airport.
Slate of Hawaii received a grant of 5509,490 on
126
Aug. 16 for unspecified environmental mitigation at Hilo
International Airport;
City of Manchester, NH, received a grant of S 1.6
million on Aug. 16 for noise mitigation measures- for
residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of
Manchester Airport;
City of Allentown, PA, received a grant of S9
million for noise mitigation measures for residences within
the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of Lehigh -Northampton
Airport and to acquire land for noise compatibility within
the 65-69 dB DNL contour; and
Cheyenne, WY, Airport Board.received a grant of
5436,500 on Aug. 16 to acquire land for noise compatibil-
ity within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour of Cheyenne
Airport. -
MacArthur Airport
$50,000 SURCHARGE ON FLIGHTS
AT NIGHT BEING CONSIDERED
The Town of Islip, NY, is considering imposing a S50,000
surcharge on late -night flights at Long Island MacArthur
Airport in an effort to keep out quieter planes that are able
to meet the noise level limits set in the airport's 1984
nighttime curfew.
The curfew, which was grandfathered under the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, bars operations between
11 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. of aircraft exceeding 72 dB on
departure and 85 dB on arrival (as per FAR Part 36).
When it was adopted 17 years ago, the curfew was
effective in banning all jet operations during the curfew
hours. However, with the advent of quieter planes, some can
now meet the curfew noise limits and operate during the
night hours.
Efforts to impose the surcharge follow an attempt by the
city, the airport proprietor, to block Comair Inc., a Delta
Connection air carrier, from operating a 6 .am. departure
from Islip MacArthur Airport to Cincinnati.
In an Aug. 7 letter, FAA Deputy Chief Counsel James W.
Whitlow reminded Airport Manager Alfred E. Werner that
the airport lacked the authority to unilaterally block
scheduled air carriers from departure by amending lease
agreements with fixed base operators to include provisions
under which they would agree not to provide service to
aircraft operating during the curfew hours. The FAA official
also told the airport it could not use town fire trucks to try
to physically block the departure of the Comair flight, as it
apparently did.
The FAA is not amused with the idea of a surcharge on
night flights either. In an Aug. 24 letter. FAA Eastern
Regional Counsel Loretta Alkalay gate Islip Town Manger
Peter McGowan Is days to provide her with the specific
terms of the surcharge, which FAA has learned from a local
news article the airport plans to impose on all night flights,
even those that can meet the grandfathered noise limits in
the curfew.
Airport Noise Report
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 30
Oakland Int'1
APPEALS COURT RULES THAT NEW EIR
MUST BE DONE FOR EXPANSION PLAN
In a bellweather ruling that interprets state environmental law but is expected to
have national repercussions, a California Court of Appeal has found the Environ-
mental Impact Report on the S138 billion expansion plan for Oakland Interim.
tional Airport to be inadequate and ordered that a new EIR be prepared., -
A three -judge panel concluded unanimously in a sharply critical 58-page
opinion that the airport's expansion plan did not comply with the California , _
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it (1) "failed to analyze adequately
the noise impacts from planned additional nighttime flights; (2) erred in using
outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs)
from jet aircraft; (3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health risks
associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis; and (4) improp-
erly deferred devising a mitigation plan for the western burrowing owl."
Noting that criteria for determining significant noise impact differ in CEQA and
the federal National Environmental Policy Act, the court said the Port of Oakland
cannot rely solely on 65 dB CNEL (California's version of DNL) to assess the
impact of nighttime cargo flights, which could triple under its development plan.
(Continued on p. 129)
Albuquerque Int'1
FAA REJECTS MAYOR'S PLAN TO TURN
DEPARTURES TO REDUCE NOISE IMPACT
The Federal Aviation Administration has rejected a plan proposed by Albuquer-
que Mayor Jim Baca to turn aircraft departing Albuquerque International Sunport
to the south in order to avoid populated areas and to reduce noise impact on the
community.
The agency said in a report released by the mayor's office in late August that
"requiring more aircraft to operate in limited airspace by going south increases
the potential that the proposed operation may not be as safe as current proce-
dures" and has "the potential for delays and near mid -air collisions." Community
concerns about noise are understandable, the FAA said, but concluded that the
mayor's plan "would result in a potential decrease in safety with no gain in
operational efficiency."
In addition, the report found, the change in departure procedure "would result in
the airlines being impacted by departure delays and additional flight mileage
resulting from the longer routes."
The FAA report said that some reduction in noise impact could be achieved
through the voluntary removal by the airlines of certain planes and rerouting of
sonic flights. Such action could reduce overflights of the community by 55
(Continued on p. 130)
September 7, Z001
In This Issue...
Oakland... A -California
Court of Appeal rules that
Oakland International Airport's
EIR on its $1.38 billion
expansion plan is inadequate
and orders that a new EIR be
prepared. The court said that
the criteria for determining
significant noise impact set in
Califomia environmental law
does not allow the airport to
rely solely on 65 dB CNEL to
assess the impact of a sig-
n
ca
cant increase in nighttime
-go operations. The Port is
considering its options - p. 128
Albuquerque ... FAA
rejects a plan proposed by
Albuquerque's mayor to turn
departing aircraft over an
unpopulated area to the south
to reduce noise impact on the
community on the grounds that
it would be less safe than
current procedures- p. 128
News Briefs ... The first
symposium devoted to airport
sound insulation programs will
be held in Palm Springs in
October ... The leading candi-
date for governor of New
Jersey pledges to do every-
thing he can to see that FAA's
airspace redesign results in
significant noise reduction over
estate
ber 7, 2001
"increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoin-
ing areas" and states that any proposal which results in
increases in existing noise levels or exposure of people to
severe noise levels may require mitigation measures."
By contrast, in implementing NEPA, "the FAA has
developed a specific quantitative significance criteria for
measuring aviation noise," the court explained. The FAA
has determined that a significant noise impact would occur
if a noise analysis indicated the proposed action results in
an increase within the DNL 65 dB contour of 1.5 dB DNL or
greater on any noise sensitive area.
"We find it noteworthy," the court wrote, "that CEQA -
could have defined significant noise impacts simply in --
terms of whether a project would violate applicable local,
state, or federal noise standards. Instead, by adopting a site -
sensitive threshold of significance' for noise, the [CEQA]
Guidelines mirror the proposition that"[a]n ironclad
definition of significant effect is not always possible
because the significance of an activity may vary with
setting. Forexample, an activity which may not be signifi-
cant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area"
Supplemental Noise Analysis
The court said that supplemental noise analysis would
provide more accurate information on noise impact than
was provided in the EIR and could test the airport's 1996
hypothesis that the continued phase out of Stage 2 aircraft
would more than offset increased noise from night flights.
John Freytag of San Francisco -based Charles M. Salter
Associates, who served as Alameda's acoustical consultant,
told the court that the EIR needs to include an analysis of
sleep interference, speech interference, and single event
noise in Alameda's residential communities. The sleep
interference assessment, he said, "must consider the Single
Event Levels (SEL values) of the individual flyovers
occurring during the nighttime (sleeping period), and the
frequency of occurrence of these events."
It remains to be seen how much additional noise analysis
the Port will conduct. Using its 65 CNEL criterion, it
concluded in the EIR that noise levels would actually
decrease, despite the substantial increase in nighttime
operations because of the phase out of Stage 2 aircraft and
that very few homes would be significantly impacted by the
additional night noise.
"The purpose of requiring public review [of an EIR] is to
demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency
has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological
implications of its action," the appeals court wrote. `it is
fair to say that the disposition of the citizenry. who attended
public hearings, signed petitions, and wrote letters in
response to the draft EIR's noise analysis went beyond
`apprehensive' and could more aptly be described as
`incredulous'."
David Pomper of the Washington, DC, law firm Spiegel
McDiarmid, an expert in environmental law, told ANR that
the appeals court rolling "will be cited by folks who say the
130
65 DNL standard really is not a full description of noise and
that [the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise]
and FAA have to go back and reevaluate that." But he does
not feel that will happen. The argument will be made the 65
DNL does not fulfill NEPA's obligation to fully describe
noise impact, he said, but predicted it would fail.
The ruling in Berkeley Keep Jets over the Bay Committee,
City of San Leandro et al, and City of Alameda, et al v.
Board of Port Commissioners, is available on line at http://
www.c ourtinfo.ea. gov/opinions/documents/A086708.pdf.
Portland, from p. 128
aircraft per week, according to the agency.
Jay Czar, director of aviation for Albuquerque Intema-
tional, told ANR that the city "is certainly' disappointed
r that the FAA did not allow more planes to turn south.over
unpopulated descending terrain." He noted that Mayor
r Bacca has worked very closely with airport neighbors to
reduce the effects of noise, is in the process of installing an
airport noise monitoring system, and is doing everything he
can to work with the airport's neighbors, the FAA, and the
airlines to reach a balance in terms of safety, efficiency, and
noise reduction."
Turning another 55 planes a week to the south will help,
Czar said, "but doesn't answer the real problem." The mayor
feels that tuming planes over descending, unpopulated
terrain to the south would be safer than turning them over
ascending terrain over heavily populated areas, and would
reduce noise impact, he said.
Other Cities Do It
Nlavor Bacca was out of town an unavailable for comment
but he told the Albuquerque Journal Auo, 22 that he was
disappointed with the report and the procedures that led to
FAA's conclusions. "The ones that made the decisions were
the FAA and the airlines," he told the paper, adding that
one of the primary factors was the additional cost to the
airlines of burning more fuel. He noted that noise abatement
departure procedures are in effect at other cities in order to
"have some peace and quiet on the ground" Regarding the
safety concerns, Mayor Bacca told the paper, "this is not the
busiest airport in the world ... If other cities can figure out a
way to do this safely, I think we can too."
Bacca told the paper he planned to ask California -based
Wadell Engineering, which prepared a report funded by the
city supporting the south turn proposal, to review the FAA
data and will take the matter to the New Mexico congres-
sional delegation. "What we're looking at here is the
airlines trying to save fuel costs," he told the paper. "I
understand that, but we're looking at the quality of life of
he city."
Airport Noise Report
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 32 September 28, 2001
MSPInt'1
$31 MILLION CUT MADE IN BUDGET
FOR MSP NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
The dramatic drop in air travel following the Sept. -I 1 terrorist attacks is already
taking its toll on airport expansion projects and noise mitigation efforts: Minne-
apolis -St Paul International Airport announced that it must cut S31 million from
its residential sound insulation program, expansion plans for Dulles International
Airport have been put on holding pending a decision on weather to reopen
Washington, DC, Reagan National Airport, and Burbank Airport announced that
it has placed on hold all its replacement terminal development activities.
Prompted by Northwest Airlines' decision to withhold all payments in terms of
rent and landing fees that its owes Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, the
Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) announced that
it has slashed its airport expansion project budget by S 118 million this year,
including a S31 million cut in its noise abatement program, which will slow
efforts to sound insulate homes near the airport.
The loss of revenue also will mean a delay in completion of the airport's 52.7
billion expansion program and will push back the opening of a new north -south
runway from December 2003 to November 2004.
(Continued on p. 138)
Airports
AIRPORTS TELL CONGRESS THEY NEED
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE LIKE AIRLINES GOT
The two major airport trade groups— the Airports Council International —North
America and the American Association of Airport Executives —asked Congress
Sept. 25 to provide airports with a financial assistance package similar to what the
airlines received, contending that airport operations are endangered as a result of
the terrorist attacks.
"With such a high amount of fixed costs associated with airports, there are some
airports that won't be able to operate without [financial assistance], and may be
forced to shut down critical operations unless they receive the necessary relief,"
ACl-NA President David Z. Plavin said in testimony before the House Transporta-
tion Aviation Subcommittee.
He emphasized two major areas for consideration: financial relief for airports
and additional measures in the screening of passengers.
Plavin called for immediate relief from the federal government to help pay for
the additional security measures that airports have implemented and to offset the
reduction in passengers and revenue. "While airports are spending millions of
dollars to increase security, passengers and revenues are declining, so it is critical
that Congress and the Administration now focus attention on airports — whose
problem and fate are inextricably tied with the airlines," he said.
(Continued on p. l37)
In This Isstie...
Airports ... The terrorist
attacks are taking their toll on
a rport finances. MSP Int'1
slashes its expansion budget
and cuts $31 million from its
noise abatement program;
Dulles and Burbank airports
announce they are putting
projects on hold - p. 136
.. Airport trade groups urge
Congress to provide financial
assistance; contend losses
endanger operations - p. 136
Noise [Modeling ... FAA
issues an upgrade to its Inte-
grated Noise Model (INM),
which includes eight new
aircraft and a correction to
noise computations that use
terrain data - p. 137
Phoenix ... All 32 noise
m tigation measures in Sky
Harbor's Part 150 program
approved by FAA, including
construction of engine mainte-
nancc nun -up enclosure - p. 137
Grants ... FAA announces
award of grants for noise
mitigation projects underway
at Guam, Minneapolis, Reno
Intl airports - p. 133
Airlines... US Airways says
it will retire MD-SOs, F-100s,
and hushkitted 737-200S in
light of steep drop off in
demand for air tray el - p. 13 S
2001
240-degree
heading
upon reaching the
end of the runway;
and
Establish a side-step approach to Runway 25L for
noise abatement.
Among the 32 noise mitigation measures approved
outright are: continue requiring compliance with the
airports' engine test run-up policy; encourage the use of
equipment to enhance noise abatement navigation; build
an engine maintenance run-up enclosure; support Air
National Guards' efforts to re -engine KC-135 aircraft; sound
insulate single family. homes within the 1992 65 dB DNL
contour and homes outside that contour but inside the 1999
65 dB DNL contour; sound insulate approximately 10
schools within the 1999 65 dB DNL contour; acquire
dwellings north and west of the airport within the 1999 65
and 70 dB DNL contour; update general plans and building
codes to reflect noise compatibility planning; enact
guidelines specifying noise compatibility criteria for the
review of development. projects within the Noise Contour
Planning Boundary; encourage rezoning for noise compat-
ibility; require recording of fair disclosure agreements and
covenants and over flights within the Noise Contour
Planning Boundary; and expand flight track monitoring
coverage.
AIP Grants
FAA ANNOUNCES AIP GRANTS
FOR THREE NOISE PROJECTS
The Federal Aviation Administration recently announced
the following grants under its Airport improvement Program
to three airports for projects related to noise mitigation:
Guam Airport Authority was awarded a grant of
S 1,296,226 on Aug. 23 to acquire land for noise compat-
ibility within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of Guam Interna-
tional Airport;
Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Airports
Commission was awarded a grant of SIO million on Sept. 18
for noise mitigation measures for approximately 292
residences within the 65-69 dB DNL contour of Minneapo-
lis -St. Paul International Airport, and
Airport Authority of Washoe County, NV, was
awarded three grants on Sept. 13: a grant of S1.9 million for
noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69
dB DNL contour of Reno -Tahoe International Airport; a
grant of S2 million to acquire land for noise compatibility/
relocation n•ithin the 65-69 dB DNL contour; and a grant of
S6 million to acquire land for noise compatibility/reloca-
tion within the 70-74 dB DNL contour.
Airlines
US AIRWAYS PLANS TO RETIRE
737-2005 AID-S01 F-100 AIRCRAFT
In light of the steep drop off in demand in the wake of the
attacks on the VA"orld Trade Centerand the Pentagon, US
138
Airways announced Sept. 25 that it will retire I I I aircraft
from its fleet by April, including NID-80s, F- IOOs, and
hushkitted 737-200s.
The hushkitted 737-200s are used for the airline's
MetroJet service, which provides low -fare flights to Florida.
That service will end by December.
The airline had planned to retire its MD-30s by the end of
2002 but has now accelerated that process.
"The retirement of these aircraft will leave US Airways
with a highly efficient fleet of newer Airbus and Boeing
aircraft," the company said. "With common cockpits,
efficient maintenance schedules and other factors, US
Airways will see significant cost savings as a result of this
step." Just prior to the terrorist attacks, American Airlines
announced that it has moved up the retirement date for its
hushkitted 7327-200s from the end of 2003 to the end of
2002. It is unclear whether it will accelerate that schedule in
light of events. I ...
MSP, from p. 136
MAC plans to defer expansion of part of the airport
terminal, replacement of a fire and rescue facility, construe -
of a new Federal Aviation Administration air traffic
control tower and additional parking facilities, and im-
provements to six reliever airports.
Northwest owed S5.5 million to the airport in September
and its financial obligations to MSP International through
the end of the year total S43 million.
The airline said it is delaying payment to all the airports it
serves on a case -by -case basis while it evaluates its finan-
cial situation. Northwest said it intends to pay the out-
standing obligations it owes to the MAC.
Following a special session of the MAC held Sept. 26,
Executive Director Jeff Hamiel said the airports commission
is willing to negotiate a minimum payment with the airline
but added that, if the airline's deferral of payments is long -
terms, the MAC would resort to the courts to demand
payment.
In August, the MIAC has approved a plan to expand
eligibility for its Residential Sound Insulation Program to
homes in the 60-64 dB DNL contour of NISP International,
bringing over 10,000 more homes into the program,
although that number could be reduced in updated noise
contours (13, ANR, 121). bISP became the second airport in
the country, following Cleveland Hopkins International, to
approve residential sound insulation beyond the traditional
65 dB DNL contour that the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion uses as the boundary of residential compatibility for
ai ports.
But while Cleveland had no funding mechanism for its
sound insulation program beyond the 65 dB DNL contour,
the MAC got the airlines to commit in lease agreements to
provide S 150 million to extend it residential sound
insulation program beyond the 65 dB DNL contour.
Because MSP is its main hub. that financial burden falls
Airport Noise Report
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 33
ICAO
ICAO ASSEMBLY PROVIDES GUIDANCE
ON RESTRICTING STAGE 3 OPERATIONS
On Oct. 5, at the end of its 33r° session, the Assembly of the ]ntemational Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) announced that it had adopted more stringent
Chapter 4 aircraft noise emission standards, endorsed the concept of a balanced
approach to the management of aircraft noise, and made a "breakthrough on the
difficult question of operating restrictions on the noisiest Chapter 3 aircraft," such
as hushkitted aircraft.
States needing to introduce restrictions on Chapter 3 (called Stage 3 in the
United States) aircraft at an airport with severe noise problems will now have a
process to enable them to do so, ICAO said.
As expected, ICAO's Assembly adopted the Chapter 4 aircraft noise certification
standard agreed to by its Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) last January. It is only 10 dB below the current Chapter 3 standard and
can be met by almost all aircraft currently in production (13, ANR, 5).
The most contentious issue facing ICAO was whether to allow the phase out of
any Stage 3 aircraft. The Airports Council International —North American (ACI-
NA) had strongly sought the phase out of aircraft hushkitted to meet Stage 3 noise
(Continued on p. 1411
Heathrow
COURT SAYS HEATHROW NIGHT FLIGHTS
VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION
The European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling Oct. 2 that could lead to a
limitation or ban on night flights at London's Fleathrow Airport and other
European airports.
Established in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European
Convention on Human Rights, the court became a full-time institution in Novem-
ber 1998, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time commission and
court.
It is unclear whether the court's ruling is binding on the UK Government but the
Convention on Human Rights is embodied in UK law as the Human Rights Act.
By a five votes to two, the Court ruled that that, in implementing a nighttime
noise quota scheme for Heathrow in 1993, the British Government violated
Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights because it failed to strike a fair
balance between the UK's economic well-being and the right of residents near the
airport to respect for their homes and their private and family lives.
By a six to one vote, the court found that scope of judicial review by the
domestic courts was insufficient and therefore violated Article 13 of the conven-
ion.
The UK Department of Transport said that there will be no immediate change in
(Continued on p. 142)
u
October 5, 2001
In This Issue...
ICAO... The Assembly of
the International Civil Aviation
Organization adopts more
stringent "Chapter 4" aircraft
noise emission standards,
endorses the concept of a
balanced approach to
managing aircraft noise, and
agrees to conditions for
restricting the operation of
Stage 3 aircraft - p. 140
Heathrow ... The European
Court of Human Rights issues
a ruling that could result in a
t or ban on night flights at
London's Heathrow Airport
and other European airports.
The court says that Heathrow's
night noise quota violates
residents' right to private and
family life - p. 140
Atlanta ... FAA announces
its approval of the fifth runway
at Hartsfield International.
Communities have threatened
a class action lawsuit as lever -
for additional noise mitiga-
tion measures - p. 142
Reagan National... Noise
abatement flight paths are
dropped in plan to reopen
airport following terrorist
attacks but significant noise
impact on communities is not
expected - p. 142
Zoos
standards and other aircraft that only marginally met the
standards, arguing that such aircraft were still a major noise
problems of U.S. airports.
The Bush administration did not support such a position
but the European Union did. The EU has already adopted a
restriction that bars additional operations by hushkitted
aircraft at European airports. The United States has
challenged that restriction under ICAO dispute resolution
procedures. The Assembly action does not resolve that
matter but it does set some guidance for considering the
phase out of hushkitted and marginally Stage 3 aircraft.
The Assembly urged its member states not to phase out
any Stage 3 aircraft before considering whether normal
attrition of existing fleets would provide needed protection
of noise environments around airports, and whether this
protection can be achieved by regulations preventing the
addition of such aircraft to their fleets or through restric-
tions limited to airports and runways and to certain time
periods.
It urged states that decide to phase out Stage 3 aircraft to
frame any restrictions so that they gradually withdraw
operations over a period of not less than seven years, and
that they do not restrict before that seven-year period ends
the operations of any aircraft less than 25 years old, or any
wide -body aircraft, or any aircraft fitted with engines that
have a by-pass ratio higher than 2 to 1.
ICAO strongly urged member states not to impose any
operating restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft unless they are
part of the balanced approach to noise mitigation approved
by ICAO.
Local Noise Restrictions
If member states decide to permit noise restrictions on
any Stage 3 aircraft, the ICAO Assembly recommended that
such restrictions:
Be based on the noise performance of the aircraft
the EU has imposed a restriction based on engine by-pass
atio);
Be tailored to the noise problem of the airport
concerned in accordance with the balanced approach;
Be partial in nature, whenever possible, rather
than the complete withdrawal of operations at an airport;
Take into account possible consequences for air
transport services for which there are no suitable alterna-
tives, such as long -haul service;
Consider the special circumstances of operators
from developing countries in order to avoid undue
economic hardship on them and by granting them exemp-
ions;
Introduce such restrictions gradually over time,
where possible, in order to take into account the economic
impact on affected operators;
Give operators a reasonable period of advance
notice;
Take account of the economic and environmental
impact on civil aviation in terms of recent events; and
Inform ICAO and other states of all such restric-
tions imposed.
Balanced Approach
The balanced approach to noise management endorsed by
the ICAO Assembly consists of"identifying the noise
problem at an airport and then analyzing the various
measures available to reduce noise through the exploration
of four principal elements: reduction of noise at the source
(the airplane), land -use planning and management, noise
abatement operational procedures, and operating restric-
tions, with the goal of addressing the noise problem in the
most cost-effective manner."
The Assembly urged member states to institute a "transpar-
ent process" when considering measures to alleviate noise,
including:
Assessment of the noise problem at an airport
"based on objective, measurable criteria and other relevant
factors';
Evaluation of the likely costs and benefits of the
various measures available and selection of measures "with
the goal to achieve maximum environmental benefit most
cost-effectively"; and
Provision for dissemination of the evaluation
results "for consultation with stakeholders and for dispute
resolution." It is unclear who will resolve these disputes,
however.
The U.S. government developed the concept of a balanced
approach to aircraft noise mitigation, which already is
embodied in the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161
Regulations on Notice and Comment on Airport Noise and
Access Restrictions -
Known informally as the Part 161 process, these regula-
tions have imposed stringent cost/benefit analysis require-
ments on U-S. airport in imposing new noise and access
restrictions. In the decade since the rules have been in
place, only one airport (Naples) has imposed a new noise
restriction under them and that was only after it acted in
defiance of FAA's efforts to require further study and under
threat of FAA action to find the airport in violation of
federal grant agreements.
The Part 161 process is widely viewed as an effective tool
for frustrating and blocking attempts by U.S, airports to
impose any new airport noise or access restrictions. Whether
it will be used the same way under ICAO's auspices remains
o be seen.
The ICAO Assembly asked the ICAO Council to develop
the "necessary ICAO guidance to assist States in implement -
the concept of the balanced approach to noise manage-
ment and to report back to the next regular session of the
Assemby on the following: the principal elements of the
balanced approach and the relationship between them, the
analytical and methodological tools that might be needed to
assess and compare the elements, and local noise -related
operating restrictions at airports.
Airport Noise Report
October 5, 2001
Heathrow, from p. 140
night flights at Heathrow while it is studying the ruling.
Eight British citizens, all long-time residents near the
airport, filed the lawsuit (Hatton and Others v. The United
Kingdon) with the European Commission on Human Rights
in May 1997. It was transferred to the European Court on
Human Rights in November 1998 and the court declared
the case partially admissible on May 16, 2000.
The case focused on a change in the system for determin-
ing how many night flights could operate at Heathrow. Prior
to October 1993, noise caused by night flights had been
controlled through restrictions on the total number of
operations. However, after that date, noise was regulated by
a system of noise quotas which assigned each aircraft type a
'Quota Count" (QC). This is similar to noise budgets used
at some U.S. airports.
The QC allows aircraft operators the option of either
flying a greater number of quieter aircraft at nights or a
fewer number of relatively noisier airplanes. The quota
system was in effect between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. with
more lenient shoulder periods from I I to 11:30 p.m. and 6-
7 a.m. Previously, the more stringent controls and been
imposed during that entire time frame.
The Court noted that the British Government had ac-
knowledged that the overall level of noise had increased
during the quota period (11:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.) under the
quota system put in effect in 1993.
The Court found that, because the British Government
does not own or operate Heathrow, it did not interfere with
the right of the residents near the airport to a private or
family life.
Government Duty
However, the Court ruled that the government had a
positive duty under the Convention to take reasonable and
appropriate steps to secure the residents' rights to a private
or family life and to strike a fair balance between the
competing interests of the individual and of the community
as a whole.
While it is likely that night flights contribute to the
national economy as a whole, the importance of that
contribution had never been assessed critically by the
government, the court said. It also noted that only limited
research had been conducted on the nature of sleep distur-
bance and prevention when the quota system was put in
place in 1993.
The court also found that the scope of the review of the
quota system by domestic British courts had been limited to
classic English public law concepts (irrationality, unlawful-
ness, and patent unreasonableness) and these reviews did
not allow consideration of whether the increase in night
flights under the quota scheme represented a justifiable
limit on the right to respect for the private and family lives
of those who lived in the vicinity of Heathrow.
John Stewart, president of the Heathrow Association for
the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan) told the BBC News
142
that he did not think the British Government would appeal
the ruling, which awarded 4,000 British Pounds in damages
to each of the eight plaintiffs. "The ban at Heathrow could
be the first of many in the UK and Europe," he said.
A spokesman for Heathrow said the airports plans to wait
and see how the government responds to the court ruling.
"We have always recognized there is a difficult balance for
govemment to strike on night flights between passengers'
demand to fly, airlines' operational requirements, and the
impact on local communities," he told the BBC.
The court ruling is available on the Internet at
www.echr.coe.int.
Atlanta Hartsfield Int'1 ,
FAA APPROVES FIFTH RUNWAY
AT ATLANTA HARTSFIELD
On Sept. 27, the Federal Aviation Administration gave
Atlanta Hartsfleld International Airport approval to begin
construction of a 9,000-foot fifth runway and airport
officials said they plan to move ahead with it quickly
despite the steep downturn in air travel.
FAA's approval follows a two-year environmental impact
study on the proposed runway, which is estimated to cost
$1.1 billion and is scheduled to be completed in late 2004.
In 1994, the FAA gave the airport approval to build a
6,000-foot commuter runway. However, the airport decided
to extend that to 9,000 feet in order to make able to
accommodate larger commercial jet aircraft.
Officials of Delta Airlines, which hubs at Atlanta and had
been pushing for the new runway, still support it despite .
financial problems and plans to cut service following the
Sept. I I terrorist attacks.
Airport officials declined to discuss the noise mitigation
aspects of the new runway until the week of Oct. 8 because
key officials are out of town this week.
In late August, the Hartsfield Community Advisory
Committee, which is comprised mainly of residents near the
airport in the City of College Park, GA, and parts of Fulton
and Clayton Counties, announced that they planned to file
a class-action lawsuit against the City of Atlanta and the
FAA as leverage in trying to obtain higher buyout prices for
property that is being condemned for the airport's expan-
sion.
Reagan National Airport
NOISE ABATEMENT PATH
DROPPED IN REOPENING PLAN
Reagan National Airport reopened Oct. 4 with stringent
new security measures, including straight-line departure
and arrival paths that put an end to the circuitous Potomac
River noise abatement corridor that pilots had to meticu-
lously follow in guiding their aircraft in and out of the
airport since the late 1960s.
Airport Noise Report
October 5, 2001
143
ANR EDITORIAL
Also dropped is the practice of requiring engine cut -backs at 1,500 feet
to reduce noise impact. Pilots will depart at full climb engine settings to
ADVISORY BOARD
what ever altitude ordered by Air Traffic Control.
Steven R. Alverson
In addition, the airport's nighttime noise limits have been temporarily
Manager, Sacramento Office
suspended because National will be closed from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. under
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson
the first phase of the reopening plan announced Oct. 3 by President Bush
which calls for the airport to be gradually brought back to life.
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Neal Phillips, noise officer for Reagan National and Dulles Interna-
Washington, DC
tional Airport, said he does not expect the operational changes to cause a
significant increase in the current noise impact from the airport. The
James D. Erickson
straight-line departure and arrival paths still overfly the Potomac River
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
but no longer follow its meandering path, he explained.
Federal Aviation Administration
Only one day of flight track data on the new procedures is available at
John C. Freytag, P.E.
this point, Phillips told ANR Oct. 5, but it shows that airplanes landing
Director, Charles M. Salter Associates
from the north and departing to the south, due to wind conditions
San Francisco
Thursday, look very similar to IFR operations conducted before Sept. 11.
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
The strait -line flight paths will make it much easier for air traffic
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
controllers and others watching the airport's operations on radar scopes
Carlsbad, CA
to determine if airplanes are veering off course and possibly heading
toward vulnerable military and government sites, such as the White
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
House, located only seconds away flying time.
Denver
Phillips said that the update to Reagan National's Part 150 airport noise
compatibility program may be delayed for a long period of time because
Suzanne C. McLean
new base case operational data cannot be prepared until it is clear how
Vice President, Planning and Development
the airport will be operated. -
Tucson Airport Authority
"As of Sept. 10, we had a very good idea of what the base case data
John NI. Nleenan
would be," he said. But that is no longer the case.
Senior Vice President for Industry Policy
An additional security measure put into effect at Reagan National limits
Air Transport Association
aircraft size to I56 seats or less, which will bar B757 aircraft. They were
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
involved in two of the four hijackings on Sept. 11.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Under the reopening plan, the airport will resume service to only eight
Newport Beach, CA
cities initially and then to 10 more cities within three weeks
On Oct. 4, Delta Air Lines' and US Airways' East Coast shuttle flights
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
to New York City and Boston resumed at half the pre -Sept. I I levels. US
Chicago
Airways resumed half it operations to its hub in Pittsburgh and other
airlines that operate at National were allowed to resume up to 80 percent
Karen L. Robertson
of their scheduled flights to hubs in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapo-
Manager, Noise Compatibility Office
lis, and Newark.
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
By Thanksgiving, it is expected that the 57 percent of the airport's
Mary L. Vigilante
scheduled operations will be resumed.
President, Synerg y Consultants
The new operating plan does not allow general aviation operations at
Seattle
National Airport. They had accounted for about one quarter of opera-
tions.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 46 times a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price 5624.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of USS 1.03 per page per copy
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA.
Airport Noise Report