Loading...
2001-11-14 ARC Agenda PacketM CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA November 14, 2001 -- Large Conference Room 1. Call to order - 7:®® p.m. 2. R®ll Call 3. Apprmval of ®ctober 1®, 2®81 Minutes 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Update ®n Airp®rt Noise Video Progress b. Update ®n R®gers Lake East Issue 5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. Agenda for October 23, 200] Informational Meeting on Dr. Brandl's Report b. October 29, 2001 Noise Oversight Committee Update c. Letter from Roy Fuhrmann, Metropolitan Airports Commission to Guy Heide, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee, dated October 22, 2001 d. Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee to John Hensel, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, dated November 5, 2001 e. Airport Noise Reports 6. Other Comments or Concerns 7. 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 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 14, 2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Update on Rogers Lake East Issue The following is a summary of the results of Staff s contact with other cities and organizations on possible steps the City could take in regards to the Rogers Lake East issue. Eagan —Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Eagan may or may not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Burnsville —Tom Hanson Bumsville had two extra ANOMS assigned to them 3-4 months ago. These were not at the City's request; they were at the MAC initiative to measure the effects of the new runway. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Burnsville would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Richfield —Pam Demetrinko and Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Richfield nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter, with one minor exception: Back in 1995-1996, there was one woman resident who extremely adamant that the noise contours were incorrect and that noise at her home was worse than the MAC had depicted. Mr. Verbruge and this resident managed to convince Brian Timmerson at the MPCA to place a temporary noise monitor in her backyard for about a week. The results from the noise monitor confirmed the MAC's position. Neither the City of Richfield nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Richfield did, however, hire consultant Sandy Fidel of California to study the low -frequency noise issue. Richfield would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue, and has no appetite at this time to spend any more money on air noise issues. MPCA — Brian Timmerson Mr. Timmerson said that he does have a limited number of temporary noise meters available for municipal use only, not for individual citizen use. Mr. Timmerson said that the noise monitors are for assisting Cities in enforcing their own noise pollution ordinances or state noise rules. (I did not press Mr. Timmerson on the issue of whether or not Mr. Kosel's grievance would justify borrowing a noise monitor, nor did I inform Mr. Timmerson that I knew of the Richfield case mentioned above.) Minneapolis —Jan Del Calzo Jan Del Calzo was a major citizen activist against air noise on behalf of south Minneapolis neighborhoods until MASAC disbanded. I called her to ask for a contact for the "POP' neighborhood group in south Minneapolis. She said that as far as she knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Ms. Del Calzo said that she did not think any neighborhood or City could get one extra dime from the MAC now in the aftermath of September 11. Minneapolis —Merlyn Otto Mr. Otto told me that as far as he knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Mr. Otto said that Minneapolis did acquire two extra ANOMS meters in 1999 from the MAC in exchange for its support of the new runway. Mr. Otto said that the City of Minneapolis was thinking about initiating a study on the health effects of airplane noise in general, and wanted to know if the City of Mendota Heights would be interested in participating in that study. "POP" Neighborhood Group —Dave Williams Mr. Williams is a member of the six-month old "POP" neighborhood group, which represents homeowners near Portland and Oakland Avenues in south Minneapolis. This neighborhood is not eligible for noise mitigation, despite the fact that they are almost completely surrounded by homes that are. Mr. Williams and several of his neighbors pled their case at the recent public hearing at the Thunderbird hotel. Jeff Hamil spoke with them after the hearing that evening and also at a separate meeting to discuss their situation. After the MAC voted on the insulation package but before September 11, Mr. Hamil gave the neighborhood a "good news/bad news" assessment. Mr. Hamil said that they neighborhood would be receiving insulation, but due to the spending cap imposed by the MAC other neighborhoods further away from the contour would not, even though they are defined as eligible. After September 11, Mr. Hamil told the neighborhood that all home insulations, except those that were physically in progress, were put on hold until the MAC could redraw new contour lines based on the reduction in air traffic and the possibility that the new runway would not be built. Mr. Williams said that before September 11 the POP group asked Mr. Hamil for a noise monitor and he replied that the MAC would "study the request". Since September 11, the POP group has not heard from Mr. Hamil. Action Required This is an information item only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 147 2Wv I TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Update on Rogers Lake East Issue The following is a summary of the results of Staff s contact with other cities and organizations on possible steps the City could take in regards to the Rogers Lake East issue. Eagan —Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Eagan may or may not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Burnsville —Tom Hanson Burnsville had two extra ANOMS assigned to them 3-4 months ago. These were not at the City's request; they were at the MAC initiative to measure the effects of the new runway. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Burnsville would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Richfield —Pam Demetrinko and Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Richfield nor 14 neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter, with one minor exception: Back in 1995-1996, there was one woman resident who extremely adamant that the noise contours were incorrect and that noise at her home was worse than the MAC had depicted. Mr. Verbruge and this resident managed to convince Brian Timmerson at the MPCA to place a temporary noise monitor in her backyard for about a week. The results from the noise monitor confirmed the MAC's position. Neither the City of Richfield nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Richfield did, however, hire consultant Sandy Fidel of California to study the low -frequency noise issue. Richfield would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue, and has no appetite at this time to spend any more money on air noise issues. MPCA — Brian Timmerson Mr. Timmerson said that he does have a limited number of temporary noise meters available for municipal use only, not for individual citizen use. Mr. Timmerson said that the noise monitors are for assisting Cities in enforcing their own noise pollution ordinances or state noise rules. (I did not press Mr. Timmerson on the issue of whether or not Mr. Kosel's grievance would justify borrowing a noise monitor, nor did I inform Mr. Timmerson that I knew of the Richfield case mentioned above.) Minneapolis —Jan Del Calzo Jan Del Calzo was a major citizen activist against air noise on behalf of south Minneapolis neighborhoods until MASAC disbanded. I called her to ask for a contact for the "POP' neighborhood group in south Minneapolis. She said that as far as she knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Ms. Del Calzo said that she did not think any neighborhood or City could get one extra dime from the MAC now in the aftermath of September I I. Minneapolis —Merlyn Otto Mr. Otto told me that as far as he knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Mr. Otto said that Minneapolis did acquire two extra ANOMS meters in 1999 from the MAC in exchange for its support of the new runway. Mr. Otto said that the City of Minneapolis was thinking about initiating a study on the health effects of airplane noise in general, and wanted to know if the City of Mendota Heights would be interested in participating in that study. "POP" Neighborhood Group — Dave Williams Mr. Williams is a member of the six-month old "POP" neighborhood group, which represents homeowners near Portland and Oakland Avenues in south Minneapolis. This neighborhood is not eligible for noise mitigation, despite the fact that they are almost completely surrounded by homes that are. Mr. Williams and several of his neighbors pled their case at the recent public hearing at the Thunderbird hotel. Jeff Hamil spoke with them after the hearing that evening and also at a separate meeting to discuss their situation. After the MAC voted on the insulation package but before September 11, Mr. Hamil gave the neighborhood a "good news/bad news" assessment. Mr. Hamil said that they neighborhood would be receiving insulation, but due to the spending cap imposed by the MAC other neighborhoods further away from the contour would not, even though they are defined as eligible. After September 11, Mr. Hamil told the neighborhood that all home insulations, except those that were physically in progress, were put on hold tmtil the MAC could redraw new contour lines based on the reduction in air traffic and the possibility that the new runway would not be built. Mr. Williams said that before September 11 the POP group asked Mr. Hamil for a noise monitor and he replied that the MAC would "study the request'. Since September 11, the POP group has not heard from Mr. Hamil. Action Required This is an information item only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 14, 2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Update on Rogers Lake East Issue The following is a summary of the results of Staff s contact with other cities and organizations on possible steps the City could take in regards to the Rogers Lake East issue. Eagan —Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Eagan nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Eagan may or may not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Burnsville —Tom Hanson Burnsville had two extra ANOMS assigned to them 3-4 months ago. These were not at the City's request; they were at the MAC initiative to measure the effects of the new runway. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Neither the City of Burnsville nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Burnsville would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue. Richfield —Pam Demetrinko and Jamie Verbruge Neither the City of Richfield nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter, with one minor exception: Back in 1995-1996, there was one woman resident who extremely adamant that the noise contours were incorrect and that noise at her home was worse than the MAC had depicted. Mr. Verbruge and this resident managed to convince Brian Timmerson at the MPCA to place a temporary noise monitor in her backyard for about a week. The results from the noise monitor confirmed the MAC's position. Neither the City of Richfield nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Richfield did, however, hire consultant Sandy Fidel of California to study the low -frequency noise issue. Richfield would not be interested in a joint study with Mendota Heights on this issue, and has no appetite at this time to spend any more money on air noise issues. MA —Brian Timmerson Mr. Timmerson said that he does have a limited number of temporary noise meters available for municipal use only, not for individual citizen use. Mr. Timmerson said that the noise monitors are for assisting Cities in enforcing their own noise pollution ordinances or state noise rules. (I did not press Mr. Timmerson on the issue of whether or not Mr. Kosel's grievance would justify borrowing a noise monitor, nor did I inform Mr. Timmerson that I knew of the Richfield case mentioned above.) Minneapolis —Jan Del Calzo Jan Del Calzo was a major citizen activist against air noise on behalf of south Minneapolis neighborhoods until MASAC disbanded. I called her to ask for a contact for the "POP' neighborhood group in south Minneapolis. She said that as far as she knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Ms. Del Calzo said that she did not think any neighborhood or City could get one extra dime from the MAC now in the aftermath of September 11. Minneapolis —Merlyn Otto Mr. Otto told me that as faz as he knew, neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever petitioned the MAC for an extra ANOMS meter. Also neither the City of Minneapolis nor its neighborhoods have ever hired an independent consultant to validate/invalidate the noise contours. Mr. Otto said that Minneapolis did acquire two extra ANOMS meters in 1999 from the MAC in exchange for its support of the new runway. Mr. Otto said that the City of Minneapolis was thinking about initiating a study on the health effects of airplane noise in general, and wanted to know if the City of Mendota Heights would be interested in participating in that study. "POP" Neighborhood Group — Dave Williams Mr. Williams is a member of the six-month old "POP" neighborhood group, which represents homeowners near Portland and Oakland Avenues in south Minneapolis. This neighborhood is not eligible for noise mitigation, despite the fact that they are almost completely surrounded by homes that are. Mr. Williams and several of his neighbors pled their case at the recent public hearing at the Thunderbird hotel. Jeff Hamil spoke with them after the hearing that evening and also at a separate meeting to discuss their situation. After the MAC voted on the insulation package but before September 11, Mr. Hamil gave the neighborhood a "good news/bad news" assessment. Mr. Hamil said that they neighborhood would be receiving insulation, but due to the spending cap imposed by the MAC other neighborhoods further away from the contour would not, even though they are defined as eligible. After September 11, Mr. Hamil told the neighborhood that all home insulations, except those that were physically in progress, were put on hold until the MAC could redraw new contour lines based on the reduction in air traffic and the possibility that the new runway would not be built. Mr. Williams said that before September 1 l the POP group asked Mr. Hamil for a noise monitor and he replied that the MAC would "study the request". Since September 11, the POP group has not heard from Mr. Hamil. Action Required This is an information item only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 9, 2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Update on Airport Noise Video Progress Discussion On October 29, Commissioner Edstrom and I went with Dennis Raftery of NDCTV to the airport. The purpose of the trip was to get live video footage of the airport and its operations for the air noise video. There we met with Roy Fuhrman, Chad Leqve, and Scott Scramstead of the MAC. Mr. Scramstead then led Dennis, Vern and I around the airport to various vantage points where we could film airplanes taking off and landing. Dennis and I then went to the Furlong neighborhood and filmed some overhead flights that included views of homes and the ANOMS noise monitor in the neighborhood. Staff will provide an additional update on video progress on Wednesday evening. Action Required This is an information item only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 9, 2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Update on Rogers Lake East Issue Discussion Roy Fuhrman and Chad Leqve of the MAC met with Chair Beaty, Administrator Lindberg, Assistant Hollister, Mike Kosel, Guy Heide, and several other members of the Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee on October 16 at City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussion of the concerns of the Rogers Lake East neighborhood group regarding the placement of an ANOMS meter within the Rogers Lake neighborhood and the adjustment of noise contours to include the neighborhood for insulation eligibility. Please see the related correspondence that has occurred since the October 16 meeting elsewhere in this agenda packet. Staff will provide a verbal update of what transpired at that meeting and related events since that meeting, including the results of Staff s research on possible steps the City could take in regards to this issue. Action Required This is an information item only. NOTICE INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO BE HELD REGARDING DR JOHN BRANDL'S REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF A NEW MSP NOISE ORGANIZATION OCTOBER 23, 2001 LINDBERGH CONFERENCE ROOM MAC GENERAL OFFICES 6040 28' AVE. S. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 7:30 P.M. I. History andIntroduction:JeffHamiel,ExecutiveDirector—MAC II. Briefing on Brandl Report: Dr. •7ohn Brandl III. Remaining Process/Next Steps Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Frt * 6040 - 28th Avenue South + Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 ,•,oft October 23, 2001 TO: Whom It May Concern RE: Role of Dr. Brandl's Report in the Development Process of a MSP Noise Oversight Committee Since the disbandment of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) on October 31, 2000, an extensive effort has been underway to develop a new Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee in an effort to provide a balanced forum to address and discuss noise issues at MSP. Throughout the course of these efforts, discussions have focused on a review process/plan that would ensure insightful decision - making, predicated on a balanced perspective. In an effort to develop a new organization, a Blue Ribbon Panel was proposed, composed of three community and three airport user representatives. As a starting point, Dr. John Brandl, Dean of the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, was retained to review issues related to MASAC and to provide insight/ideas for consideration as part of the committee development process. Dr. Brandl conducted extensive research relative to issues associated with the previous organizational manner in which MSP noise issues were discussed and debated, in addition to the manner in which solutions or recommendations were developed. Dr. Brandl's work culminated in the attached report. The report is not intended to, nor will it constrain, the Blue Ribbon Panel's scope of debate and the associated new organization development process. The Panel's evaluation of any, and all, elements of a new MSP Noise Oversight Cormnittee will be unconstrained and will include consideration of all options from the perspective of applicability and feasibility. The discussions will focus on the following primary points: • Committee mission/responsibility • Membership • Procedures/rules of order • Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) role • Staffing roles and responsibilities Reporting relationship and responsibility in MAC's system The Blue ribbon Panel is comprised of six members - three community and three airport users. The community members are Barret Lane — Minneapolis, Jamie Verbrugge — Eagan and Jill Smith — Mendota Heights. The airlines are in the process of determining the three airport user members. It is anticipated that the first Blue Ribbon Panel meeting will occur in early November 2001. Following the deliberations by the Blue Ribbon Panel, a recommendation will be forwarded to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and submission to the full Commission. Sincerelypp /i / Chad E. Legve Manager — Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs The bletropolit an Airports Commission is an aKvmative action employer. Rzliever rliroocts: AIILL� + :L�OLA COL`1V'CY+'SLANE •CRYSTAL • FLYPiG CLOLTI •LAKE ELY(O • S:�I. � : PAUL 0044ti'I'04VN Report to the Metr��vlitan Airports Commission Regarding The i�ieL-o�olit� Airara�i Sound Abaternon� Cauacil Jol3n �. Brandi Septs�sser ?i301 Report to me Metropolitan imports Commission intraduc�ou In fail 2000, the Metropolitan Airraft Sound Abatement Council'came undone when nine airlines plus the Airline Pilots Association withdrew from participation in the organization. Later another airline withdre+. In April 2001, Executive Director Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan ALrparts Commission asked me to assess the situation and to make recommendations concerning whether and how MAS AC might be reconstituted or a successor organization formed. I was asked to offer counsel, not to mediate an agreement among the various parties. In the nemf several mcnt€3s I read part or all or"ntunerous documents' cancerning the matter and spoke with eleven members of INLSSAC as well as with several other knowledgeable persons. In general, public members were more eager to tell their stories L'tan were airline members and I spoke with many more of the former than the latter. I bring to the writing of ibis :sport the expence of having lived in South Xiinneapolis foe twenty-five years, during twelve of which I was a member of the Minnc:ota Legislature. It also is relevant that I am a professor of political economy. �/i3at is iY1ASA+C? MASAC was formed as a private non-profit corporation but in fact it is a creation of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, through which it has had,its in#luenca, From K?SAC's beginning in 1969, there have been equal numbers of user. members (i.e., representatives of airlines and others with a dire:: business interest in the operation of the airport) and public members (i.e,, officials of the municipalities around the.airport as well as citizens appointed by the governmental bodies of those municipalities). The organization has three purposes: to receive and analyze comments from the public on the issue of ai crwl noise, to provide public education on the issue, and to constitute a forum for disLassing the issue and making recommendations for action. The latter purpose is faz the most mportant. Over the years MSASAC has been associated with a large number of effors that have limited noise and its effects on the people in the surrounding previous member had beer, airlines have seemed to public members to be cavaties and arrogant. Users also appear not to appreciate fully the futility and outrage felt by some community representatives, who in turn are uninterested in the users' responsibilities to customers and stockholders.) The du%rent conceptions of what MASAC is carry with them different norms of: conduct. Harsh language that would be acceptable coming from atop a soapbox is not acceptable within a legislative chamber. Secretive coalition building that would be - standard operating procedure in a legislative body would not be countenanced in a. discussion group. Later in this report I will offer recommendations concerning these: diverse understandings of the organization. This year a proposal has been made to reconstitute MASAC without the user member, an idea that has nothing to be said for it, MASAC's main value is as a forum for discussion and rsoommendation for the various parties to the noise question. Reconstituting &iASAC as a collection of people aggrieved by airplane noise would rob the oraanizatien of its essence and turn it into an ordinary interact group. Interest groups have an important place in our political system but they hardly undertake to look at issues from a variety of points of view-- an indispensable feature of MASAC. As of summer 2001 some members purport to be unconcerned about whether MASAC is resu.-coted. This seems to me to be bluster, given the achievement and promise of the organization, iTnde3starrdirem tlaz _ircrat: Haase pa'oa�lenn Noise can be understood as pollution, and pollution can b,. understood as a cas^. of operation, but one that, urilice other costs, the.market does not require the producer to bear. If neighbors to the airport had a clearly denned property right to peace and quiet, airlines would no more be able to fly over there without compensation than they are able to require their employees to work without paying them a wage, However, such a sweeping right to peace and quiet is net acknowledged in this country. Since the market Days little heed to the offensive affects of airplane noise, and the courts have not found it necessary to compensate as a matter of course, the prevention and mitigation of airplane have received that benent, though not as a payment from the airlines and their passengers but in the lower price. they paid to the previous owners. In justice,. some recompense for the racket is due to the people most affected. Increased airplane traffic has more than counterbalanced the effects of quieter engines, and even e7ensive air conditioning and insulation of houses does nothing to mitigate the noise bothering anyone who is outside. Still, the strongest claim — by those who have lived in the area since before the days of jet airliners — is that of only a tiny handful of people. aatsaiysis of 1V3eASAC As currently constituted yLASAC is an inherently fragile organization It has no decisioa makiag power. Tire authority of its paint body, the airports commissioi , is limited by the kderal government The airlines see their fits: responsibility as to their stockholders, not to those affected by noise. And in some cases, governmental appointees to NLAS AC are chosen from among the few people who are so deeply angry as to be unconeiliatorf about noise, not from the vast majority who are inclined to balance the pros and cons of the airpaii. Some community members engage in offensive rhetoric at hriASAC meetings, attributing base motives to those with whom they disagree. Because the organization is concerned about a single issue, most of its members are little inclined to be either open minded or conciliatory. In a governmental body such as a legislature or a city council, members have reason to be open to compromise about some issues .LZowing that that is the only way they can lwpe to get concessions from their calieagnes on other issues. Log rolling is an essential part of governing in the American system, but only because government deals with many issues. Since iufASAC has only one issae to consider — and especially since some people are members of the organization precisely because they are disinclined to be cooperative —there is little or no opperniairy for logrolling. MAASAC should not be thought of as a govermneat It does not have the resnorsibilities of a government and pretending it is a government can encourace members to engage in practices objectionable to their colleagues. Nor should it be thought of as merely a sounding beard, a place where people express strong views but do 7 and mould be infuriating to citizens of affected areas. However govemuzentai units that appoint citizen members have some responsibility to select persons Quilling to represent not only themselves but the interests of other citizens as well. 2_ NidSAC or its successor should consider contractive with the Citizens League for studies of contentious issues and for assistance in carrying out its own studies. The Citizens League is a nearly unique organization. Its considerable influence oa public policy ir. +3tis state over the Last half-c,�:tury stems from its having created an ethic that requires participants in its studies to be not agents of interests but seekers of the public good. Of course, the ethic is not always abided by but it is powerful enough to shape Citizens League proceedings and . to have yielded an unparalleled succession of innovative and suecessfu policy prescriptions. (I .admit to being a member, an admirer and a former president of the league.) I. do not mean to suggest that the Citizens League should substitute for NL9SAC or a successor ornauizatien but rather that the league might be asked to study each issues as the number of households to receive sound abatement ruaatment, M=bers of the league might also be asked to descn'be their meeting procedures and their vysys of encouraging public- iritedness when taking up controversial issues. 3. Prow votive should be permitted in NiASAC or its successor. Some of the organizations with membership on NLAISAC have so few local employees as to make it difEcuit to assign a person to attendance at all mceings. 4. A ouoruzn composed of a maioritY of both pubhc and user members should be required for passase of any motion save the motion to adjourn. MASAC's position statements Head to emerge frown discussion and debate.- �. "L1eCIlpn of 3 Cpalr should require a saner majority, perhaps 6Q°lo of ail members. Seiecung a chair from outside the body might be considered The person holding the office should be expected not to be regularly aligned with either user or public Members, �.-atment is valued in the market as measured by the increase in market price of similarly situated homes that have received abatement "matment (Such a policy would create an easement through which the homeowner would accede to overflights by airplanes. The easement would, of course, have to be binding on successive owners of the property.) it is likely that most people who have received sound abatement or are scheduled to receive it would pzaf r rxaiving a cash payment of considerably Less hen the cost of the abatement. Thus, cash payments could very well both be preferable for homeowners and less expensive for the airports commission and the airlines. Cnnciusian MASAC has an iRestrious history. None of its accomplishments was easily won, but in the fixture progress will come with: mare difficulty, a fact that s hould not diminish pride in the real achievenrenis of the past. .& distinctive feature ofpublic life L. Minnesota has bear the creation and opeTanon of 'innovative institutions that manage and sometimes resolve complex and contentious issues. For decades KkSAC was one such organization. Now is is time to modify, IMASAC or design a sutxesser. Not to do so would be to give up on discourse. One hopes that none of the parries would want to do that, ' ivtASAG Articles of 3ncarparation (1959); hL1SAC By-laws (D�embcr 1997 revisions); brASAC Cpc;ations Comn;inez Ddinutes 2000; hiASAC Cammuniaations Advisory hoard Minutes, 2000; bIASAC Attendance Charts, 1999 and 2000;1999 MASAC Year in Review; 2000 M ASAC Year in RevitxN, iUliautes of the Me*opchtan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council for the year 2000; Padilla So= Beardsley LWAC Assessment (1998); 2000 MSP Part 150 Update; 1? UIR Part 150 Update Draft (Ociober 63 2000); Letter to Charles Nichols and Leif Hanel from ten use; member, regarding MSP Air Casters Resignation F om VL ASAC, October 31, 2000; and Detailed Comments ofNORTHwEST AaLLNES, C. an the �i lmesporis SE. Paul Tuternational Aitpart is CFR Part 150 Update (Nove-nher 13, 2000. Rochelle Olson. "Minnesnolis: Most residents confident, say things seem on Roc';," Ytinneaaolis Sian Tribune, June 24, 2001 M E T R F Q L I T A Nt {E I K F Q (1 T S C C M M I S I Q It s a Better A■ v1� i � .tea. ,Al MSP 2010 will provide an airport that is modern, safe and reliable; minimizes costs to airport users; and minimizes environmental impact to our neighbors and community. Simply put, we're building a better airport for service into the next millennium. The new runway will help reduce congestion and delays at MSP an nationwide. By 2002, MSP will open 20 new jet gates, enhancing air service capacity and providing opportunities for new airlines. MSP generates revenues of more thar $400 million per year for local and stat ,v1SP 2010: Building a Better Airport Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Meeting the Travel Needs of Minnesota into the 21st Century Anticipating an increased demand for air travel, the MAC and the Minnesota Legislature reviewed many options for meeting the needs of air travel in the future. These options included improvements at MSP or the development of an entirely new airport in Dakota County. After much deliberation, the governor and Legislature in 1996 stopped further consideration of a new airport and directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission to implement MSP 2010, a long-term com- prehensive plan to improve existing airport facilities. The MSP 2010 plan will increase the airport's capacity to meet projected demand through the year 2010. MSP 2010 will provide an airport that is modern, safe and reliable; minimizes costs to airport users; and mini- mizes environmental impacts to our neighbors and com- munity. Simply put, we're building a better airport for service into the next millennium. MSP 2010 encompasses an entire series of improvements involving the airfield, the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals, airport access and parking facilities. Since the airport must remain open during construction, these improvements are being completed in phases over several years. Completed Components Most of the MSP 2010 components are how complete. They include: The Lindbergh Terminal New Names for the Concourses - In September 2000, the color -coded, consecutively numbered concourses were renamed using an alphanumeric system to enhance traveler navigation through the airport and provide consistency with other airports. The new regional and mid -field terminals (under construction) will be named Concourse A and B respectively when complete in 2002. The former Green concourse as well as the eight -jet gate expansion are Concourses C and D. The Blue concourse has been renamed Concourse E. the Red concourse is Concourse F, and the Gold concourse is now Concourse G. Connector - The Connector is an enclosed heated and air conditioned skyway with moving walks. It helps passen- gers by eliminating the need to go 211 the way to the tick - area of the Lindbergh Terminal in order to make connections between gates on the east ends of Concourses C and G. In the middle, it connects to the Hub building, providing convenient access to the new parking ramp and rental car facility. Tunnel level - An underground walkway connects the Lindbergh Terminal (Ticketing and Baggage Claim Levels) with the parking ramps and loading areas for public trans- portation such as taxis, hotel shuttle buses, rental car shuttles, out -state shuttles and charter buses. The Tunnel Level eliminates the need for pedestrians to step outside and cross many lanes of traffic - making the airport safer and more convenient Concourse C - Concourse C boasts several new elements including new moving walkways and six new gates. The moving walkways provide travelers with added ease, speed and convenience in making connections from gates on Concourse C and the regional concourse (2002) to the ticket counter and baggage claim areas. The six new gates have increased capacity at the Lindbergh Terminal, providing an opportunity for airlines to begin or expand air service at MSP. The Pierson M. Grieve Conference Center -Anew 3,500-square-foot business and conference center opened in the Lindbergh Terminal in 1999. The conference center has eight executive style rooms that accommodate up to 100 people. Services include workstations, computer connections, fax and copy machine services and catering services. Each concourse also houses self -serve business service centers. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Northstar Crossing - 65 New Shops and Restaurants - In response to customers who showed a keen interest in a variety of food, beverages and merchandise selections at the airport, the Commission is improving customer service and satisfaction with more facilities, better service, a greater variety of vendors and products, and retail prices comparable to those in malls. Northstar Crossing is a collection of stores, restaurants and a food court in the Lindbergh Terminal featuring Minnesota-themed shops along with nationally known retailers, including the first airport -based Lands' End and Liz Claiborne stores. Federal Inspection Services Facility -The Federal Inspection Services facility, which opened in 1996 on Concourse G in the Lindbergh Terminal, allows passen- gers to pass easily through customs and immigration and wrs�o P om�� �� ®,usPzo,o�mo �� walk to their gates for connecting Flights. The new facility makes MSP one of the most convenient entry points to the United States. Roadways and Parking Parking Ramps - As the number of people using MSP grows, so does the demand for parking space. Parking facilities at the Lindbergh Terminal's east end have been expanded by more than 6,500 spaces. However demand far parking continues to be high, and the MAC encour- ages travelers to call 612(826-7000 or 888/868-7001 for updated parking information. Hub Building -The Hub building houses expanded public parking spaces and rental car companies. The lower level of the Hub building will be the departure and arrival point for the Hub Tram, an underground people mover which will open for public use in late 2000 or early 2001. Located between the east ends of Concourses C and G, the Hub provides direct access to the Connector and Northwest Airlines check -in points. Roadways -The airport's inbound and outbound roadways are being reconstructed and expanded to four lanes in each direction. This expansion will allow for the Concourse C expansion, regional concourse construction and will accommodate new entrances and exits to parking. The new return -to -terminal loop is now complete and allows drivers wishing to return to the Lindbergh Terminal io do so without leaving the airport roadway system. Looking Ahead The following components of MSP 2010 are still underway. Runways and Airfield The addition of Runway 17(38 will add 26 percent more operational capacity at MSP. This new, 8,000- foot, North(South runway will allow MSP to meet growing demand for air service nationally and internationally. Expected to be complete in 2003, the new runway will help reduce congestion and delays nationwide. In addition to 17/35, Runway 1(22 will be extended to accommodate long -haul international flights. r.IS� 2070: Building a Better Airport _.. _ _. Out of public view, but important [o both the business community and [he economic health of the aviation industry, MSP 2010 also provides for improved air freight and airline maintenance facilities. The mitigation of environmental impacts includes the continuation of sound insulation for residences and schools in the area. New de-icing pads at the end of each runway will enhance the efficiency of the de-icing process for departing aircraft and pro- vide an area to collect used glycol (de- icing Fluid), protecting water quality. The Lindbergh Terminal Gate Expansion -The second phase of the Concourse C expansion calls far eight more jet gates and a regional concourse with 29 aircraft gates. When complete in 2002, this phase will provide an opportunity for new airlines to serve MSP or for expanded service by current carriers. Expanded retail and restaurant areas will also be added in phases starting in late 2000. Replacing the Humphrey Terminal A new 300,000-square-foot terminal opens in Spring 2001 with five jet gates. Three additional gates will be added by the end of 2001. This replacement terminal, which has the potential to be expanded to tajet gates, will be available for both scheduled and charter airlines, including anchor tenant Sun Country. In the meantime, nearly 5400,000 in improvements were made in 1999 to the existing Humphrey Terminal to serve Sun Country Airlines' scheduled flights and several charter operations. F G Airport Trams The f nal component of [he roadway and parking system is the Hub Tram, operational in Ia[e 2000 or early 2001. An underground form of transportation, the Hub Tram will run from the Lindbergh Terminal to the new parking and rental car facility, or Hub building, making travel easier for people who use MSP. A second tram will 6e added in 2002 to take passengers up and down Concourse C and the new regional concourse. Thank You for Your Patience - It's Worth the Wait MSP 2010 is a multi -year project that involves countless hours of planning, building and refning. The $2.6 billion expansion plan is funded entirely by airport user fees such as landing fees, parking, passenger facility charges and concession revenues, no[ taxes. It is estimated MSP generates revenues of more than $400 million per year for local and state governments and injects more than $6.2 billion a year into the region's economy. The airport also helps bolster Minnesota's economy and business environment 6y its easy accessibility for fre- quent travelers. Additionally, the airport's location near the Mall of America has helped this attraction become one of the top tourist destinations in the country. As MSP 2010 construction is completed, airport officials ask for your cooperation and patience. The result will be a better airport for the new millennium. xEY — F�isun9 `•ASP Compan:n�s �NSP _0�0 Com0on.n�s �= G M E T R O P O L I T A N A I R P O R T S C O M M I S S I O N BU��D[NG 02 Rat*aaw Nov r f> 02 01 01:06p Charles E. Mertensotto (612) 222-4755 P.1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ITEM 9 Planning and Environment Committee Chad Legve, Manager —Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs (725.6326) NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE UPDATE October 295 2001 On October 31, 2000 aidine members resigned from the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) citing concerns that the Council had become an unbalanced community advocacy group. Since that time efforts have been ongoing to develop an acceptable organizational framework for discussing and addressing noise issues and concerns around Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). As part of this effort, Jeff Hamlet recommended the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of three community and three airport user representatives to work on formulating a recommendation to the MAC outlining the framework of a new MSP Airport Noise Oversight Committee, institute a starti Inng point, Dr. John Brandt, Dean of the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey and to Provide Public Affairs, was retained to review issues related to the termination of MASAC ovide insight/ideas for consideration as part of the new committee development process. Dr. Brandl conducted extensive research relative to issues associated with the previous organizational manner in which MSP noise issues were discussed and debated, in addition to the manner in which solutions or recommendations were developed. Dr. Brandi's work culminated in the development of a report highlighting the need for, among other things, more civil open-minded people, more consideration of the cost -benefit elements of proposals Ribbon Panel's scope of debate and the associated new organization development process. and shorter and fewer meetings. The report is not intended to, nor will it constrain, the Blue The Panel's evaluation of any, and all, elements of a new MSP Airport Noise Oversight Committee will be unconstrained and will include consideration of all options fr perspective of applicability and feasibility. om the On October 23, 2001 Dr. Brand) provided an informational briefing to past MASAC members. In addition, the remaining Blue Ribbon Panel process was reviewed. The airlines have tentatively agreed to participate in the Blue Ribbon Panel process to establish a new noise committee. The community members of the Panel are Barret Lane, a member of the Minneapolis City Council; Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan's assistant city manager, and Jilt Smith, Mendota Heights City Council. The airport users are in the procesformer member of the s of establishing their representation on the Panel. Nov 02 01 01:06p Charles E. Mertensotto (6121 222-4755 P.2 At the October 23 informational meeting, Jeff Hamiel requested that the Panel focus on the following committee structure/process elements: • Committee mission/responsibility • Membership • Procedures/rules of order • Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) role • Staffing roles and responsibilities • Reporting relationship and responsibility in MAC's system Through the course of the Blue Ribbon Panel deliberations it is possible that Commission direction may be sought .in relation to Panel discussions focusing on some of the above mentioned new committee elements, Following the appointment of airport user representatives to the Panel, it is anticipated that the first Blue Ribbon Panel meeting will occur in November 2001. Following the deliberations by the Blue Ribbon Panel, a recommendation will be forwarded to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and submission to the full Commission, Informational item only no Committee action required NY ETROPOLT1- IN AIRPORTS COiT 1VISSION t _ Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Q* 6040 - 23th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 554_0-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 - =* 11 t n + T00 October 22, 2001 NIr. Guy Heide Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee C/o Mr. Michael A. Kesel 889 Bluebill Drive Mendota Heights, NIi 155120 Dear Nir. Heide: Thank you for the opportunity for Nir. Chad Leqve and myself to personally meet with you and members of the Rogers Lake East Noise Reduction Committee last week at the Mendota Heights City Hall. Although we were not able to accommodate your request for a HNTB consultant representative from Alexandria Viramia to attend the me tmg; I hope _..._ you found the meeting helpful, It was extremely helpful for ns to understand your belief that:.i) the Rogers Lake East Area should be included in the existing or expanded noise contours, 2) the remote monitoring towers (RMT) located in the area are not accurately recording the aircraft noise events and 3) that the Integrated Noise Model (INIV1) is not accurate. As we discussed last night, I do not share your belief or skepticism concerning the accuracy of the RMTs or the INM. I am however pleased that we had the opportunity to cover all of the agenda items you listed in your letter dated October 19, 200i during the course of the meeting. The ability to discuss each agenda item in-depth helped to stimulate meaningful conversation for a wide range of additional topics. I am enclosing a copy of the complete slide presentation in a lamer format, a copy of the 1999 lease agreement section you referenced in one of the Planning and Env ronment Committee Memorandums, and the October 28, 1996 N1AC action concerning the MSP Noise Mitigation Progam, November 1996, recommendation. Please feel free to return the Larson Davis manual we provided last week to the above address. Since we did not have an opportunity to demonstrate the airspace analysis and aircraft over flight replay tools that are available on the Internet or other A��lOMS. capabilities, I invite you and anv other member of the Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee to feel free to call me at 612-726-8134 or Mir. Chad Leqve NIAC Aviation ne ��z7oPont�� ri�poas c�mmiss;o� � an arem,�n�-e 3�rio� zmoioye�. w« w.mspairooR. vm Relie,er .dicyea�. .GIRL.-��E _i.�OKA GOUNTYIBL�L�'e • CRYST?.L � FL'!NG CLOI;D C.�CE FL\-[O • 5,�1, .T P.>?..Z. CO'.V�r044ti �3ctaUem `b��harl gave t. lion Nars�:anc€'SafelTiea�C��*e�ms ,. } [Variables Affecting Eagan -Mendota, Heights Departure Comdor Operations `15 degree heading separations or 1.1 miles (6,000 feejj.t) en -trail is required for successive departures' + Monthly .corridor reports average in the 90+% range for - r corridor compliance i.e: maintaining initial assigned heading between 00 and 120 degrees for three miles ' 9 FAA's fast and foremost consideration is the safe and = -expedient flow of traffic to and from MSP - FAA . maintains corridor compliance to highest degree possible, 7 ; 095 degree north corridor boundary was evaluated in 1996 and rejected by the FAA'- capacity constraint relative to heading range availability NADPs and the Modeling in the 2000 Part 150 U � The goal of NIASAC noise reduction proposal was to reduce the noise impact for residential units within the 60 DNL contour to the greatest degree possible � The decision to implement the Distant Departure Profile on all runways, through the Part li0 Update process, was a result of sisnificant review and analysis by the Ntetropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and local Qovemments. By comparing the INNI NISP contours of the Distant vs. Close -in Profiles it was discovered that over 9,000 people are removed from the 2005 60 DINL contour and therefore so U_se of Non -Construction 1Vlonths } in Modeling + Runway use percentages were developed using data from Jan.- %r Mar. and Oct: Dec. 1999.and April -Sept. 1997 due to .Construction t _ Runway use percentages were then applied to the total 1999 opetttimlevelsxo generate the base Case contour �j_T`hiswasdone-to ensure that operational trends m the summertime (southeast flows) were appropriately represented Total operations numbers were derived from actual tower counts fleet -mix, tracktrunway use percentages and track locations were derived from ANOMS + :The discrepancy s due in ANOMS vs. FAA tower counts ito "ASRA and ODR down times where data is not provided to MAC Development of INM Flight `: Tracks • Unprecedented use of ANNOMS data in the ENNI flight track development process • Core tracks were developed with sub - tracks on each side to account for dispersion around each track — the distribution per sub -track is dependant on the geometry of the core track ? In close consultation with local FAA, considering inherent airspace limitations, the flight tracks were developed relative to ANOMS data for the existing runways and relative to FAA and EIS guidance for Runway 17-35 • The number of operations is anticipated to be 575,000 in 2005 — and without the introduction of Runway 17-35, considering the available flight tracks off the existing runways — delay would t,e,.,....o ...............o�}.to f.v FA d � The goal of the 2000 iYISP Part I50 Update is to reduce the area within the 2005 60 DNL contour, to greatest extent possible, through an effective NCP 3 Extensive efforts have been taken to ensure this Part 150 Update is -as Iccurate as.posstble_ �- All comments received as'part ofthe public hearings and other public processes are being responded to as part of the Part 150 Update document a The 1996 contours will not be rerun since the fleet -mix has since changed significantly In an effort to effectively discuss the concerns raised — it would be helpful to understand the goals or intent of the Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee EXHIBIT I 1 /1 /99 Pace 6 of 23 NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM Program Scooe This program consists of projects to insulate houses and schools within the DNL 65 and 1996 DNL 60 contours, to acquire property in New Ford Town and Rich Acres subdivisions in Richfield, and to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in homes which were previously insulated. Projects in this program include the following: • Home Insulation • New Ford Town/Rich Acres Acquisition School Noise Abatement • Runway 4/22 Noise Mitigation Remediation of Past Homes • Remote Monitoring Unit Installations Estimated Project Schedules/Costs Summarized in the table below are the Estimated Project Costs, Estimated Project Costs and Cost Centers for the projects listed above. -,��- Esb -s+7 Esb ted'Prot'e 'Sched (j'- Ptoy cY _-�CosfCen - - 19985 1Nm -._ ' :Ram Temima - �Offier ' Stert MtomPleban� .. r. _ _ 1998 2003 S129,100400 S129,t00t000 ' Home Insulation (Inside 65 ONL) *W 2003 2010 1'_0,000,000 70,000.000 1 80,000,000 Home Insulation BU (Between 60 and 65 ON_ New Ford Town Rich Ac. s Acauisieon 1998 1998 3.500.000' ' 3500,000 SGicol Noise Abatement 1998 2002 33,000,000 33,000,000 Runwav 4122 Noise Midoadon 2000 2005 38,000A00 38,000,mu Remediabon of Past Homes 1998 2002' 6.300.000 6.300,000 Remote Monitodnq Unit Insmlladons 1999 2001 900,000 900.000 Subtotal S360t800,000 S280,800,000 - 80,000,000 S50,000.000 S50,000.000 Condn encv 5410,800,000 5330.8nn non ( 80.000,000 Program Total _ For 1996, assumes 910 homes @ `528,000 per home For 1999 thrcuch 2003, assumes 2,795 homes @ �37,100 per home For 2003 through 2010, assumes 4043 homes @ $371100 per home I NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM AIRPORTS COMMISSION November 1996 r November 5, 2001 Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction Committee c/o Mr. Michael A. Kosel 889 Bluebill Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Phone: 651-456-9512 Mr. Jo ensel Supel Wsor of Air, Waste & Transportation Units Miggesota Pollution Control Agency 54 Lafayette Road North t. Paul, MN 551554194 Dear Mr. Hensel: Our Committee received the attached letter, dated October 23, from Brian Timerson of your staff. His letter is a response to our letter to Mr. Timerson, dated October 8. (Copies of all correspondence are herewith.) Mr. Timerson's response is perplexing and troubling. BACKGROUND Our Committee has uncovered irregularities in the noise reports generated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Noise reports are generated by MAC's noise monitors (referred to as the ANOMS system, consisting of RMTs [Remote Monitoring Towers]). 1. On September 12, a letter documenting our concerns was sent to MAC. 2. Apparently MAC fumed to Mr. Timerson (ofyour agency) for support. On September 27, Mr. Timerson responded with a two -page letter to MAC. MAC then sent Mr. Timerson's letter to our Committee. Mr. Fuhrmann of MAC commented in his letter of transmittal that Mr. Timerson was "addressing the issues you [our Committee] raised." 3. However, Mr. Timerson's letter raised more questions than it answered. While the letter seemed to support MAC, upon closer reading, Mr. Timerson's letter really was not specific and contained a major misconception of the issue we had raised. 4. Therefore, on October 8, our Committee wrote Mr. Timerson with questions regarding his letter. 5. Mr. Timerson of your staff has now responded with this letter of October 23. In this letter, Mr. Timerson refuses to answer any questions. Page 2 November 5, 2001 What standard is Ivir. Timerson applying? 1. When MAC asks a question of Mr. Timerson, he responds in less than two weeks with a two - page letter. 2. When concerned citizens of the State of Minnesota ask questions of Mr. Timerson, he refuses to answer! Your website states: "The MPCA mission is to help Minnesotans protect their environment. .Its purpose is to protect Minnesota's environment through monitoring environmental quality and enforcing environmental regulations." Is Mr. Timerson correctly reflecting the values and mission of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency? Why does he refuse to be as forthcoming with requests from citizens, as he has been with the Metropolitan Airports Commission? Is this not a double standard? OUR QUESTIONS Were our questions unreasonable? Let us briefly restate them: 1. Mr. Timerson stated that the MPCA "accompanies MAC staff each time a RIv1T is calibrated." We asked to see these reports by the MPCA, particularly the date of the most recent calibration check on Monitors 913 and #15. • The work product of the MPCA is available to the citizens of the State, is it not? • Is not your work product covered by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act? • why then does Mr. Timerson refuse to share this work product with our Committee? • Isn't our request a reasonable, legal request of your agency? This is not a request that could or should be made to the MAC, is it? 2. We pointed out Minnesota Rule �030.0060 ("Measurement Methodology") which in Subpart 4 ("Measurement procedures") states a, we that we believe is violated by the present state of Monitors 913 and #15. After reviewing pictures of these monitors, we asked Mr. Timerson to state MPCA's official position on whether Monitors 913 and #15 violate Minnesota regulations. • If Mr. Timerson is not the appropriate person to address this question to, who is the proper party? • Isn't it reasonable to ask the bIPCA to apply the regulations they are sworn to enforce? This certainly is not a question that could or should be asked of the MAC, is it? 3. We also pointed out in our letter that Mr. Timerson had completely misstated our position in ow letter of September 12. • This is a serious matter, is it not? It is difficult to believe that Mr. Timerson actually reviewed our September 12 letter (although he states that he did). • After correcting Mr. Timerson's error, we then asked if he did not now agree with our position. • Was it unreasonable of us to ask Mr. Timerson to re -state his position when notified of his error? Page 3 November 5, 2001 MEETING Our Committee requests a meeting with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as our attempts to resolve this with correspondence is ponderous and somewhat confusing. When we quote a letter, that quotes a second letter, that was responding to a third letter, it just is very difficult to follow and we regret putting you through this, Mr. Hensel. However, this is a MAJOR environmental issue in our community and will not go away. At this meeting our Committee would appreciate reviewing details/documentation on the program Mr. Timerson referred to wherein: "An MPCA staff person accompanies MAC staff each time a RMT is calibrated." Certainly our request is reasonable. Why would the WCA want to hide their efforts to protect the citizens in our community from airport noise? On the legal question, if the MPCA cannot comment on State regulations with a determination, perhaps you could give us guidance at the meeting on how this is obtained. Do we need to request a ruling from the Attorney General of the State? If the MPCA is unable to supply guidance on the enforcement of Minnesota Rule 7030.0060, Subpart 4, perhaps you could direct us to the proper party. A copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Timerson. If he feels we have unfairly quoted him or made any errors in our presentation in this letter, he should by all means feel free to call this to our attention. He is certainly welcome to be at the meeting. We look forward to hearing from you promptly on our request for a meeting. Sincerely, Michael A. Kosel Attachments (3) cc: Brian Timerson, Noise Program Coordinator Metro District, MPCA Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive Director, MAC Roy Puhrmann, Director of Environment, MAC Chad Leqve, Manager —Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Charles Ivlertensotto, Mayor of Mendota Heights Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38 Airport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 34 ICAO ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION GIVES EU BASIS FOR RESCINDING HUSHKIT RULE The outcome of the recent meeting of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is expected to lay the basis for resolving the long and often bitter dispute between the European Union and the United States over an EU rule barring the addition of hushkitted aircraft at European airports, which is due to take effect next April. The "balanced approach" to enacting restrictions on Stage 3 airplanes agreed to in the resolution could allow the EU to rescind its hushkit rule, thus giving the United States the opportunity to withdraw its formal complaint asking ICAO to resolve the dispute, which threatened European states' standing in the interna- tional aviation body. The resolution agreed to by the ICAO Assembly (13, ANR, 140) also gives both the United States and the EU what they sought in terms of restricting Stage 3 operations. Restrictions on Stage 3 airplanes will be allowed — as the EU insisted — but they must be done under the framework of the "balanced approach" developed by the United States, which means restrictions will be considered airport by airport, (Continued on p. /44) Westchester County COUNTY CLARIFIES THAT COMPLIANCE WITH CURFEW DOESN'T CONDITION ACCESS In order to get the Federal Aviation Administration to release federal funds it has withheld, Westchester County, NY, officials have agreed to reopen a parking garage 24 hours a day and to clarify to operators of aircraft at Westchester County Airport in negotiations over their operating leases that compliance with the airport's voluntary nighttime noise curfew is not a condition of access to the airport. The FAA had withheld approval of the county's application to increase its Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and withheld federal grant funds on the grounds that the agency could not make a positive determination that the county was in compliance with the FAA's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions (13, ANR, 124). FAA contended that the county had violated federal grant agreements and skirted the Part 161 process by using lease agreements and the early morning closure of a parking garage to coerce airlines and businessjets to adhere to the airports' voluntary midnight to 6:30 a.m. curfew on aircraft operations. The Westchester Aviation Association brought the lease issue to FAA's atten- (Continued on p. /45) u October12,2001 In This Issue... ICAO ... The resolution recently adopted by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization is expected to provide the basis for resolving the dispute between the United States and the European Union over the EU's non -addition rule for hushkitted aircraft - p. 144 Westchester County ... County clarifies that compli- ance with voluntary nighttime curfew is not condition of access to airport - p. 144 Atlanta ... City commits $75 million to mitigate noise from newly approved fifth m way at Hartsfield Intema- tional and to update Part 150 program - p. 142 lip... FAA gives town 10 days to rescind newly imposed $50.000 surcharge on night flights, which agency contends violates grant agreements and ANCA - p. 142 News Briefs*.* San Diego City Council terminates rela- tionship with project to convert general aviation airport to cargo facility ... Sound insula- tion program for schools around O'Hare International Airport will continue - p. 142 October 12. 2001 based on cost/benefit analysis, instead of being imposed regionally. We got people off the idea of a regional phase out and got them behind the balanced approach, a U.S. observer explained. Cost/benefit analysis will be the driver in the process, he said, and that requires that noise problems and the best way to address them be identified. The United States had been strongly pressed by all sectors of the U.S. aviation industry except airports, to oppose any restrictions on the operations of Stage 3 aircraft but did not maintain that position. Establishes Right to Restrict The Airports Council International —North America is disappointed at the "very meek" Stage 4 aircraft noise certification standard that was included in the Assembly resolution but is encouraged that the resolution clearly established the right of an airport to restrict Stage 3 aircraft and that no onerous conditions are placed on the enact- ment of such restrictions, said Richard Marchi, the trade group's point man on environmental issues. The issue that is not clear at this point, he said, "is the extent to which the costibenefit requirements are going to control what an airport can do" The Assembly resolution directs ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) to do follow up work to further define the components of a "balanced approach" to enacting restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft but, as Marchi pointed out, the FAA's Part 161 process, which express the agency's view on the matter, has resulted in the complete stymieing of enactment of any new noise restriction in the United States. One industry observer explained that the ICAO resolution is not binding and that each member state will be able to enact their own version of what they consider to be a balanced approach on Stage 3 aircraft restrictions. Those restrictions may not be identical to the FAA's 161 regula- tions or may be interpreted in a way that allows airports to more easily impose operational restrictions. `Toothless' Stage 4 Standard Marchi called the new Stage 4 standard "toothless cumulatively only IO dB below the current Stage 3 standard and most aircraft currently operating in the United States already meet it. ACI-NA had sought a much more stringent standard that not as many aircraft would have net. "You have to push at noise at the source to solve the noise problem," Marchi said. "The airline industry and manufacturers want to hold to the illusion that you can use flight tracks and CPS technology to solve the noise problem. But the problem is far too many noisy airplanes." However, he added. the current economic downturn may force the airlines to retire many of their noisier airplanes. Others agree that the issue of imposing restrictions on the noisier Stage 3 airplanes could become moot if enough of 145 them are retired in the current industry recession. One industry observer told ANR, however, that he ex- pected airplane manufacturers to design new aircraft types that are l7 of 18 dB below the new Stage 4 standards in order to account for larger derivative models that will be developed later. The ICAO Assembly resolution specifies that noise restrictions must be based on performance of an aircraft and not its design which clears the way for Stage 3 planes to be hushkitted to meet Stage 4 standards. Westchester, from p. 144 lion last spring, contending that the airport attempted to convert its voluntary curfew into a mandatory one around June 1999 by imposing penalties in leases with no option for leaees but to accept those penalties or not to have the lease renewed. The Air Transport Association called the closure of the parking garage until 6:30 a.m. "a blatant attempt" by the county to coerce the airlines serving the airport into adhering to the voluntary curfew, which has been in effect since 1983- There is demand in the county, ATA said, for passenger airline operations earlier than 6:30 a.m. Enforcement in Abeyance In a Sept. 25 letter, Westchester County Attorney Charlene M. Indelicate, to Paul L. Galis, FAA's deputy associate administrator for airports, that the county will hold in abeyance enforcement of any voluntary nighttime curfew provisions it has negotiated "until such time that the County reviews the matter with the FAA and the policy and legal issues raised in our recent correspondence are re- solved" She told Galis that the county "is also clarifying that inclusion of the [voluntary curfew] provisions in a lease is not a condition of access to the airport, which will be negotiated on reasonable terms." Must Determine Violation First But Indelicate would not bend on her earlier assertion that the FAA cannot withhold federal funds from an airport operator before first determining that either grant assurances or Passenger Facility Charge rules were violated. Our primary concern remains ... that the FAA has failed to follow its own regulations," Indelicato told FAA's Galis•. "The statutes cited by FAA in its most recent correspon- dence in no way authorize FAA to withhold funding before following established regulatory procedures for making a determination that either grant assurances or PFC rules were violated," she asserted. Airport Noise 2eport October 12, 2001 Atlanta Hartsfield Intl ATLANTA COMMITS $75 MILLION TO MITIGATE RUNWAY NOISE An initial commitment of $75 million will be made to mitigate aircraft noise impacts associated with the addition of the new 9,000-ft. fifth runway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport and to update the airport's Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility program to address changes in noise -impacted areas that have occurred since 1985, when the program was approved, according to airport officials. As part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the new runway, the Federal Aviation Administration requested that the City of Atlanta Department of Aviation prepare a mitigation plan describing how it will mitigate impacts created by the construction and operation of the runway. The mitigation plan addresses all impact areas identified in the Final EIS. In terms of noise, the Department of Aviation identified a number of measures it will implement or continue to conduct: Updating noise contours biannually; Initially committing $75 million to mitigate noise from the new runway and revising that upward or downward as a result of the updated noise contours; Initiation of a new Part 150 study to further investigate means to reduce noise exposure; Formation of a Noise Mitigation Advisory Council composed of local stakeholders to help guide the Part 150 study and development noise mitigation priorities; and Continued commitment to address community noise concerns and complaints through the department's Noise and Operations Monitoring System office. The Noise Mitigation Advisory Council will play an important role in deciding which noise mitigation altema- tives, such as acquisition or acoustical treatment, will be implemented and where, airport officials said. The original Part 150 study for Hartsfield was approved by the FAA in 1985 and revisions to that program were approved by the agency in 1987 and 1988. Islip MacAKhar Airport FAA GIVES ISLIP 10 DAYS TO RESCIND NIGHT SURCHARGE The Federal Aviation Administration has given the Town of Islip, NY, 10 days to respond to a request to rescind a $50,000 surcharge on late -night flights at Long Island MacArthur Airport, which the town recently imposed despite warnings from the agency that such action appears to violate federal grant agreements and the requirements of the FAA's Part 161 rules on notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions. The night operations surcharge, which became effective 146 on Sept. 30, is a means of keeping out quieter airplanes that are able to meet the noise level limits set in the airport's 1984 nighttime curfew, which was grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). It bars operations between I I p.m. and 6:30 a.m. of aircraft exceeding 72 dB on departure and 85 dB on arrivals (as per FAR 36), When it was first adopted 17 years ago, the curfew kept out atl jet operating during the night hours. However, some quieter jets can now meet the curfew noise limits. In an Oct. 3 letter, FAA Deputy Associate Administrator for Airports Paul L. Galis told Islip Town Supervisor Peter McGowan that the original ordinance codifying the curfew applied fines to nighttime aircraft operations that exceeded a certain noise emission level but that the amended ordinance applies a landing surcharge to all nighttime operations, regardless of their noise emissions. Such an amendment is subject to the requirements of ANCA and the FAA's Part 161 regulations implementing the act "because the amendment makes access to your airport more restrictive," Galis told McGowan. He warned the Islip official that an airport proprietors' failure to comply with ANCA and the Part 161 regulations when imposing a new or amended restrictions affects the proprietor's ability to receive federal grant funding and Passenger Facility Charge approval. Subpart F of Part 161 provides a means of restoring compliance with ANCA by having airport proprietors rescind or commit in writing to rescind or permanently to not enforce a non -complying restrictions, Galis said. He encouraged McGowan "to resolve this matter by providing a written commitment that conforms to this regulatory provision with the next 10 days." A commitment by the town to rescind or not to enforce the surcharge on night flights also would resolve outstanding questions the FAA has regard the surcharge's compliance with federal grant agreements and PFC regulations, Galis added. In Brief ... Correction It was incorrectly reported in paragraph 3, page 141 of the Oct. 5 issue of ANR that the ICAO Assembly has urged its member states in a resolution adopted that day to frame any restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft so that they are gradually withdrawn from operation over a period of not less than seven years and meet other criteria listed in that paragraph. Those criteria apply to restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft only. While these aircraft have already been phased out in the United States, they are still in operation in the rest of the world. Airport Noise Report October 12, 2001 EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Steven R. Alverson Manager, Sacramento Office Harris Miller Miller & Hanson John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC Carl E. Burleson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Frey[ag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Denver Suzanne C. McLean Vice President, Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority John M. Meenan Senior Vice President for Industry Policy Air Transport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pnaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compatibility Office Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle 147 Cargo Conversion Stopped The San Diego City Council voted unanimously Oct. 3 to terminate its relationship with the developer of the San Diego Air Commerce Center at Brown Field, a project that would have converted the current general aviation airport to a cargo handling facility. Several issues contributed to that decision, according to Barbara Lichman of the Irvine, CA, law firm Chevalier, Allen & Liebman, who represents Pardee Homes a major developer with interests that would have been affected by the cargo facility. One of its housing projects is located very close to the airport. The facility, she said, was to have been operated by a private operator and there was no assurance that the project would have been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration; the City Council was worried that, if the private developer defaulted on its bonds, the city would have to step in, risking its own credit; and the City Council was faced with the "consistent and vociferous opposition of the surrounding community. At times, there were almost 1,000 people at hearings on the issue- s counsel for Pardee Homes, Liebman applauded the City Council's decision. "I must say, that given the low incidence of success in limiting airport expansion throughout the nation, the effort to control the transformation of Brown Field was one of a kind. It required the constant attention and devotion of resources over a two-year period, from a large number of diverse constituencies. The success of this combined effort clearly demonstrates that it is possible for a dedicated public to have an impact on control of airport development." Chicago School Insulations Continue Sound insulation design work will proceed for 11 schools in the area of O'Hare Intemational Airport under the 2001 School Sound Insulation Program which is overseen by the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commis- sion. Despite a review of capital and operational expenses to ensure that safety and security are maintained as priorities at O'Hare, the City of Chicago told the commission at its regular monthly meeting Oct. 5 that funds would be available for the design work at the 11 schools. "During this review, quality of life issues will continue to be addressed, Ntanaging Deputy Aviation Commissioner Kitty Freidheim, told the commission. "Mayor Daley has maintained that we will provide leader- ship especially as it pertains to noise mitigation programs." Commission Chair Arlene Mulder, who also serves as mayor of Arling- ton Heights, IL, noted that funding also is secure for the 2002 Residential Sound Insulation Program. While safety and security are vital issues, Mulder said, "it is reassuring that progress can still be made on these important noise mitigation programs." 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) 729-4523. e-mail: editorGilairpormoisereport.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 Airport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 35 Bzzrbank COURT ASKED TO CLARIFY MEANING OF BALLOT MEASURE ON AIRPORT GROWTH The City of Burbank filed a lawsuit Oct. 17 asking the Los Angeles County Superior Court to help it determine its obligations to enforce a ballot measure limiting growth at Burbank Airport, which was overwhelmingly approved by Burbank residents last week in the highest turnout in the city's elections in 20 years. Ballot Measure A, approved by 58 percent of city voters on Oct. 9, requires that any plan for a proposed replacement passenger terminal include an overnight curfew on aircraft operations and a cap on the number of flights at the airport and mandates two-thirds voter approval before the City of Burbank can consent to the construction of a new terminal. The City of Burbank said it supports the goals of the ballot initiative — the curfew and caps — and is not trying to thwart the will of.the voters but feels that Measure A includes requirements that may violate state law and the California Constitution. "Because we believe certain parts [of the measure] are illegal, city staff need clarification on the legality of many sections and only thq courts can provide that ` (Continued on p. 149) Chicago O Hare Int'1 RYAN ENDORSES MOST OF DALEY'S PLAN TO EXPAND O'HARE BUT WANTS FLIGHT CAP III. Gov. George Ryan endorsed all but the southernmost runway in Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley's ambitious plan to expand O'Hare International Airport Oct. 19, and proposed that a cap be placed on the number of operations at the airport at 1.1 million per year or 3,000 flights a day. Before the Sept. I I terrorist attacks, O'Hare was handling 2,500 flights a day. Airport operations are not expected to reach the 1.1 million per year point at which they would be capped for 15 years. Ryan's plan is the long-awaited counterproposal to Daley's S6 billion plan, released in June, to eliminate three existing runways at O'Hare and build four new ones to create a system of six parallel east -west runways, which are expected to reduce delays by almost 80 percent and increase capacity to 1.6 million flights per year, up from the 908,977 operations occurring before Sept. 11. Gov. Ryan's proposal also includes a third airport to be built south of Chicago in Peotone, IL, use of untapped airport capacity at Rockford, IL, Regional Airport, and continued use of in -town Meigs Field, which has been the subject of security concerns because of its proximity to downtown Chicago. (Continued on p. /50) October 19, 2001 In This Issue... Burbank... The city files a lawsuit asking for court clarification of its obligations to enforce a ballot measure, overwhelmingly approved by Burbank voters, that requires a night curfew and operations cap to be imposed if a replacement terminal at the airport is built - p. 148 Chicago O'Hare ... Illinois Gov. Ryan endorses almost all of Chicago Mayor Daley's plan to expand airport but wants to place a cap on opera- tions - p. 148 Naples ... NBAA, GAMA decide to drop their appeal of a district court ruling upholding the first -ever ban on Stage 2 business jets - p. 149 Hush Kits ... Really Quiet LLC announces that it expects by late November to get FAA approval of its kit to bring Stage 2 Gulfstream aircraft into compliance with Stage 3 noise standards - p. 150 Oakland Int'l... Airport officials decide to appeal to the California Supreme Court an appeals court ruling finding EIR on expansion plan inad- equate and calling for supple- mental noise analysis - p. 150 clarification," said Burbank City Attorney Dennis A. Barlow. "We regret the need to file a lawsuit but this is the only way we can get the guidance we need." "The City supports the principles of Measure A," said City Manager Robert R. "Bud" Ovrom. "But initiatives, in general, and national aviation matters, in particular, are legally very complex. Although well-intentioned, the initiative was not drafted precisely enough to accomplish what the proponents apparently wanted," he added. Touted as a measure to preserve quality of life, Measure A was proposed by a local group called Restore Our Airport Rights (ROAR), which sent a letter to the city explaining its views of the meaning of Measure A. However, city officials noted that the general rule in California is that the views of the drafters of an initiative are not considered relevant in determining the meaning of an initiative. The courts must determine the meaning of ballot initiatives based on the plain language they contain. Measure Called Invalid The city's lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Measure A is illegal and cannot be enforced because it impermissibly delegates City Council powers to the voters, it is unconstitutional because it requires two-thirds vote for amendments to it, it exceeds the initiative powers granted by the California Constitution, it conflicts with the city is General Plan, it is unconstitutionally vague because of iinprecise and contradictory language, it imposes condi- tions in excess of the city's constitutional powers, and the combination of these defects make the measure invalid. City of Burbank officials said they filed the lawsuit now because they must soon make decisions on applications filed by the airport authority seeking city approval to move a parking lot and for routine building permits outside of the terminal project. Measure A also calls for the city to install a multi -million dollar noise monitoring system and to revise the entire city code to comply with the measure. Even if Measure A is invalidated by the court, Measure B, adopted overwhelmingly last fall by Burbank voters prohibits the city from giving final approval to any new or relocated airport terminal without a referendum. "We believe that preserves the fundamental objective of Measure A by giving voters the final OK for any new airport terminal project," city officials said. The city said it filed its lawsuit against the airport authority because that is the party that would be most directly and practically affected by Measure A if the city starts to enforce it - Victor Gilt, spokesman for Burbank Airport, said that the airport authority has taken the city's lawsuit under advise- ment and is somewhat perplexed that it was named as defendant in the litigation. Part 161 Study Continues In late September, the airport authority announced that it 149 was putting the replacement terminal project on bold indefinitely because of the economic downturn in the aviation industry. However, the airport authority is commu- ing its federal Part 161 study aimed at imposing a nighttime curfew at the airport. The Part 161 study is independent of the terminal project, Gill explained. The airport consulting firm Landrum & Brown, which is conducting the Part 161 study for the airport, recently presented an update on its efforts to the airport authority. Landrum & Brown speculated that the long-term growth forecasts it had prepared earlier would basically be unaf- fected by the slowdown in aviation activity following the terrorist attacks on September 11. The consultant is now ready to begin the process of defining the nighttime curfew, which has been discussed only in vague terms, and prepar- ing a cost/benefit analysis of it, Gill said. The airport authority may also have to consider whether the study should also address caps on airport operations, which the City of Burbank is seeking, but was not a goal initially considered by the airport, he said. Gill would not speculate on when the Part 161 study might be formally submitted to the FAA for approval. The airport authority had hoped to submit the study this fall but it is far from completion. Burbank's 161 study will be the first in the country to consider restrictions of Stage 3 aircraft. Naples NBAA, GAMA DROP APPEAL OF STAGE 2 BAN AT NAPLES The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) have decided to drop their appeal of an Aug. 9 federal district court's ruling upholding a ban on the operation of Stage 2 business jets at Naples Airport. NBAA cited changes in its priorities following the Sept. l 1 terrorist attacks as the main reason it had decided to drop its gation challenging the restriction, which is the first in the country to ban the operation of Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 Ib. Jeff Gilley, NBAA's manager of airport operations, said the association's decision to drop the appeal does not signal that it agrees with the district court ruling, which found the Stage 2 ban to be constitutional. Rather, he said, it reflects NBAA's change in focus following Sept. 11. The trade group, which represents business aircraft operators, is engaged in efforts to reopen airports closed following the attacks. Gilley also stressed that, while the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Stage 2 ban has been dropped, the Federal Aviation Administration is still contending that the restriction violates federal grant agreements because it is unjustly discriminatory. Airport Naise Report October 19. 2001 If the agency makes a formal determination that the restriction violates federal grant agreements, it will result in the loss of federal funds to the airports, Gilley said, imply- ing that such action could force the airport to rescind the mle. However, it could be very difficult for the FAA to argue that a restriction that has been found to be lawful by a federal court still violates federal grant agreements. Naples Airport officials were very pleased with the trade groups' decision to drop their litigation. "To say we are pleased is an understatement," said Eric West, chairman of the Naples Airport Authority. "The court agreed with us that local communities have a right to decide what is in their best interests as long as they are not in violation of the law." Ted Soliday, executive director of the airport, said he expects to move forward with enforcement of the Stage 2 ban beginning in March 2002. The Naples ruling is precedent setting in that it affirms that airports can impose access restriction based on noise impacts beyond the 65 dB DNL noise contour, which FAA uses as the threshold of residential compatibility (13, ANR, I11). Enforcement of Naples Stage 2 ban, which was adopted in January, has been deferred because of FAA objections to elements of the airport's Part 161 costibenefit study done to support the restriction. Those objections stem principally from the airport authority's use of a 60 dB noise level rather than 65 dB level as the threshold for determining signifi- cant noise impact. The airport is not compelled to use the 65 dB threshold as the basis for its noise study but the FAA contends that the airport authority must provide documentation and evidence to support using the 60 dB threshold. In June, the airport authority completed a supplemental noise study addressing these concerns and submitted it to the FAA for review. To date, it has received no response to that analysis. NBAA and GAMA's decision to drop their litigation over the ban on Stage 2 business jet operations coincides with an announcement that a hush kit that could bring Stage 2 Gulfstream aircraft into compliance with Stage 3 noise standards is expected to receive FAA approval in November (See story in this issue). Hush Kits FLIGHT TESTS COMPLETED ON KIT FOR GULFSTREAMS One of the three companies developing hush kits to bring Stage 2 Gulfs-tream aircraft into compliance with tighter Stage 3 federal aircraft noise standards announced Oct. 17 that it had completed all the required flight tests leading up to full Federal Aviation Administration certification of the hush kit. California -based Really Quiet LLC said it expects to 150 receive full FAA certification of the kit it has developed for Gulfstream GII, IIB, and III aircraft and a Supplemental Type Certification (STC) by late November and plans to begin installing the kits on Gll aircraft on Nov. 15. The hush kit developed by Really Quiet has achieved compliance with Stage 3 noise standards "with cumulative noise numbers 6-7 dB below those" set in the Stage 3 standards, according to Dave Hewitt of the company. He said that in the latest series of flight tests done on the hush kit, with an FAA crew in command of the aircraft, "we successfully demonstrated aircraft controllability in the severest and most improbable failure modes of our hush kit and thrust reverser systems. These final tests included, but were not limited to, thrust reverser deployment at high speeds and high engine power, simulated thrust reverser failures on the runway, and reverser door deployments with climb power selected." In the coming week, the company will begin tests on the ejector and thrust reverser mechanism, which it does not expect to take more than five days to complete. Chicago, from p. 148 The plan also includes a $450 million commitment to soundproof homes and schools in the 65 dB DNL noise contour of O'Hare as well as a 5300 million economic stimulus package to provide low interest loans to improve aviation security, which is thought to be the first such state package in the country. In endorsing a new runway at O'Hare, the governor backed off of a campaign promise he made in the 1998 gubernatorial race that he would oppose new runways at O'Hare. His opposition to the southernmost runway in Daley's plan comes as no surprise. The 7,500 foot south runway is estimated to cost S 1 billion to construct and would entail moving a road and displacing 300 homes, 240 apartments, and 70 businesses. Oakland Int'1 RULING CRITICAL OF EIR APPEALED TO CA HIGH COURT Fearing the precedent it could set in requiring airports in California to conduct supplemental noise analyses, Oakland International Airport officials have decided to appeal to the California Supreme Court a recent ruling by a state appeals court finding the state environmental impact report (EIR) done on the 51.38 billion expansion plan for the airport to be inadequate. The decision follows a denial by the appeals court of a request by the airport to rehear the case. However, the appeals court did clarify that the airport does not have to prepare an entirely new FIR, as it had stated in its ruling, but rather a supplemental EIR. Airport Noise Report October 19, 2001 151 ANR EDITORIAL The appeals court ruling concerns Oakland Airport officials and those ADVISORY BOARD of other airports in California because it said that the Port of Oakland cannot rely solely on 65 dB CNEL (California's version of DNL) to Steven R, Alverson assess significant noise impact. The court said that supplemental noise Manager, Sacramento Office analysis, such calculation of single event noise levels and assessment of Harris Miller Miller & Hanson potential sleep interference from an expected increase in nighttime cargo Jahn J. Corbett, Esq, operations, should be conducted by Oakland in addition to using the 65 Spiegel & McDiarmid dB CNEL criterion. Washington, DC The criteria for determining significant noise impact set in the Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) differ from that set in federal Carl E. Burleson National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the court said. Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration CEQA defines a significant noise effect as an action with the potential to "increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas" John C. Freytag, P.E. and states that any proposal which results in increases in existing noise Director, Charles M. Salter Associates levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels may require mitiga- San Francisco lion measures," the court said. Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. By contrast, it said, in implementing NEPA, the Federal Aviation Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Administration "has developed a specific quantitative significance Carlsbad, CA criteria for measuring aviation noise. The FAA has determined that a Peter J, Kirsch, Esq. significant noise impact would occur if a noise analysis indicated the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld proposed action results in an increase within the DNL 65 dB contour of Denver 1.5 dB DNL or greater on any noise sensitive area." Suzanne C. McLean Site -Sensitive Threshold Vice President. Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority CEQA, on the other hand, "adopted a site -sensitive threshold of significance for noise," the court said. The CEQA guidelines mirror the Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. proposition that an ironclad definition of significant effect is not always President, Mestre Greve Associates possible because the significance of an activity may vary with setting." Newport Beach, CA The appeals court rejected arguments made by the Port of Oakland in its Steven F. PHaum, Esq. petition for rehearing that its conclusions regarding the probability and McDermott, will & Emery severity of noise impacts from night cargo flights and the validity of the Chicago EIR's analysis of these impacts were unsound. Karen L. Robertson "The court's conclusions are based upon an overestimation of potential Manager, Noise Compatibility Office increases in night flights and noise impacts and a misunderstanding of Dallas/Fort Worth international Airport the scientific procedure for calculation and application of the CNEL metric," Oakland argued. It also contended that the CNEL metric Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants considered issues such as annoyance and sleep interference that con - Seattle cerned the court. 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 imemal 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 Airport Noise Report A weekly update on lifigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 36 EI Toro COUNTY SUPERVISORS APPROVE EIR ON COMMERCIAL AIRPORT AT EL TORO A significant hurdle to building a commercial airport at the site of the former EI Toro Marine Air Base in Orange County, CA, was cleared Oct. 23 as county supervisors voted 3-2 to approve an environmental review of a county plan for the airport that envisions 18.8 million passengers a year and 1.2 million tons of cargo and would make it the second largest airport in Southern California. Approval of the plan comes in the wake of a decision by Los Angeles to scale back its ambitious plans for expanding and upgrading Los Angeles International Airport following the terrorist attacks on Sept. I I and pleases regional transporta- tion officials who have supported a commercial airport at El Toro to relieve pressure on LAX. The state environmental review approved by the county supervisors concluded that a commercial airport at El Toro would cause significant environmental impacts, including sleep disturbance in areas of the county south of the airport, but that the economic benefits of the project outweighed those impacts. The county supervisors' vote clears the way for the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration and the Navy to complete their base transfer process and tutu over much of (Continued /53) INM ASSUMPTION OF QUIET FLYING SEEN AS POSSIBLY DETRIMENTAL TO INM The assumption the Federal Aviation Administration has made in the latest update to its Integrated Noise Model (INM) that all operators of Gulfstteam airplanes are following a stringent noise abatement departure procedure devel- oped by the manufacturer could mark the beginning of a trend that could prove detrimental to the long-term health of the INM, according to David Senzig of Boston -based Senzig Engineering. To maintain the integrity of the INM data base, it is crucial that the data in the model reflect real -world conditions but that may not be the case with the Gulfstream data, said Senzig, an expert in aircraft noise certification procedures who recently helped conduct a survey of pilots operating Gulfstream aircraft at Naples Airport to determine what noise abatement departure procedures they are using. That survey, done in conjunction with the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., to support the airport's ban on Stage 2 businessjet operations, found that seven Gulfstream operators used the manufacturer's procedure, three used a less stringent procedure developed by the National Business .Aviation Association, and four used a combination of the two, accord- ing to Lisa LeBlanc Hutchings, the airport's noise officer. (Continued on p. 153) October26,2001 In This Issue... EI Toro ... Orange County supervisors vote 3-2 to approve the state envir- onmental impact report on a county plan to convert the former Marine air base into the second busiest commercial airport in Southern California, which would reduce expan- sion pressures at LAX - p. 152 INM... A noise engineer contends that FAA's accep- tance of noise data from Gulfstream, which assumes that all operators of its aircraft are following a stringent noise abatement departure procedure developed by the company, may jeopardize the long-term health of the INM - p. 151 Centennial ... A nighttime curfew on Stage 2 business jet operations is among Part 150 program recommendations expected to be approved soon by airport board - p. 154 Minneapolis -St Paul... A university professor recom- mends ways to revive MASAC committe which the a dines walked off of last year complaining it had become a m comunity advocacy group. He recomends greater civility be practiced - p. 152 the former base to Orange County. That is expected to happen next April. Opponents of the airport project vowed to file a lawsuit over the vote and plan to try to place a measure on a county ballot next March seeking voter approval to turn the former Marine base into a large urban park complex rather than a commercial airport. Immediately following the supervisors' vote, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) rejected the takeoff and landing patterns in the county's airport plan, contending they were dangerous because they would direct departing aircraft to the north and east, forcing pilots to fly toward hills in unfavorable wind conditions. ALPA urged the county to adopt the "V-Plan," developed by retried aerospace engineer Charles Griffin of Newport Beach, CA, that would send departing aircraft to the southwest over undeveloped land and would bring arriving airplanes in from the north. The County supervisors had rejected the V-Plan, contend- ing that departures to the southwest would cause noise over homes planned by the Irvine Co., the largest land owner in the county "The way Orange County has written its plan dooms the airport to almost certain failure," ALPA said. ALPA's criticism comes a week after the FAA raised some of the same concerns in an airspace study it did of the proposed airport. The FAA said that Orange County's proposed aircraft flow is opposite that of every other airport in Southern California. However, the agency concluded that the county' plan for the airport could operate safely as long as pilots use other runways under certain weather conditions. But that would delay incoming flights to nearby John Wayne and Long Beach airports. INM, from p. 152 Senzig views FAA's incorporation of the Gulfstream quiet flying data into the INM as a departure from past agency practice. "The FAA used to en on the side of being conservative, he explained. "You can see that in the standard departure procedures in the INM, which are based on maximum continuous climb power." But, he said, "the Gulfstream data are the opposite. They represent the minimal noise that could possibly be made." It's not that FAA has not incorporated noise abatement departure procedures for some larger commercial airplanes into the INM data base in the past. The agency has, Senzig said, but they are procedures that assume an engine cut back at 1,000 ft, and are not as extreme as that developed by Gulfstream, which uses an engine cut back at only 400 ft. with the plane operating at the lowest power settings federal regulations will allow. Also, in the past FAA has modified data provided by manufacturers to reflect how airplanes are actually oper- ated. Senzig noted that in 1998 Embraer provide INN( data for the EMB-145 that included a cutback a few hundred feet above the runway. But discussions with American 153 Airlines, a primary operator of EMB-145s, confirmed that a higher cutback altitude was used in practice than the manufacturer stated. The FAA modified Embraer's INM inputs to match the American Airlines' in-service procedure, Senzig said. However, he added that the Embraer and Gulfstream examples are not directly comparable because general aviation aircraft, such as Gulfstream's, have a wider latitude of operation than air carriers do. But, the Embraer example shows that manufacturers' data have been modified based on operator procedures, he told ANR. In Version 6.0e of the INM, released by the FAA Sept. 21, the FAA has accepted data from Gulfstream which reflects the noise levels that would be produced if operators of its aircraft follow the noise abatement departure procedure specified in aircraft operating manuals and pilot training sessions conducted by the company. The result of incorporating the quiet flying data into the INM is that peak noise levels for Gulfstream aircraft are as much as 9 dB SEL lower than those produced the earlier versions of the model, which is the basic computer tool used by the FAA, airports, and consultants to estimate aircraft noise impact. Gulfstream Praised Senzig had no criticism PG lrs . He praised the company for doing an excellentjob in informing aircraft operators about its quiet flying procedure. "Gulfstream has been very aggressive in pushing their procedure; they have spent time and effort." But a better solution for the INM update, he said, would have been to have two Gulfstream aircraft in the data base: one operating quietly and one not. In that way, those using the model could determine which aircraft would be appropriate for a specific airport. The FAA does allow those who use the INM to input different data to represent operating conditions at a specific location, but that is a very difficult and protracted process, he said. Senzig also understands FAA's dilemma. "FAA has no leverage with manufacturers" regarding the data they submit to the INM, he explained. John Gulding of FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, who shepherded the INN( update, dismissed Senzig's criticism of the Gulfstream data, contending that all the information needed to calculate a full power takeoff for Gulfstreams is already in the model. "We don't consider it a burden to change the data," he told ANR. 1t is still possible to model Gulfstream airplanes doing power cutbacks at 1,500 ft. You just have to prove that they are doing that through radar data or survey data. But Senzig said that process took five month at Naples. Gulding declined to address Senzig's criticism of FAA's handling of the Gulfstream data, contending that ANR was not the proper forum for such discussion, and called Senzig's concerns biased because of his participation the Part 161 study at Naples done to support the Stage 2 businessjet ban there. Airport Noise Report October 26, 2001 Extension of Recommended Practice But Gulfsteam officials did agree to discuss the matter. The data that we put in the INM[update] are just a natural extension of what we recommend" that operators do, said Dave Hilton, Gulfstream's chief scientist. He noted that the company has developed a quiet flying manual that goes step-by-step through procedures tailored exactly to the characteristics of Gulfstream airplanes. "We have been very aggressive over the years in caution- ing our operators to use [the quiet flying] procedure and to be a good neighbor whenever possible. Sometimes weather or other air traffic control issues do not permit its use but we ask our operators to use it as the normal way to operate the airplanes." Charles Etter, a technical specialist with Gulfstream, said that the previous version of the INM did not represent what the company says is the normal departure procedure. "We said let's go forward and be consistent. So we talked to our customers and said this is the way you should operate, and we felt it should be modeled the same," he told ANR. Hilton said that Gulfstream did verify in flight testing at John Wayne Airport that the noise level data for the quiet flying procedures used in the update to the INM are accurate. "We verified that the procedure does what it says t does." "We don't know the percentages of operators are following the procedure," said Hilton. But we stress to our operators that at many airports, if they exceed noise level limits, they will not be able to continue operating. The Gulfstream officials said they could not comment on how the Naples survey was done. But, they said, there are times when air traffic controllers order pilots to climb quickly on takeoff and they must follow those instructions. They also stressed that all the Gulfstream operators in the Naples survey were using some type of noise abatement departure procedure, and half were using that recommended by the manufacturer. Hilton and Etter said they did not share Senzig's doubt that operators of Gulfstream aircraft are not routinely using recommended noise abatement procedures. "It has been our experience that the operators of these aircraft are sensitive to the noise issues and routinely use Gulfstream's recom- mended procedures and do not routinely use `maximum' climb power departures." Not only are maximum climb departures noisy, they said, they also reduce engine life and result in climb deck angles that are uncomfortable to passengers. Centennial Airport PART 150 RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE STAGE 2 CURFEW A nighttime curfew on the operation of Stage 2 business jet operations is among the recommendations in a Part 150 airport noise compatibility program for Centennial Airport 154 near Denver expected to be approved by the airport board at an upcoming meeting on Nov. 13. If the Part 150 program is approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, the restriction on Stage 2 business jets would be subject to a cost/benefit analysis under the Federal Aviation Administration's Part 161 regulations on notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions. However, a Part 161 study will most likely not be done in the near term because the airport must first demonstrate that other noise mitigation measures proposed in its Part 150 program are not sufficient to mitigate the noise problem at Centennial, which is the second busiest general aviation airport in the country. Centennial Airport is already engaged in a legal battle with the FAA over the airport's refusal to allow scheduled passenger service. In June, the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court a federal appeals court ruling order barring the airport from eligibility for federal discretionary grant funding because of its refusal to allow scheduled passenger service. Since 1998, the FAA has withheld $1.8 million annually from Centennial because of its stance on scheduled passenger service. That could make it difficult for the airport to fund a Part 161 study. But if a 161 study is done, it might follow the example set at Naples Airport and adopt 60 dB DNL as the threshold of significant noise impact, said Airport Director Robert Olislagers. Getting FAA approval of a Part 161 study, however, may prove as difficult for Centennial as it has for Naples. While Naples' ban on all Stage 2 aircraft operations has been upheld by a federal district court, the Part 161 study the airport did to support the restriction has yet to be approved by the FAA. The agency also contends that the ban on Stage 2 operations at Naples appears to violate federal grant agreements. Some 12 noise mitigation measures were proposed in the Part 150 study for the Centennial, including a ban on Stage 1 jets, a ban on the operation of Stage 2 business jets from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., changing flight paths to reduce noise impact on communities, establishing a liaison office to address noise complaints, installing a permanent noise monitoring system, implementing a Fly Quiet program, and establishing a roundtable committee to monitor noise mitigation efforts. Centennial averages over 400,000 arrivals and departures each year, with about 1,200 flights per day. Minneapolis -St Paulln'tl M RECOMENDATIONS MADE FOR REVIVING COMMITTEE Last October, the airlines walked off of the 3l-year-old Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), which made recommendation to the Minneapolis -St. an Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and was one of the oldest and most lauded airport/community advisory Airport Noise Aeport October 26, 2001 155 ANR EDITORIAL committees in the country. Led by Northwest Airlines, the carriers contended that MASAC has ADVISORY BOARD become a community advocacy group and no longer provided a viable Steven R. Alverson framework for addressing noise mitigation issues (13, ANR, 9). Vice President Last spring, the MAC's Executive Director Jeff Harriet asked John Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. Brandt, Dean of the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to recommend ways to either revive MASAC or John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid create a new committee to replace it. Washington, DC On Oct. 23, Brandt submitted his report to the MAC at a meeting attended by about 25 former members of MASAC but no airline represen- Carl E. Burleson tatives. Director, Office of Environment and Energy Chief among Brandt recommendations was a need for members of Federal Aviation Administration MASAC or a successor committee to demonstrate greater civility toward John C. Freytag, P.E. each other and "to commit themselves to abide by a code of civil Director, Charles M. Salter Associates conduct." He suggested that Roberts' Rules of Order be followed. The San Francisco "two central features" of a code of civil conduct are agreement to Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq, transparency in decision -making and "forswearing resort to personal Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance attack in debate," he noted. Carlsbad, CA Brandt rejected the idea of limiting membership to appointees to those representing user groups, elected officials, and representatives of Peter J. Kirsch, Esq, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld governmental agencies. "Excluding citizens from the organization after Denver there has been citizen representation for decades would send a symbolic message that should be unacceptable in a democratic republic and would Suzanne C. McLean be infuriating to citizens of affected areas." Vice President, Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority Other Recommendations Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. He also recommended that proxy voting be permitted (which the President, Mestre Greve Associates airlines had sought), that a quorum composed of a majority of both Newport Beach, CA public and airport user members be required for passage of motions, that Steven F. PBaum, Esq, election of a chair require a super majority of perhaps 60 percent of all McDermott, Will & Emery members, that meetings be shorter and less frequent, that MAC staff be Chicago objective and available to all committee members, that the committee Karen L. Robertson by-laws stipulate that "economic soundness" be one criterion that is Manager, Noise Compatibility Office considered in decision making, that the committee chair report to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport MAC semi-annually in person, that the MAC not have members on the committee, and that the Citizens League, a non-profit, non -partisan Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants organization to study contentious issues and to assist in committee Seattle studies. Brandt's recommendations will be forwarded for a six -person Blue Ribbon Panel of airline and community representatives that is being formed to determine how to proceed. 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@airpormoisereport.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 Airport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 37 November 2, 2001 Santa Monica CITY COUNCIL APPROVES AMENDMENT TO GRANDFATHERED NOISE RESTRICTION On Oct. 23, the Santa Monica, CA, City Council approved an amendment to a noise restriction for Santa Monica Airport designed to toughen the rule, which is grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). The City Council acted despite a request by the Federal Aviation Administration that it delay considering the amendment until the agency completes a review of the proposal to determine if it violates federal grant agreements and if it qualifies for grandfathering under ANCA or must be subjected to a costfbenefit analysis under the agency's Part 161 regulations on notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions. The amendment significantly increases penalties for non-compliance with the maximum noise level limit set in the rule, requires pilots or their representatives to go through a registration process as a means of disbursing information about the restriction, and would make pilots, owners, and operators of aircraft all "jointly and severally liable for noise violations in order to ensure that changes in the aviation industry, including fractional ownership programs and fleet opera- tions, do not vitiate the noise enforcement program by making it impossible to assign responsibility" for violations, Santa Monica City Attorney Marsh Jones (Continued on p. 157) Noise Modeling DEVELOPMENT OF MAGENTA MODEL USED BY ICAO EXPLAINED AT NOISE -CON One of the factors that contributed to the recent decision by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) not to recommend the phase out of the noisiest Stage 3 aircraft was data from a sophisticated new noise model called MAGENTA that showed such action would result in an increase in global noise exposure. MAGENTA is the acronym for Model for Assessing Global Exposure to the Noise from Transport Aircraft. It was developed by Arlington, VA -based Wyle Laboratories for the Federal Aviation Administration under the auspices of an international committee set up by ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). That committee was chaired by John B. 011erhead of the British Civil Aviation Authority and included representatives of the aviation industry, foreign aviation administrations, and a wide variety of other noise and aviation experts. While it cannot be applied to individual airports, MAGENTA can be used regionally, such as in Southern California, to assess how changes in aircraft operations and land use will affect the number of people impacted by noise. Wyle's Director of Research Ben H. Sharp said that, while his company devel- oped the model, it is the brainchild of James Erickson, the former director of the (Continued on p. 157) In This Issue... Santa Monica ... The City Council approves an amend- ment to a noise rule for Santa Monica Airport grandfathered under ANCA despite an FAA request that it wait until the agency determines if it meets grant requirements or requires a Part 161 study - p. 156 NoiseModeling... Develop- ment of the MAGENTA noise model, which was used by ICAO to determine aircraft noise impact worldwide, is discussed at a session of NOISE -CON 2001 by Ben Sharp of Wyle Labs - p. 156 Chicago O Hare ... The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission vows to continue its efforts to eliminate all hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft. It expects, by the end of the year, that 95 percent of all aircraft using O'Hare will be originally designed to meet Stage 3 noise standards - p. 158 News Briefs... The Euro- pean Union announces that it wilI withdraw its hushkit rule and replace it with one that meet's ICAO's recommenda- tion ... Portland International chooses Lochard to upgrade its ANOMS system - p. 159 November 2, 2001 M outrie explained in a summary of the amendment. The amendment would revise Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 10.04.04.040 to increase the current $500 tine for violations of the noise restriction to S2,000 initially and to $5,000 and $10,000 for additional viola- tions. Additional violations would result first in suspension of airport privileges for six months and then revocation of privileges. The amendment also requires the airport director to maintain a list of aircraft types that are estimated to be unable to meet the maximum noise limit under any conditions and operating procedures. That list must be based on actual measurements of aircraft operations. If there is insufficient measured flights of a particular type of airplanes, the airport director must act on the best informa- tion available including FAA's estimates. The National Business Aviation Association opposes the amendment but has taken no action to date challenging it. David L. Bennett, FAA's director of airport safety and standards, warned Santa Monica officials that "given the lengthy litigation history and federal issues involved, it is vital for the city as a federally -obligated airport to take our comments into consideration before moving ahead in these circumstances." He said the FAA will try to provide its comments on the proposed amendment to the city by Nov. 30. Noise Model, from p. I56 FAA's Office of Environment and Energy. Previous noise modeling work done by CAEP had considered only a few airports but Erickson decided that a model was needed that could encompass all airports in the world that handled commercial jet operations. It was Erickson's vision that MAGENTA was needed, Sharp said, and he credited the former FAA official, who is now retired, with making others at CAEP believe the model was needed. NOISE -CON Presentation At an Oct. 30 session of the 2001 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering(NOISE-CON 2001), held in Portland, Maine, Sharp discussed MAGENTA. CAEP used the model to analyze more than 20 possible noise certification and aircraft phase -out scenarios that were selected initially to study, Sharp said. These options were eventually reduced to eight for a final detailed analysis. That analysis showed that "the beneficial effects of new production [noise certification] standards alone are almost completely negated by the increase in operations over the period 2002-2020," Sharp reported. Phase -out standards do provide immediate reductions in noise exposure in countries in North America, Europe, and the Pacific region but the transfer of phased out aircraft to countries in the rest of the world, where population densities are generally higher, results in an increase in noise exposure — the more stringent the phase -out standard, the larger the increase in 1J� noise exposure in the rest of the world, he said. Following are excerpts from the paper Sharp presented at the conference that describe how MAGENTA was devel- oped: ... MAGENTA has been developed for use in cost - benefit studies of aircraft noise mitigation measures by ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). The model calculates the numbers of people exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise around the world's jet airports. It is designed to include mitigation measures at the source, by operational means, and through land -use planning. Its first application has been to evaluate the benefits of reducing noise certification levels and phasing out noisier aircraft." Designed to Meet Two Objectives "MAGENTA was designed to fulfill two objectives. The first was to provide a methodology for determining the aggregate 1998 world population exposed to airport noise, as represented by the sum of individual airport exposures. It was required that estimates include noise exposure contribu- tions from all world airports and that the exposures be based on actual operations and demographic data. The second objective was to provide the ability to predict the change in population exposed to airport noise world- wide that would result from the introduction of noise abatement measures applied in the form of reduced aircraft noise levels, air traffic control procedures, and land -use planning. In particular, it was required to estimate the change in population exposed to airport noise worldwide that will occur with the phase -out of Chapter 2 aircraft [equivalent to Stage 2 aircraft] in some countries and to assess the effectiveness of different scenarios of noise standards being considered by CAEP. The methodology is structured such that world airports are divided into two categories: those with existing noise contour data, and those without such data. Baseline year (1998) noise contours for the first category are developed using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) and population exposures determined by overlaying the contours on demographic data by means of a GIS [Geographic Informa- tion System]. Noise contour area for the airports in the second category are estimated using a generalized model, based on number and type of operations, developed from the data acquired in the first category and multiplied by local population densities to determine population exposures. The aggregate world exposure is then the sum of the exposures for the two airports. "Airport noise data has been obtained for a total of 185 world airports, 91 of which are outside the United States. Operations data was obtained, including aircraft fleet mix, runway use, and flight tracks, thus enabling independent development of noise contours for the 1998 baseline year using version 5.2a of the Integrated Noise Model. In addition to the noise data, information was obtained from eacIt country on local noise metrics and assessment criteria. Airport Noise Report November 2, 2001 Relationships were developed between DNL and other metrics, which can be used to convert DNL noise contour areas generated by the generalized model into contour areas for other metrics. [Sharp told ANR that 80 percent of the noise data for the l85 airports was based on existing noise contour data.] "World-wide data for scheduled passenger, cargo, and charter operations was obtained from the International Official Airline Guide (IOAG), and combined to provide a database of aircraft operations for each of the 1,725 world airports that have at least one jet operation per day. For each airport a matrix was developed of the number of operations in terms of seat class (number of seats, which is a surrogate for aircraft size) and stage length (distance traveled) for each of 21 route groups. "Future operations were forecast using a "bottom up" approach using growth rates for each seat class, stage length, and route group provided by a CAEP subcommittee. The growth rates were applied to each aircraft type (i.e. B757-200) by year through 2020. The age distribution of each aircraft type was convolved with a retirement curve to obtain the number of each type available in each year. Differences between the projected number of aircraft required and those available in each year were made up by replacements selected from a list developed by a CAEP subcommittee. It was thus possible to retire certain aircraft early (phase -out) and replace them or naturally retiring aircraft with aircraft meeting certain noise rules_ "Digital population data for major cities in 130 countries was obtained from the Department of Defense, and vali- dated using independent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau, and by demographic data provided independently by some of the world airports that provided noise data. "The noise contour data received from the world airports was used to develop a generalized relationship between the area within the DNL 65 contour and the number of aircraft operations. This relationship forms the basis of a General- ized Contour Area Model that is used to estimate the contour areas of the world airports for which data was not available. To take account airport fleet mix, all aircraft operations were converted to an equivalent number of operations of a standard aircraft type— in this case a B737- 300. For a given number of operations of any aircraft type, the equivalent number of B737-300 operations is defined as the number that produces the same DNL 65 contour area. The number of nighttime operations are weighted by a factor of 10 to be consistent with the nighttime penalty of 10 dB applied in the DNL metric. "This model was applied to the remaining 1,540 world airports to determine the approximate noise contour size, which was adjusted to account for airport area, and multi- plied by local population densities to obtain the number of people exposed." 158 Chicago O'Hare Int'i COMMISSION SEEKS PHASEOUT TALL HUSHKITTED AIRCRAFT At a meeting held just one day after the largest single fleet of hushkittedjets operating at O'Hare International Airport was retired, the O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission vowed Nov. 2 to continue its efforts to eliminate all the oldest and noisiest aircraft using the airport. Since the commission began its efforts more than a year ago, hundreds of the noisiest Stage 3 jets at O'Hare have been retired in advance of any government requirements, according to Brian Gilligan, executive director of the commission. United Airlines, which had pledged that it would eliminate all of its hushkittedjet by March 2003, recently announced that economic pressures have forced the airline to accelerate that schedule. As of Nov. 1, some 75 hushkitted Boeing 727s and 24 hushkitted Boeing 737s have been retired from United's fleet, according to Gilligan. As recently as August, he said, hushkitted 727s accounted for just 8.5 percent of all operations at O'Hare but were responsible for 73 percent of the top 25 loudest individual noise events of all the complaints registered with the O'Hare Noise Hotline. - The Chicago Department of Aviation reported to the commission at its Nov. 2 meeting that by the end of this year 95 percent of all aircraft using O'Hare are expected to be originally designed Stage 3-compliant jets. Several airlines with hushkitted aircraft still in their fleets have presented the commission with phase -out schedules, Gilligan said, adding that the commission plans to continue asking other airlines for similar commitments and to accelerate their phase -out schedules when possible. In related news, the Chicago Department of Aviation updated the commission on the latest estimated jet noise contour based on Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's proposed reconfiguration of O'Hare. The newest contour, which assumes a projected 1.6 million operations annually at O'Hare decades from now, shows a 19-percent reduction in the 65 dB DNL noise contour around O'Hare. The commission has taken no position on Daley's pro- posal to reconfigure the airport's runways but has urged that noise mitigation planning be an integral part of any final airport redesign. The commission said it plans to closely monitor the detailed noise impact assessments that are part of a future planning process. The commission announced that the Village of Bellwood, has become the 33`d member of the commission and the 19'" municipality to join. Airport Noise Report November 2, 2001 159 ANR EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD In Brief... Steven R. Alverson Vice President Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. Portland Chooses Lochard to Update ANOMS Portland international Airport, a long-time user of Lochard's ANOMS John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid (Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System) has selected the Washington, DC company to upgrade their system. Portland will add 10 new Lochard EMU 1100 noise monitors to their existing system and four of the new Carl E. Burleson EMU 1 100s will be fitted with innovative Recognition Technology, Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration Lochard announced. Recognition Technology "uses a neural network to detect small John C. Freytag, P.E. differences in acoustic signals from different noise sources," the company Director, Charles M. Salter Associates explained. "It solves the problem of identifying aircraft noise where there San Francisco is poor quality track data. This is particularly useful at Portland where a Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq, secondary airport is behind a hill, which causes a line of sight blockage Gaake, Dillon & Ballance between radar and aircraft." Carlsbad, CA The result of employing this new technology is a more accurate Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. measurement of hourly and daily noise climates and of aircraft noise Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld event counts, according to Lochard. Denver The company said that the Port of Portland also has acquired a laptop computer and projector to provide display capability for ANOMS data at Suzanne C. McLean neighborhood meetings. "This equipment will enhance our ability to Vice President, Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority record and analyze aircraft noise and give citizens more detailed informa- tion about the characteristics of noise in their neighborhoods, said Joe Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. Walicki, manager of the Port of Portland's Noise Office. President, Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA EU Set to Drop Hushkit Rule Steven F. PBaum, Esq. The European Union announced at the end of October that it has McDermott, Win &Emery reement reached an agin principle with the United States to withdraw its Chicago rule, set to go into effect on April I, 2002, barring the addition of Karen L. Robertson hushkitted aircraft at European airports. Manager, Noise Compatibility Office The issue of restricting Stage 3 aircraft operations will be addressed on Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport an airport -by -airport basis, in accordance with a recent resolution approved by the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organiza- Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants tion, rather than regionally as stipulated in the EU rule. Seattle The United States in expected to now drop its challenge of the EU hushkit rule before ICAO, which contended that the rule was discrimina- tory because it was based on engine by-pass ratio rather than noise level and discriminated against planes manufactured by U.S. companies. The advocate general of the European Court of Justice recently recommended that the EU hushkit rule be invalidated in a challenge to the rule brought by Omega Air. 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 rilairportnoisereport.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 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, October 10 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: Scott Beaty, Ellsworth Stein, Liz Petschel, Joseph Leaman, John Roszak and Vern Edstrom. Staff present: City Administrator Carrie Lindberg, Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister and Recorder Bonita Sullivan. Ms. Sullivan took the minutes. Not Present: Commissioners Gregg Fitzer. MINUTES Commissioner Leaman moved to approve the August 15, 2001 minutes. Commissioner Edstrom seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Presentation None Unfinished/New Business A. Filming of ARC Meeting by NDC-TV Filming of the ARC meeting took place during the Item B Update on Airport Noise Video Progress. B. Update on Airport Noise Video Progress Chair Beaty opened the meeting noting that they would be filming a portion of the meeting tonight. He referenced his presentation to the Council and asked if everyone was ready. City Administrator Lindberg stated that Chair Beaty gave a great presentation at the Council Meeting adding that tonight would be the first piece of filming. She confirmed Commission Meeting - October 10, 2001 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Commissioner Edstrom noted Chair Beatv's suggestion and that this could be a part of what they, as an advisory group, could do for the Residents. Chair Beaty asked if they could directly ask MAC for assistance that could include new windows or insulation for the homes. He asked, if they had written the letters, with a different tone, would they have received the same response from the MAC. City Administrator Lindberg confirmed that the MAC response would have been the same. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated there were two major setbacks in the City with respect to insulation and Part 150 program. He explained that those who had qualified no longer do adding that Mr. Kosel and his group have no chance of approval. He stated that next Tuesday they would have an opportunity to pose these questions to Mr. Fuhrman and it is possible he might have suggestions for the Residents. City Administrator Lindberg suggested that this could be done in a phone call and offered to contact Mr. Fuhrman to discuss these issues. Administrative Assistant Hollister pointed out that the Mayor is also a member of this neighborhood and is copied on all correspondence. City Administrator Lindberg stated that she did have a discussion with the Mayor regarding the meeting next week. She stated that the Mayor was not pleased with some of the quotes in Mr. Kosel's letters and felt some of the things said were taken out of context. She explained that when Mr. Kosel referenced the Mayor it could be due to his involvement with the MAC. Commissioner Petschel asked if the Mayor has had any conversations with Mr. Kosel. Administrative Assistant Hollister confirmed that the Mayor has communicated several times with Mr. Kosel via mail and telephone. Commissioner Petschel noted that the only individuals they are willing to seriously look at are those who have sound proofing in the north, south, east and west, the normal POP group. Administrative Assistant Hollister suggested that the group allow City Administrator Lindberg and himself the time to discuss the issues with Mr. Fuhrman first and then go forward from there. City Administrator Lindberg stated that the meeting provided by Mr. Fuhrman did not meet Mr. Kosels' needs and reviewed his expectations for the upcoming meeting. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that another problem is that most don't understand what DNL means which in turn creates mistmderstandings with respect to the contours and the averages. Commission bleetina, - October 10, 2001 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Chair Beaty clarified that they have never moved forward without approaching Council first. He stated that as a Commission there is something they should do but he needs assistance from the group in determining the process. He stated that he does not have an answer other than recommending to the Council that there be some form of City assistance for this group of Citizens. He stated that there is more that could be done and acknowledged that the answer could still be no but to at least try. Administrative Assistant Hollister suggested that the Commission add this as an item to the November ARC agenda for a formal recommendation. He explained that this would allow him and City Administrator Lindberg the time to meet with Mr. Kosel, Mr. Fuhrman, and ARC and to brainstorm options that could be presented to the Commission and then the Council. He suggested not making any decisions until after next week's meeting. Commissioner Roszak stated that they function as an advisory board and agreed with Chair Beaty's suggestion to approach the Council for support. Administrative Assistant Hollister suggested contacting former NIASAC members or others within the POP group to determine if others have successfully challenged the MAC on the contours. Commissioner Stein amved at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Roszak asked if the contours were computer generated. Commissioner Petschel confirmed that they are computer generated adding that this is why Mr. Kosel is asking for the software and that the ANOM is a portion of the information that they feed for final results. Chair Beaty asked if Mr. Kosel's group could formally request that they be shown the methodology and calculations to determine the contours. Administrative Assistant Hollister noted that at several of the NIASAC/OPs meetings there were several consultants in attendance that were updating their systems on the contour computations and noted they were challenging the methodology. Chair Beaty suggested that they wait for the results from the meeting next Tuesday before moving forward. Administrative Assistant Hollister reviewed the issues, his discussions with Mr. Fuhrman, and that he would follow up with each of the groups for further clarification of the issues. He stated that he would check on the availability of the software and report back to the group with his findings. He acknowledged that this is public information but also stated that they have the right to charge for the information they provide. Commission Nleetmna -October 10. 2001 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission respect to specifications and the MAC. She acknowledged that this is not a well-known, established developer and it would be a difficult and expensive fight. Administrative Assistant Hollister explained that they would like to build a Native American Cultural Center on this property or leave it bare as it is a historical site and is considered to be sacred ground. He stated that in the Akesha Cemetery there is a plaque commemorating the site as the location where the government bought the land that is now Minnesota from the Dakota tribe. He clarified that they have not claimed this as a burial ground or a site for artifacts. Commissioner Stein asked if Mr. Kesel knew that he could possibly get a free noise meter from NPCA. He stated that he was not sure if this was still possible but it would be worth checking. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that he would check on the possibilities with NPCA. Commissioner Petschel clarified that the issue here is not to do the ANOM or yearlong study but to get an independent consultant in to determine criteria, test, and do a comparison. She again suggested that an independent expert review the data. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that if they hire an independent consultant and the expense is considerable, by rights, if the MAC refuses to pay, the City would have to bear the costs. He suggested talking to neighboring cities to see if they would be willing to contribute to the cost. He suggested determining how broad the scope should be and then approach neighboring cities to determine their willingness to assist in the costs as this process would be a benefit for all cities in the area. Commissioner Petschel noted that another of Mr. Kosel's issues is that the planes are turning earlier into the runway and this is not being reflected in the noise contours. She stated that Mr. Kesel does not believe that the contour assessment is reflecting the early him. Commissioner Stein asked if there is possibly anything else that Mr. Kesel might want that the Commission is not aware of yet. Commissioner Roszak confirmed that they would be able to determine that through the process and identification of the criteria. Administrative Assistant Hollister confirmed that to everyone's recollection this situation has not happened before. Chair Beaty stated that they have had complaints and people have approached the Commission but it has never been taken this far before. Commissioner Petschel asked what percentage the airport is operating at right now. Chair Beaty stated that Northwest is at 40%. Administrative Assistant Hollister noted that it would be 25% for the next two to three years and the big issue now is the federal standards for training. Commission Nleetin,a - October 10. 2001 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS Chair Beaty asked the Commission for comments. Chair Beaty stated if there was no further discussion he would move to adjourn. The Commission had no further comments. ADJOURN Chair adjourned by Executive Fiat. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bonita Sullivan TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.