The URL can be used to link to this page

07-14-1999 ARC Packetj .,? , ��'� � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIOIV AGENDA July 1.4, 1999 - Large Conference Room 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C� Call to Order - 7 p.m. -. ., r Approval of May 19, 1999 Minutes and June 9, 1999 Minutes. Unfinished and New Business: a. Review Airport Action Plan b. Review Draft Airports and Aviation Chapter of Comprehensive Plan Updates a. MASAC Operations Committee Brief - Part 1�50 Update b. Destination Analysis � c. Appointments to the Metropolitan Airports Commission d. Metropolitan Counci! Air Noise Zones .. Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Corresqondence: a. b. c. d. e. f. 9• h. 1. 1• k. I . m MASAC Agenda for June 22, 1999 and May 25, 1999 Minutes MASAC Technical Advisers Report for the Month of May 1999 MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for May 1999 MASAC Executive Summary for May 1999 Airport Noise Report - June 18 and July 2 1999 Editians . MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for July 9, 1999 Low Frequency Noise Policy Cornmittee Minutes May 19, 1999 MASAC Community Outreach - Draft Proposal Part 150 Status Report MAC Ordinance Prohibiting Stage II Aircraft after Jan. 1, 2000 Capitol NOISE Newsletter Letter from Jeff Hamiel on Earplugs . Pioneer Press Article - MAC Approves United Taking Gate from NWA 7. Other Comrnents or Concerns. 8. Adjourn. � Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours.in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the Citq of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests.. CITY OF MENDOTA IIEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, iV1IiYNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS CO1�IiVIISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 1999 The regular meetina of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, May 19, 1999, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1 l01 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:0� p.m. The followina Commissioners were present: Stein, May, Leuman, Beaty. Excused from �the meetina were Commissioners Fitzer and Roszak. City Staff present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. NIIi�tUTES Commissioner IVIay moved to approve the March 10, 1999 minutes with no revisions. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES : 4 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Leuman moved to approve the April 1�,1999 minutes with no revisions. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 PART 150 UPDATE - CONTOUR GENER�.TIOi�i NIr. Batchelder directed the Commission's attention to the April 9; 1999 minutes of the MASAC Operations Committee. NIr. Batchelder pointed out that on Pa�e 6, Kim Huahes of HNTB outlines the factors that go into contour generation. Mr. Batchelder said that althouQh these are the same criteria that have been used in the past, they should be more accurate no�.v because of the availability of ANOtiIS data. tiir. Batchelder said that the five criteria ti��ere: 1. AveraQe number of dailv fliahts 2. Correct enQine types y 3. Correct number of hush-kitted engines 4. Usin� correct around tracks 5. Sta�?e linl:s �vith correct take off �veights (fully loaded plane requiies hi�her output) � C �_ C Chair Beatv said that he has learned recently from reading about this issue that the term "staQe three�' has more to do with ener�y output than noise jeneration. Chair Beaty asked Mr. Batchelder what the implications could be if the contours espand siQnificantly. Mr. Batchelder said that it would probably make more homes eligible for Part 1 �0 noise mitiQation and other programs. Commissioner �Iay said that on the negative side, it could devalue homes within the contours. 1ti1r. Batchelder also informed the Council that at the May 14, 1999 MASAC meetinQ, Mayor Mertensotto as the new Chair of the Committee brought up the issue of "rounding off" the noise contours. NIr. Batchelder said that the Mayor feels that the noise contour boundaries should aliQn where possible with obvious geo�aphical barriers such as lakes or freeways. Chair Beaty said that no matter how the contours are rounded off, someone will be eYcluded. Commissioner Stein said that it would be �ood to prorate the contours, so that one house - would be 100% eliQible, another house would be 7�% eligible, and another house would �_� be 50% eliaible, rather than the current all-or-nothin� situation. Mr. Batchelder also pointed out to the Commission the individual corrununity responses to the Part 1 �0 scope analysis. Mr. Batchelder said that the communities of Minneapolis, Mendota Hei6hts, Eagan, Richfield, Saint Louis Park, Bloomina on and Inver Grove Heiahts have all sent responses. Mr. Batchelder said that the only response that Mendota Hei�hts has serious concerns with is Eagan's response. IYSr. Batchelder said that Eaaan's response centered on three issues: 1. A baseline should be established for flight data 2. The runtivay use system must reaffirm the current head-to-head operations. 3. Hotiv tivill Runr�vay 17 be used? (Eagan wants no night .fli�hts or restrictions on departure paths.) Mr. Batchelder said that Eaaan's last paragraph tivas the most debatahle, reaardina fli�hts outside the 60 DNL. ivlr. Batchelder reminded the Commission that decibels are a loaarithmic function. iUlr. Batchelder also reminded the Commission that EaQan had adopted a Resolution in 1996 supportina iVISP as the preferred location of the airport. Commissioner Stzin commented that 2 tiveeks aao he sa�v 18 planes �vaitin� for takeoff at the nc�rth parallel due to runway reconstruction. CROSSING PT CORRIDOR AI�iAL1'SIS Mr. Batchelder directed the Commission's attention to a report in their a�enda packet indicatinQ that the airport had improved its operations substantially in regards to comdor crossing, also known as non-simultaneous departure proceedin5s. Mr. Batchelder said that the report looked at 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and from 3 p.m. on Saturday to 1 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. Batchelder said that the crossing procedures increased from 36% to �7% for nighttime performance and from 17% to 27% for weekend performance. Mr. Batchelder said that this report shows an improvement compared to the report received last fall. Mr. Batchelder said that the FAA had given the tower controllers instructions to use this procedure as a performance standard and will continue to work with the controllers for continued improvement. � Chair Beaty said that there is still room for improvement. Mr. Batchelder a�eed, sayin� that theze will be periodic updates of the performance evaluations. � The Commission asked Mr. Batchelder to write letters to both Carl Rydeen of the FAA and Chad Leque of the 1�IAC thanking them for the xeport and congratulating them on a goodjob. �� UPDATE ON RESOLUTION ON RELIEVER AIRPORTS Mr. Batchelder said that at the Apri127 meeting of the MA.C, Jeff Hamil had eYpressed concern that resistance from reliever airport communities was restricting MAC's ability to move general aviation to those airports. Mr. Batchelder said that the Mendota Hei�hts Council position is that the decision not to move the airport was based in part on usinQ reliever airports for general aviation and that this need should not be thwarted by local parochial interests. iVlr. Batchelder told the Commission that the Council had passed a Resolution to that effect and had sent it to the Legislature; to the MAC, and to the communities of Eden Prairie and Moundsview. UPDATE ON AIRPORT PLAN OF ACTIOI'�t Mr. Batchelder said that the Airport Plan of Action would be updated in�June. ti�Sr. Batchelder said that if any Commission could not find their copy of the Plan the`� should call him and ask him for a copy in advance of the June meetinQ. � � C. ACK.��tOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknorvledged receipt of the following documents: MASAC A�enda for Apri130, 1999 and March 30, 1999 Minutes MASAC Technical Advisors Report for the Month of March, 1999 MASAC Comdor Gate Penetration Analysis for itiiarch 1999 MASAC Executive Summary for March 1999 MASAC Revisions to February Technical Advisors Report Airport Noise Report - April 16 and Apri130, 1999 editions MA.SAC Operations Committee Agenda for May 14, 1999 Eagan ARC A�enda for May 11, 1999 � Richfield letter of April 16, 1999 on Part 150 funding. OTFiER COiYIlVIENTS OR CONCERNS Chair Beaty asked Mr. Batchelder to provide time comparisons of flight tracks between now and two yeazs aQo. Motion made to adjouzn by Stein and seconded by Beaty. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectficlly Szrbmitted, Patrick C. Hollister s CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, M]NNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JCJNE 9, 1999 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, in the City Ha11 Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 730 p.m. The following members were present: Beafy, May and Stein. Commissioners Fitzer, Leuman and Roszak were absent. Also present were City Administrator Batchelder and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. As a quorum was not present, no formal actions were taken. Approval of the minutes of the May 19, 1999 meeting was carried to the next meeting. Commissioners decided to hear updated reports of agenda items. Review of the Comparisons of Technical Advisor's Reports and Comparisons of Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis were postponed to a future meeiing. PAR.T 150 UPDATE - ANALYSIS OF THE SOUTF3EAST CORRIDOR Admi.nistrator Batchelder reported that included in the Part 150 Update Study MAC will provide an analysis of the southeast corridor, also known as the Mendota. HeightslEagan. Corridor. A �-- , presentation of this analysis is scheduled for the next MA.SAC Operations Committee meeting, '._� Friday, June 11, 1999: The analysis is not intended to set procedures but to evaluate operations. The City was asked to submit a letter to MASAC regarding issues to be reviewed in the study. The City's letter, dated April 8, 1999, requests analyses of the following: 1) equity of the existing runway system; 2) review of the southeast corridor; 3) a.iiport operations; 4) noise measurement; and 5} land use opportunities. Admini.strator Batchelder noted that this discussion is to review the original assumptions of the corridor. There has been a magnetic shift of 13 degrees of the center line since the 1970's. Commissioner May asked when the magnetic shift took place. Administrator Batchelder sta.ted that it has occurred slowly over many years and showed the shift difference of the flight path on a map. One flight track procedure off Runway 12R/30Lwas set at 105 degrees based on the center line at 110. Now the center line is at 118 or 119. Flying at 105 degrees is actually flying eight degrees further north than the original tower order intent. Administrator Batchelder expressed his concern that the magnetic shift be taken into account to address future flight patterns. Commissioner Beaty noted that if one flight path is adjusted for the magnetic field, it will affect all flight paths. He asked how simultaneous take-offs are affected. Administrator Batchelder � explained that the simultaneous boundary of 090 on the north is not based on the center line of the runway. C Commissioner May sta.ted that there must be a shift in flight patterns throughont the country. It i' � is important for the Commission to have basic knowledge of the impact of flight tracks or whatever is used as a reference line for take-offs, so that fihe Commission can interpret tower ordezs as they exist today. He suggested requesting further clarification and interpreta.tion. Administrator Batchelder sta.ted that an interpretation would have to come from the FAA. There may need to be an adjusfiment to the tower orders. His concern is that tower orders reflect the original intent of the FAA. Commissioner Beatty sta.ted that the City is always working to keep flight pattezns away from residential areas. No one knows exactly where a 95-degree flight path would be located, but the flight path should be kept south of the water tower, which is easy for planes to see and keeps them over Highway 55 and away from residential neighborhoods. Administrator Batchelder responded that this concern is sta.ted in the Ciiy's Apri18, 19991etter which requests a configuration of the comdor to keep planes over business districts and that land use compatibility drive the location of the corridor. An analysis needs to be done of the exact locations of commercial and industrial areas. In summary, Administrator Batchelder stated the Ciiy's August 18, 1998 and April 8, 1999 letters to MASAC lay out a guideline of what needs to be addressed for Mendota. Heights in the Part 150 Update Study. The City is well prepared to state its position due to the.Action Plan developed by the Commission. A land use analysis should be done to see where the most compatible land uses for flight patterns are located. The Ciiy is iu a position to effect change for its benefit as a result of the Action Plan. MAC is scheduled to complete the Part 150 Update Study within the next year, and recommendations will be completed by July 2000. By March, the Cou�mission should have a working paper to review from MAC. Mayor Mertensotto, Commissioner Beatly and Administrator Batchelder will attend the MASAC meeting Friday, June 1 l, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., at the MASAC trailer behind the general offices of the MAC building, 6040 28th Avenue South. He invited any of the Commissioners who would be available to attend the meeting on Friday. REVIEW OF AIR.PORT ACTION PLAN Administrator Batchelder commended Commissioners for their work to develop an Action Plan. The Plan has been very efFective, and almost every issue identified has been addressed. He outlined several areas that have been reviewed andlor addressed as a result of the Action Plan: Noise Abatement Departure Profiles MASAC did review noise abatement departure profiles and tivas able to establish, on average, that planes are 400 'feet higher at the Minneapolis end of the runway. This analysis tivas based on . the recently implemented close-in departures. This issue will be pursued in the 150 Update Study. MSP Mitigation Plan C � ` _ C � � Adrninistrator Batchelder fiu•ther stated that the City will participate in the MASAC Action Plan to implement the MSP mitigation plan. The Environmental Impact Sta.tement (EIS) was finalized last fall. MA.SAC will hold corridor discussions on the 17-35 runway use system as part of the 150 Update Study. The mitigation plan was folded into the 150 Update. With.the update of the City's Action Plan, he would like corridor definition and compliance issues to be a high priority. The City alerted MAC about compliance issues last fall, and they will be addressed in the corridor review. City Policy The Action plan was a guidi.ng blueprint for the City in writing the August 18, 1998 and April 8, 19991etters to MASAC, and it also provided direction for recommendations to the Council on noise zone policies. - MAC Representation Commissioners asked about the composition of the 7,VIAC board. Administrator Batchelder sta.ted it is the City's goal thai a City resident will be appoin.ted to MAC. There have been discussions with the Governor's office about MAC appointments ancl the fact that current representa.tion from District Nos. 15 and 16 is not acceptable. �� _ Head-to-Head Operations � � Adrninistrator Batchelder reported a letter sent to the FAA expressing concem about head-to-head operations and requiri.ng more than two minutes between departures. FAA responded with a letter describing the constraints of tower personnel. This issue is now part of the corridor study. The City has been active on all the issues during the past year that are in the City's Action Plan. In anticipation of updating the City's Action Plan, Cornrnissioner Beatty stated that one high priority should be phasing out hushkit aircraft, which are classified as stage 3 in noise level. Use of hushkit aircraft is increasing, and sites need to be monitored. .� Commissioner May stated that he did not realize hushkits are stage 3 and asked if there is a maximuzn decibel level for stage 3 flights. Coixunissioner Beatty responded that to qualify as stage 3 is not just based on noise. In the last airport noise report on hushkits, there are at least 8 or 10 different kinds which all work differently. Administrator Batchelder referred to the May 14, 1999 Airport Noise Report noting that everyone is working toward stage 3 curfews. MASAC AGENDA Administrator Batchelder stated that communities are being encoura�ed to support the straight- out depa.rture procedures report for Minneapolis. Adjustments have been made in departure headings so as not to affect tr�c or capacity. The impact to those directly offthe center line of runways will be less. Cities have until the end of June to comment. The City's position will be to support it. Administrator Batchelder further reported that at the last MASAC meeting, May 25, a crossing of the comdor report was presented. The Chair asked the Mendota. Heights representa.tive to make a motion to accept the report and thank the FAA for instituting these changes. The Eagan representative made the motion and added that the corridor be reaffirmed and endorsed. Admi.nistrator Batchelder sta.ted that he stated that the Ciiy of Mendota Heights cannot accept endorsement of the corridor because there are still many inequities that need to be ac�dressed. He offered a friendly amendment to delete that part of the motion, which was passed. T'he City will continue to oppose endorsement or reaffirmation of the current corridor. OTHER ISSUES Administrator Batchelder reported an issue that has arisen with the 1996 LDN 65 contour. Under Metropolitan Council Aviation Guidelines the cantour applies to land uses within Mendota. Heights. The Hoffman Homes townhomes proposed in. zone- 3, as part of the City's attempt to comply .with the Livable Communities Act, may be in conflict with the land use compatibility guideli.nes. Metropolitan Council planners have indicated that . the development does not meet guidelines and ordi.nance standards, and, therefore, they do not have the authority to sign off on the project. Metropolitan Council approval would be needed. A good solution may be to request a six- month extension until the new contours aze established by Part 150 and land use compatibility decisions can be based on the new contours. CONIlVIISSION MEMCBER APPLICATIONS Administrator Batchelder reported that the deadline for Commission member applications is June 16, 1999. The position has been well advertised to encourage applicants. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deanne Gueblaoui Recording Secretary C C� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 7uly 9, 1999 To: Airport Relations Comm.ission From: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Subject: Unfinished and New Business for July Meeting DISCUSSION This memo will cover the agenda items for Unfinished and New Business and Updates. Review Action Plan - At the June meeting, the 1998 Action Plan was reviewed for accomplishments that have occurred over the last year. Due to the lack of a quonun, their was no formal action taken by the members present to update the Action Plan, however, it was reviewed and discussed. Commission members should be prepared to work on updating this Action Plan on Wednesday evening. Updating will include removal of items accomplished, or no longer a priority, adding new focus issues and relevan:t action strategies, and updating current issues as they have evolved. (Please see attached Plan of Action.) 2. Review Draft Air�orts and Aviation Cha�ter of the Comprehensive Plan - Mr. Steve Grittman, of Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC), met with City Council on June 16, 1999 in a workshop to examine the draft Comprehensive Plan for the.City of Mendota Heights. Included in that draft is a chapter entitled Airports and Aviation. (Please see attached Chapter.) At the workshop, City Council made final revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and directed staff to begin the 60 day review process in early September. Prior to that date, each of the advisory Commissions is to review pertinent portions of the plan: Following this informal review, a formal review process with public hearings will begin through the Planning Commission to the City Council. This gives the Airport Relations Commission two opportunities to review this draft chapter. Commission members should be prepared tQ comment on the enclosed draft Airports and Aviation chapter. C � ��. 1. MASAC O�erations Committee Brief - Part 150 - Enclosed for your review is the handout provided by Ms. Kim Hughes, of HNTB, at the June l l, 1999 meeting of the MASAC Operations Committee. It was at this meeting that the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor was reviewed as part of the Part 150 Process. (Please see enclosed Brief.) 2. Destination Analvsis - Also provided at the 7une 11, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, was an analysis on the destinations of aircraft departing on Runways 12L and 12R. (See enclosed analysis.) I apologize for the poor quality of the � copies, however, the information provided in the tables is probably more important than the flight tracks. This was provided in response to Inver Grove Heights' contention that the destination of planes using the corridor end up going south after they use the northem 1.5 degree separation departure track. Please also refer to June 11, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee minutes included in Acknowledgments with the July 9, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee Agenda. 3. Ap�ointments to MAC - Governor Jesse Ventura recently made appointments to the Metropolitan Airports Commission, including the appointment of Mr. Bert McKasy, ari attorney from Inver Grove Heights for District 15/16. Although the enclosed article does not say so; I am assuming this means Mr. Louis Miller, of Apple Va11ey, has been � \1 replaced as the MAC representative for our district. (Please see attached article.) 4. Metro�olitan Council Air Noise Zones - The City of Mendota Heights has requested a six month extension on the submittal of our Comprehensive Plan. This was done in order to allow the Part 150 Update Siudy tiine to produce 2005 Contours that can be used by the Met Council in determining air noise zones for land use compatibility purposes. Then the City of Mendota He'ights received notice from Hoffman Homes � that Mr. Ted Mondale had phoned to inform the City that the Met Council would not challenge our finding that HofFinan Homes' project was consistent with our land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. C� t a y � _ - ' : '. ' '' '�___ i .._. . . , ._ .__... . __.�._.._"" " "�".. ... _ •" . � � � � � . � � . � � � . � � . � � . � � � By Dan Wascve h. CrystalAirport and the cities of Crystal, Paui International Airport a.nd better Star Tribune Staff Writer Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Center. � � Reappointed were: 1 Gov. Jesse Ventura named three > Alton Qoe) Gasper of l�iinneapo- - new members and two incumbents to lis, a former reseazch specialist at the � the MetropolifanAirports Commission 3M Co. He has been a MAC member E�bn Tuesday. • since 1989 and also has served on the • They folloiv Ventura's earlier ap- Metropolitan Council and the Minne- - pointment . of Charles' �. Nichols to sota R.ight to Read Commission. � chair the commissian, which oversees > Paul ' Rehkamp, of Marshall, .- operations and capital improvemen.ts� ' Minn., is a funeral director and busi- of, seven airports, including Minne- nessman who. first was appointed to �� apolis-St Paul InternationaL the MA.0 in 1993. '- ' The three newcomers are: The latest appointmenfs to the 15- c �- Bert bicKasy, ' Inver Grove member � com.mission were iecom- Heights, an attorney, former Muine- mended by:a committee that included " sota commerce cammissioner and a.Nichols, Metropolitan Council Chair- former legislator.� He owns McKasy man Ted Mondale, state Transporta= )� Travel Service inc. tion Comm.issioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, 3► Nancy Speer, New Scandia, di-, , Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, rector of development at Breck School: 'and Wendy. : Wustenberg, Ventura's � Fozmerly she was director of develop- � director of govemment zelations. : ment and e.Yternal relations for �the Nichols said Tuesday night that "I HumphreyInstituteofPublicAffairsat �got everything I wanted" in the ap- � the University of Minnesota pointments, meaning, membeFs that � Paul Weske, Crystal, a former air- ."aze not single-m9nded, not pushing an � line employee who is a member of the agenda." He said an open-minded Tri Cities Airport Com.mission �in the approach will serve the iil�ifAC's focus on � northern suburbs. The commission pro- such issues as °the comgetitive factor" '� motes smooth zelationships benveen of airline service at the l�linneapolis-St. service to passengers and a.irport users. He also said that Speer's appoint- ment followed his preference to add a woman to the MAC. The o ther woman on the commission is Georgiann Sten- erson of Moorhead, NSinn. But he em- phasized that gender was not his only priority. . . - "She's not single=minded," Nichols �saidofSpeer_ "She's got a'mind. She's a. doer, a `get-doner,'"he said. � � He said he knew Weske from a time when both men were on the Tri Cities . � comm.issiori: Weslce is a pilot a.nd busi- nessman. who has put on air shows. NichoIs said he understood Weske's : former employment with an airline to be for Republic, but the govemor's � office said. Weske had worked��.for Northwest Weske couid .. not be reached for comment Tuesday night .• . McKasy has a Iong record of gov- ernment service. He was named com- merce commissioner by Gov. Arne Carlson in 1991. He unsuccessfully sought the �Republican endorsement forU.S. Senate in 1994 and 1996. Pre- � viously he was a top aide to foFmer U.S. Sen. David Durenberger. .. , _ t � a r: � �:. �:� r. �k � �� }� • =� � ` . � i a` �;: ..,� . . _ . . � �. ,... . . . ._ . � . � . ._ .. � - . . _ , . x r_. �._. _ _,,,: � Boa�d's intendec��cuts mu�h less,�c�inful th��n e��ected � �^/ Norman Draper state Le�slature's approval last month said, a 3 percent cut "could certainly ..0 .. ¢-� O i...t�.__ .n ..�.1...-...�:...-. A._ ._�_.�..___.-.1....�..�_..i _-...�.._.�l_ ,�.-a ��- �. , c 3 h . {. , _ , r .�. � .: . ._.�------_�__"'__ _._' _' �� '�. , � S��r .- , *: �:. •�� ` `: ..� ; "`,i.. , ,. . ,..... A,UGUSi" 18, 1998 C AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION � 1. Noise Reduction ThrouQh Modified Takeoff Procedures A. Monitor the Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Procedures B. Pursue the Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures C. Urge the Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Re;ulations D. Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor E. Monitor Conformance with three mile heading procedure. 2. Hei�hten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise� Concerns _ A. Pursue Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission B. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line C. Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and effort of the City. D. Continue to collaborate with the Northem Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC). E. Continue to keep abreast of other communities' issues and actions. F. Work with Metropolitan Council representatives. 3. NISP Lon�.Term Com�rehensive Plan A. Monitor and encourage promulgation and adoption of air noise miti�ation requirements in Mitigation Committee's plan. 4. Advocate a IVlore EQuitable Runwav Use Svstem A. Prevent construction of a third parallel runway. B. Work to Eliminate the Use of Head to Head Operations. l a f � 4. Advocate a More Ec�uitable Runway Use Svstem (Continued) C. Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35. D. Monitor Runway Use System (RUS) for conformance with MAC Policies. 5. Specific Noise Control Measures A. Assure conversion of Sta�e IlT quieter aircraft by federal deadline of year 2000. B. Monitor MASAC's plan to reduce ariraft engine run-up noise and aircraft ground noise during periods of departure. C. Promote the implementation of Global Positioning Satellite T,echnology to control departure headings in conidor. 6. Noise Reduction ThrouQh LitiQation - A. Examine Feasibility of Le�a1 Challenge 7. Expand eli�ibilint of Part 150 Sound Insulation ProQram in areas affected bv air noise exposure S. Metro�olitan Council Noise Zone Ma� and Related Land Use Controls A. Revise Metropolitan Council land use zones and controls to the previous land use zanes. C�. AIR NOIS� PLAN �� ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non-Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps: 1. Monitor Compliance with Tower Order 2. NSDP's - Request Compliance 3. Review 1 st 6 month study 4. Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on 105 Degree Heading on 12R 5. Review 2nd 6 month study Who When Staff/ Study Requested ARC Staff Study Requested ARC ARC Oct.98 Staff/ARC 1999 MASAC ARC Feb.99 � � � � � � � � � Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Ste�s: Who When 1. FAA begins NADPs in MPLS. Staff/ARC March 1998 2. Review NADP Procedures MASAC Ops August 1998 ARC Sept. 1998 3. Continue to pursue adoption of ARC/Staff Continuous "close-in" vs. "distant" departure procedures �_ � 2 � a AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTI�N issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Steps: 1. inquire with FAA Contro! Tower about current head-to-head operations 2. Demand/Advocate MSP Mandatory Rule for Stage III Only between 10:30 p.m.. and 6 a.m. to replace voluntary agreements. C ) 3 Who When Staff Completed CC/ARC Future MASAC Meeting AIR NOISE PLAN 0� ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps - vvnv vv��G�� 1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final Staff/ARC Continuous arrivals and 3 mile corridor for departures 2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower Staff/ARC 1999 orders to original intent before shift MASAC in magnetic headings 3. Presenfiation to Commission on GPS by Staff 1998 MAC or other expert (Mr. Harold Pierce) 4. Monitor Corridor Compliance and Departure Staff/ARC Continuous Excursions 5. Pursue Removal of "Hinged Corridor" and ARC Long Term the repeal of Tower Order on South Parallel Runway �; � . 4 ♦ � � � � � � � � Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Monitor Conformance With Three Mile Heading Procedure Action Steps: Who When 1. Fieview Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Staff/ARC Monthly 2. Alert MASAC and MAC About Compliance Staff/ARC As necessary 3. Work with FAA to Achieve Corridor Staff/ARC As necessary Compliance C- Issue: Goal: � • � � � � � � Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Action Steps: 1. Discuss concerns with State Senators and Reps. regarding composition of MAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC Commissioner appointment process. 2. Develop long term strategic approach to relations with legislature. Work with the Associatian of Metropolitan Municipalities to educate legislators. 3. Discuss and Compare cities affected by air noise to MAC representatives 4. Review MAC representation with Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. ( ) _ 6 Who ARC/ Council �' ARC/Staff When Nov./Dec. 98 Continuous � � • � • • � � • Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Advertising the MAC Air Noise Camplaint Line Action Steps: Who When 1. Advertise in Each Quarterly Newsletter Staff Each edition 2. Continue to Handout Magnets on Request Staff As requested Basis 3. Mention During Public Meetings City Council and Telecasts 4. Produce Insight 7 Segment ARC � _ ' 7 � � � � � � � � Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information and Information about the work and effort of the City - Action Steps: wno wnen 1. Continue to inform the community on Staff/ARC Continuous ARC projects and concerns using the � City's newsletter and separate single page mailings. 2. Work with Northern Dakota County Airport Staff/ARC Continuous Relations Commission on possible Legislation for MAC representation. 3.� Mail letters and Heights Highlites to Staff Continuous State Senators and Representatives regarding ARC issues �__:� 4. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings Staff Continuous (i.e., Mr. Hamief, Mr. Wagoner, State (Quarterly) elected officials) 5. Expand coverage of air noise issues Staff 1998 by pursuing informational meetings with Council editorial staffs of major �papers 6. Continue to send press releases to Staff Continuous newspapers, State Senators and Reps. 7. Update and Promote air noise Staff/ARC Annually mitigation document. 8. Host an Annual Open House for Community Staff/ARC Annually In Winter 9. Develop Informational Brochure for Staff/ARC Display Case ( ) 8 1 � � � � � � � Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goai: Continue to Collaborate with the Northern Dakota County Airports Relations Coalition (NDCARC) Action Steps: 1. Define Accomplishments of NDCARC 2. Provide Information to City Council About the Benefits of Collaboration 3. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting of ARC's 4. Work to Build Trust Amongst Mernbers and Respective Councils �7 Who When ARC Fa111998 ARC Fa111998 ARC August 1998 ARC Continuous C � � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Continue to Keep Abreast of Issues and Actions of Other Airport Comrnunities Action Steps: Who When 1. Review Media Outlets for News Articles Staff Continuous and Publish in Friday News 2. Participate in Annual Joint Meeting of ARC Annually NDCARC 3. Inform Other Communities of our Issues Staff Continuous and Actions , , ��--� � 10 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goai: Work with Metropolitan Council Representatives Action Steps: Who When 1. Mail Letters and Heights Highlites Staff Quarterly and to District 15 Representative As needed 2: Meet with District 15 Representative Mayor/Staff Annually to Educate and Lobby on Mendota Heights Air Noise Issues 3. Resolve Land Use/Air Noise Zones Issues Council/Stafif Current 4. Meet with and Educate Met Council Staff Stafif As needed 11 r �� Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Monitor and Encourage Promulgation and Adoption of Air Noise Mitigation Reguirements in Mitigation Committee's Plan Action Steps: Who When 1. Participate in MASAC Action Plan ARC/Staff Monthly to Implement MSP Mitigation Plan 2. Review MSP Mitigation Plan ARC Annually 12 C Issue: Goal: � � � � • � • � Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway Action Steps: 1. Monitor MAC Compiiance with Contract 2. Research MAC Acquisition of Bureau of Mines property and MAC interest in off airport properties in 3rd runway area 3. Monitor EIS Process for N/S Runway 4. Renegotiate with MAC on Terms in Minneapolis/MAC contract. 5. Direct MAC on Preparation of Exhibit of Affected Properties Who When Staff/ARC Continuous Stafif Current S�taff/ARC July/Aug 1998 Council/Staff Current Council/Staff Upon Compietion Of MAC/Mpis Contract C < C � • � ■ • � � • Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goal: Work to Eliminate Use of Head to Head Operations Action Steps: Who 1. Advocate Use of Crosswind Runway ARC 2. Eliminate Head-to-Head Operations ARC 3. Review 1 st Six Month Study of NSDPs ARC �� 14 When Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 C� C � � � ■ � � � � Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goai: Monitor Progress of N/S Runway 17/35 Action Steps: Who 1. Monitor EIS Process for 17/35 ARC 2. Advocate for Timely Construction of ARC New Runway 17/35 m � % 15 When August 1998 Continuous C � � ■ � � � � � � Issue: Advocate a More Equitable Runway Use System Goal: Monitor Runway Use System {RUS) for Conformance with MAC Policies Action Steps: 1. Review Preferential Runway Use System 2. Request MAC to Reconfigure Preferential Runway Use System to incorporate changes in Airport with New 17/35 Runway 3. Monitar Gate Penetration Analysis for Compliance with Established Corridor Procedures � ,� � 16 Who ARC/CC ARC/CC �-� When Fall 1998 1999 Monthly C1 C Issue: Goai: � � � ■ � � � � Specific Noise Controi Measures Assure Conversion by Federai Deadline of Year 2000 Action Ste�s: 1. Work with MAC to assure 1996 legislation to convert to all Stage III aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented 2. Monitor Backsliding of Stage ill Conversion 3. MASAC Consideration of Stage III compliance 4. Pursue the Adoption of an Incentives/ Penalties Program for Stage lll Compliance by Airlines � _�) 17 Who When Staff Completed ARC Continuous ARC/Council ARC NDCARC ..; _ C AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goai: Monitor MASAC's Plan to Reduce Aircraft Runup Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure. Action Steps: 1. Review MASAC Plan on Ground Noise 2: Review Bluff Noise Issue 3. Make Recommendations To MASAC � � 18 Who When Staff/ARC Fall 1998 ARC 1999 ARC/CC 1999 � C � � � ■ � � � � issue: Specific Noise Control Measures Goal: Promote the implementation of Global Positioning Satellite Technology to Control Arrivai and Departure Headings in Corridor Action Steps: Who When 1. Schedule GPS Expert on ARC Agenda Staff 1999 2: Monitor MASAC Corridor Study ARC Fall 1998 to preserve Three and Five Mile Finals on Arrival 3. Advocate During Discussion on Preferential ARC/Staff Continuous Runway Use System Revisions - 4. Promote Standard Instrument Departures ARC/Staff Continuous . and Final Approaches through the Use of Global Positioning Satellites �, � 19 C � AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation Goal: Examine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Action Steps: 1. Continue to be kept abreast of other communities' issues and possible litigation process 2. Consider Freedom of Information Request for �IS or F�NSI's on Increased Operations 3. Consider Legal Challenge Options if North/South Runway is Delayed � �� 20 Who When Staff/ARC Continuous Staff/ARC 1999 Staff/ARC 1998/1999 C� �� ' � ' ' • � • Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps: Who When 1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn Staff/ARC On-going contours and monitor the Part 150 Sound Insulation program completion process. 2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or ARC/.Council 1999 acquisition through Part 150 for severely impacted areas 3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC Dec. 199$ ;' j Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 MASAC 4. Advocate for the increased use of Staff/ARC Continuous Passenger Facility Charges (PFC's) for Council funding Part 150 programs �� 21 � � � � � � � � Issue: Metropolitan Council Noise Zone Map and Related Land Use Controls Goal: Revise Met Councii Land Use Zones and Controls to the Previous Land Use Zones Action Steps: 1. Work with City Council and Planning Commission on Comprehensive Plan subrnission 2. Review MAC 2005 LDN Contours for Application to Land Use Zones 3. Consider Repeal of Sound Attenuation Ordinance * Updated August 1 1, 1998 ACTIONP�.98F �� ) �� 22 � ARC/CC ARC/CC When . Current Sept. 1998 Sept. 1998 AIRPORTS ANI) AVIATION INTRODUCTION DR�.FT 06/04/99 As a neighbor to Minneapolis — St. Paul (NISP) International Airport, the City of Eagan is affected both positively and negatively by the airport. The City benefits by convenient access to airport services while at the same time areas of the City are negatively affected by aixcraft noise. Significant changes are occurring at MSP that will impact Eagan. A new runway will become operational in 2003 which will spread aircraft noise over the southern portion of the city. The existing runways will continue to have noise effects upon the northern portion of the City. Pa.rt of the City's challenge is to maximize the benefits of it's convenient location while minimizing the aircra$ noise effects. The major benefit of the City's proximity to the airport is convenient access for it's residents and business's to the services o£fered by MSP. It is less than a 20 minute trip from most areas of Eagan to MSP. Business's such as Norkhwest Airlines, USPS Bulk Mail Facility and numerous hotels decided to locate within Eagan in part due to the proximity to the airport. Aircraf� noise is the negative aspect of being two-three miles from MSP. In 1998 approximately 245,000 aircra$ landed or took off over Eagan. As a result, approximately 7,124 acres of the -- . City (33 % of total acres) is within a designated noise exposure zonel. Aircraft noise is a .�( � nuisance to many people and the amount of noise in certain areas affects how the land can be used and how buildings need to be constructed to minimize negative impacts. For example, much of the northern half of Eagan is affected by aircraft noise and new single family homes, churches, schools and other noise sensitive uses are discouraged from being built in this area. If these uses are built they must be constructed to provide �'eater than average noise reducin� walls, windows and doors. GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS 1. To miniznize the establishment of noise sensitive uses in areas where noise impacts are greatest. 2. To the extent possible, miti�ate noise impacts in areas where noise sensitive uses currently exist, or can. be anticipated, in noise impact zones. 3. To advocate airport-operating procedures that will minimize adverse impacts in EaQan's noise sensitive areas, especially those areas that �vere established outside of areas �vhere operations and noise impacts were anticipated. � Based on i�tetropolitan Council's 2005 MSP Noise Policy Zones DRAFT 06/04/99 4. To implement an orderly transition from noise sensitive land uses to noise compatible ones ,{ where appropriate, in consideration of all development factors for the area. 5. To minimize the establishment of physical structures that will interfere with aircraft operations. POLICIES 1. The City will generally discourage new residential development in areas most affected by aircraft noise. This area is depicted by the current Metropolitan Council Noise Zones as illustrated in Figure 5.1. 2. The City will consider in-fill residential development within the area described above on a case by case basis. Where such in-fill development is perznitted, it will only occur under appropriate requirements respecting aircraft noise including sound attenuating construction techniques and buyer notification of the noise environment. 3. The City of Eagan will consider a Noise Attenuation Construction ordinance that will apply to all noise-sensitive areas within the Metropolitan Council Noise Zones. 4. Any additions, modifications or repiacements of existing homes. within the Noise Zones shall use noise abatement designs and construction techniques to achieve an inside noise attenuation level appropriate for its noise zone. � � '�:��;�� 5. The City will encourage the maximization of noise mitigation pro,�ams for the benefits of its residents. 6. The City will desi;nate the Metropolitan Council Noise Policy Contours on its zoning and comprehensive guide plan maps to inform current and prospective property owners of the presence of potential noise impacts and the existence of re;ulations and performance standards for those areas. 7. The City will continue its cooperative efforts with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Pollution Control Agency and other governmental agencies to reduce adverse noise impacts generated by air traffic. 8. The city will advocate for historic and prospective aircraft operatin� procedures that respect the City's purposeful efforts to minimize noise sensitive uses in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. The City will resist efforts by other agencies to introduce or modify operating procedures so as to increase adverse impacts in noise sensitive areas of Eagan outside of the Corridor. 9. The City tivill continue to encourage noise compatible commercial-industrial uses in the northern portion of the City where the noise compatible Corridor has been established. The City will consider redevelopment of noise-sensitive residential uses to noise compatible uses � in the Corridor in situations where other planning factors support such action. � � DRAFT 06/04/99 10. The City does not anticipate a strategy of major redeveloprnent of the residential areas of south and tivest Eagan that will experience additional over-flights from the proposed north- south runway. This is due to the scale of residential developznent that has occurred in this area to date and the presence of substantial areas of commercial and industrial land uses in the northern portion of the City associated with historic air traffic pattems. The City will appl�y a_ppropriate performance standards to expansion or modification of uses, in-fill , , � _ _ _ _ �"=----�--_.,—� ,,., ti,-','n 'fTi'a'} ra.S a ""' ` 11. The City will advocate for specific noise attenuation considerations for noise sensitive areas in southwest Eajan, because neither the City nor its property owners could have anticipated the over-fli�ht impact from the new north-south runway. 12. The City will notify appropriate agencies of proposed construction or alterations that will exceed hei�ht limitations in airport areas as specified in Federal or State law. ECONOMI�C SENEFITS According to a 1996 Report to the Public published by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is both directly and indirectly responsible�for 113,000 jobs in the rejion and injects $5.5 billion a year into the economy. ,— . (� For the City of Eagan, the benefit of being located in close proximity to the airport has helpe the City support a healthy and diverse business community, from corporate headquarters to distribution companies to hotels and restaurants. The airport is a tremendous marketin� tool for bringin� in new businesses and keeping those that have made Eagan their home. . � � � � � s � . LAND USE Different types of land use have varying degrees of sensitivity to aircraft noise. For example, commercial-industrial uses are more compatible with aircra•ft noise than noise-sensitive residential, chu.rches and schools. Noise sensitivity varies among residential uses. Single family homes have more exposed exterior walls and roof areas and rely more on the outdoor yard areas than most multi-family housing. As such, sin�le family homes are generally more affected by aircraft noise than multi-family housing. The northern portions of Eajan are particularly affected by aircraft noise (See Figure 5.1 for a location of the 200� noise e:cposure areas). To avoid additional conflicts the City has �uided most of this area for commercial-industrial development and discouraged construction of new single family residential homes and most multi-family homes in noise exposure areas. In general, the Gomprehensive Plan does not recommend construction of new single family homes �,vithin the noise e�cposure areas, e;ceept on a case specific basis. E,ctraordinary sound proofing should occur if ne�v single family dwellin�s are constructed in noise exposure areas. Table: 5.1 iYletropolitan Council Airport Land-use Compatibility Guidelines Land Use Types/Noise Exposure Zones Land Use Compatibility New Development Infill-Reconstruction or Guidelines blajor Redevelopment Additions to Egisting Structures 1 �2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Residential Single/Multiplexwith I INCO� PitCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Individual Entrance Multiple;tlAparnnent with Shared Entrance I�iobile Home Educational and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, Nursin? Homes Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor Outdoor mmercial, Transportation-Passen�er Faciliries Transient Lodging Other Medical, Health & Educarional Services Other Services Industrial,Communicati< Utility Ii�iCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV PROV INCO INCO INCO COND COND � COND COND COND INCO INCO INCO � PROV .- COND COND COND PROV COND' ( OND I COND I CNST I COND I COND I OND ( ONST COND ( PROV I PROV I CNST I COND I PROV I PROV I CNST INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV. PROV COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST COND I PROV I PROV ' I GNST Agricultural Land, `�ater Areas, Resource Estraction Ci�JST' CNST CNST CNST .. Source: Nie�ropolitan Councii, ,Lietropolitan Development Gc�ide—Aviation � NCO means Inconsistent '' COND means Conditional 3 PROV means Provisional ; CNST means Consistent 0 COND PROV I PROV CNST CNST CNST C�1ST CNST CNST I CNST � Ci�1ST � Ci�iST DRAFT 06/O8/99 o Consistent: Land uses that are acceptable. o Provisional: Land uses must comply with certain structured performance standards to be acceptable according to MS 473.192 (Metropolitan Area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act). eConditional: Land uses that may be identified as conditionally acceptable upon review by the City Council. The City Council will review and authorize conditional uses upon a finding that they comply with the factors set forth in Table 52. ♦ Inconsistent: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment were incorporated in the structure and outside uses were restricted. _ . . _;.. . . - �` 5.2 ConditionaI Land Use Revierv Factors ` . 1. ( Specific nature of the proposed use, includin� extent of associated outdoor activities. 2. Relationship of proposed use to their planning considerations, including adjacent land use activities, consistency �vith. overall comprehensive planning and relation to other metropolitan systems. 3. of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft 4. Location of proposed use relative to aircraft fli�ht tracks and aircraft on-�'ound operating and maintenance areas. 5. Location, site desi� and construction restrictions to be imposed on the proposed use by the community wifh respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions, and shielding of outdoor activities. 6. Method community ti�rill use to inform future occupants of proposed potential noise from aircraft operations. 7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use. 8. IDistance of proposed use from existin� or proposed runw�ays, parallel tasi�vays, or engine run-up are3s. 7 DRAFT 06/08/99 AIRPORT SAFETY Safety zones are established around the airport to ensure an unobstructed fligYit path for departing and arriving aircraft. The safety zones extend off the ends of each runway. Due to the distance between the runways and the municipal borders of Eagan the safety zones do not have a significant effect upon height of proposed structures in Eagan. The main concern is that structures within safety zones do not exceed 200 feet in height. The City of Eagan is required to notify MNDOT of any proposed structure in excess of 200 feet. AI]l�POR'�' EXP�1SIOi�i A si�nificant expansion of MSP Airport is underway which will change flight pattems and noise exposure in Eagan. Runway 1'7I35, also known as the i�lorth-South Runway is under construction and is forecast to be in use in 2003. The current runway configuration consists of two para.11el runways (12/30 left and right) and one cross wind runway (4-22). The two parallel runways are oriented in a southeast-northwest direction and landings and takeoffs from/to the southeast are generally over Eagan. The North- South R.unway is being built to the west of the parallel runways. This will allow independent and simultaneous use of the north-south and the parallel runways. A large number of flights using the North-South Runway will go over southwest Ea�an. This will expose additional residential neighborhoods to a.ircraft noise. Currently, these areas do not �' receive si�ni.ficant aircraft noise. This exposure of additional existin� neighborhoods is a serious - y concern. The proposed flight departure tracks from the North-South Runway would spread noise over much of the southern half of the city. The City will continue to work wifih the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MA.C) to revise the departure tracks to minimize the area affected by noise and to establish additional noise mitigation measures. A major focus will be to get iV1AC to use the increase in the amount of aircraft noise as a criteria for noise mitigation actions rather than relyinj solely on the Ldn noise level. INTERGOVERNiV1ENTAL RELATIOl'�iS Ea a� n Airport Relations Commission The City of Eagan has an active Airport Relations Commission. The Comrnission is an appointed advisory body of the Eagan City Council. The purpose of the Commission is to advise and make recommendations to the City Council concerning aircraft noise and airport policy issues which impact or have the potential to impact Eagan. As citizen volunteers, Commission members provide valuable insight into public perceptions of these issues for the City Council, City staff and community at large. Currently the Eajan Airport Relations Commission is focusing on: 1. Limiting departure tracks from the North-South run�vay to minimize noise exposure to �. residential neighborhoods. ' DRAF"I' 06/08/99 2. Convincing MAC to use the incremental increase in aircraft noise as a criteria for noise miti�ation eligibility. 3. Developing a public education prograrn with MAC regarding the North-South Runway and noise mitigation. 4. Reaffirming the use of the Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor to minimize noise exposure in neighborhoods of north and northeast Eagan. 5. Understanding the impacts of b ound-level, low frequency noise on the community. lYletropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was established in 1969 as a cooperative effort between the airport authority, airport users �and the impacted communities to mitigate the effects of airport noise. MASAC is tasked with studying airport noise issues and makinj recommendations for the betterment of noise conditions to the MAC. lYletropolitan Council j' � The Metropolitan Council is the regional plarming agency that has the legislative authority of - approvin� the MA.C's Capital Improvements Plan budget. Metropolitan Council's role in the evaluation of noise is to promulgate guidelines for the compatible use and development of land in communities surrounding the airport. Other Agencies A number of other State agencies work with the MAC in either a cooperative and/or regulatory capacity. The Minnesota Departrnent of Transportation is involved in all construction proj ects tha�-.will impact the traveling public, including runway construction and roadway improvements. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency works with MAC Enviranment Department on issues such as noise and groundwater runoff. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has the final authority in approvin� Environmental Impact Statements and other environmental documents related to the MSP. Communitv Groups There are a number of community groups that are involved in airport-related activities. � i� :_; ��'v �.'t -:i ; Jir:, s� ". % i; r` -`� ,r�k ��-: 4� r S a it ci -•�� r# , �r� �� ` ,r'�� ,>�. �f �':�. h�e �a:. �; 5 {� z y j `_1 fi,t� � �' :; *t5.�.i':rS'w :.'.; a y ��+'" 'y :; s'� :': �r�.�' , �r„i; +:��:x l+.,x';t +� :;r,:a�,:,�.'nrs� s'n;%��r' Y :,k-�`_ ,A�; ,��.t�. YM1 EXe- :4;�.kii: tu�"�.k : .,:� ��en��a:. ri �t�.h�iG ;.j(:�"„Yc.?'"fu�<��K � m vli`��'%�:f.`/r. l �arv5 3{ � �x4 $t :r-P'. tN5 j 4'!;. �i (v�tr:+; iS '� ?`�� -, FY , t' t.t�� 5' �frvf .. V t z: ,� , r �r. er ��` 3'f �'�� t �,�{ ^t:Y F� � t � �y qa es ff �-�:{ j� Y� E t i 1 ,1�.5x �l �'�_ d 4 S-��i�i z�'.: i �t � �IY 5a t� �r � a. . �' ��i �+ �.;� ) �� ltY ,,, � �. �>>Y .r r,,: ,'�n.n ! J3 E yA '#�7� ..:'. � �'` �1(. u)v`�`��Sli:� ti�x n .7f.s c, �FAra� '_;rM, �$} P�,. t.'• -. ir4}i1l" d 4�.4 '�� tl �t!i:� ui x�;r,, , u.',: �;'� t , ff j J'� �: iib1+` ,J��i ��-`3� rc�, 'c��a,'.t'•1� ,rv.�: ;;t °,,�t i <,;t: i� �rt;, J'�;R�� ."��". ,�f.+,'r1 t : �"i:: ,{i<.�':i� F�I�I . 'r'��,�r "'Yi�j� �v `a'j�: S K f I�. t'�(��t: r4�r�, .{1d�zil'`ii�TiJ 7.i� Li�,':li. ^i,: 7iv iil �,+lit, +k `�: �� =h � a(�ti.(�n{: rt"y�,,. 6.�¢ ti ;��'e �11�`la� S. ,.,,:K ,.:,i,B tG': �,: br ;"st� ,��w3ihr�GK'� f .;w':., � ' : r n'r.; �' ti'r � ;: �.. f � t 4r J ��' �`ry: .S.�:u w T ; .3i1'+;,°�� 1 � {';�V . . � > _�:?, ..... _�=;. _M � �: 3 ,.-;i_ e � w..; : t.. o Y. W,r=:: 1f i� � � .'"o .�.': t'< �� < _ :.= �_ �i -; : t &. �. .::' �' x�' e. s, a�� o�s • .�: , .�: . � Z �� :,:� .......... .. ::::::::::. .� ........:: . • �, ��: :.� , �`\�. ........ �� ....... .i ........� � . �, � . ,:: ��v �..; .}-. _ _ ,, 0 � I 71''i �'' � � r� f' �' � .,� �.:,. �ni l., °'� ,..��Rt:' ��; r 4 �,�.:: tk',..i, t, �: •. O• e�e e�� .�. .�; •. ��e •e• � � „�et�R: , S . . K#..x �� ?': t � �' '`' ;+ _w'..•:i: ? .A � � �- ..� .<'T�f' # �� r.:� �A. <.r..s, h �` Y �.. ; ,z .r ��` � :?F't�� l .- � :�„ ��t �_� .r'' � � t '%E s� ng:� x �� t ^�,T` �y� �'. ''kt, r.,h�i � F �lsa�� , �� Y. � } ., ,5 �di .- �� s � }.'1 %1F .. 'i:"t 1 ! �i��:7�" k.... �Y�� rFr, �:1aki � i�y{;= i- "�? ` �'`�''� f s.rr�� ,i-�5',`��ir'r:; � `"'.,`',='i:. „ t .,,.{ 7 �:; '�n� �;:ir% N 7� �� *"t,,:4� �'-` z:r''�:� .�.��.. :,h' -y,,. �7%j,,ii�T.?a � ',J,P,Y4r� .� °�:`;i ,y.�;c�g:; �� t Y _ �Yt. �' ,7 1 ch1�:f.;i` itY,': !t,M1.;� '',:jRti`'� �. '+',�a, ,r,:�. �/S, vi � �; °`��tt . 7 .;i ;tr:}' c i �..�.y:��,,�� . .}. T ��` �' �r �� A��y yS 3 Ir fl� �, ��• � ��i.i_tti,r .:d�'.4t�� „� ,v,.,_r:= ,.SS%�tyClld' 73::'in; ��.; ;��r1'.;':g; �y a�,IH � 4 . �y _ t t r�; � R7:a'.`�F..� �F4'r;;t -=� .i�� nL`'=C'�:��.° d�t.� «!.i.:� � ;; ra<i s, �+. .�r�us'. ltl {��.�: {�� Ytty�i'r.'a�a T' `i .. �a F i �i' � " u?.;ca��'. �{ _e , 3 . ��K�, `��i -x'`�'fr� ..'z� i� ;�,> t �r � � h t`tii,d t � J .: ?xf1 Mrt 'g � �_ �E�;; I,1 :i �;; hz� t'irA �: ' t �t .1..Y 'J 1 a. e. ��o �g� •o• •p.... . �'� I` +� d�t t <i 4� t i" 7G-; i r t _ c iy : :f:�3. nkaE' 5 i ,'t'i i ?!t r` t" '� vFt� �¢ � �, t tt � � 5� t, x ��' � �r f ry r�,'.l,a,..�. i ,,r.:; �f';. ,tt!k il,,;x '�{t'y '(�::!. t ,�e F� p� . I� e.S:7'r' , �.t;: �: J y � r.�,dy.... yf:v �� F �ff�± �,e *; i�rA� r°VS� �-�,��r-". „�,:,,,;� >r- �'u:lrrr i.r � :;r��c.. �.:= :..!..n�.:Y,r �t n � '��;,..r 5;;:. u��r �,i..�;.'' {"a ,t�. " �t�a,� �';7'S rz bifu ty�t 5,,;, :�r.s,Jf�: ��Ru t�tik.T ,4..=�.. � 1T+ i�' M:,. ? ,ts� ..�'-�4; x tf� � T!li C 4' 4i5..L�_a,°: �'i ++ t �'�m �ar,r= :ci9 �%^.t� � `✓2'P :�'s, �� .i:�r i t�ii`: �x -'Jii3,� �f �..-� ,�j,iM ; }+�i s'�a_...r,sr,' � ,c• � ,• � i�� t�= `f i;; �:kl' �.. ��" 4ir4f ��Ut ^ - '.f,�J .'� ' ��: �, � .��,.,.`"a�ri � �S , - .`k7„ 5,4.., �'. � . , � 4 �� '� ��.._ * ?��;�r. '�: :�'i 3`;tn"s �' L.. o, e�e •o• �k p N r .��li.J:,�.k�0. q.,.. 3E .ii'..��J. ..�.'"+�'� � n t�. ra,rr! ��;. nk.r :ttr;.».a, J � fi �: y..:i1:;1�=�' t`t';y �a.s� �� K+ai; �:• p � F�%l r. Y�+ r'. i�. ��. .�'y'i' ;,r b ,yt�s ,ri; ti r, F� , } � Il'S t r; ,l;'.5 � f.t:: fa� ,,< ar, 1z� i','� � tz '. i t ; w� � S ^, 4JY aL �,, ��' � ti��vr� � 4R„tT,�?.,z wr�� t � :� � �rw�4 �f t�,t;. � F . �. � r.�„ _ i� .a ��, ., �� .Y Mi .t w;�. E'F .�` s:+iF �i^ f�� 4 , 1�: i �,�: �;'t ` 4 ti � f..:i�: L .. ,, ?.Yit t � � ''��I� f e? i�. t�ip: }i,+ "' � : � :�: ..�i,. :,; 'til r '.` � II �rJ:''r I�ie' � Y� � p.r r �=: �� < ,f: ;C3�•,-i5,. .�� + x w�'C �� '� � r-�' .;,r �Crt� `}=�i dS`n�ri.:L. 1+.�,&c.�`^.+ „r z : i;C'` ir ,�1k� �:. �: '��i'.� .A'`: . _- r_ __ ._:. � __...,,::; ��`. � s ,'.X�:'.,; ��, �.:�+''.`r�.,': . ' '=. Y — �. , A:....:;,�..' �.- ,��: �: :,:t _. � � W.� _; �, ! � z<... =?4 .��::� =# �i,`" � 1��- � �":: 4M:- ' _3 _. _'.:;�r. �.' _;: �:,: Y'f, r �� m�i. �+: •O• O�• . •�• ;`, \; �. .\�.., ,\.. � Q ` ��`: \ \C a\ :. �\ � \C \\ . ..., ._ .. , . ..: _� .. . . . .. ... . ': h Y : ^4l.� k:�";:: • i ?< '<j.;j ��1 s� � �r' S ��;- r. fi r3:^'-`:' � ',� �:i t��i ` i 1. : +r � EF t;, � {r+i t�v I A�Il�fi�'- l r _: T-�a 7L k k�r�i ; < :l:..k4�5�.. a,u ��:;• -�4n °�2:$' 1= . �.i -:.. .. ar (� �}sx.e�. :?�:.:., �� :.:ac � �� x '` .,.d� � { w, ; =;,,x. ;, �ii. %ro � s�Si �� ° i'tii r�+ �� r�� A'..i:.�s �' �E y fy*j F � �. � ). I t`1 � �- �i.h�"nt': �� ::�3 R �� ,�4,� ' *:��AT� tt f �., F it f -.� x p� � �'. �'. -:L,v � � -0F • { m{r. �.., �,�i �'��:'r% l>�:> � Y.%lF: 5 '� t��°l5.1%:,. �t �tka�^�� I�)�h � t �•. � �. �i'}:1. � L �.�£i:";�% `l�"�� tT K: E ,� r, ?�:i. r �, �..�t�t� �;.. J,7 r:':• ..�,�r� d.t..� �ir '"x1+S�F,�. i , � ., :tc:� � a.S4! .,� 1 �. `` r, �y%'G ��1 Y:'.l r1 � �Yi'^ tZ�T � -:1.' � � J^ C� 4� tv �, �t "` �xi..3 �t�,- �x� 52 C." Y�:: I : �, �€ ��S ';:b �a" n ;L;}x�: ;,r� s:i. �.::w �r; +hFli3'.<�;, , � .� i ':t: 4 a' ':: P�-. y,4 �r. y C ':(n. � t:2: .. � v£;" tir^; ;o}� [n�'sh �-� � ��, �: x..� .,r � fu �i1. l7;: -�; ti 1� . Nv'?i ai?.{; 4�. �fr j;x �.-Ti,' I uk.," �{ i, �nni n1. Ni�i n,f � i.k, R:a �� H"t � ;� �„�" , ti;:: :x� . �. � k x ;`�'k �:r �i y fk ��: � X, k v�� i "{i 5� �. �Li! >. � i :�s:q 3. ... f ��1 ,i 1« tv':�:? x rs .1.; � �.,Y,6 « �^ � � h 5i.i 7 ; 1{';t r..}� �4 � �a kJ /:. r J,'1. � : (t Y . t }n1e ., lr4` r!i�i,�.s�.i 4 : j5 r.,-,; ,� a ( �i:r. � T.F u ��:.�',,,' ' 6t� t_ �. Fp�:;: ii;� . � r� a. �� ,�:i4^'s;'. ;�`,: ;Fi�. j F.��, �� : �ti n.=e �� C=,.4. !r ::�:�r��; ,..r ��, ,4 :ti�- `� ". ue'iR.M1-=�� r,�F. .•"�r `r,'it,:c. };i�`._ "-[ .''.S-ia. �� t;',- ;ft-: . l ..4 .,{, i:V. � t' �i;f: v 3Y y�� r- .I ,�� -� : �:: { x%t �. .. ry, *. :`; . �.��.: F;i 7 sr q'i� , t, `i� :,�, w% � !at " : a. .;a b �* '.iy 'Yi ��x>'�,.,-` � f4 ��t � �. 1� t ' i.-, � � m � .e. e�� •o• ;.: �: r�. ; �� •` ! t,,` �C i ' � '' �e .:.i " '-;�. ; t�. �; = � ��' �; ' 5;; "`; �; ". � ��` •: �a ;i,'<,.-;: � r.� � '�' '� �� «'-_ ,��'r� '��: ^� _� e � . -±. � ��{ � ,_ = _: : "—" 4��° �:. � , �� ,'�� i 5_i, f=. `. ,, - I ::�:.i.' - &Y .� ................i3��:;':��. C �: � i ::= =: :=;� s^ r. x- t i. {-'. ,:L�_' 'i }` G�h'' —.l.G y.}AS:. �1 �: ~ �'.. yrs:, r� i, 4 -� � �,j i .-tl �. _r.>'�i'-'.1£'r.'��.;7.. ��:.. . �:`:'�?':u�:,"�',`?�� µ '�. e: w��' '::t •�'. '�'i •• O�• •s• � : '";, �� ,{ � �i'; ��' �� ":.Y � 1 � � r "'� ,c...;..e �.. t � (� � st' '' c.;, ,�r`; �� , x tXa ,;' {. =j:. U ,a -'�t�' L"'. J� i ., �t'. tii v�" a J � rr �: �} * .y.{_ ....:•,. ,s r: .;^�.A��.� �` l ,�1; �� .9 �G � ��' �'i i !h ='v. ,..;t r��i ; x-.�;,.x�r.t� mf $v' r,;._ .: �+' `�'' �� :k� `}'=�F +.•i�... {'� �r: �i'�,'zti�i�: t `.i: =?. :.! r ;{'�.y s ..Fv: j�x YlCt"n ,�@,, %��. ;'� °� n? f K; f��, l ,t qy} o; k`S��u: 2;w f +,.t '�i.�::. r � _Y. *i ��. ��y ,:}r'' �� ,i7. >��A: �;: � 3� : ; _a'�, � r'r�:' :?d �:; p'.T,R.At: %-, zN„ :f i�la + '",: Y (�� ik� ;.��•r 4 4.'��i '1'�.�'.lFl:� ,;.,�r x � ��, 1 y �; i. .�A � �.., �= ",;i: �� s, ... 3i: t ? , ..;': � xw .� e 1' �i.', .al. i i„ s�e9J` �" ' :�i. wf:r+ ftY ,'++`'= n-�:a�>. h�'��; Sv;, Mis :h-�tRo: t.::.. .: �s: i � T3y 4 ,lal.l.r..: tn k�t,. �,. ..F) �;.i':. 4p.;' g'�: i,n �.'; ,ctfiitlu{u �}: %f i��5.;.� n"n•x -i:= ..1,, ':,�t;: �.{: ,t5"�`3 ',�y;;� rc: �� ' �� k+= ;'� i ,r�: � �`'i� �:i� Y "� a �� i9vR 2 . E;e' ��`.; 5 t=f; `:'. rii>. 4� ��'�� >.45 ,t." :: 9'.� 1 rv �+�•C r.2",'Z " t�yx :, Fv_. a ^r2i �:;�`; F ;fi:.a ' �=:" =.`{ � ;� �,��r�c . .n: rRF,.0 §;`t1: t. '��r w�;e,.n .�.. ;'ri:iC.s-i`; ai,.. fie" ��:� Y}_ �� 4 t,if2'�. w ki?� ��2:=£� dSYp �y k4?p,..4 _w �,.:.; i=t: „�� 'r +;�..... . �':tik ' e �j`_.++ ei �•::�C,"i�,'ss �. �:'r i •�• � � • •s• ,r r z:. y'r,o�, YW... f�3 Y �;' -f1 �`, '� z t� r :( .: Y. i� � 4 3r � � � "� ,i 1J c v ��,� �trt. �r'V . r..rJr't( � Rr.;'' � qS•"i.r'+: t�+-�a ��r;+ "i yM � ��v';: s ._ , �,-±.t `'ni"'4^4 C ;'+. -� r-A ��' j`h}_ h.p"n ' . i: k:'u,..�b` 4 y;3� i y=} �5� � s, r ll-. • �:� ��: "�. S��wr( :;.'. .:�.;, �: � •• O � • •0• .:. ''": � _ � ...� .:�. � :;:�' � ., �°: �_ �: �' �.: �1 ��, �� a) : ��'.'.;�.,�'..,.i,��,�„ :::;: % :.;::;.',.'i�,. ::\\\�\\�?i` :;;:: ��_;,.��. .. >:�;:::� ::,,�. , ::::��: .:>:�:�:`:;•; ....�)1:�. �_•"". �;: r sr;:' z s:;,, 1��: ;u � Sy F% t � '�': 5.� -" .� � Ylr�v t" �" '- .:YC s,';'� i. i YF� '� x � M,' ��a �� ::�t��. t';� a. i�*� y ��tbF , ='� X i{ �, . J �:,.:, �-H 1; i< '" - ��i `i; z �.� r; ;= uF 1'.'e �'E` »��,r ;i;�` =f c �1 �t" � iiA Y y�=�� s f " =h i� �: r "Rq t t'`� r`1 �:i „ � <'; i^ �S rJ�"^'�'r` r .Yt '�i r � :.:� i %fi �N� '� .�`z .y�� $+ . 5�: � . ��t __�.,$�, . � �� `: =..�.: N...,. i�i`'. . t +>S' r��i '=�..<. ��' it�� ..,�^:� .lt's ,:!fia r�a L r`: a��.x ;��' . K �v5; �.Y.l° 'k. rr-r' � x . �r;�; � ,� M � 4 :_ i' ��, �t ..r}`.�: �� • t .4' �i, a s + "w n1 i, f7 x..:..1'` �.. L T: � �,y ,i�,, � .r.d i,tin i�� % tx w:r „xn% S ��4 :� �1:ri;�. �? �, f�: r` � i �r, � �i. ,..;5..,..�`�� 4 f; r ,F ,_3 �,- i l'Y.�'.�'i. �, :c . .t,�„, "'•'. ��'i .X..+ t �f i�.` if.+, n t.. �': s" . s: 1a i i�`� .�j-��.�'�s fi:i �f. �� Y ✓�, x :<<«-� s .,�.;: :'�YJ � � +� F � :i'�} �+;',Y: �t ;as ' :�Y, ''�F w..`1;«F i "ft.E.Y.`±�4 ,�,y:',� �; � �ti5 .Ji r '��..,.0 � ,.w S 41tn�.?�i n, j ,_ �� . _r r_.;t4�. >r ."tlii� . � ,(-£ .` tt „si _. , �'t'�` iit:.�'h' ;Si i: li� i71i:' , z.y'��r +s;, .'��i .i: w.;> :�� 5;..""-'t,r�. t'a '4 3^4 7 tjTt r ". �i ' �l �er �tu ! E:��.l`: :';! �:i4�S'. �� t�� n��i�i ;� �� r,`;;, �. :Yt y�".��: 'SY i ✓:..�.;� � (iY S .� !i it Etvi �n:t l:l:: $��[: �a itY:�.'; a x ;. z; F:�r' { aly �I '��ili • #� tl'4"—*6 ;.1.�h�,x"G�i a,? k4 r.n,�� ; S�'�'d ti"',�,; r:aMirtht3'?.�fi x n�• �� t � u,;e;+ = L:E;� � t �;y=� �K �'h -f±" .i'r t�4 da= .Fi'.�Ktf :t�N 1 �,: ��. �� 7x , 'SNS rntir,:�`; rd�x zn 'Y "�ii4' i � 7r; y i � "'�c� •i � ..,i:�ri T3 ..n.T',:. r rt i i� , i.n r2 � r��,�-� t ';�„ ��%� A9 � �: 1�'.: Y:` .,%:2� �ty'. �'��: A 'C _ t� i' "-�,�.4 r'; 4,:' �' `: _Y-�-:: �� : "s,.:..y : ': ag:i � -'=' :.,_:'l:�..� -z' �., s, e�s •e• _ ;..� _ �r �:_, 1: � �1 ��: ,w:: � �� r•-i � ��i ��f � � C � . �; ��; , s_. �r '; ��`� '' i'. 5 S! :,�.�; .;�.,;: :z; � ^;.� , �: .L �'� _� -,. � �:. =., � ;' e ^' ,: z�' - �: ,,,: ,�;;,:, �: .;. � � .". �,:: « , :::�;: ._ :�r�: " ': ra: ,;�T 0 �. <..;.� :�: � °. � �: .�.: -� == _:c. =: ; �>�; : ��. ,�;� �° — 0 � :; ..�; � :>; � �' = �' :_, �� > f.- U.s s�:.�M, ,r;, .::�, �' ' :�', C ;� • `fi �jf;.i .-';r' Fr� r � ^. �: `1,ti: S.yw�i. �Gi 3 �;: ^i.::�2 '«� � s h;;yy ;;_ � r: x^ � 4-.` .,_r�,� �� ; _ Y�,� �,4� s� g :fi-�w_,..�> t� i'u Lrp^ i: Sfc tkf` k l.��z �:t;e'.,�4`'t- .i3;.,-?:'::t;p 4_ �� t � �--�SF �"r` ro. . '� ��,c r~S,.t,`s� '. 57!'t: n �, r:� yY, * �+:;'�.., -. � .%.'!i ��5 'fy".d if' - ::�:"4"'�: �"';''�'.' �h:';'; �:33.'r�.�r - I_' ... "� i,.a .r=• �� :, ,(et't'� ;fi'+, �� .:&�: z-`,"� ��;Mt ;xr;i: "l yt G7,"c,>y';?r: � �;Ct , Ea',titi;^,.,Y^v. ��'» ,',y:i:[y ��a, -r�,=.t-f,G ;e�'t'�7'r'aro"+. N�€�:�n�;`; �`. ,i:;:;3:'—'�s� �t��i` g�i, v�f'x `A. ,�v �f � Y..i} +� �i:�. l:.V�.i'�.1ks,Y.- '{� , �:�yf.?FS'.'I% (i�lt�^:x _ �y`F",^'' :d`-'i�`,:i ?:`� :$'5�;�":'.�.x, �< �' �:, 1. �.'t::f= lC .,..." .+.:.A a"" , 4 ' th'tl '�}$�y' �.� FFp t+� �'J�N f :'�: ;tti� i,7�: �t.r ,,,tC � +�„ ttpy als �� # �fu�r?.4`? '�;:fr, h .yrrx�; hU �,� - ..:jn �4t� 7'� � .,;h Q, ��z ��d �.A� R x .i�uSv � t:">`yl.t ,l. �:1%s �. k,� Acrr: ry�j Y"�js1;� .,:G 7::;, >��,i kr �:�,j�. .��K R Y. �i 1�1�{..Y�S � . i.e; �.is'x:+.3 � t lv.'.1.91.$� N �''� :-�?c � E�2 � a+'.'",. �« i r,rr"; ..} ��'� �: �,..,; -+fir.7�.F .t, � ti: �-' �,r �r.:, �...n,. ' r�una."t`� x � �'�� " '' i- '� ".x, i .i W^`.XF. 1 � , ,� TX:%i� } '.�:.Flr x<« ,i C .iii> `a� +„ :�;; !.i,. �.��a..m. r.ri•r.?. a„ �s'e.'+.h. t "`' #�Y:i:�'� �'t >,�., :e, a " � `` �v✓1' :'^.f4?, `hSui� .d', �, :i, �7i,.�i}� ��R�� p.�� 't!:�t i'��""+:].�;, YS�i "�uid :.� �lw 7 y 9 � . sG1t� �N, J;'i�"a ;ii t,. �`1.�,r�s,. �r ., �� f,xi uJM°H,r z .t' ��.� a f2;�-'ra? ¢GA;bs.�''�.1: �C`. ; �r�;!k-� . t , a;�k x.� � •�'� CS+,'S�T' i�v ''�e.q,? i' w.yf .ki . � 1S �•-e: r�, � T �3T? ivfi-:=' �� z, Y � �, .+ �ya3��% £'r ~ � r" Nfr k, -"�t+t �`„2rCa�".S' i p'3�...�`ttTCz = .h4: � ,aa ^F:C T�'"=`' "1Fv.n�x�l 'ii I:fii! '°7' �' _:,��;F? ''"P5"1'is'"i �� '?"�?:sv. �:�i. i. +v:;?. 'l5�.4:'p` °�F,� F` � ��, I �4:'. :*i ,7:„ �: o °,y '%� �' .s. e�e .�. � :r,'S"� ��:s;; t �^:A; u"�F .� �' A t � .:er� r� ,' ,n �B� ti';;�; �, "P: �t � C. :�� .,�,�u...'�' : i;�; =�r i. .. — :: -, " '.-. �, _: ...47' 7 `�- b•tii .� �t Gr�.:: d yL f ? �l.? � : : t:: i. ; .1). �:,=.�.,� r Y `r_� �s �. _ „y � ;t x'n7 If v�'' ,.i'�}� � a :<i ' ��. :tri, �'. :jr { �;t,1�?� J i.�.�Ir�,�: _: �.: „� �-" �. �. .=: :�� .4 : :�: qt'a�. , .;.w� .{e ;lY z �tt•; x;t.. .,r` ♦O� • � O .�. s' i:^r: s;? � :..:. _j„ "s i' �� . :�"' u.x;� x '�y; 3` ' �=t :'�.-�'K .!�': j��; "� ..�:{ d; 1. . .,,. i+.. �=:t4 , ��' ti' �. ��r. ;� — '+.ffr';.'�, �:A' :^ " yti. r'=^ �,''� -::4 Ff1 z-� ' �- Y+,e� �^ �3.r� �.Yi:: `2 . ,u,�a,;, 7' j`+ ,._ ,_: _:: �i: :;i+�i, �t �!'; � e�_ �: '.. � �r ,-� J.:.•r:; �- t.i �: i ��: ::�, •�Y ;� �a ri` ' a 4 :,.� ..;,t: �. � i�t.V:i ri�r wi '� .a%� r�: �C�!;� C. � „r:..� . ,.;,h�s;��` a.¢a�:�i;.... c,:'-�^. - � ��.�. �� .;�i�,An,:�,,,,, Ld � `'�- s3 r3 ��:a =�t`,.'an£�i! ��!M�.:�� .t `Y� � :�J! �a; 2� viw.. , y3 . �,.�: r `'�; t �x�� r�� s, .. «� � ��<:;;K�� , :�; . � E.�r�' t�i:� ;- �+^�=<r %Li rX�"ri;�i �:�s �'�s ::'s,�`-'''Rhti�< ;�-:: �;,�� ;��;�;, ��'•� �'�;'=;z-r�$ ;� �':3 ::�N ��.. .^ „�= 1 �:;, � '��;'S::.+?:�iw 7%'S'u �F�'k �: s��:��ti: ,y�.rq r'�;:Rc�x %isnk": ,r: N�!t�'��,�c'kF'+�'�: a �.�'�C'`��-.�'�'� t""nri`�:tpay,si,.4� �• � �5�� 1'�YL� 'iZ'�'.I3 K �i4�.5� v�.'r'd� :� t5.'e�?�5r?{'�� ,;u�..�;,R�;�: �.� ;�-�,<i;,'�.i�'rtii ��k:a?; �.;{��,�r -�,+• j zy'SI «N'�.,{k R2 . :J 1 y;��:�i,�.`k4'� a � �� os $� Z U Z Z � Z �' � C � O S M O U� O � p 0 � � F .0 E � N Z O < C �;'' O E�� Q � �z3 �U � � ; O III � b � � � C U� C g� o d x� O x — p W % O �w � �� C Y M 6 � X8< W- . T � 4 � � .E� Z u� � Z � I ( ( � a O� O� O� O� O ln O�n tQ e1' �t' t� f0 N N�— r 1lJ9 W� '/��j�Q 3� �=is' a 7��. � : r,r::: , r. �..e: �. � `3" � i # 5 �' 3 } '- F::�� r:!C:''.. �e .';;.;:; Y'. +-�3;'=:;+. ,, .c 3 .>S � '-r'rrr'�i_;ytu:, i`�=� :.,o��.'e�;i;",. .�,: .,.��;^t*;��'�;; ��. '�;'�, � :.1%i ..,.�:j�..., .. 4 �^x�� I �� .'�fi.�`:•�51i.rv�'n'. y � rA. .�z �:L�'i<':v" �:'�,��": ^y':�Y.'. ...�,��' ,Ia.A� t...e x�l'^3.u�� 0 0 0 � m 0 a o° U E C � o � Z t � c • � Z S ^ � r O C � 9 � � O Q � O 0 v � � � t v°' E �z � Q N �� C a 0 �>> ;r„ Q � � Lpi t� N � Z Z a! _" 3 3 �. wzz o I .I I 3 � � � � C �E Q gU O `—° °' O x c W a � r W � r � 3 � r D D � � � C U �. � � a � Y 4 0 � m E W � Q � T >. . � E > > Q � � p� N N C Z Z y 3 � X m O � W Z Z d'' � �J��.i;l:{;:'{'!.i:::�?:•,.'::::�::.,�...^!:•.,.�}�{{ip�i;'��;'ii�ii:��:;:i,i:;',;{:; . •�� O I I I � 0�0 h tD t� �� N�� u�i �� `'1[:1ytU� /�L�2Q ,�\ - •�: \ , �:;�>3:::;::, ' • .......... .,-...... �.�'• .`::%o�� - ,.�?%;a•`•i;;::%i::::;ii�'''., ::::�::��y:::::�' ::::::::;:� :.:`:; 2.� ;,•;:;:r•` ;.;.::::.�.;.�y's�'�`a :.Sh:;'�;i � . i .. . ;,. � ::'?�\, 3::a\�:}±n �'t2 � �;?�'�'�, i�i::;;:�� i � � ':i:r:i l . . .�'z��Ei�� '.,ai��.� � :> ��•:,�s.:�. � ��:h; � t»n r �� E � - F ��' 'r.. .K': :�.:. r�� . r,., � _ C`"i �.�. � r. �.� *r:`:il:°: a�; 4,p F - r�. . 6 � ;µ?� ^.�,s �r� ;: YK�t]�?��i+'u �1 �.: h}`�'szy u_ yF��.7..:w� 1' v r;. :�� T� t,�"� fr r� 4r kµnl�`'Ck 4 r , zst� �� , ^; x�:� ar��:i� , �-. t.�l„'i . e; :�'T�1�,x%;%!: .:x ii,'�'«xy��`�,� +>a7tt 5.`S:t t`4 n7r, : , �: ;�.�a :ry.,,`r�=r�„ i� .. : �' n.{.�� Y• � ' �. � i.t,�;il •:� . ,a:,�:t1?;.: � :� � r:.� i;i'rtiS � :j:.: w v! „ �-. �` f ,: sfi,;�rv�-.e h1 !{i�'�.(' ��f 4 n'r 3 ��' J�t,r...� wit,: �fi�:5tc hk. M �..,_� f �,d�a1'. ,rtsi.,.�,f. j N }{ dx �r ��i `:-il`t ,�ezs; i�„•'s t4 9, i"r:, lli3, �� .:4,i:1"�f`i 1 �"5 �v � ..� '�� .y +' J : hYn. �� Cu ,, .-;• •pt ��%,� 'r '.;� �i�r �� • ��. . n�, , ,� �Y-S' }"5:.�y! k�.,r'�}t '� t;�r', ;�t,<j '.;.y ��.� r ' �;„^f ' M1k'� y .�:S:i� �t��"� 3� L �', �;:ta r:k: ;�;br � < I 'j j k� `4� :iK .nd'r �vcK. , �;t s. !:�: •�'��7. r.��;�`"i' F;r=;i 1„,._ � � C.f �YdSY � _ Y �'��€�t �,oM � r'q� -J� � F iA: '.:+i%. � f?�.',�-�;+':. C..;,??1Y 'u'Sh�/��i;i. Tl�Sisktw! �..;� X1� c yt R �^��V4 n^ix4ik�,4�. . . � � gf-�h k '!:'. '::P.�7r h�' A.,iii:i�j.l: t;m:'��ie :ii� �.1�}7�Sl�c'z: "�e � � We}�� r .i�,�kt�' � �� ^:='e"u'v;t� - �5r, '�S`i ;;5 ,.�7 k.s5 °pe'l',�vr'�"-.d.`� '.. r�� -?3$�.3 d5S i b:l j h` s± ";:£z r i t{`• { :y X ;�, t Y �: � �:; ;:� �; f ��,� � "Y�. , kr:,,� � � 4 �7.�.�: j� ,1?i5 :,t, � e, ��;' 'L,� 4 's' r ; rz :T'n •�s 5,a A2h!" n ' � � �{ � n :;ti �? i, .. 2ac 1, �._�? {RC?,;iti ^�;y�r,� i:,�� .',,y;;;!in: �.rt�.e:r,; "�+ii: .:t„d�.:t�,`'}.:Y �ia t vr=+' ::if.r!:'G'J! G�� t'� t a !v Y�! i (.t� }It � );V'�i i� � >�z �� ; �=.r.�;;U97�= .�'i:�'ii� �� xN' ., t�r i�^! ,<„,} � ;. Yr,au.�`t r �,.1'�: ,x.r rl� i'� �t�� .t<"i�� .� .t;S�'?: J, � . �.c�. �i � ra :�� :Y S :r pr i ; N7 �' y.+ x ra 1Q":% 1zy�i� *r�'.:";t2 ! � �1'� t j k� �.I.n"�v �;� i7;?,;tt� � 115`�',;att ...'y:Y)fCri ��tiY'^�-h �..kt�''y? �C .tE"� 'a:"TM� ,� i };w�, �t ��'r •�r��=� � 5'�; � f Y S ;.� 54� �� . �:5a� s= �r; ,>�f r o;e,: �' >;£_ �;i +��., ir `y L.Ip� y' "�';lr:nkj �� t':J? _{; i - f': ';'b.r '�i:i-;:,.,. ��` �nx4 r";.,. ,"�, Y:::. �t�„ � +a � ; 3:�4:: =�� 4': �` ra°`{"�"�o; i ni: ti.k;�.ax�; C'.,-"1 i?iY�. xlq� „h� +1 ::h� .: s�{ =�: �k e; �t,tt "<saYt .;:: `4i �'t.. O�i. .•�;iltz.F'.cF ..1'[P� . �i.+..}N�t'y' :n `-'i Tr, f��t ; 4-,:1 r,;�rw ; � �> r.,:r ��{�b � +��r3t�F.Rii 5rv S '> 9L�4Y'ry� �►( :��.1F1� �. c.�� . �+�„ f �'tt.-��`v'�`� y'M� . �. r ` �s �7' a:.� j^��. ,};;3ttx\�ar;.: ��;k is%'�tfb� ti., f -'r='1; >��^ �' .,hS `;-..�ti.; rit. s'� rii� . if _ M1i'.:' ,�� .�i F ) k% x :, a�ti.i>" �f v� ��F 'r� � Xn�;..a,,; ,+, ,tFc' �.�µ cF" fi ,7«.3z' :� . .� : ,.,.�.�.' ;;.� � t"k t: '.��i:: i /...�4 ..Lr x.. �;ia � � r� . .=r.. °- ., .'Sa .,�� f�vt' { � ' � '!rY ,r;:#' „?�it =,�� a; �;; . �:i rz ,' j., 4 ;:"r. tii r.�,w-�• s Y'li�?':,`ii � 5��'� .4 �'�'tii�..wt;W .,yN.�$�„� ,1�5 �' 3; �it ..;s h.:�ir� • !�_•. '�� ,f.,`�.� �,�.,?�S:G.��;� i� ,:�z=.d..�i'.. 1 �� ;,?;,S;KS �;. x .'�.;,,? �`; rin:?��'k?-:i. I'� ,mf,Er`� i'�i+�J ti( I�'�.'J'Li . _ � �rf�:+W .c!,.,iw�'r .� ;;;. =:� � �. � �. � i�i. � : .'. -, r ' � �at �;� f-: �� ;, � �; � '- "ei: �• ��" ";1;. .l.N ,�; ,y� 'i��'. j�� ;`f'." i9`�: �;��r. �,;; r ;;:�,, � �- �- 4 �,,r �:: �. w�;�� rf i ;v � t �� f, _ r,..;, �. �{:, � -,^a; � �. r.',. r„� �]t•:..;; 1^ sr w' �r ,< .�»':i �y „ '�:! r� i ' :� :.. �, . .:,: ,� .�t. . �� ?ii'�' ;.ar � �G ?' _ :,., a,-" ��': ;�� F: . . . ._� �ri Y;:� � a::: .`'xr.. '�-:1: r � h;�a..� �: t "i J Y �: „, �� h"> ,r; + 1F 7i'. , in:.:}.. i 1N�. ..2" �: -= h` ,., �. _ � �, �;. �. �:, >�� :�. �, � ��as � �' `. . ..: �.; ;, .- . .; . . _ .,.. . �:: �� t ��, � . �, m. ��'. �, , : ,.�� . �. - � ��:c....:. �� , � �� i� � �. ' �i' . �: ,-��`. ,;-;: � � ``�. _ '_ �' r: �� i �, ,'.1^_ ,G =n.' l . s. � �: � �y ,:: t'1fi . �kl .,: � �. _ r; ?� �'. �� Ir:'*f �� . .3,;..r,: i.:� .._ f'�. ��" +f; e ��% ':d ; �' 'S-..:c ...'!� � ..,_ ��': � �� :; �� :t� �� .Y2` i� ..`�s{-t:, �.3t ��: ...d,� ,, {,�'r,,;'� x 5. _;=! i� �{ �: C� � a _,'`.�r': .i�. �, � „. � :'��i y :r.: :�.=t ._, f :i' ";- S a- ,, r�'c w=�i= •�.7;: � :a, ;o';; �� q �; �'. r7 } �� + � f. ,i . �V ��}Y � ` 4. .}: xw�: '�. �*�» �.��;: i •, t �;ti Y :, #;: � ' �'. � ��' � ' � � , .�. �� ,� . = �, ' �` '�� , i'> '' (�" _ � :�, ��' � r�: ' �_ • = .,Y •��:'. =' �� i�, ��" •— �� i - t. . ::: ��; �. �. - . t � J �� ' � � ��. � .:: �. �� `.�F�- �� _ �� +,-S'::... . t..., : .';. -t, �:y" :,1;� 2 e °`r •. .e. o•�� •�• .. . y. .�. :' r`'�: � ;:;:,:-;-:, ;,-,, �', i, ,i�. = vrd . re. �� :� �� ; ,...: �:: _`-; �t �` � �,c �.;�. ��, � k{,r: ;sw ...... Y.,x r,.-' ��:�= ,`.'E:• - .1,' �,�� , <7 :� ="^/: :J .;�.,�.�,,. =' .e, �� •e• C 4 � Q f.? '�� :: �� t�� t:. � 'i::':: ' o i? :;2. }:i �' w . . :�t,� a ��...'' � . ��' S , �, Y / .V �' ��e �9 i•' �,� 3: 'k:. ., G :�. .. �\, :t y '�r\� iii`: `�\`•. �.'�\\� � Nt �t.� . tr� � ��1 � '� '�u :� •/ �.{. K• ;� ` ',� rn�h �<�t:PO• ` nt,,,.�.. . \ r.: :�y �.. . � r �� / �.. �'', �\\`„� 1r \l. �\�' -HY �� : . �''.�a'1�' �•�'��, `'�,• n.r:br n � � .... �:',L, , � o P t .Y � •Q� � , � t P Y � � S a . � ; ::: i" `J. '�<�'�,'.�:_:' ' r'c" � �: � ` �i +- - .` ; _ . : �' ..... s� �Lj. :1��.ry�� c- �: t:__ � �^�� ,-!/' �� _ I� � � -�G� � \ `�� i r 'r... c..._ :a'�` _ . .y� ^r 'Z`�{ - 'r.JTz'.%� . ,.ti . � � )i1 ' =L � 'i �._ -� �.•-�• - ^" � •,: . _ _�.,, '`"'"�� `5:'iT'`.`t'':�z.r ,,;� 3 �.% i� • � ' '�`.r`�.?5 ' � , . l � �w> J. • .f 1� y� •�� , • . cL. - . .r'_'i`."'!''>�:�''-"'F'',� ,,� ' • .�,,. ,.,...,,-'�. - �..,,,�, r e _�; ," �--..t ty �-�'�r`".. ' � � ` 'r �� 1 � }� , v !� ;: ;`l�t�t �% 2 �.�Lyj r . • , ` l � '. . . :.�-�:, _"� . �pt . . � -i �_ .: . -", \� %,� i:;� � ` � b ``� _ J � �.,.�. •.�� '-+l y., , ;^ � iy `�'� �. _ � �: �-•. ; r U' - �-- ^, ••,: : x� ^ F^... � : •.: �^=' y ;?/ � :.:T r...�t_, " . . . : �.r-' �,: : _ .. 'i ' _ � ^ '.'�C..._ :{� - �s'• _ :�• "` „�•._.: � � ^''� •� �,' ' " t �+ _ �+ = x� �,� � �,,;~' r Y �._. �:� :. �.,:..�`.Y:..:^ �„_^-:= T`:�'' f � --•' - -`;`:'� . ' . �c' � E.rt�+--. �.�,, •� ry;`` ' =' `�;_ =_� . �� y - � •; � , . . � ` .i ^ ^j....,.."� .Y :`_ " � � � _ ``_ �=� �'.1`T✓ . .�:_:j i 1^ �' •,� a+ "�ti.+ . .:'�% `�"- ` - � . - � 'ctc" . _ `��" _ _� _ �', _ . . y� .�`.x;;� :.."' _ C • • L_ �: . . .. . . . ,.:. , �'� , � , .. ' .. . :.. ,.... . . � �. �. n/. � • . • ; _ . ��Yr�-.,� . . :' , =�;cr �iS��,4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ' . 4 1.��i..^�.i.�.:....... �� . .. . . . . . . . , � ,��`Y�� T � , �� y LC j;� �y�� 1 . .. .: " � 7 "Cti.l � :�. ;� ;ti` � .� �� __ .. . . . __ ._ ,�, ,: ,.,,, . , _ , 'E, ti,V. � -� ` . `TR �� _ , +; � , -� � , �; � - � �.: ``� � ��Y' F ! ; o � _ r �. . , �:� v.-f"r r• i ' .S � •,"`• y � � i . �.,; ` 7�1"'(.� •(' i '`' . C , �r; � : s S� ' -^•.. i �� `., �. �.:.�„` ;,.. _ '�.. t� � ; _ � � ��,.� � � - ".,—_ . j , y� �✓ � 'r' "_� � R-_"-" �—�."y`��' iT"t��,- • .'3;,f . ..^1^ �`~ T• (� J.� 1� . � ' .-�' . x�.i�-..'S ; .. ' v, r,� • „ ' � - s. � . `'� = i� � . ��~-..... �l:_ . . . �! : r � � % �`+�`�l • � L � J" . "� : -+i7 t � � � �" �I sb .�:`��n..�l4� . • i\�-•�' � . . -, �� ' �'' � '�• c� %F - }.�..w '�;,� . "a" ; • �y" Y ,i'f . ' �,_�,:(•. '` �_ ' • '�n ` '��/ w„-,Jr'�. -' .; ' _ –. �.:�LT , •:J �'� . �Y '�, " �S 'y�� ' ':). _ q .r;"_" "�i. `'i:....:�C t - �V..` :,�. s ', : �. `'T �_.. y':.' '_ - � ]�[�� =; C„ l:�u� ��^` !� J—�4 r_�T. �iW i:�.::�. ` � 'fX ' . ' . � - ` Y;;'� y.�.t. � I,~ ` � z' . - • ` ` h :i� i1: . '. '(_..` . . �:�. . ,_ � . - 'ti:. , � �� c,.c` _ . - .. . , ' . . . ^-�y, _ - r t � �.`'` � . . t'! C: t" . . � , ' . �f . . 5 � �. . . .• .• . . - . � , _ � .. . . . .. . .. .� .. ' . :'1` t;. . ' � .�..~. . � ' � . �'�t ,S 3 • , � • � . .. , . 4� •' � �C)� � . . . � ' � ' ' ��y..i_tj �i• '� . , < .. . ... . . . . . a..'. ' ... . . . �Yi�'Yf2 1Q+a_Y .�7 . .... . ... . �CT .l � =^%4 Z,iJL< ". ! .. . ... ' ' i��,..1` 4��' .i�.i_��y�`*�� . .: :� t t�i � . . 'i�!`Ik JTl��-.CY1%�a�"Ll . . . .�. �'i � y'vYJ�. /� ti�' � � . � 'L�:Y`l'�_.r�� •t , � I ` : � r J � . „ ; � - :::..�-�, - - . :t:.•�'. � � ... � �� • .. — ,�� . �;" _ _ - .' � - - . . ,.."'�.�'`�-X-"'' ` r � : < -- q � ^ �'l . . 1 +.J •� y .\ = �' ��i 9 .1 ��R :'i";f _ �n �^�/: :. r;,, �": j ' T� � Y• .• '. _ ` • �• - � .�F.. - '•• '\ .. _ , . � . +� �,_ y • . � - . . �: � r�� v r! , � � � . + :�7 • . C^ � .�t- :.� ' �^''V.: �_� � . 5 ^i y' � � . i .�;,�'� f�"SG.-,_ : � . % • !-• � \� ��.i. . ��% � J i, t � l,-• • �t ,y �� t.�-� .,'._. _�,,,;_� ';�� il�:'� ,,..-�`,.,'-�'"-- . + , s .."-..--� . \rti�.,,,� ? : ` - 1, � - i-'�.._.�- `r � . . = y , 1: / - ' � ' ' 'ri ,✓ ' ��,,��_ r,.,� � ,w.,j i..-' :�, ' —v,: : �+ . �. � �'R ; � -�""y�P� `i i�^� y `•i � l , —�' 'h :.,., `•�•,,-1 �:;.�'1.�, :°: :� �""„�,✓;.�- � i j a.--�y. . . �, -�.'.� � :"� ��t=. --.: . 'V"`7'�'� �"� � `:-1 " l ; , ~ ~ S'..,�:`�3 , � "-y � , � —^ �' -- .. � . : � .:,..;_� : :r `{'�_ �-�: -: ;> - - �; _� _ `y-' _..* ,r � � . _ _ -`".,, ` �� ('- , +' ; . , � _ . ! +y� ` i - •i , �- '. ` i� .� �, `- . �'� � . ! . ',� .�� `-�.,,.�` � _ - - ,- � ! _.,�. �'•""�°,�>�'�" ..:. ' ._ . _�.F:�, 'r.P' ,�,'.} t, f ' � , „r aT�� L �,�^ •. `�,._ : � . r ...� �, e'' ;:� � ----,.� � _ - �'�ti/"..� � 't,�pt� . - . ,••�` ' ::j �!a*' ^"^.�i . ' ^�y, _ • ` ' a • � -a�- a � : ~ k � : ,._. '✓ . '� "� :�,�- ��:� •; ',' r�;, _' � ' ;�•`•': ; -,q '".-. �..... -.. : ;,--*.; '' , ' .1 � "` V ' `j;,. : _ - �J1. i -�.., . J,� u , A,•` .. - �'�'.. N i ' lV . ` = s y .ty� �.� r ,�, J`.+'r - . . . F � 1 ", _`''' � - . � � - _ =:�^� ^ �+"a J `r. - ��. .� • `1`� . .. „ �.•.`. .i_"'� �'t� wY,.=l. `~ 'y ' /� '} _,+� � _ . ('�''1`-. �� ` �..' _�' � ^`�j' .�r��:�?� . �K�i . - � 1 � - ~ �• � �� . . . ' � ' 'r,,,.._. .J .. $�L1 ts•�'yf... � s;-: _ : .. � . ' , _ ; '.�.� � �� ,i, i ". . . . ' i ?•�YJ.�,a'••'' ' . . . " . a � ' _ .;,.�`'�zr._':^� ' . ., , � � ` - . � �� „- . , . . . . ' .' . ..:. .. . . . . . �� . . � . ... . ... . ... . ... T� . � , L,v.f • � ; � ��^1a''�-� " ��V` �) �� . � _ _" . . �ti„"x � n �y��.•^r� .. . .. � ' �it v erlYrT?c:�A.t` . .. ' � , fif +1:.SY �.. ��.:........- - `, . . y': �� iT . � •S.,j 1 • VX� 1 ' . ' ! -~ �i � � , _ .� - � " ' _ _ � tS� ,"��..:,� . W � ': .L . ` �' `''t' ' . . �. "; 3��. L . ..: i1'�! ..'7e= . Y��. __ - r , _ - �.ii.�r . . � �� . ' ;'_�T•_z . f `' u . �f.^f'J � - tit + , . ' •.z . ., .+.� . .. itJV'v y� ':.f�.� ... ... S� ,�� . . . - � �Sy � � .. ti�T'� _ � � F . � . �: .. , ' . . � .,. . 3�„ . _ '- . - . ' �J4c . � • . � �.. . ' /' - ... .. . ., ....L'C.K . . . . ..1 ._,.•. ti <_ � :_ � � .}. L3J�.`[.'. .. .. . �.`ti�y � ' . . . . �� ' ' •. .� � l • •' } -� '� � '� � ` � � � � ' � � � � . •,. �• �; � , � • . � �` r' / f J' . . ;' � 0 MASAC meeting agenda, cover memo(s) and correspondence for June 22, 1999. ❑ Minutes of the May 25, 1999 MASAC meeting 0 Minutes of the June 1 l, 1999 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments ❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form ❑ R.MT Site Location Update ❑ April 1999 Technical Advisor's Report ❑ Minutes of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings ❑ Run-up Pad and Engine Test Cell Tour ❑ Communications Proposal ❑ Closing of Comment Period for the Minneapolis Straight-out Departure Procedure ❑ Internet Technical Information Dissemination Capabilities I � •� � . 1� •, � � ': ,, , � , ,, r r � , , � � � ��t ;l � ' . � i � i . . �� , , . � . ' � �. General Meetin� June 22,1999 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28TH Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order, Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting May 25,1999 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications } 4. June 11,1999 Operations Committee Report — Mark Salmen 5. MSP Ran-up & NWA Engine Test Cell Tour Date Announcement 6. RMT Site Location Update 7. MASAC Communications Proposal 8. Orientation Topic — Internet Technical Information Dissemination Capabilities 9. Closing of Comment Period for the Minneapolis Straight-out Departure Procedure 10. Report of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Meetings - Dick Saunders 11. Report of the MAC Commission Meefing 12. Technical Advisor's Report 13. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 14. Items Not on the Agenda 15. Adjournment Next Meeting: July 27,1999 TO: FROM: SUB,TECT: DATE: MASAC MASAC Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Run-Up Pad and Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Tour June 14, 1999 As part of a collaborative initiative between Northwest Airlines (NWA), the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the MASAC Operations Committee a run-up pad and NWA engine test cell tour is being offered on July 8, 1999 from 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. A bus will be loading in front of the west terminal building by the entrance to the MAC Noise Program offices at 8:45 A.M. on July 8, 1999. All MASAC members are welcome to attend, please RSVP ta Shelly Ludwig at 612-726-8141no later than June 29, 1999. Responses received after the deadline will be accommodated if space pernuts. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6328. r� . , TO: �'+ 12(�M: SiTBJEC'T: DATE: MASAC Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Update June 14, 1999 � Since the last Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) update ground has been broken at ttiree of the five new RMT sites. The cement slabs, anchoring bolts and all the needed utilities (phone and power) have been installed at the Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and Richfield locations. The only remaining element at the mentioned sites are the RMT poles wHich have a six to eight week manufacturing time. The'two Minneapolis Public School sites at Anthony Middle School and Ericsson Elementary School are planned to begin as soon as the leases are finalized. Due to the pole manufacturing time of six to eight weeks and the lease development time with Minneapolis Public Schools it is anticipated that the project will be completed around July 30, 1999 and the Acceptance testing would occur approximately August 20, 1999. An update will be provided by Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff at the June 22, 1999 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328. C� TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC � •. 1 7 MASAC Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator MASAC Communications Proposal June 14, 1999 MASAC At the June 11, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting MAC's Public Information Officer, Wendy Burt, presented a MASAC/MAC Community Outreach Program. The communication proposal was a result of a special meeting on May 14, 1999 prior to the normally scheduled MASAC operations Committee rneeting. During that meeting the MASAC Operations Committee requested that a communications proposal be developed around an established set of goals and key audiences which were as follows: Communication Goals '�- Unify understanding of MASAC's charter and purpose '� Communicate information to the individuals/entities MASAC is designated to serve Key Audiences �iF- Residents in MASAC member communities '� Community outreach or communications staff person for member communi- ties, cities and organizations '�- Appointing bodies and key constituents '� Minnesota Legislature The proposal which Ms. Burt presented delineated, on a year by year basis through the year 2000, proposed measures and the associated yearly budget expenses incurred as a result of the measures to accomplish the communication goals expressed by the MASAC Operations Committee. At the June 1 l, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee a motion was moved, seconded and approved to accept the proposal and forward the proposal to MASAC for their consideration and discussion on the proposal. Enclosed in the packet is a copy of the Proposai_presented by Mrs. Burt. Please review the proposal in preparation for discussion at the June 22, 1999 MASAC meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6328. �'�: FROM: SU�JEC�': IiA��: � � �' MASAC Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Internet Technical Information Dissemination Capabilities June 14, 1999 As part of a continuing effort to provide communities with a variety of readily available, accurate and insightful data the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Aviation Noise Program has continued ongoing development of the MAC Environment Department Website. Several new capabilities exist providing new levels of interactive information dissemination and enhanced document availability and quality. Analysis and reports are available in an archive formatproviding a history of available data via the internet. The site offers increased ANOMS like functionality interactively via the internet providing ANOMS noise, flight track, and interactive operations summary information. The topic of noise and aircraft operations information dissemination capabilities available to MASAC is important to consider when the Technical Advisor's Report information and format is reviewed next month. The revolutionary internet capabilities availabie to the MASAC community should be considered throughout the upcoming Technical Advisor's Report information and format revision. At the June 22, 1999 MASAC meeting, as a orientation topic, MAC staff will present current internet technical informarion dissemination capabilities available to the MASAC community. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-725-6328. MASAC TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Committee Members Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Minneapolis Straight-Out Departure Procedures June 14, 1999 MASAC As you will recall, at the May 25, 1999 MASAC meeting a comment period was opened as part of the public comment process for the Environmental Assessment (EA) concerning the proposed Straight-out Departure Procedures over Minneapolis. This input provides critical community information to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional office facilitating the completion of the EA for these procedures. As was stated at the last MASAC meeting the public comment period was opened on May 25, 1999 (May 1999 MASAC meeting) and closes on June 22, 1999 (June 1999 MASAC meeting). Thus, at the June 22, 1999 MASAC meeting the public comment period criteria for the proposed Straight-out Departure Procedures over Minneapolis will officially close. This type of public comment facilitating on behalf of MASAC demonstrates the collective insightfulness an organization such as IviASAC can contribute to the implementation of policies and procedures which provide noise impact reduction to residents in close proximity to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Intemational Airport. It is anticipated that the result of the comment period facilitated by MASAC will enable local FAA to determine a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and implement the proposed Straight-out Departure Procedures over Minneapolis without the need for additional analysis or comment. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328. June 11, 1999 C'harlc� Mcrtcn�ollo C'hair�nan M/�SAC �,nac� zx"� n�o. s. Minnca�iolis. MN 554.5O Dc:a r M r. M crtcnsotto, During MASAC mcctings I havc, at times, complained about a11 the noise data. we are collecting. I've wandcrcd what docs it all mcan? What good is it? 1 tl�ink 1'vc found a way to prescnt thc data so that it makes more sense to me. I explain here with the rcqucsl that it bc con�idcrcd scrioiisly for incorporation in the monthly report. It is a regression analysis of thc dailv �DN aS sho��vn bclow: it chrnilcl I�c dulv rc��nricd. This plot of daily LDN at Station #7 is very interesting because it shows the tremendous differences &om day to da.y (2000 to 1); the strange absence of noise during 5eptember, and high noise levels in December. I'm sure ttus can be �orrelated with something. But, nost interesting of all is the trend. Here is a measurement that really means something. These measurements averaged over a six month time show that the noise is going upi This would indicate that noise around the airport is increasing at the rate of about �.'7dbA per month. If this is true, I«�c�i�ld likc to know if our Tcchnical Advisor agrees with this analysis and ifthe trend at the other stations is also u�i. 1 would likc ihe Tcchnical advisor to consider publishin� the trend at every station over the past �ix mc�nlhs or onc ycar u��-datcd cach month. c.c.: Minnca�olis MnSAG:.t�cicgatirn� Kuy I�uhrm,�nn Kin�hcrly I i�i�hes Chad Leqve Vcry s� ccrcly yours, � ^ �.� � Neil �lark Minr�capolis �Representative 59l 7 Grass Lake Ter. Minneapolis, NiN 55419 , _ , , , . 1 1 1 �. : �. T�IINUTES I 1 ,i'• • . �. �. , � � .;. ,� � GENERAL 1VIEETING May 25, 1999 7:30 p.m. 6040 28"' Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order Roll Call The rneeting was called to order by John Nelson, Vice Chairman, in Chairman Mertensotto's absence, at 7:30 p.m. and the secreta.ry was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance: John Nelson, Vice Chairman Jennifer Sayre Mark Salmen Brian Bates " Bob Johnson T.J. Horsager Brian Simonson Dean Lindberg Dick Saunders Neil Clark Sandra. Colvin Roy Glenn Strand Mike Cramer Leo Kurtz Mazk Hinds Charles VanGuilder Lance Staricha Jamie Verbrugge Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder Rue Shibata Will Eginton Manny Camilon John Halla Rolf IvIiddleton Brad Digre Advisors Bloomington NWA NWA Airborne MBAA Sun Country DHL Airways Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richf'ield Burnsville Eagan Eagan Mendota. Heights Mendota. Heights Inver Grove Heights Inver Grove Heights St. Louis Pazk St. Paul St. Paul, CC Sunfish Lake Roy Fuhrmannn �C ;� �� Chad Leqve MAC Shane VanderVoort �C Cindy Greene g� Visitors None Vice Chaimian Nelson, announced the MASAC Meetings and MASAC Operation Meetings will be held in the doublewide trailer meeting room for the next severa.l months, or until further notice. 2. Approval of Minutes 'I'he minutes of the Apri127, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, announced a correction to the title on page 6 of the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations Meeting Minutes from Part 150 Contour Generation Discussion, to Part 150 Boundary Definition Discussion. � Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. Vice Chairman Nelson noted one conespondence received from Mayor Awada, City of Eagan, rea.ffirming the City's support of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Comdor, the Crossing in the ('�� ' Corridor Procedure and continuing analysis for improvement. �, 4. Part 150 Update and Progress Review Roy Fuhrmaiui, Technical Advisor, updated the MASAC Body on the Part 150 Study. Community members expressed concern about the summarized comments contained in the Draft Scope of Work for the Part 150 Study, included with this months MASAC mailings. Comments in the letters were included in a table format, with an azea. for a response. The intent is to look at each individual item, provide a response identifying exactly what HNTB, MAC and The Operations Committee refered to throughout the discussions. Kim Hughes, HNTB, presented a historical review, at the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations rneeting regarding the Part 150 Study and Study update from 1987 and 1992 concerning the Contour Boundary Definition. After a very lengthy, in-depth discussion about the contour definitions and boundaries from previous studies, de�nite direction was given to HI�tTB to: ➢ Evaluate the current contour and develop an updated contour based on the previously approved-Intersect�ng Block Method for initial-contour edge eonsiderations. ➢ Develop proposed neighborhood and natural boundaries to be reviewed by the MASAC Operations Committee who will make recommendations to the full MASAC body for approval. The focus of the June 11, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting will be to evaluate the Eagan - Mendota Heights corridor departure procedures and look at comments submitted last year � by various communities concerning the departure procedures in the corridor as part of the 1996 Legislation. Mr. Fuhrmann noted the MASAC Operations Committee scheduled a tentative rneeting for June 30, 1999 to tour the Run-up Pad and Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring. The meeting is not limited to committee members only, so transportation will need to be determined. Interested parties are encouraged to contact Shelly Ludwig, MAC Secretary at 612-'726-8141 or Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor at 612-725-6326, indicating their intent to attend. The date of this meeting will be finalized at the June 1 l, 1999 MASAC Operations Meeting. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, requested a conection to the Part 150 Program Process Review Memo, comment #3 from the City of Eagan. The ambient levels changed by nearly 15dB instead of 4� dB as indicated in the memo. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights and Lance Staricha, Eagan, expressed concerns about the summarized comments and information from their letters that were not included under their respective cities in the ta.ble. The request was made to review the letters again and add the comments. Mr. Fuhrmann informed the body the letters will be reviewed to make sure they adequately address ea.ch city's concerns reassuring them the full questions would be addressed when preparing the response and the table will be resubmitted for further community input. Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if the response to the comrnents will be more than simply "rejected"? , � Mr. Fuhrmann explained responses will be generated through discussions at the MASAC Operations Committee throughout the entire Part 150 Study Update and answered at various points in time. If necessary, authors of the letters may be contacted for clarification and the responses will be published for public comment. RMT Site Location Update Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, gave a brief update regarding the status of RMT installations. Morcon Contractors was the successful bidder and a pre-construction meeting was held May 5, 1999. The main topics of the meeting were outstanding issues and a tentative timeline. ➢ The outstanding issues were centered around the availability of the RMT poles themselves. Larson Davis, provider of the equipment, estimated a 6-8 .week manufacturing time period. In an attempt to decrease this time period, Morcon Contractors and Miller Dunwoody looked into other possible local vendors to manufacture the poles, however, their efforts were unsuccessful. ➢ Installation Building Permits were received from Richf'ield, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. 'The lease agreement avith Minneapolis School-Facilit�es-is��expected to arrive anyday. May 19, 1999 is the anticipated start date for the construction of concrete bases and access runs for utilities. ➢ The tentative timeline completion date is around July 3, 1999. Acceptance testing is expected to begin when the RMT's are up and running around August 20, 1999. Data. from these tests will appear in the Technical Advisor's Report and any other reports provided by ANOMS ,, directly following successful acceptance testing. In response to John Larson's question about the special poles and inquiries about the deplo«nent of the equipment without them, Mr. Leqve explained the relationship between the equipment and j� � the poles made it impossible to deploy the noise monitoring equipment without the poles to ' mount the equipment. Minneapolis Strai�ht-out Departure Procedures Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, drew members attention the document provided for their review entitled Environmental Assessment for Revised Air Traffic Control Procedures off of Runway 30L — 30R at Minnea.polis-St. Paul International Airport, Muuieapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of bringing this document to the meeting was the FAA's requirement for public comment about the implementation of the Straight-out Departure Procedures for Minneapolis-St. Paul Interna.tional Airport. Atta.ched to the back of the document, as a resolution, were two letters, one from the City of Eagan and one from the City of Minneapolis, included a year ago this month as comments to the procedure and forwarded to FAA. As part of the public process for environmental assessment, three separate meetings are usually held at which time public comment is received. In lue of the these separate meetings, the FAA has asked MASAC to be the reviewing public body and will keep the comment period open until June 22, 1999. It is anticipated that after the close of the comment period at the June 22, 1999 MASAC Meeting, any comments received will be forwarded to the FAA for a response if necessary. The hope is for a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) that can be issued from the local Air Traffic Control Management Center at the MSP Tower and implement the procedure, without further delay. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, pointed out the language in the City of Eagan's letter dated � April 23, 1998, "To the extent the communities can support each other in their efforts to deal with these noise impacts, it is with our sincere hope that the proposal does provide some measure of relief for the neighborhoods northwest of the airport". He stated it is now at the point where the communities have the opportunity to work together by reviewing the document, before June 22, and provide their support to the City of Minneapolis. VICE CHAIRMAN NELSON OFFICIALLY OPENED THE PUBLIC NOTICE PERIOD FOR COMMENTS TODAY, MAY 25, 1999 AT THE MASAC MEETING AND THE PERIOD WILL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT MASAC MEETING, JUNE 22,1999. No comments were made. Vice Cha.irman Nelson informed the body that comments can be made in writing and directed to the attention of Mr. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, at 6040 28�' Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55450 before the next MASAC meeting June 22, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. 7. Crossin�; in the Corridor Report A bound copy of the Second Crossing in the Corridor Analysis was available at the meeting for reference during the presentation. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, explained as a result of the first analysis, the FAA made initiatives to improve the use of the Crossing in the Corridor Procedure. , MAC staff provided the FAA with regular information necessary to make operational changes to improve the crossing in the corridor � performance. ( The second ana.lysis was based on data samples from September 98 to February 99 assessing the use of the Crossing in the Corridor Departure Procedure for runways 12L and 12R. To accurately determine the effectiveness of the findings of the first analysis and the initiatives of the FAA, previously mentioned, it was very critical to use the identical format and methodology used in the initial analysis to isolate the only changing variable, the increased use of the procedure. Section six, the finding section, is a comparison between the first and second analysis summarizing this increased use of the procedure with respect to the variables considered. Bullet points of the findings of the second analysis are as follows: ➢ During the 2300 to 0600 time period from September 98 — February 99, there were 843 carrier jet departure operations off the parallel to the SE of the airport. Of these, 481 or 5'7.1% performed the Crossing in the Corridor Procedure, which is a 21% increase from the first analysis. ➢ During the same period, looking at the time between departure operations and separation time between departure operations in the 0-2 minute range, approximately 17.9% of the operations used the procedure, 1-7 hour range, 16.4%, and 7-24 hour range, 16.3%. ➢ During the weekend time period of Saturday 1500 — Sunday 1300, there were 4,1'72 carrier jet departure operations on 12L and 12R, of those, 1,133 or 27.2% of total operations, performed the procedure. ➢ Of the 572 hours of weekend time looked at, 432.5 hours or 75.6% of the tirne reflected one � local controller on duty. During this time, there were 1890 carrier jet depariure operations off the parallel runways with 825 or 43.7 % of those operations crossing in the corridor. ➢ The time between departure operations during the weekend time period, 0-2 minute range, was appro�mately 57.5 % and 2-4 minute range was 20.9%. l, � Summarizing the comparison between the two anatyses, an increased use of the crossing procedure was experienced for all the different variables considered. During the nighttime period, spanning the six months, crossing operations increased by 21%, in lue of the high percentage of time between departures in the 0-2 minute range, operations during the weekend time frame increased by 10% and during the weekend time period of one lacal controller, usage increased by 14.4%. The significant outcome of the whole study in general was the FAA's commitment to increase these percentages even more through on-going efforts. JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED TO DIRECT MASAC TO (1) SUPPORT THE PROCEDURE KNOWN AS THE CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR, (2) ENCOURAGE THE FAA TO OPTIMIZE THE CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR PROCEDURE USING IT AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE AND (3) REAFFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF THE CORRIDOR AS A NOISE MITIGATION TOOL IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CROSSING IN THE CORRIDOR PROCEDURE ANALYSES. Will Eginton, Inver Grove.Heights,.commended the.FAA on their_efforts.to imprave on the use of the Crossing in the Corridor Procedures, however, objected strongly to having MASAC endorse the corridor as a noise mitigation tool. Since the corridor is up for re-evaluation at the June 1999 meeting, he felt it would be premature for MASAC to endorse something that is going to be open for discussion. He stated he would endorse the motion if the part where MASAC would endorse the comdor as a mitigation tool was removed. Otherwise, he would have to object to calling it noise mitigation and to calling it a measure that's been successful. �� Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, expressed concerns about reaffirming the comdor as part of this motion. He endorsed the first two parts of the motion but stated he would have to vote � against a motion to reaf�irm the comdor as the primary noise mitigation tool. Vice Chairman Nelson, asked Mr. Verbrugge if he wanted to amend or modify his motion. MR. VERBRUGGE AMENDED THE MOTION, MR. JOHNSON SECONDED TO ELIMIIVATE THE THIRD PART OF T'HE ORIGINAL MOTION WHERE MASAC WOULD REAFFIRM THE CORRIDOR AS A PRIMARY NOISE MITIGATION TOOL. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED TO DIRECT MAC STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO MASAC, THE FINDINGS OF HOW THE FAA IS DOING, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained as part of the opera.tions briefing, MAC sta.ff committed to having Mr. Rydeen, FAA, on a somewhat frequent basis, go over their progress towards the irnprovement in the use of the Crossing in the Corridor Procedure. He asked the MASAC body to, during the next 12-15 months, allow MAC sta.ff to concentrate on the Part 150 program and when associated activities lessen, MAC staffwill again commit to providing a more in-depth analysis. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, stated a periodic update would be satisfactory. Vice Chairman Nelson asked the record to show MAC stafF will meet with the FAA on a periodic basis and provide timely updates to the MASAC body regarding the Crossing in the Corridor Procedure. �� Vice Chairman Nelson noted a comment from Mr. Salmen, NWA, regarding the procedures to request additional work from MAC Staff, agreeing that if the body decides to go forward with a more robust ana.lysis, on a regular basis, the proper channel is through the Operations Committee. Vice Cha.irman Nelson requested the record to reflect that the affected communities (Mendota Heights, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights), their representatives and Representative Bob Johnson and extend accommodations to the FAA for their cooperation and especially to Cindy Green and Cazl Rydeen, who specifically deserve tremendous credit for this accomplishment. 8. Auril 30and Mav 14 1999 Operations Committee Report Mark Salmen, NWA and Chairman of the Operations Committee, briefed members on the two Operation Committee meetings held since the last full MASAC meeting. ➢ The April 30`� meeting was devoted to a presentation by Ted Woosley, Senior Consultant with Landrurn and Brown, regarding Ground Run-up Enclosures which reviewed a lot of information..to be used in further evaluations. ➢ The May 14`� meeting was an extended meeting. The agenda included: Q Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer (PIO), regarding Information Dissemination Options, who discussed various methods of opening communications by putting forth information to the communities in a manner that would be understandable, concise, and more readily available. A formal proposal will be presented for review at the �' June 11, 1999 meeting based on cornments received from members. t, �'. The NWA Engine Test Cell Monitoring results were reviewed, indicating there was no impact from the Engine Test Cell in the areas where complaints originated. The committee moved �to add the monitoring results to the Ground Noise Study that was completed last year. The report was included in the MASAC maitings and requests members to entertain a motion to append the report to the Ground Noise Study. Q Updaxed Minneapolis-St. Paul Stra.ight-out Departure Proposal. Q Kim Hughes, HNTB, went through Part 150 Boundary Considerations and history as presented tonight. Q The next meeting is scheduled for June 11, 1999 in the doublewide trailer meeting room at 10:00 a.m. Vice Chairman Nelson pointed out it had been suggested on page 6 of the Operations Committee Meeting Minutes for May 14, 1999, the Northwest Airlines Engine Test Cell Monitoring Report published by MAC on April, 30, 1999, be appended to the Ground Noise Monitoring Study. The study came out of Eagan, requested by the Eagan Noise Committee for further analysis of the test cell. Mr. Nelson asked tl�e City of Eagan to introduce a motion as a requested action by Mayor Mertensotto, appending the report to the May 1998 Ground Noise Study, where the Operations Committee feels it rightly belongs. JAMIE VERBRUGGE, EAGAN, MOVED AND BOB JOHNSON, MBAA, SECONDED TO APPEND THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES ENGINE TEST CELL MONITORING REPORT TO THE MAY 1998 GROUND NOISE MOIVITORING STUDY. VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Re�ort of the Low FreQuen� Noise Policv Committee Meetin�s �' ._. '� Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, briefed members on the two meetings held since the last MASAC meeting. � The April 28, 1999 meeting was devoted exclusively to a review of existing technical literature on the subject of low frequency noise and it's affects presented by Lou Sutherland, Technical Panelist. The minutes from the meeting were included in the MASAC mailing. Mr. Saunders provided a two page summary on the key points made in the technical search along with a copy of the full 55 page document for review infornung the body a copy could be obtained from Jen Unruh at MAC General Offices through the MAC operator at 612-726-8100. The May 17, 1999 meeting had four items of value: ➢ A recommencla.tion was made to adopt a noise metric other than the C- weighting scale for their work on this project. The descriptor is called the Maximum Low Frequency Sum (Maximum LF Sum) which represents the sum of the maximum levels of noise in the 6 and 1/3 octave bands from 25 - 80 Hertz. They felt this a more accurate descriptor for a wider range of sound than C-weighting. ➢ Dr. Sanford �FidEll,� BBN, has completed a�aboratory test -in �alifornia with 29 subjects listening to computer generated noise, having it calibrated and monitored to determine annoyance levels on the part of humans. The results of that test will be reported at a later da.te. . ➢ Andrew Harris, HMMH, has a field test underway with 19 homes in Richfield to compare low freyuency noise affects on homes that were previously soundproofed for high frequency � '} noise, against those that had not. Detailed findings on this study will be presented upon completion. ➢ A survey will be taken of sideline noise exposure including residences north of the Cross- town Highway 62, approximately equal distance to the homes that sit along side of and will � be affected by, the new north-south runwav. ➢ The next meeting is June 23, 1999 in the Lindbergh Terminal. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked questions about the subject nature of annoyance and research on vibrations. Mr. Saunders stated the movement of walls, shelves, etc, which can exhibit the effects of low frequency noise, are the kinds of things that will be considered as part of this study. Mr. Saunders was unsure about the subject nature of annoyance. Sandra Colvin-Roy, Minneapolis, made a slight correction to the location of the 900 homes included in the survey for sideline noise. Mr. Sandahl stated at the March 3, 1999 LFNPC (Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee) meeting that areas in Bloomington and Minneapolis would also be included in the study to determine all areas that will be impacted by the new runway and existing runways. Ms. Colvin-Roy stated the studies that will take place in a big sound studio in California, ha.ve been successful for other cities. The purpose of the survey is to reach a conclusion on low frequency standa.rds for the FAA and to propose appropriate mitigation measures. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, questioned the wording of Task 3 of the Revised Plan of Work for the Expert Panel where it references runway 1'7/35 only, stating the determination and prediction of low frequency noise levels should be for atl runways, not just runway 17/35. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, pointed out BBN and HMMH had made predictions for low ' frequency noise in that area previously which is why it was specifically listed, directing members �' attention to the second sub-task of Task �3 where the Expert Panel indicated they will map predicted noise levels based on existing conditions for all runways, not just 17/35. 10. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Mayor Mertensotto was unable to report this evening. Roy Fuhrcnann, Technical Advisor, briefed members on the MAC Commission Meeting, rescheduled for April 28, 1999. Agenda items included: ➢ Introduction of MAC's new Chairman, Mr. Charles Nichols, effective May 22, 1999, as one of Governor Ventura's personal appointees to the MAC Commission. ➢ Approval of the ANOMS contract for insta.ilation of the RMT's, authorizing MAC Staff to complete the contract and proceed with the issues previously discussed by Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor. ➢ Two motions were made regarding True Divided Light verses False Divided Light. Due to an increase in the cost of the program reaching nearly 7 million dollars for True Divided Light. �'he-commission settled on•(1) a policy �o- main�zin �the current policy of providing False Divided Light window and door glazing and (2) to modify the Part 150 upgrade system to find fair True Divided Light pricing and eliminate any cost inconstancies among program contractors. This will allow homeowners to upgrade, if they so choose, to the True Divided Light as part of their contracts eliminating some of the extremely wide pricing variances. ➢ Sound insulation for Washburn High School at 7.2 million dollars, as part of the 1996 Legislation. ➢ Consideration of approval of a new Sun Country Lease amendment. ➢ Next MAC Commission meeting will be June 21, 1999. 11. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, reviewed information in the April 1999 Technical Advisors Report: ➢ Aircraft composition has been consistent with previous months. ➢ Complaints were down from March to April, the time of day and nature was fairly consistent with previous months. ➢ April still showed predominant use of the comdor deparlure operations. Overall airport usage was consistent. with past months with an increase in runway 22 departure operations and heavier use of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. ➢ Monthly DNL levels by RMT sites revealed slightly higher levels in the Eagan-Mendota Heights area. and slightly lower in the St. Paul area. ➢ Top Ten Noise Events Per RMT were as expected. There was a brief discussion about weather as a factor causing increased noise in the South Minneapalis area. in May. Mr. Leqve explained the northwest winds have been heavy and Cindy Green, FAA supported his statement explaining the wind caused an increased use of the 30 runways. 12. Person Wishing to Address the Council There were no persons wishing to address the council. _ 13. Items Not on the Agenda Kevin Batchelder, Mendota. Heights, asked if there was any information regarding Jeff Hamiel's report about the Reliever Airport Legislation. . Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, shared his knowledge of the status the bill from Representative Hockey concerning Reliever Airport utilization, the Tax Increment Financing bill and other legislative issues. Mark Hines, Richfield, discussed legislative issues surrounding the 62 Cross-town to 494 and Hwy 77 to 16`� Ave zones in Richfield. These issues included: ➢ The State's support in changing land usage making it more airport compatible. ➢ Low Frequency Noise is significant. ➢ Establishing a Government task force with representatives from Minneapolis, Burnsville, Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield and the Governor's office to find ways to fund noise mitigation. 14. Adjournment Vice Chairman Nelson adjoumed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted. , " ! Shelly Ludwig, MASAC Secretary , 1 1 1 . � - '� � � ' `� '� It MINUTES MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE June 11,1999 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission MASAC Conference Trailer, and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Members� Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Bob Johnson, NIBA.A John Nelson, Bloomington Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights Advisorv Chad Leqve - MAC Shane VanderVoort - MAC Roy Fuhrmann - MAC � __ � Cindy Greene - FAA Visitors• Mark Hinds, Richfield Neil Clark, Minneapolis Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights Jan DelCalzo Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer AGENDA MSP RUN-UP PAD & NWA ENGINE TEST CELL TOUR DATES Chairman Salmen confirmed the date of the MSP Run-up Pad & NWA Engine Test Cell Tour to be July 8, 1999 from 9 a.m. until noon. Busses will load in front of the West Terminal Building by the Noise Deparhnent entrance at 8:45 a.m. " Persons planning to attend should RSVP Shelly Ludwig, MASAC Secretary at 612-726-8141 or Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor at 612-726-6326. MASAC COMMUNICATIONS PROPOSAL — Wendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer (PIO) Wendy Burt briefed members on the Communications Proposal developed as a result of the May 14, l 1999 MASAC Operations Meeting. The proposal highlighted communication goals, key audiences, 1999 tactics, year 2000 tactics and an estimated cumulative budget of $99,290 (see attachment): 1999 ➢ MAC Website — enhanced, more user friendly format providing more information $5,000 ➢ City Newsletter — provide cities/communities with information for existing newsletters $4,090 2000 ➢ Direct Mail — flyers or postcards indicating resources and information about MASAC $40,000 y MASAC Community Newsletter — published quarterly by MAC Staff $21,000 ➢ Community NewspaperAdvertisement — periodic adds about meetings and programs $25,200 i Publicity — periodic MASAC program news releases $9,000 Mrs. Burt explained MAC Staff needs to take into consideration where to budget for these tactics and how to estabiish a process of collecting and distributing the information giving examples of topics and information previously released to the public and possible topics for future release. �� JOHN NELSON, BLOOMIl�TGTON MOVED TO ACCEPT TI� COM[1VIUI�TICATION PROPOSAL AND TO PRESENT IT TO THE FULL MASAC BODY FOR REVIEW, SECONDED BY DICK SAUNDERS, M[YNNEAPOLIS. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSION, TII� MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. . Melissa Scrovonski, MAC, will attend the next MASAC Meeting, June 22, 1999, to help answer questions regarding the proposal from the Public Relations Department perspective. At this time, the minutes of the May 14, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting were approved as presented. EAGAN/MENDOTfI HEIGHTS CORRIDOR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES- Kim Huglies, HNTB Mrs. Hughes presented an MSP Part 150 Update Study brief highlighting the Eagan/Mendota Heights Conidor and associated procedures. The presentation included the original corridor assumptions and history, operational use of the conidor, compliance, limitations and noise abatement measures to be considered: ➢ The corridor was first analyzed in 1969. 0 i In 1995, MAC completed the 1994 baseline contour, submittin� "crossing" proposa] data compared to the baseline, 2 proposals were initially considered: G Proposal 1: Whenever possible under non-simultaneous departure conditions, maintain 105 degree ground track on depariures off Runway 12R and 118 degree ground track on departures off Runway 12L. Q Proposal 2: Whenever possible, under simultaneous departure conditions, establish a northern boundary of 095 degree from Runway 12L departure end and maintain a southern - boundary along the south edge of the Runway 30L localizer. ➢ Proposal 1—"Crossing in the Conidor Procedure" was approved by the FAA through a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and proposal 2 was removed due to the FAA.'s uncertainty about the feasibility for efficiency reasons. ➢ Analyses of corridor use and compliance with the boundaries revealed the use of the corridor has increased and compliance has been consistent since implementation. . � SIMMOD analysis found narrowing the boundaries of the corridor would, for peak hour tra�c, result in significant delays directly impacting the capacity at MSP. The findings supported the FAA's initial hesitancy in 1996 relative to narrowing the corridor from an efficiency perspective. � ➢ Maps indicated shifting the corridor to the north or south would adversely impact residential properties in either direction. � Noise abatement procedures to be considered include: Q Re-analyze close-in and distant departure procedures in the corridor with consideration of Husll-kitted aircraft performance. Q Validate effectiveness of current distant departure procedure usage in corridor. Q Investigate utilization of new technology to increase corridor edge compliance. Q Research the development of standard departures based on existing navaids and the possible application of FMS and GPS technologies. Q Evaluate variables related ta increasing operations on �Runway 4-22. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, expressed concerns about corridor compliance, the magnetic shift relative to the corridor and land use compatibility. �3 Cindy Greene, FAA, stated air traffic has no ability to maintain the proposed 095. The FAA has done what tl�ey've always said they could do and the 09�-degree document is flawed by implying air tra�c is � doing something wrong when it says they are north of something they never said they would stay within. Mrs. Greene stated use of the 90 degree heading will increase next month and even more next vear. Compliance isn't the issue; it's the increasing number of aircraft flying the 90-degree headinQ. Ms. Greene suggested the 095-degree document should show exactly what the corridor is (090-degree north boundary) and how well air tra�c is doing what they are asked to do. Mr. Batchelder, commented that this points out the corridors ability to accommodate the increasing traffic and land use compatibility. He suggested an analysis looking at the three mile cone and land use around the three mile cone on both sides of the corridor, taking into consideration land use 2-3 miles downstream from the 3 mile corridor end, which is heavily residential. The other issue Mr. Batchelder discussed was the lack of relief in the corridor because of the litigation which has resulted in a reduction in Runway 4-22 departure operations relative to the estimated 20%. Mr. Batchelder suggested an adjustment to the runway use system will need to be made to account for the new runway and asked why they are still using FAA operations when there are other options available. He explained he didn't understand the need to continually bring planes in on runways 30L and 30R late at night when planes are departing on runways 12L and 12R (head-to-head), implying there had to be other options. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, stated the corridor and boundary issues affect his community as well. Looking at where the planes actually leave the ground and make their 15-degree turn to the north off of the north parallel runways at locations further back on the airport grounds puts the aircraft further into Mendota Heights and further to the north. Leaving the ground even 1000 feet sooner and applying the 15-degree angle over a 6 mile run, makes quite a bit of ground track difference. In regards to the original corridor assumptions, the two parallel runways do not meet the FAA's safety standards for (< separation supporting centerline operations on both runways. Inver Grove Heights, after completing their own destination study, believe the north diversion is part of the problem. More than 50% of all the ultimate destinations are south of the runway centerlines, which they now turn north of. The feeling is, hardly a single plane would naturally fly over their community if it was not for the 15-degree separation requirement and the centerline requirement for the south parallel during simultaneous operations. Mr. Eginton went onto state the assumptions when the corridor was initially set up. He stated there was no impact beyond 3 miles where the corridor ended which was based on the number of flights at that time. Due to no impact in the community, residents were not allowed to vote on issues. The number of flights taking place is much higher now, having a tremendous impact on the community. He asked for clarification that the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor is a noise distribution mechanism not an abatement procedure, and that it re-distributes noise from one place to another. He requested a study of distance from the runways verses noise generation for various planes to determine exactly when the noise from overflights is no longer an impact and asked to generate operational procedures that maximize the use of the noise absorptive areas. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, asked for clarification of the request to refine the corridor boundaries referring to the 090,.requesting proposal for the refi�er�ent. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, explained what was meant by refinement and referred to looking at land uses from an abatement prospective, with respect to where the most compatible land uses are further out than just the 3 mile cone. Mr. Batchelder mention the analysis of distant departures verses 4 close-in deparlures being based on a greater good for the greater whole instead of treating the worst first as it has been in the past explaining all analyses need to be consistent. Mayor Mertensotto, Mendota Heights, asked when the use of tracks instead of headings was implemented. Chairman Salmen referenced proposal 1 implemented in 1995 which stated ground tracks were to be used whenever possible under non-simultaneous departure conditions. Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked Mrs. Hughes to explain delays between aircraft and how that relates to diversion. Mrs. Hughes explained air tra�c has to maintain certain separations between aircraft, under simultaneous conditions. She stated as a result of consistently departing aircraft off the parallels making the distance between the aircraft smaller in concert with two streams on two separate runways resulting in the need for heading divergence off one runway. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Mrs. Hughes if the dual track noise contours to the southeast extend beyond tlie land use area known as the Eagan Mendota. Heights corridor and if that contour was the LDN 65 or 60 and if any homes had been insulated beyond the 3-mile cone? Comments from members reflected only homes within the LDN 65 had been insulated as part of the Part 150 Program. Mr. Nelson clarified the following points which members had brought up and were not incorporated in the conidor brief: � Conduct a review on the analysis of the Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP) in the corridor. Q Assess the hush-kitted component in the determination of departure procedures in the ,� �'� corridor. �. Validate if tl�e distant departure procedure is applicable in the corridor. Review the consistency of the methods and philosophy used with regard to various analyses and the departure procedures off the parallel runways in the corridor. � Better corridor edge compliance with the use of the GPS navaids, when available, for standard departures, and stated we need to address the issues Mr. Batchelder expressed Q The magnetic shift in the corridor. C Land uses further downstream from the end of the 3-mile cone. Q The 15-degree separation requirement on centerline departures. Q Investigate GPS Standard Instrument Departures off Runway 17/35 using the river corridor ➢ Land use in an extended cone. Mr. Nelson suggested submitting the LDN 65 as the proposal and resolve the issues between the 65 and 60 by taking it up with the MAC. The misapprehension is that the FAA won't fund out to 60. Mr. Nelson clarified a suggestion from Mr. Eginton regarding a distance verses impact study. Mr. Eginton stated beyond three miles it is almost impossible to generate a contour because the model puts such a {� small weighting on each event at that distance from the airport, yet Inver Grove Heights generates 5 times as many complaints monthly on average as Eagan. He asked if there are 400-500 overflights on a specific ground track, why can't a contour be generated 5 miles out. Chairman Salmen gave the floor back to Kim Hughes, HNTB to finish her presentation including 15 slides showing the results of a destination analysis. The analysis highlighted flight track�and produced the top 15 destinations for the month of March off 12L & 12R and the top 5 destinations for each specific destination airport heading range (85-125, 45-165, 45-270, 270-165) from March of 1999. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, explained the difference in the number of expected and actual flight operations. ANOMS takes the intended flight schedule published by OAG, matching the flight numbers to the actual aircraft operations at the airport. Changes in flight numbers between the time of the publication of the intended flight, schedule and the actual aircraft operations makes it impossible to tie the published data at 100% to the ANOMS data reflecting an 85.5% match rate. � 57% of departures off Runways 12L & 12R went to destinations on headings between 045 and 165 degrees from MSP. S 9 of the top 15 destinations are east of MSP, which is 28% of departures off Runways 12L & 12R. �- The top 15 destinations included 9 to the southeast, 5 to the southwest and 1 to the northwest. ➢ Departures on location headings from 45-degrees to 165-degrees = 4,142 or 56.7% of total � departures. i- Departures on location headings from 45-degrees to 270-degrees = 931 or 12.7% of total departures. ➢ Departures on location headings from 85-degrees to 125-degrees = 2,714 or 37.1% of total depariures. ➢ Departures on location headings from 165-degrees to 270-degrees = 2,320 or 31.7% of total departures. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, stated diverting 50% of the planes north to bring them back south didn't seem reasonable to communities under those flight tracks. Compass headings to al1 major cities to the east and south reflect only a couple headings north of the centerlines of the para11e1 runways. The community was willing to take the noise from those flights but didn't understand why flights to New Orleans would be diverted over their community on a 95-degree heading. Cindy Greene, FAA explained in order to run the volume of tra�c that we have going to the eastern destinations, multiple variables need to be determined in the initial routing for on-course heading assignments. 6 Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, expressed concerns that MSP has outgrown the corridor established 25 years ago and the assumptions made at that time are no longer valid. Mr. Eginton requested looking at the impact of each flight, the 90 degrees of airspace that is a no fly zone and whether or not the corridor did what it was established to do without impacting something beyond the original scope of impact. Inver Grove Heights is looking for operations changes to allow relief or an explicit statement that the corridor is a noise re-distribution mechanism, which for the greater good, changes noise from one area to another. Todd Rusher, Inver Grove Heights requested a three dimensional analysis for noise incorporating altitude. Cl�airman Salmen explained this request has already been made along with a request to re- evaluate the noise abatement departure profiles, which should cover Mr. Rusher's request. Lance Staricha, Eagan, stated a lot of theories have been expressed at this meeting which he could contest or comment on but didn't. He explained Eagan is not anxious for changes in the corridar and they hope the issues will be approached reasonably. Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan, stated airplanes should be concentrated in areas that are land compatible verses spreading that impact around and increasing number of people who are most highly irnpacted. Kim Hughes, HNTB, stated at this point, the plan is to evaluate departure procedures and altitude analysis. Chairman Salmen stated the northern boundary needs to be evaluated and determine if the magnetic ''� change has had an impact. J Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, brought up the issue of the impact of the corridor beyond the 3-mile cone and future impacts being imposed on other people through increased tra�c and oper,ational configurations. CONSTR UCTION UPDATE — Roy Fulrrmann, Tecl:nical Advisor Mr. Fuhrmann explained the construction project is in the 9t� week and is currently at a 35% completion rate. Underground storm and electrical work is 90% complete and excavated soils nearly 75% complete. Concrete work will begin by the end of next week. Ten days were lost due to weather and the anticipated completion date remains Labor Day. PART 1 SO UPDATE — Roy Fulirmann, Tec/snical Advisor Mr. Fuhrmann briefly updated members on the progress of the Part 150 Study. The timetable remains the same for the mid 2000 submittal. Letters have been mailed to various communities establishing a contact person and request�ng -the most recent land- use-€rc�n the contacted �communities. Responses were requested by July 12, 1999. Chairman Salmen asked members to review the hard copy of the presentation by Kim Hughes, HNTB and forward comments not covered in today's meeting to Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary via mail 7 at 6040 28th Ave S, Minneapolis, NIN 55450 or fax to 612-725-6310. � ,... The next MASAC Operations Meeting will be held in the small trailer July 9, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary 0 MASA C NOISE MONITORING AND INFORMA TION REQ UEST FORM 1999 Over Please Please send your request via mail to: IV�ASAC Secretary, 6040 28t� Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55450 or fax it to :(612) 725-6310. #: Staff Contact: Date Received: Is this a Phone Or Written Request? Approved By: Approval Date: Data Availability: Start Date: Stop Date: Analysis Start Date: Analysis Stop Date: Compledon Date: �a � �� ,. - Ooonnu000nao 0 � � ��h�°��,�=�, ra,�„ �„ *�x �� MSP � �� ''i 'r�, �: i' j - �._ Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport ...�...,.� �� - MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council ra�a;,,,�: Cherles Mertensotto w�� cno„�»�,,: John Nelvn Technicd Advisar. Roy Fuhrmann Secremry: Melt�a Scovmaskl Airborne Express: Brien Bates Air Trwtsport Association: PaW McGraw ALPA: Ron Johnsun Ciry af Blaomrngton: Pelrona Lee v�� wu� c�rv ofeu.�;u�: C6erles Gu1Her crty of��,�: Jemfe Verbrugge Lance Staricha Ciry njlnverGrave Heights: C6erles EglnWn Crry of Mendom Heights: JW Smlt6 Kevin Betchekler Crry ojMinneapolis: Dean Llnlberg Steve Minn Jce I.ee Glenn Straod s�a� coi�m x�y Mlke Cremer Ciry of Richfre(d: Krtstal Stokes naWo w��ae� City ojSr. Louis Park: Rnbert Adrews Ciry ojSr. Pauf: Jo6a Halla City ojSunfish lake: Glenda Spbqa Delta Air Llnes Inc.: Larry Goe6ring DHLAinvays: Brlm Simoason Federal Exprcss: John Sc6u�ler Federul Avration Adminimarion: Ron Giaab Cintly Greene MAC Sra,Q: Dick Kefnz MBAA: Robert P. Jo6ason Mesa6a Nonhwrst Airlink: P6ll Burke Melmpolium Airporfs Commission: CommLsbner Alton Gasper MN Air Narioml Guarri: Mq�or Roy J. Shetka Nonhwest Aidines: Mark Salmen Jenniter Sayre Suve Hnlme Nancy Stoudl S�. Pau! Chamber ojCnmmerce: RnV MlddleWn Sun Countrv AirJines: ca�o c�� United Airlines laa: Kevin Black United Parcel5ervicr: Mlke Geyer U.S. Air Foree Rrserva Ceptein Davld J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfaze and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the e�cient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigarion and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, conirol of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmentai policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metmpolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problern and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective pmcedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the pmblem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equai in number. The Airport 24hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airpon activiry, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday. Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinatar Shane VanderVoort, ANOM3 Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Programs Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Pa�e: http://www.macavsat.or 1l�Ietropolatan Aarports Comrraassioaa Aviation Noise Programs - 6 , O t� tS Operations and �'omplaint Summacry 1 Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1 MSP May Fleet Mix Percentage .......................................................................................... l Airport May Complaint Summary .......................................................................................1 May Operations Summary - FAA Airport Tr�c Record ..................................................1 Minneapolas - St. Pacul Internactzonal Airport Complaint Summary 2 ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2 Available Time for Runway Use 3 TowerLog Reports - All Hours ...........................................................................................3 Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3 AllOperations 4 RunwayUse Report May 1999 ............................................................................................4 Carrier Jet Operations 5 RunwayUse Report May 1999 ............................................................................................5 Nighttime - All Operations 6 RunwayUse Report May 1999 ............................................................................................6 Nz,ghttime Carrrer Jet Operations 7 RunwayUse Report May 1999 ............................................................................................7 Carrier Jet Operations by Type 8 Aircraft Identifzer and Description Table 9 Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operations 10 DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10 Community Overflight �lnalysas ll �. __ � Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours .....................................................................................11 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) ......................................................11 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Remote Monitoring Sate Locataons 12 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 � .: , �'� i, � ' � � �� , . � Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noase Events Identi, f ied I S Ten Loudest Aarcraft Noise Events Identi, f ied 16 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi, f ied l7 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi,�ied 18 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 19 Ten Loudest Aarcraft Noise Events Identi,�ed 20 Flight Track Base Map 2l Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 22 Carrier Jet Operations - May 1999 ....................................................................................22 Airport Noase and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23 Carrier Jet Operations - May 1999 ....................................................................................23 Aarport Noase and Operations Monitoring System Flaght Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations - May 1999 ................................................................................... 24 Airport Noise and Operations Monitorang System Flight Tracks 25 Carrier Jet Operations - May 1999 ................................................................................... 25 Analysis of Aircraft 1Voise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 26 Analysis of Aarcraft Noise Events - Aarcraft Ldn dB(A) 27 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission � ,1 ' � i � , 1 �' �' ', . , . �it Operations Summary - All Aircraft ltunway Ai rival ;% Use Departure % Use Qq. 217 1.1% 154 0.8% 22 145 0.7% 2488 12.9% 12 10856 55.0% 9816 50.9% 30 8537 43.2% 6841 35.4% MSP May Fleet Mix Percentage Note: Stage !I! Manufactured Aircraft encompassed 47.8% of the tota[ 84.4% Stage I!/ Uti[tzatton Airport May Complaint Summary Airport ' � ' 1998 ; 1999 ` MSP 1490 1274 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 9 28 Crystai 4 0 Flying Cioud 7 4 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 2 2 Misc. 1 1 TOrTTAL 1513 ' 1309 : . May Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record Avia6on Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission • "nneapol�s - St. Paui Interr�ational t�frport Coa�plafnt Su ary 1Vgay 1999 Complaint Summary by City Anoka 0 1 1 0.1 °Io Bloomin ton 3 34 37 2.9% Burnsviile 1 2 3 0 2% Ea an 7 23 30 2.3% Eden Prairie 4 3 7 0.5% Edina 0 13 13 1.0% Golden Valle 1 0 1 0.1 % Inver Grove Hei hts 1 257 258 20.5% Lake Elmo 2 2 4 0.3% Lexin ton 1 1 2 0.2°10 Ma le Grove 17 7 24 1.9°Io Mendota 0 1 1 0.1 % Mendota Hei hts 2 68 70 5.6% Minnea olis 290 356 646 51.3% Minnetonka 3 0 3 0.2% New Ho e 2 0 2 0.2% Pl mouth 10 0 10 0.8% Richfield 1 49 50 3.9% Rosemount 0 2 2 0.2% South St. Paul 0 1 1 0.1% St. Louis Park 11 1 12 1:0% St. Paul 21 52 73 5.$% Sunfish Lake 0 5 5 0.4% West St. Paul 0 4 4 0.3% White Bear Lake 0 1 1 0.1 °10 �o� 377 8$3 1260 100% Time of Day 00:00 - 05:59 06:00 - 06:59 07:00 - 11:59 12:00 - 15:59 16:00 - 19:59 20:00 - 21:59 22:00 - 22:59 23:00 - 23:59 Total Page 2 Nature of Complaint Excessive Noise Low Flying Structural Disturbance Ground Noise En�ine Run-uc C Available Time for Runway Use Tower Log Reports - May 1999 All Hours Metropolitan Airports Commission Note: For 9% of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred o,fJ`the parallels and rwy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than 100%. Nighttime Hours Note: For S% of the time available, simultaneous departure operations occurred off the parallels and nvy 22 resulting in an overall use greater than 100%. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission ' � 1' . 1 (:; 35.4% c Note: Per�entage of actual arrival or departure operations finm ANOMS data. ��wa A�v� ��y ls�$ �y l�$ Y �p�� Count � �'ercentage �ount Percentage � A 217 l.l% 173 1.0% 12L A 6044 30.6% 5617 31.3% 12R A 4812 24.4% 3904 21.7% 22 A 145 0.7% 117 0.6% 30L A 3498 17.7% 3593 20.0% 30R A 5039 25.5% 4555 25.4% Tot�l Arr. 19755 lOQ% 17959 100% ' � D 154 0.8% 125 0.7% 12L D 6125 31.8% 4861 27.7% 12R D 3691 19.1% 1250 7.1% 22 D 2488 12.9% 7269 41.4% 30L D 2395 12.4% 388 2,2% 30R D 4446 23.0% 3661 20.9% �o� �P• 19299 100% 17554 10t1% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use 1Zepo rt May 19 9 0.8% \ Note: Pe�entage of actual arrival operations from ANOMS data. = - ArrivaU - - _ - _ _ :: : May 1998 May 1998 Ruuway �p�� Count Percentage Caunt Percentage 04 A 171 1.2% 124 1.0% 12L A 4887 34.7% 4507 36.8% 12R A 2882 20.4% 1962 16.0% 22 A 113 0.8% 95 0.8% 30L A 1984 14.1% 1929 15.7% 30R A 4052 28.8% 3635 29.7% Total Arr 14089 100% 12252 100% Q4 D 116 0.8% 82 0.7% 12L D 5094 � 36.6% 3636 30.2% 12R D 2056 14.8% 445 3.7% 22 D 1759 12.7% 5309 44.2% 30L D 1298 9.3% 169 1.4% 30R D 3581 25.8% 23$1 19.8% Total Dep. 13904 100% 12Q22 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Aviadon Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission � • . ,; � • � . �` . � � � � 1; i 1 . . 2.1 O ArrivaV; Runway �Parture ' Co�ant Pereentage -�o �99� p� entage � A 134 12.9% 100 10.4% 12L A 252 24.3% 225 23.3% 12R A 104 10.1 % 54 5.6% 22 A 57 5.5% 45 4.7% 30L A 71 6.8% 174 18.1 % 30R A 419 40.4% 365 37.9% Tot�l Arr. 1037 . _ . . 100%. ; 963 : :. , 100% �' D 32 2.4% 43 3.1% 12L D 463 34.5% 376 27.5% 12R D 236 17.6% 139 10.1% 22 D 152 11.4% 503 36.7% 30L D 137 10.2% 41 3.0% 30R D 321 23.9% 268 19.6% Total Dep• 1341 . 100% 1370 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �' � Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report May 19 9 Note: Percentage of actual arrival or departure operations from ANOMS data. - ArrivaU ;,' � May 199$ ' May 1998 Runway -�p�re ` Count Percentage Count Percentage 04 A 106 13.2% 80 10.5% 12L A 223 27.7% 184 24.1 % 12R A 50 6.2% 34 4.4% 22 A 47 5.9% 42 5.5% 30L A 22 2.7% 96 12.6% 30R A 356 44.3°Io 328 42.9% Total Arr. 804 100% 764 100% 04 D 15 1.7°Io 24 2.7% 12L D 349 3$.5% 283 32.3% 12R D 137 15.1% 36 4.1% 22 D 97 10.7% 332 37.9% 30L D 73 8.0% 17 1.9% 30R D 236 26.0% 185 21.1% Totai Dep. 907 100% 877 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Page 7 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Aviation Noise Programs i' ��,i i�, � � � � i ' i 1 1 . . .` 1 1 t C : � •� B72-1/2 B73-1/2 BA 11 DC8-5/6/7 1784 171 160 i '. 1 1'. 1 1', .� 1 1', 1'. i '. .� 1 1'. 1 1'. i 1', 1 '. 1 �'. 1 ', 1 1'. . .� 1 1'. 1 1'. i'. �', •', 1 '. .� 1 1'. 1 '. Note: ARTS daCa missing for 0.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs . � �� ,� i•, Page 8 Identifier A306 A310 A319 A320 A340 B'72-1/2 B72Q B73-1/2 B733 B734 B735 B736 B737 B738 B73Q B741 B742 B743 B744 B75-2/3 B76-2/3 B77-2/3 BAl 1 BA46 CARJ DC 10 DC8-5/6/7 DC8Q DC9 DC9Q E145 F100 L101 MD 11 MD80 SF3 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aircraft Ielentifier and. DescriptionTable a�nr�t v��;pnon AII2BUS INDUSTRIES A300B4-600 AIIZBUS INDUSTRIES A310 AIItBUS INDUSTRIES A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A340 BOEING 727-100/200 SERIES BOEING 727 HUSH KIT BOEING 737-100/200 SERIES BOEING 737-300 BOEING 737-400 BOEING 737-500 BOEING 737-600 BOEING 737-700 BOEING 737-800 BOEING 73'7 HUSH KIT BOEING 747-100 BOEING '747-200 BOEING 74�-300 BOEING 747-400 BOEING 757-200/300 SERIES BOEING 767-200/300 SERIES BOEING 777-200/300 SERIES BRITISH AEROSPACE BAC 111 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146 (REGIONAL JET) CANADAIR 650 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-500/600/700 SERIES MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8-70 HUSH KIT MCDONNEVL DOI�GLAS�DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT EMBRAER 145 FOKKER 100 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES SAAB 340 (PROP) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission �'� � � �'� � �'' 11 ` � 1' ,; i . , � � � � . 1 . ` !1 1 . ' � � '�` IDaytime Hours Runway Llepartua es Percentage Arrivais Percentage Total Day Name i)ay Use Day Use 04 122 0.7% 83 0.4% 205 12L 5662 31.5% 5792 30.9% 11454 12R 3455 19.2% 4708 25.2% 8163 22 2336 13.0% 88 0.5% `.. 2424 . 30L 2258 12.6% 3427 18.3% '' S685 30R 4125 23.0% 4620 24.7% : 8745 ' . : .�otal : ; ;17958 ' '; .1t10% l$718 .> 100% 3667� Nigbt�ime Y�ours itunway IDepartures Percentage Arrivals Percentage ' ' Nagne Night �Jse Night Use Total Naght 04 32 2.4% 134 12.9% ' 166, 12L 463 34.5% 252 24.3% 715 - 12R 236 17.6% 104 10.1% 340 22 152 11.4% 57 5.5% `. 209 30L 137 10.2% 71 6.8% 208 .�` 30R 321 23.9% 419 40.4% _ 740 .:` Total 1341 1Q0% 1037 100% 2378 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs C Metropolitan Airports Commission Community Overflight A.nalysis 1Vlinneapolis - St. Paul International Airport May 1999 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Number Number Total Percent Number of Over8ig6t Area Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations . Arrivals �p�� `:. Operations . Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ '7769 4879 12648 45.2% 412.0 No. Richfield Over So. Richfieldl 171 1759 1930 6.9% 62.9 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 113 116 229 0.8% 7.5 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 6036 7150 13186 47.1% 429.5 Mendota Heights TotaI- _ ; , ` . ': :, ... ; .. , '; : :27993 ;100% _ 911.9 Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) Nwnber' Number Total Percent Number of OverBight Area Carrier Jet Carrier Jet Operations Arrivals `. Depactures Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 273 309 582 34.0% 18.8 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 106 97 203 11.9% 6.6 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 47 15 62 3.6%o 2.0 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 378 486 864 50.5% 27.9 Mendota Heights Total _ , 17111 100% 55.3 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.3 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page I 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission ,� , � ' 1 ;.. 1 � , � � � •; 1i; 1�, 1;/1• . 1 � �; r , �� Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet t�rrival Related l�Togse Events May 1999 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT RMT `- ' Events Events Events Events ID City Approximate Street Location �65dB >80dB >9(1dB >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 5996 101 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 5011 965 6 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 4161 1549 34 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 5232 2097 5 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4460 2802 397 2 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 5446 4783 1690 5 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 131 8 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 360 10 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 136 77 3 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 146 115 31 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 34 11 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 23 8 0 0 �__ 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 36 3 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 5258 98 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 300 3 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2663 994 30 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 176 101 2 0 1$ Richfieid 75th Street & 17th Avenue 180 75 1 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 41 0 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 14 2 1 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 73 2 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2853 27 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2412 25 2 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4948 67 0 0 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission � . , ' . � � . � . � . �, � ; . . .s ' 11i Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT � � Caty Appro ' te Street I.ocatimn '�vents Events Events Events >6SsiB >80dB >90si� >i00dB 1 Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 41st Street 906 248 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1068 351 14 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 2107 575 52 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2662 850 � 100 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 4056 1948 507 36 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street ,5030 3345 1686 312 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 1907 789 62 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1693 568 45 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 88 31 10 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 124 90 68 14 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 101 63 17 1 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 58 8 3 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 3465 607 24 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4723 1405 136 1 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lelcington Avenue 4403 918 57 1 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 4167 1061 74 1 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 1323 543 138 6 18 Richfield �Sth Sireet & 17th Avenue 1757 1572 880 72 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 1700 1024 346 10 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 1094 72 11 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1323 147 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1719 202 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 5523 2900 810 36 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 3490 784 15 0 C� Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � ) Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudesi Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #1: Xe�es Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis D$te Time A/C ' Max .;. A/D 'a`3'Pe I.ev�l - 05/OS/9915:47:25 B722 94.5 D 05/17/9914:43:02 B722 89.4 D 05/27/9912:35:05 B722 89.1 D 05/07/9910:03:03 B722 88.8 D 05/31/9919:27:22 B722 88.6 D 05/19/9913:20:06 MD80 88.5 A 05/27/99 21:00:24 B722 88.5 D 05/31/99 21:04:28 B722 88.4 D 05/23/99 22:43:55 B722 88.2 D 05/12/9912:40:49 B72Q 88.2 D RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. MinneapoGs AJC Max . , Date Time Ty� � ; ` Level , 05/12/9918:03:59 DC9 99.6 D 05/12/9916:05:03 B72Q 96.8 D 05/21/99 20:24:41 B72Q 95.9 D 05/18/9917:51:13 B72Q 95.8 D 05/ZZ/99 21:04:46 B722 95.6 D 05/12/99 5:01:58 B722 95.4 D 05/21/9917:50:38 B72Q 95.0 D 05/05/9917:11:08 LJ25 94.8 A 05/22/99 8:20:22 B722 94.8 D 05/08/9914:30:51 B722 .94.7 D RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd S� Minneapolis Date Time �C Max � 1j�pe Level 05/31/99 21:30:54 B722 92.2 D 05/13/99 6:28:10 DC85 92.1 A 05/22/99 21:16:32 B722 92.1 D Q5/21/9917:56:35 B72Q 92.1 D 05/20/99 21:01:50 B72Q 92.0 D 05/24/9912:02:57 B722 91.9 D 05/18/9911:51:22 B722 91.7 D 05/15/9918:47:18 B722 91.4 A 05/10/99 8:37:25 B72Q 91.0 A 05/27/9912:34:40 B722 90.8 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St Minneapolis ' Date Time A/C Max � - Type Level Q5/27/9919:51:26 B722 99.6 D 05/24/9915:55:09 B722 97.5 D 05/07/9911:00:41 B722 97.2 D Q5/31/9915:55:59 B72Q 97.1 D 05/26/99 7:12:34 B722 96.8 D Q5/12/9919:01:02 B732 96.5 D 05/08/9915:46:47 B722 96.0 D 05/07/9915:48:39 B72Q 96.0 D 05/27/9915:56:05 B72Q 95.7 D 05/18/99 9:47:53 B722 95.5 D Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission . � �,. . � � . . �., ,� RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapolis Date Time' �C . � � ,. : , _ Type . Level � - 05/31/9917:49:02 B722 107.0 D 05/12/9917:11:14 B722 106.6 D 05/07/9911:00:15 B722 106.0 D 05/03/9911:46:57 B722 104.5 D 05/OS/9914:30:27 B722 104.1 D 05/31/99 7:12:25 B722 103.9 D 05/21/9911:35:21 B722 103.8 D 05/24/9917:49:40 B722 103.7 D 05/18/99 7:15:26 B722 103.7 D 05/07/9914:15:11 B732 103.6 D RMT #'7: Weratworth Ave. & 64th St. , ,,,.',�' Date TiYne A/G ' ..Mag � ; - : Type ; Level ;`� 05/23/9917:34:10 B722 99.4 D 05/24/9910:01:37 B722 96.8 � D 05/18/99 9:59:36 B722 96.7 D 05/17/99 9:06:00 B732 95.2 D 05/24/99 6:31:22 B722 94.8 D 05/08/99 7:07:29 B722 93:9 D 05/17/9912:55:34 LJ25 93.7 D 05/17/9917:39:09 B72Q 93.5 D 05/17/99 21:23:30 B722 93.5 D 05/23/99 9:59:07 B722 93.4 D I�MT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th S� Minneapolis Date Time ' A/� 11Rag A/D Type Y.evel 05/22/99 8:19:47 B722 109.6 D 05/26/9915:05:23 B722 109.3 D 05/26/9919:25:03 B722 108.9 . D 05/11/99 20:07:44 B722 108.8 D 05/22/99 7:18:07 B722 108.6 D 05/31/99 21:29:49 B722 108.4 D 05/21/9919:31:51 B722 108.4 D 05/27/9912:33:38 B722 108.2 D 05/20/99 21:20:56 B722 108.1 D 05/18/99 9:47:12 B722 108.0 D �ilVIT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1Vlanneapolis Date Time AJC ' ` Max � . Tj�e Y.evel 05/21/9911:11:03 B72Q 98.1 D 05/OS/99 7:43:33 B722 97.2 D Q5/23/9915:45:04 B722 96.9 D Q5/17/9913:16:46 B722 95.3 D 05/07/99 7:56:12 E145 95.0 D -�0�/08J99 H:31:42 B722 94.2 D 05/25/9911:37:02 B72Q 94.0 D 05/07/99 6:09:19 B722 93.9 D 05/17/9913:33:50 B722 93.9 D Q5/24/9913:27:21 B722 93.8 D Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs �� Metropolitan Airports Commission , 1 1 . , , � , . 1, ,' ' . 1'� RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. St. Paul Date Time � Mag � Level 05/22/99 21:40:42 B742 96.4 D 05/31/9921:27:23 B742 95.9 D 05/09/9915:15:57 B742 95.4 D 05/08/9915:43:52 B743 95.1 D 05/23/99 21:47:11 B742 94.2 D 05/14/9915:33:59 B742 93.6 D 05/27/9917:18:28 B722 93.2 A 05/23/9919:34:27 DC10 92.4 D 05/08/9919:05:28 DC10 92.1 D 05/17/9915:37:11 B742 91.8 D RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paui Date Tiu� �� Max � Level 05/31/99 22:12:29 B72Q 102.7 D 05/04/99 22:04:54 B742 98.5 D 05/09/99 21:29:04 B742 96.3 D 05/16/9915:59:06 B743 95.8 D 05/17/99 21:36:32 B742 95.7 D 05/13/9916:00:44 B743 95.4 D 05/25/9912:11:11 B72Q 94.7 D 05/17/9915:42:31 B743 94.1 D 05/13/9915:12:41 B742 93.8 D � 05/05/9911:28:05 DC9Q 93.6 D RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St St. Paul Date Time � Mas � Level Q5/17/9915:36:43 B742 105.3 D 05/06/9917:25:37 B742 104.4 D 05/10/9915:15:52 B742 104.3 D 05/09/9915:15:28 B742 103.9 D 05/16/9916:02:52 B742 102.5 D 05/24/9915:21:55 B742 101.5 D 05/08/9915:26:50 B74Z 101.4 D 05/11/9915:07:46 B742 101.2 D 05/06/9915:34:43 B743 101.1 D 05/21/9915:21:09 B742 101.1 D RMT #12: Alton S� & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul A/C Maac Date T�me . �e . Level � 05/05/99 8:03:58 DC9 92.2 D 05/05/9911:51:56 DC9 91.6 D 05/05/99 9:12:48 B72Q 90.2 D 05/11/9913:16:39 B722 89.5 A 05/20/9914:05:40 DC9Q 87.7 A - -�{�5/28/9919:45:02 B722 87.0 A 05/OS/99 7:17:10 BESO 86.7 D 05/16/9911:46:30 DC9 86.4 D 05/04/99 7:38:12 BE18 85.2 D 05/14/99 7:08:36 DC86 84.9 A Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission ' � �' . � . . �,, ��, ;. �t1Vi7.' #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court IVlendota �Ieights Date Ti�e . �C _ _` � ` � Type Level : 05/06/99 21:42:55 B72Q 96.1 D 05/20/9911:07:19 B72Q 94.6 D 05/30/99 21:42:14 B722 94.5 D 05/20/99 6:49:46 B722 93.9 D 05/06/9910:12:27 B722 93.6 D 05/20/9911:45:07 B72Q 92.7 D 05/05/99 6:05:48 B722 92.7 D 05/13/99 9:57:55 B722 92.7 D 05/19/99 9:50:40 B72Q 92.6 D 05/20/99 7:23:53 B722 92.6 D ItMT #15: Cullon S� & Lexington Ave. Meaadot� I�eights Date Time ` A/C Mag • 'Type ; � . I.evel � ' � . .. 05/05/99 7:51:00 B722 100.6 D 05/05/99 20:48:36 B722 97.7 D 05/14/99 21:11:59 B722 96.0 D 05/05/9912:23:57 B722 96.0 D 05/14/99 20:40:38 B722 95.2 D 05/03/9912:16:41 B72Q 95.2 D 05/10/99 22:26:43 B72Q 95.2 D 05/16/99 4:48:10 B721 94.7 D 05/05/99 22:29:15 DC9 94.1 D 05/16/99 6:28:16 B722 93.8 D itMT #14: 1st S� & McKee St. Eagan Date B'ime A/C . Max � Type - Level 05/13/99 6:43:17 B722 103.5 D 05/09/99 6:12:55 B722 999 D 05/16/9917:59:53 B722 99.4 D 05/06/99 21:43:38 B722 99.0 D 05/Q6/99 21:22:21 B722 98.9 D 05/13/9910:07:29 5722 98.6 D 05/06/99 6:13:46 B722 98.1 D 05/22/9913:47:24 B722 97.8 D 05/06/9913:29:27 B72Q 97.4 D 05/09/99 21:23:02 B722 97.0 D I2M�' #16: Avalon Ave. � �1as I,ane Eagan Date Zime : AJC M� ' ` Type- Levet ` `� 05/16/99 6:43:09 B722 103.3 D 05/06/9918:45:01 B722 99.6 D 05/06/9918:41:44 B722 99.1 D 05/16/9912:21:42 B722 98.2 D QS/28/9916:13:33 B722 96.9 D -- 05 J22/99 37:10:06 B722 96.9 D 05/11/9916:58:42 MD80 96.7 A 05/15/9913:48:28 B722 96.6 D 05/07/9919:27:13 DC9 96.6 A 05/20/99 6:18:59 B722 96.5 D Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs C C' Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identifieel RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington Date Time A/C Max � - Type Level 05/12/9910:14:58 B722 102.0 D 05/23/9915:19:23 B742 101.4 D 05/06/99 6:02:02 B722 101.4 D 05/27/9914:21:09 B722 100.7 D 05/31/9916:33:31 B742 100.3 D 05/27/9916:23:44 B742 100.3 D 05/15/9915:18:30 B742 99.6 D 05/27/9915:21:43 B722 99.6 D 05/26/99 20:49:20 B722 99.4 D 05/26/99 21:15:06 B722 99.3 D itMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St Bloomington Date Time A/C Max � Type Level 05/28/9914:59:00 B722 102.5 D 05/28/9912:16:44 B722 101.9 D 05/31/9918:44:05 B722 101.4 D 05/29/9913:40:32 B722 101.0 D 05/17/99 7:14:29 B722 101.0 D 05/26/9916:07:09 B722 100.7 D 05/29/9911:20:21 B722 100.4 D 05/30/9911:41:36 B722 100.4 D 05/31/9914:58:54 B722 100.3 D 05/30/9912:39:29 B722 100.2 D RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. Richfield Date Time A/C Max � 'I��pe Level 05/06/99 6:01:35 B722 106.9 D 05/27/99 21:27:19 B72Q 105.9 D Q5/05/9915:27:08 B742 104.7 D Q5/30/99 21:39:23 B722 104.5 D Q5/14/9919:43:36 DC9 104.1 D Q5/15/9915:18:03 B742 103.9 D 05/26/9916:27:24 B722 103.7 D 05/22/99.6:53:34 B722 103.7 D 05/Ol/9915:08:11 5742 103.6 D 05/16/9911:54:11 B722 103.5 D RMT #20: '7Sth St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time A/C Max � Type Level 05/26/9916:16:05 B72Q 97.7 D 05/08/99 5:13:56 B72Q 97.3 D 05/26/9911:27:01 DC9 97.1 D 05/26/9914:56:26 B722 96.7 D 05/22/99 8:04:30 DC9Q 93.4 D •05/12/99 7:50:24 DC9Q 93.1 D 05/19/99 5:05:14 B721 92.6 D 05/23/9915:14:01 DC9 91.9 D 05/31/9913:40:59 DC9Q 91.6 D 05/27/99 22:33:55 DC9 91.5 A Aviation Noise & Sateilite Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission . � � ,. . � � . . � . . �; RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th S� Inver Grove Heights Date Ti�e A/C Max � - Type Level 05/19/9915:31:23 B722 88.9 D 05/16/99 20:12:03 B752 88.6 D 05/11/9912:08:13 B722 88.5 D 05/15/9915:29:21 B722 86.6 D 05/09/9919:34:45 B722 86.5 D 05/09/9915:54:41 B722 86.5 D 05/09/9911:29:01 DC9Q 86.2 D 05/14/9919:04:24 B722 86.1 D 05/05/9913:31:00 B722 86.0 D 05/11/99 8:09:34 B722 85.9 D I2MZ' #23: End of Kennclon Ave. 1dlendota �€eights Date':Time A/C. Mag ,, � . Type ' Level 05/03/9917:30:10 B722 104.7 D 05/14/9919:03:07 B722 103.8 D 05/19/9915:30:10 B722 103.6 D 05/11/9912:06:57 B722 102.7 D 05/06/9913:11:04 B722 102.6 D 05/19/99 7:20:32 B722 102.4 .D 05/06/9910:11:54 B722 102.1 D 05/20/9917:54:07 B722 102.1 D 05/04/9915:06:50 B722 102.1 D 05/16/9914:23:41 B722 102.0 D RM�' #22: Anne Marie T�rail Inver Grove Heights IDate Time A/C Max � Z��pe Level 05/10/99 9:00:49 B722 90.2 D 05/07/9916:37:44 DC9 899 A 05/06/99 21:44:30 B722 89.7 D 05/14/9913:19:34 $722 88.6 D 05/05/99 7:19:21 B722 87.8 D 05/04/9918:19:36 B722 87.5 D 05/19/99 7:51:21 B722 87.4 D 05/09/99 8:08:57 B722 87.1 D 05/05/9919:53:13 B722 87.1 D 05/07/9919:39:40 B722 87.0 A R1V�T #24: Chapel Ln. & VVren Ln. Eagan Date Time ° A/C Max � Type Level 05/06/99 21:44:00 B722 94.4 D 05/13/99 6:43:31 B722 92.9 D 05/14/9915:56:07 B72Q 92.4 D 05/06/9917:33:07 B722 92.3 D 05/13/9912:39:06 B722 91.5 D -05,/01/9910:05:00 B722 91.4 D 05/28/99 7:16:39 B722 91.2 D 05/01/99 7:50:32 B722 91.2 D 05/02/99 7:51:06 B722 91.1 D 05/29/99 9:05:31 B72Q 91.1 D Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs C, C ' �=!cV+ "cx��!iij ,��.��1 � .b��'�� e,�ti��,-r;,:_...�a �-, .�.!1�;.,�, � .�e.�v��,:�: " � � :� :' a�',..,-r►�,�►00�:�!d'► . . /ii��-!w►; !�► ,;�, a�.�..��-" �i � �� _ .....;= -_ ' =�,-��r+ ��,,: •, ..• _ �s- � _� . ..• , ,_. :_ -.. �� - � . . -. • � � " �; .. _ .; , � -.. . ,�� _ _ . ; �• � ' � �, �I A� •` :i� � ' - . �' �' • !/ � j I � �: . i .�s/.1 ,. - . . . . � .l. ..ii: �; . . �'.. . ... . �i�, ��,,. -- ... /f�lr A ' �\" ��. . . �iy' ; � , � _ 1 \i.�,"�r��,`r` - . � �, I�! �� t .I� . �r:J► �► Q\t��.. . t'!i �! ��1 '� .. . ��ti ��Ci'� 4 �� . •�'. �i Y'r yq�`�\\\t �� + � � � ��,\ � � .__ ^1 ., �,��j�` �' . . � ��'•1�'\C , f r, ;,; ' :. -.y � �. m 0 .; .r ;: �; -' i ; � � � � .- � = . ��, � ��. ►i: ;; ill��t�i � �r/�, ��l1P� ��%!� "iI ^_ _ ,. � �� ..IrI, , � . � . :' •ti . t� �� /►• • � �. , . , , .. • � .. � __ �OC4�O��'i� ';: �„ . �� . i �r�/ � �\`�sli\��` � � . � . . � �11 ��/I,��q� � � , : q �� /�,,, � .. , N� . 'w �� ' � � �. •'�• . _ ' � .. . . .. . /�. " . . . . . ... II��II� . '� � �: . . ... � ., �' �♦� \�.. � � ...... ...... .. ...... . .. . . . . ...... .. . \1�-... � ' :t ' ' �4 t; ��%Il�;;'�=' :.. �.�. • . !/, ,� ;� � �'f~i�. ;`+ �M;LJr.I�°1.'�ail ` ��ij.l..��/�il�'J �\ � .'� :,,,�' �I j% . � � ��: ��!!�°i , -r•C�aF%�%!;- . ;.�r ., Oi� . ; S, � .t ' • ��/� � ��: �\ . . _ `�1�Iit,�'W� `� _ i, S�V 7j.,::i .�..� �. I j��i�� .♦ �� . .� " a�'. , P� �.,, . !% �,;''j�'��; � �� . i'r� I � /,�//��1��%/, . � , .., , �� .� � ; ��ir �� .. _ `�� . iriJ�ii q -- \�'�i��r � : ��i%//�/ip - �. . �.��; ; /�`��:�� ''. � � ��r�?�' s 1 �i �\ � �rr� / �� r %.Y �(' �� 1 7/1 1\ . ��/�Q�'� � f � r..��\ cR � . • III��6� I � � �� \ �. ' � • i . t �! \), \ . !. � � -'-........."__'� -, �. \. _._... . _ _ . .. ^�=`�.. �� - � . r:� y. � ,• ��\�� 'i •-' . � �' � . � Y . i. i . . �'.\. 11\' . . � / :•l� w�\ ��/ i� . . � ,`•\\+\ .•1�. �) + � �, . =�,. 1 / f . ,I�►.� II,I..��• � ,� '` �1�,\I� I��i�g1 {I � ; r ..I:..• � `��,G J%!!��' l �~ ` : ��M ; /a► `.'�' � %i��%� i` �,+ 1 �� - j%li�\`:1, .�1� � �� q� , .I� n t ��' � � �i �! ' :�i , � r �: � � c� S► �. , li 1� � / �� . . '`:� �: � �. •. � - I �-_._, .: _ . ' , . ... r,a: . . � � s _ . . . � . .. ; ?�i i .�. .... � .. � � �� t�flt � , . . � e. � .�r . . ' Ll111is` ' � . „ 11�i A��• .• .. • • �M��.,�p► - • ..uN . . . . . . . _ . . . .. _ . �, . �� . ... . . � . . �� '.. . ... '.� � _ ./•�I . �E �'�". t . . . . �� , Ir � �U�. `fi��'�'��'��y�' �i.� . .. . . .. .+f`1`h � � "' ��iM�� .,� `� ��;. •. __ : _ _.. , �.. -�: �... . . _: . ..:i-: .;� , . �. :�.;s ,� .,. . . � � ``, . . _ � � '�. _ `� . , ; • : •.. - -� �''-�� ,...�w �:�.,.` ., . � 11r ��i � 1►1 /I►� ��Ot�,� .... tr : ' � ..�, ► � Iii ' . ,; . �_.�y.. 't +1.' �. � '.• . . �. .�.. . .�, � . s � .. . . ' ; 4' 1p7�..,�� , \��'.�1�;�,,1, , � �'�",.►,!�'1��.�. . : �,�i ��. . �� •� - .�\� . ' ._ • , �;,1��'\ � .. � ,. ' �11`,\\�: `1 � \\`� . t � � \ \. ... ... .. .. ..... . .... . .. . •. .. . ... \\�i'�� u � �� '� ` ��'lii��'j`� � � :,-`�h��i��'�,,G�ti-__"�.;;,� • . ��> . ♦ N '" ,.: :;�:rr��la�� '� j �►�yr� :=� _ _ � '�. �..:.I ' ' �Y`A�j>'•'•r7 --=+ea . ...'1 �� \ �� . .. _ r .' `�, ; �% �'f yti �r►`a , � . �► � � .► • ' . , �� a�`i( j�_(��i�t,' � • / i; :. .:'`�� n�,� �'� . �� i��!�. i � y _ ' ,u � �i r�. � ' �,, ::�r '^-- � <i �.e::=1,:,\"c''� .... .. ��►�ii��iL�• � .." . ' . V �i� r. �'`1 ' lrli .i.% o✓t::�►r. ��1 n� a . '�^�-"' l Ai'. ' 1��1\�\�� .� �ri� �a�.a��'��/��" ' � `� •'..'I ' . F. . !` � � 1�v �� 11 ��. \ ./iY� � ��y'+. . �� i .v � � . .. ' . ' - `�._i;,':1 :..Vu � ' , ='N'1 ; � � .1 �.1� i: . � . . � � '�I . t �i � � \ ^ _ _ � . � `,'. `` ~ . ` . . i�T� � . i\�'i �I ,I��'� • �,� �: .` ' ::-c::' - �� ,. � oi, � ' :>�- # �i�/�.+j . n^�_ �, � , �� i r..- .��'ic. . . � r. \ ��'I � r i . w�'��,�;�� !� . :, �. �,��• ��i�� . . ` ,~ 1,\ q�, ` . � �� . . � •� a�. � . � �� I� ` ` ``�� '• ` ''a`.; � �� :a. :: . .� . . . . _ '. :. : _ . _ Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis of Aircraft l�Toise Events - A�reraft Ldn dB(A) 1Viay Ol to ay 31,1999 Noise Monitor I,ocations �� 0� ' � ' �. ', ��i� ' � �iili�� i �ii�i� '�� ' ' � . • .: �• � �.: . � .- � . . � . : . � .. . . ' �� ' : � . � .:� � '� � '� � � ' ' � ''' � '� ' ' . • � .: � : �� . : �� ' ' � ' � � . . . � ' • � ' • � � . .. . . �� .� � . � .• � : . .: • .: � . . � � � : • � � .. .: . �� ' � �� " ' i � ' � ' � ' � �� ' : �'� '.- .: .:� �� ' ' � �' � •• � � ' �� ' � : � � .: � ii�i7�� '' . . � : . . �� ' ' ' ' �� , , , . �� . � . . �� ' � ' ' � • . �� . � . �� .. . � : � � ' ' �� ' � � . : ..- . - . � .•: �� ' �' �'� �� . � .. . . � � .: . �� .. . ,• � � � . : �� ' � ' � " � ' ` � ' � " � '' s ' � � ; �� . . i : �� •' .. : . : . � � � � � .� . .� �� '' � ': . : � � � � �� . � . � � , , ; � � •' • ,�' ' ' � : , � '�� ' ' �� : : .:- .: � . : :� � �� ' ' '' �� ' � � �� ' ' � II� � , ' • � ' .• . . : � � " , . ; , , � � �� • i • • i 1 �� , � • 1 � i � i . I�� •: •• � 1 1 � � � • �� • �� , • � �� I �� .: .: . • 1 . 1 . � � � ' � � ' : � . : � .� 1 .' �� 1 �: . �� .1 . . �� I � �� I , � �� : 1 : �� ' 1 '�� _• � • : •:1 � �• �� '1• 1• 1• � • i i • ' • � : .. . ; �� ' ' � �� Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs * Less thm: twenh�-four hours nf data avatlable l' � ) Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis of Aircrait Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn d�(A) May Ol to May 31,1999 Noise Monitor Locations ��'�'� 0 '� .: . . • .. � : • . . � , , �� : � .. . . : .- � .: �� .. 'll� .. � . : .: : . . � . . • : �. . �� ., 'I� .� .•� .:� �� .. :. �. �. �� . . � . : �. � .• :� ..� �� ' � �� '� �� '� �� .� : .� � � ' � � , , , . • � .: . : .. �� ' � � ; .:� � �� ' ' . - � . - . : .� .�: . ' � �� . � . .: . � : : �� ' ' �� '� ' ' � �� .: .i• ..� �� ': � .� ..• '�� .:� . • .•: � . � � �� .� � . '�i .- .: : '� . � �� . . ' �� • , � ' � ' �� ' �� . � • : • . - • .: � � ' ' � .:• .•� . . ..� � � ' .�. . : � . � '�� . • - . . .: . �� . � - . : : �� . : '� . : .� : .• � • . � . ' �� ' � . � : � . : �� .�: :� ..- � �� '�' � �� :. � ' �� ' � " � � � � � � � �� '� .. .•� .:: �� . : . - .�� .: ..- � . � � .. � . � � . . . • �� .. �� " �� . . � . � . . � . . . � . . .: . . . � . • . �� ' � �� . . �'�� . : . � �� ' : : • � ' � '� '' � ' : .. �� '' ... �� ' � �� ' �� '�� . � � . : . ' �� '� : • . � � . : - � :� � , � � ,. „ � .� . ; �• . . . � � ..� :� � �� ' � '� '�'� . : � .� - . : '�� ' � � ' . � ., '1� . � � �� ' � �� ' � �� ' � r� � . � � �� . - .. . �� ' � ' � �i'�� ' ' , , � .: � .: � .' � �' - �� , ' ' Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 27 * Less than twer:h� four hour.s nf data available C� � � ��,�-�-_..,._--�-..__- �,. �.-�. ..�� ► - . l, , � � ti � � , _�`-. "'^��`---��\�:\�\\\ � � t ` � <� � ��`�=` 'i�► �--��-1�-.`� \��"��\\� �� i � �. � � � J � t f. �� +"`��..\��=\`�`\��\`�� h 4 . 1+.� •�a r" (. � `\/ `\ .. \\ \\\ �\+-�\`\`► ►`'� x' � t' � , t . �; . . `�'il �� .: ' �+.. / � �.. ��.,. a�� . � , � _-�-`�'Itti"^�--- .�`�\_ �\�,�� \�� 1\ �� y� x 1 �'�� -��rr�_�-� V�jir�\•,�...�.``�...��.�`�-\ �\.\�, � q � h� � 1 � � , af a #�. � ..`"'�`~``"\��v� �u�� \ . > � . � ., J i �.r� � ,� ` �\�-�`..�\\•��i�� h � , ��•_�_ _' ._` �S.'�I`r•\i•'�'y,r � o• �'tA'tlt � �.. t + } ,� f . � `� ,��,��1 � ,y ' �� ,�. r ��, �-. Q•�i��o�►� •hiJ �i�. � rt 1% 1 :�: . r ,',r/,/ �',,///`iyl ' � i ,., ` � /,,�/I�/'i� 1� �' � i J l � ".� ,� ,r�. � � �'� �I � �l�'�`�!/ �� ' t / f �,� � � // � .� ? � //��G///��, �e� � r' S �r � � � ��,��/ ��I " f � � ' � 6��. � i oi r i' ` ``��//�%/��/// �.� : � �/ ;v� ,►:. l. � �/�/ /� . / 1.��`', l � .i '�b.. - - , 4 \` _ �� ,,\\ �._ ,, � � �`��1'�� `� �`� � � �'';! � `��;_;;�`�,\�;;: - _ � , � o ,�/' � � �// , '�1��``�� , ��\1\�..�'` .� �� I� �,,� 1�:�'��/ry� I, :� . A�� -�F _``'�~�I!'"��',�'��,'��/%':'', , ��'"��. ,!/jp .`.,.�,..��,� q ,�, i, A : iw.1,Ii"�I, �►..'i��1�� < ei►..".�r ��1' I.ii v ' � � � �� , . ��!±�.-"�""�'�'�/►G�.�► t . r t ` i -�.�4�►Ii .0 � i +�" i /I � i!I . %�. �.,,►.�r/��//�� % '�i./ � �,.� � � �•�„,j%"��j:i =.�""►��i �.w �!i i �� ;i►'�;,.'-�. j ��^..��iiiii.�- � f,� � � �+�� I: '� i � � i"� ."- .:.''.' '� � .. .��-'/'"� i ..r` � �� f .. �• : � � �� + '� ��-��°' �. i � Y 2 ��ii.' . .i r�� N ;� � . � /,/ j��/%:�j' ' � � 'i . r 5 � �� t �/��/ /i�/%% '� : ' �,,, / �� . .. ` � . � �. i 4, . � . . ��//� i �,.:,./ y�ii ..� r ..' M. � .� ' ,t� ,' _�' S ��4�tli��♦ %/ � i,.�.�,! ,i . . . . � � ' �� . . / v h 1 � � , . , ♦ �. 'r+' ' .�.� � . . � � � i• � i � �.,. r %� / .Ipas �� `.: 4, ` �h� \ s��' j j / �,,� ,i f, .! � � �:". t° s i t \ f�+�;t�1;� i� j.� '`: ��. ,i ' �� „r_J.ii ��.'d�.�`'�./� �� iii . 7 i dt `.1 �� .i �` �P\P�� ": i ; - ✓'~ // � /! i4t f � r� ��' r a : ' '1 , � � r, ^y. \. . - � . ' i �r:. � .. r:� . .�. j %/�/i�ii�� i/� ��%'�� t,.. � ��<<.j� ..� \11 . . . , .-', z, . = ,;. . _.i..,,i/.. �..:-: .-._.i.. .� .�ir..,.�.� .,t :. ; � • , .�.:.., C C� w c d � � G f-- M' �--- � ¢ 0 0 0 c� 0 0 0 -6 Metropolitan Airports Commission '� . � � ,�, i , • . 1 , • 1 1 .' ��, ;� 1 . . 1 � , . �.� . . . . �.� • �� . ;.. / , 1 � 111 ��' �� • �! 11 �/ i 1 1,i 515 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=12 (2.3�) RIGNT COUNT=503 (97.7�) i . i i ' ; , . , , , , , , -----------------�-----------------1-----------------�------•------------�----------- ' i � . i ; � •• . ""q_�"""""""" s • • �, • O 0 s 0 � �• • i • 0 o • a� •� y• � • 0 � � O y s4 p �P • p '•, i � i � � � d � O • r • g� i � i � """"""' _"'t""""""""' �"f""_""""_ J+"' • "'" • ' _'t• t r -O�, S- � +� ; . • ; • •,.a ••: � • •• • !'� ' � , � m . .. I ° q • • � ,s: • e� . � ;• � ; • a ,r• • :' � ,� ;� I •�s •� �• • • , e ' � ---------------- �I �+ �� • � �� o � ' -r-----------------� ' ° i------'----------�--"--------------' ----v-�-tT- ' i O • 0 d � �� 0 O � e y -4000 - � """_""'""" �• I DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft� Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs i � C � Page 3 ' Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport 1l�iay 1999 � �� 7150 ... Total 12L and 121t Carrier Jet I)epartures 14 ... Carrier Jet Departure - Early Turnout (0.2%) (North Side Before Three Miles) 14 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT CO�NT=2 (14.3�) RIGHT CO�NT=12 (85.7%) �� DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GRTE (fl Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission i ' i 1 1. 1; 1,� ;, ' �� , � . , • � � � � � ' . 1 . ' 1 1 . iii, � , � , . . � . � . . � � � �� I � . . Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission W � � � � O � � � J —i 0 0 0 N O O O _ � Minneapolis - S� Paul Internationa� Airport May 1999 7150 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 43 .e. Carrier Jet Departures (0.6%) South of Cora-idor (South of 30L Localizer) 43 TRACKS CROSSED P-GRTE LEFT CO�NT=10 (23.3�) RIGNT CO�NT=33 (76.1�) . ; , ,. �-----------------�-----------------,-----------------�------------------�-----------------;------------------ . e s; 0 0 � � w � s e� � ° � • � � � , � � """_""__""'1"""'_""""'1'__'_""__""'_J""""""_"" i'_""'_"""""L""""""""' � O • � • • s • • O 0 O � i � , • O O � � � i �� • ' i � '_"""""""' ""_"""""' "_""""""'"' "'"""i_"'""_"""'_"' "" ' r""""" �""""""'"""�' �- f • e i -4000 -2 DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GpTE (ff Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � �= Metropolitan Airports Commission " l�inneapolis - St� Paul International A.irport ;! l�Iay 1999 / � . , � • , . . �.� . . . � � �.� . �; � ;, . , , � �; ,. ;. � . .. , 33 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=19 (57.6%) RIGNT COUNT=14 (42.4%) �� i � DEUTATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ff) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metrapolitan Airports Commission Southern Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Minneapolis - S� Paul International Airport May 1999 0.8 %(56) Carrier Jet Depaa-tures 5° South of Corridor (5° 5outh of 30L Localizer) ( J Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs W � � � � � � t��') 4- � �C O O O N O O O -4 Metropolitan Airports Commission ( . , 1 f, � , ' , � , •> � � ,; I 1. 1 � � . . � � . . � ., . , . . . � . � . (, ' , . , � / 1' 1! 11i � 1, �i �i �, • 22 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE LEFT COUNT=8 (36.4�) RIGHT CO�NT=14 (63.6�) . --------------------------j--------------------------�---------------------------�-------------------------- ,. . • ; . . . . .� . . . , , � , , ""_ _ _"""' � _"""' _"1""_"""""""' _""' J' � _""' _"""� _""_ _""�"_""' _' _ _"""_ _"""' O • I S • • • • • ""_"""""""""'""'_.'r"""""""_"""__""' ' i . �"""" " _ """' """"""i' ""' """"" "" " "' ; '"' • i �� DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft) Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 C Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - S� Paul International Ai�port May 1999 7150 ... Total 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departures 34 ... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Turnout (0.5% (South Side Before Three Miles) �= a a 0 �,- 34 TRACKS CROSSED P-GRTE LEFT COUNT=14 (41.2%) RIGHT CO�NT=20 (58.8%) �.� �� ' DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE (fl Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs � C Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport , �� . , . � � ' �� Executive Summar-y . . . � a Metropolitan Airports Commission MSP May Fleet Mix Percentage ANOMS ANOMS Stage Count Count Apr99 May99 Stage 2 19.2% 15.6% Stage 3 80.8% 84.4% Ma,y 1999 Sta,ge Use Composition During the month of May 1999 manufactured stage III usage = 47.8%, stage III usage = 36.6% and stage II usage = 15.6%. M� 1999 Aircraft Composition T'he hushkitted DC9 was the most predominately used aircraft with 8139 operations consisting of 29.1% of the total carrier jet operations. Following the DC9 hushkitted the top three were the Airbus 320 with 3727 operations (13.3% of the total), Boeing 757 with 2652 (9.5% of the total) and the MD80 with 1850 (6.6% of the total). 1999 April vs. May Complaint Summary �Airport �:Apr99; '. May99 '; MSP 983 1274 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 4 28 Crystal 3 0 Flying Cloud 6 4 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 1 2 Misc. . 0 1 ` TOTAL _: .997 : ; : 1309 Mav 1999 Complaint Origin Summarv MSP complaints during the month of May 1999 were highly concentrated in four cities: Minneapolis = 646, Inver Grove Heights = 258, St. Paul = 73 and Mendota Heights = 70. Mav 1999 Complaint Time of Dav Summarv The majority of complaints were received in the following time periods: 12:00-15:59 = 226, 20:00-21:59 = 226, 07:00-11:59 = 225 and 22:00-22:59 = 221: Mav 1999 Nature of Complaint Summarv The nature of the received complaints were concentrated around the following sources: excessive noise = 988, early/late = 252, ground noise = 14 and low $ying = 13. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summazy Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Operations iZeference I)iagrarri 04 Dep , �� . • �'1' . i c . � 1 . i Runway Dep�re Ovea•Hight Area Count All Pea�centage Count Jet Perceniage 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 217 l.l% 171 1.2% 12L Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 6044 30.6% 4887 34.7°Io 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 4812 24.4% 2882 20.4% 22 Arr Stp./Highld. prk. 145 0.7% 113 0.8% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 3498 17.7% 1984 14.1% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 5039 25.5% 4052 28.8% Z'otal Arr. 19755 100% 14089 100%a 04 Dep Stp./�igi�ld. prk. -154 - 0.$°Io 116 0.8% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 6125 31.8% 5094 36.6% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 3691 19.1% 2056 14.8% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 2488 12.9% 1759 12.7% 30L Dep So. Mpls.lNo. Rich. 2395 12.4°Io 1298 9.3% 30R Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 4446 23.0% 3581 25.8% Total Dep. 19299 100% 13904 100% Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 2 Metropolitan Airports Commission May 1999 Nighttirne Runway LTse �li Operations & Carrier Jet Operatioais Runway `��v� Overflight Area Count All Percentage Count Jet Percentage ,, Departure 04 Arr So. Rich.Bloom. 134 12.9% 106 13.2% 12L Arr So. Mp1s./No. Rich. 252 24.3°Io 223 27.7% 12R Arr So. Mpls./No. Rich. 104 10.1% 50 6.2% 22 Arr Stp./Highld. prk. 57 S.S% 47 5.9% 30L Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 71 6.8% 22 2.7% 30R Arr Egn./Men. Hts. 419 40.4% 356 44.3% Total Arr. ,: `', 1037 " 100% 804 100% 04 Dep Stp./Highld. prk. 32 2.4% 15 1.7% 12L Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 463 34.5°Io 349 38.5% 12R Dep Egn./Men. Hts. 236 17.6% 137 15.1% 22 Dep So. Rich.Bloom. 152 11.4% 97 10.7% 30L Dep Sa. Mpls./No. Rich. 137 10.2% 73 8.0°Io 30R Dep So. Mpls./No. Rich. 321 23.9°Io 236 26.0% Total Dep.: ' 1341 '` 100% 907 100% �'"' tav 1999 Runwav Use SummarX All Operations and Carrier Jet Operations _, I�ring May 1999 runway use for all operations remained consistent compared to April 1999 with the bulk of the traffic concentrated on the parallel runways. The use of the crosswind runway increased slightly from April 1999 to May 1999 with 2.1% more depariures on runway 22. Arrivals on the crosswind runway decreased from May 1999 to April 1999 on runway 04 by 1.2%while arrivals on 22 showed a minimal increase. Parallel runway operations represented a predominate Southeast traffic flow with 15.5% more operations departing off 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 11.8°Io more operations arriving on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. Carrier jet operations also remained consistent compared to April 1999 with overall corridor usage decreased slightly from April 1999 to May 1999 while the parallels still supported the bulk of the traffic. Use of the crosswind runway increased from April 1999 to May 1999 with a 2.5% increase of departures on runway 22. Arrivals on the crosswind runway decreased from April 1999 to May 1999 on runway 04 by 1.4% and showed a minimal increase on runway 22. Corridor operations dropped from April 1999 with 12L&R departure operations decreasing by 7.8% and 30L&R arrival operations increasing by 5.7°Io. Overall Pazallel runway use favored Southeast traffic flows with 12.2% more arrivals on 12L&R compared to 30L&R and 16.3°Io more departures on 12L&R compared to 30L&R. May 1999 Nightlime Runwav Use Summarv All Operations and Carrier .Tet Operations The nighttime hours (2230 - 0600) during May 1999 showed a decrease in runway 04 arrivals and an overall decrease in corridor usage compared tn April 1999. The�all-operations-runway�use-assessment depicts 12.9°Io of the arrival operations occurring on runway 04 with 47.2% of the arrival operations occurring in the corridor and 52.1% of the departure operations occurring in the corridor. The overall percent of operations over Minneapolis in May 1999 showed an increase from April 19991evels. There were 8.0% more departure operations over Minneapolis and 6.0% more arrivals over Minneapolis from April 1999 to May 1999, which represents a increase in overall operations over Minneapolis of 14.0%. The use of the crosswind runway over South Richfield and Rloomington decreased from April 1999 to May 1999 with arrival operations on runway 04 decreasing by 6.8°Io ( id departures on runway 22 increasing by 1.0°Io. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime carrier jet operations were consistent with the all operations trends. Corridor operations were comprised of 47.0% of total arrivals and 53.6% of tota.l departures in May 1999 representing a decrease in arrivals by 1.9% and a decrease in departures by 11.4% in the corridor from April 1999 to May 1999. There were 33.9% of the total arrival operations and 34.0°Io of the total departure operations over Minneapolis in May 1999 _ representing an increase in arrivals of 5.0% and a increase in departures of 9.5% over Minneapolis. The use of ( the crosswind runway decreased with arrival operations on runway 04 decreasing by 6.8°Io from April 1999 to ' May 1999. Mav 1999 Catalvsts for the RunwaX Use Configurations In addition to wind and weather conditions dictating the nature of the runway use at MSP, construction during the month of May 1999 also influenced runway use for the month. . �� , , i , .� � 1` �. . , _ ; - �:: y � �� , City. . Appro `xiinate Street �.ocatio�a .. Monthl , � , , ., . . DNi, 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 61.9 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 64.8 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 66.6 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 68.2 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & S8th Street 74.3 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 78.1 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 64.6 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 63.5 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 56.9 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 63.6 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 58.3 12 St. Paul Alton Street &Rockwood Avenue 51.8 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 62.5 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 68.7 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 65.3 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 68.0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 66.4 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 72.9 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 68.2 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 57.8 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 56.7 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 60.0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 73.1 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 65.0 Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 4 Metropolitan Airports Commission May 1999 RMT DNL Level Su►nmarx The above monthly DNL assessment per RMT site is consistent with the actual runway use for the month of May 1999. The higher DNL levels are for the most part concentrated off the ends of the paraliel runways due to the frequency of parallel runway usage. T'he S� Paul RMT sites represent some of the lowest DNL values in the �eport. Mav 1999 Top Ten Noise Events Per RMT Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for May 1999 are very similar to the information collected in April 1999. The top noise events at each RMT were comprised of 93.8% departure operations and the predominate aircraft was the Boeing '727 with the exception of sites located in St. Paul due to the number and nature of operations over St Paul. Technical Advisor's Report Executive Summary Page 5 68 Airport Noise Report modifiers to meet new noise standards by applymg perfozman.ce restrictions, modifying air&ames and en�'mes, etc. .Any aircraft that was certificated (or recertificated) to meet the existm.g performauce-based noise standard would be ailowed to continue to operate. Phase-out/Phase-m. Period. Aircra#t that were immediately affeited by implementation of a new noise standard or specific provision withm a new standard, and not protected by the `�nmimum operating life" concept descn`bed above, would be "gran.dfathered." for some miriimum period of useful life. This would provide a predetermined phase-out period to allow operators to make fleet decisions for retiremeni or modification of older aircraft a�n.d fmancing plans for the purchase of newer aircraft. A minimum phase-out period could be, for exa.�ple, 8 years. � Auport Restrictions. Ideally, the next noise standard would be sufficient to address most local noise concerns and there would be universal recognition ofthose standards. Airport restrictions that targeted compliant airplanes would be terminated where not mand.ated by law. Specific operating procedures such as modified flig:ht profiles and adjusted tra:ffic pattems that are necessary to address local issues would st� be expecterl. In ths Uniterl States, the Airport Noise an.d Capacity Act contains a procedure to review an.d approve any proposer3. new local � noise restrictions. Possi�bly other national or international processes could be established to perform. a' 'lar fimction to recognize inherent dif%rence in airports and their operations. �� Ai�port Noise Repon June 18, ].999 •' Appendix B Proposed Implementation Scenarios for EvaIuation In li�it of the discussion in this paper, the US believes that it is important for the CAEP to canduct an in.itial evaluation ofpotential imglementation scenarios. The US does not advocate any specific scenario but believes that it is img�ortant to start this dialogue now. This paper suggests three basic s�enarios to be evaluated so that CAEP members may be informed on their relative merits. Each scenario should be evaluated on its environmental benefits and its economic costs to the exiskin� fleet. Option 1— Conventional phase-out. The Chapter 2 phase-out, from adoption of initial certification standards to com}�letion of the phase-out, is takmg almost 25 years. Based on this experience, and the potential of having a new noise standard adopte�. as early as 2001; the completion of a Chapter 3 phase-out cauld be as late as 2026. CAEP shonld evaluate this scenario to establish a cost/benefit base case. ^, Option 2 — Accelerated phase-out. :. Amid growm.g politicalpressure to act on noise concems in some regions, several ICAO memhers could call for accelerai:ing the `5aormal" ICAO process in adopting an.d implementmg any future noise standard. CAEP should evaluate an accelerated process. For purposes of evaluation, it is suQ�ested that uutially a 10-year phase-out of Chapter 3 aircraft be evaluated so that a relative cam�arison could be inade with the base case. Option 3— Accelerated phase-out with embedded fleet protections. Altb.ou� an accelerated phase-out of Chapter 3 could address some of the immediate � environmental conce�as of ICAO's members, it may also Put the existing fleet and billions of dollars of in.vestment in jeopardy. To minimize this, XCAO could, for example, adopt a prin.ciQle that members shoulcl honor an operating life of some mmimum number of years for aircraft comPlying with Chap#er 3. It is suggested that CAEP evaluate scenarios for costs and benefits us�g a�um operatin� life concept. For purpases of initial evaluation, a task group could assi,� an appropriate range of minimum operatin� }ives for the categories of aircraft �m scheduled airline service, transport aircraft im carQo or non-schedule� service and busmess jet aircraf�. Such options could provide relatively short-termnoise benefits (retirement or modificafiion of older aircraft) at m;nimum. cost (older aircraft have already been depreciated). Some mumimum phase-out period would need to be �anted to allow older aircza$ to be replaced or modified to co�ply with the new standard . Airport Noise Repon 70 Airport Noise Report � ANR EDITORTAL ADVISORY BOARD � Steven R. Alverson Manager, Sacramento Office Harris Nlitlec Miller & Hansoa John J. Corbett, Fsq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC James D. Erickson Director. Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administtauon John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charies M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance CarIsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cutler & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean Manager, Planning and Development Tucson Airport Authority John M. Meenan Senior Vice President for Industry Policy Air Transport Associadon Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. PresidenG Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicaao Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compadbil9ty Office Dallas/Fort Worth Incemational Airport lYiary L. Vigilante President, Syneray Consultants Seatde Lisa Lyle Waters btana�er, Noise Abatement Proaram Paim Beach County Depar�ment of Airports ATA Concerns While airports, which have been aDQ essively pressing the FAA to phaseout "maro nally" Stage 3 aircraft, support the FAA's draft position paper, the airlines have some concerns. The Air Transport Association and its member airlines "are deeply concerned about CAEP's proposed course of action," Carol B. Hallett, president and CEO of ATA, told FAA Adminis�ator Jane Garvey in a June 16 Ietter. ATA wants CAEP to focus on the "serious harm" the European tTnion has caused by moving unilaterally to bar the addition of hushkitted Chapter 3 aircraft from European fleeis be�nning on May l, 2000. In Apri12002, the reauiation would bar the operation in Europe of hushkit- ted Chapter 3 aircraft from non-European countries that are not currendy operating there. ATA said "the United States should take the initiative to restore expectations of compliance with [ICAO] standards, before or with, any proposal to address new environmental issues within the CAEP. The United States should insist that universal recognition is essential for ICAO's environmental standazds to function," Hallett asserted. But, ATA said, instead of addressing "the integrity of the [ICAO] certification pracess, CAEP appears to be moving forward with a new noise siandazd and various implementation plans for phasina out Stage 3 fl1TC73fi IIIOSi �dIIl11Ila1)/.'• The airlines told FAA that they are also concerned that CAEP is following the EIJ's lead and is focusina on a"design-based approach" to . developing a new noise standard through whicb Stage 3 aircraft will be ranked in order of their relative noisiness. Such an approach makes it very tempting to set a new noise certification standazd that targets for phaseout the noisiest of the Stage 3 aircraft, many of which have just been pur- c:�aszd by U.S. air3�res. ATA is also opposed to an FAA recommendation to accelerate the CAEP process of deveioping a new noise standazd and to hold a special noise meering in mid-2000. An FAA spokesman said those recommenda- tions may be dropped from the final document. In terms of a rimetable for consideration of a new ICAO noise certifica- tion standard, the 17-member CAEP steering �oup will meet in Madrid : at the end of the month and will decide what it wants to recommend to the next full CAEP meering. Most likely the steering �roup will ask CAEP to move forward on a new noise standard as quickly as possible. The next meeting of CAEP, called CAEP 5, will be held in late 2000 or early 2001. CAEP is an advisory body to the ICAO Council, which is the body that can adop[ the recommendation for a more strinQent noise standard. However, ihe ICAO Council cannot act on a recommendation for a phaseout of Sta�e 3 aircraft_ Only the ICAO Assembly can adopt that and the Assernbly does not meet aQain until fall of 2401.� AIRPORT NOIS.L REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Maria T. Norton, Production Editor Published 2� times a year at 43975 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�?3. Price $549. Authorization to photocopy i[ems for internal or personal use, or the internai or personai use of specific clienu, is aranted by Airport Noise Report, provicled that the base fee of U5�1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to CopyriQht Clearance Center, 27 Con�ress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright OO 1999 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 201�7 C '- �� C . - 1, . , �; - - �. , �� . -.. :�► !a . • �� . ��t � �.:� �� .f : - A biweekly update on likigation, regulations, and technological deveiopments Volume 11, Nurnber 10 Legislation HOUSE APPROVES B�LL TO ]NCREASE INVESTMENT IN AVIATION IMPR.�"VE�NTS The House of Representatives June 15 approved comprehensive leQislation that dramatically increases investment in airports, creates new funding to foster �rowth of smaller airports, allows more flights at O'Hare, LaGuardia, TFK, and Reagan National airports to increase airline competition, and increases fundin� for noise miuQation projects. The controversial bill — which the Clinton Administration�has threatened to veto because it takes the Aviation TrustFund off budaet, thus making it imm�ne to ` deficit cantrol measures - passed the House by a vote of 316 to 110. It is now under consideration by the Senate Commerce Committee. . The le�islation, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st. Century (AIl2 21), will invest a total of $57 billion in aviation infrastructure from 2001 to 2004, an increase of �14.3 billion. Tha[ money is intended to build terminals, - �ates, taxiways, and other infrastrvcture project to ailow additional competition at ( ) aizports. �' The leQislation triples the amount of the minimum entidement for non-hub airports from �500,000 to $1.5 million per year and, for the first time, provides entitlement money for general aviation airports to a maximum of $400,d00 per (Continued on p. 72) Burbank JUDGE SETS 60-DAY CLOCK FOR AIRPORT TO BUY LAND FOR REPLACEMENT TERMINAL A Superior Court judae June 24 formally entered an $86 million judgment in the $urbank-Gtendale-Pasadena Airport Authority's condemnation of the 130-acre Lockheed Ivlartin Corp. Plant B-b site, the proposed location for a replacement passenaer terminal. The court's action set in motion a 60-day period in which the airport authority must either pay Lockheed the total amount due or forfeit ail riQhts to the property. The matter ended up in coutt because the airport offered to pay $39 million for the ]and but Lockheed demanded S 128 million. The airport authority has already paid Lockheed �39 million. It must now pay the company an additional S�9 (which includes pre-condemnation damaQes aareed to by the airport and Lockheed) within 60 da��s. If it does not. Lockheed will likely sue for additional dama�es. Th� jud�?e's rulin« also puts pressure �n the City of Burbank to accelerate i�s revie�v of the airport authocitti�'s proposal ro build the new term�nal on the Lock- heed propercy, which is located within the city's jurisdiction. ( ) In encerinR the jud��ment, Judge Carl ��est said he is bound by a recent state --' appellate court d�cision aftirming the Ciry of Burbank's ri.�ht of,approval over the (Corttinuect on p. 73) � July 2, 1999 In This Issue... Legislation ... The House passes a bill providing $57 billion far aviation infrastruc- ture projects and other avia- tion investment for fiscal years 2001 to 2Q04. It in- cludes an increase in funding for noise miti�ation projects and increases the cap on � Passenger Facility Ctiarges, : which can be used for noise . mitigation projects - p. 71 Burbank ... The airport will Iose the lar�d it wants for a new terminal if the City of Burbank does not complete its review of the project plan within 60 days - p. 71 St. Louis... FAA tells court that proper environmental � review was done on new runway project - p. 74 Hushkits ... Nordam announces orders for 26 ne�v hushkits for 737-200s - p. 7� Noise Grants ... FAA announces Qrant awards to 20 airports - p. 76 FICAN ... Federal commit- tee to hold special sy'mpo- sium on preservation of natural quiet - p. !7 Reno... USPS hub prompts airport to propose update of Part 1 �0 program - p. 76 News Briefs ... - p. 77 Cop}right �O i999 by Airport Noisc: Repon. Ashburn, �'a. 201; i 72 Airport Noise Report year. The bill also creates a loan suarantee program to help airlines buy regional jets if they a�ree to use them to serve small airports and creates a new fundins program to help small underserved airpons market and promote-their air service. ' For larse airports, the lesislation triples the amount of the annual passenger entitlement for primary airports (those with 10,000 or more passen�ers per year), lifts the $22 million cap on the amount of annuai entitlement money that a lar�e airport can receive, more than doubles the amount of entitlement money for carQo airports, increases the discre- tionary fund so that FAA can fund many high-pciority airport improvement projects, and raises the cap on PFCs so that an airport has the flexibility to proceed on its own with those improvement projecu that cannot be funded through the federal AIP program. "This bill begins to address the growina needs in our aviation system," said Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and author of [he bill. "'This bill will help to modernize our air tra�c control systems, reduce delays, and spur competi- tion." Shuster defended takine the Aviation Trust Fund off budeet. Such action, he said, "restores honesty to the federal bud�et. "AIlZ 21 forces the �overnment to preserve aviation ticket taxes for avia[ion impravements," Shuster said. "We pay a tax every time we fly and now we will have those taxes invested in makinp our skies safer and our airports more efficient." Noise-Related Provisions The leQislation will increase the cap on Passen�er Facility Char�es (PFCs) from $3 to �6, providin� additional revenue for airporr expansion and noise mitination projects. It also inereases fundin� in the Airport Improvement Pro�ram that must be available for noise miti�ation projects from 31 percent to 34 percent of the Discretionary Account. The noise set-aside in the AIP would be �394.8 million in tisca] 2000; �314.5 milIion in fiscal 2001; $340.7 million in fisca] 2002; �380.0 million in fisca] 2003; and $406.2 million in fiseal 2004, aecording to the House Report on the biil. If tiscal 1998, the noise se�-aside was �200 million. It is authorized at a level of �?40 miliion in fiscal 1999, but thus far only � 169 million has been appropriated, accordinQ to the FA.�. In terms of airport noise erants and the environmental revie�� of airporc infrastructure projects, the leaislation requires the Secretary of Transportation to: 4 • Develop and implement a screamlined environmental review process for aviation infrastructure projects that reyuire an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act or that reyuire "anv other tvpe of environmental review, analysis, opinion, or issuan�e oEan environmenta) permit. license, or approval by operations of federal law: ' The le�islation requires that "whenever practicable" alI environmental review processes and state and federal approvals of an airport infrastructure project be done concurrently and that al] parties involved asree on a timetable for completion of such action; 4 • Authorize the use, "in whole or in part," of a completed environmental assessment or EIS for new constrvction projects on the air operations area of an airport "if the completed assessment or study was for a project at the airport that is substantially similar in nature to the new pmject and meets a11 requirements of federal law for the completion of such an assessment or study"; •• • Allow the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to award a ants under the AIP pro�ram "even if the purpose of the project is to mitigate the effect of noise primarily caused by military aircraft at an airport." .A.ircraft Noise Levels, Impacis The legislation also addresses reduciion of aircraft noise levels. It requires the Secreiary of Transportation to: • Condnue to work to develop a new standazd for aircraft and aircrafrengines that will lead to a further reduction in aircrafr noise Ievels. No later than March 1, 2000, and annually thereafter, a study must be snbmitted to Cona ess r baarding the application of. new standards or technolo�ies to reduce aircraft noise; • • Authorize expenditure of "such sums as may be neces- sary" to revise existing terminal and en route procedures and instrument flight rules to facilitate the t�keoff, fliaht, and landing of tiltrotor aircrafr and to improve the nationa] airspace system by separating such aircraft from con�ested fliaht paths of fixed-wing aircraft; • Conduct a study on recent chanaes to the fliaht patterns of aircraft usin� Sky Harbor International Airport and the effects of sach changes on the noise contours in the Phoenix region_ The results of the study must be submitted to Con�ress within 90 days of enactment af the le�slation and must include recommendations for measure$ to miti�ate aircraft noise over populated areas in the Phoenix azea; • Conduct a study of the effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise on individuals and to develop recommendations for the reduction of the effecu of nonmilitary helicopter noise. In c�nducting the study, the secretary must consider the views of represen[atives of the helicopter industry and representatives of organizations with an interest in reducinQ nonmili[ary helicopter noise. The study must be submitted to Consress no later than one year after the bill is enacted. • Expresses the sense of the Coneress that the administra- tion complete its comprehensive redesisn of the national airspace and that it beQin implementation of the plan; Amendments to ANCA The leQislation also amends the Airport Noise and Capacity Act to: • Allow foreiRn air carriers to also request ��•aive;s from Airport Noise Report �" C� July 2, 1999 the StaQe 2 aircraft phaseout deadline; • Allow the Secretary of Transporcadon to provide a procedure under which a person can operate a 5tage I or �, Sta�e 2 aircraft in nonrevenue service to or from an airport in the United States in order to (1) sell the aircraft outside the United States, (2) sell the aircraft for scrappina, or (3) obtain modifications to the aircraft to meet Sca�e 3 noise levels; � Allow an air carrier to operate a Stage 2 aircraft to or from the 48 contiauous states on a nonrevenue basis in order to perform maintenance or preventative maintenance on an aircraft that will be sold, scrapped, or modifie,d. � Air Tours over Nationa] Parks Included as part of the legislation is the Nationai Parks Air Tour Management Act of 1999, which prohibits commercial air tour'operators from conductin� commercia] air tours over national parks or tribal lands, except in accordance with the act. � Exempted from the park overflight rules are the Grand Canyon National Park (which already has air tour rules in effect), any Indian country within or abutting the Grand Canyon park, and any land in Alaska. The act sets specific requirements for g'anting authority to commercial air tour operators to conduct air tour operations over national pazks and for establishina commercia] air tour manaQement plans. It directs the FAA administrator and the director of the National Park Service to establish, joindy, an advisory �� )�roup to provide continuina advice and counseb with respect to the operation of commercial air tours over and neaz national parks. The two a�encies must joindy report to ConQress on the effects progosed overfli?ht fers are likely to have on the commercial air tour indusuy. The bill stipulates that "any methodolopy adopted by a federal agency to assess air tour noise in any unit of the national park system (including the Gcand Canyon and Alaska) shall be based on reasonable scientific methods." (FICAN, the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise, plans to hold a special session at the upcoming November meetinR of the Acoustical Society of America to discuss what methodoloey would be the best in terms of assessing park overfli�ht noise. See related story in this issue). Slot Rules The House le�islation alters the 30-year-old federal "High Densi�v" rule to allow more aircraft operations at the four airpons affected by the nile: O'Hare lnternational, LaGuar- dia. JFK International. and Rea�an National Airports• Tne rule currentl�� restricts the number of airplanes that can depart of arri��e durino peak travel time slots. The House bill calls for tne slo� rule to be modiFied at Rea�an National ro immediately allow six additional fliahts �er day, but none ��'oulu be allo�L•ed to go beyond the airport's l,'�0 mile pzrimeter restriction. 73 The slot rule at O'Hare will be phased out for regional jets on March l, 2000, and for all aircraft by March l, 2002- The sloc rule at LaGuardia and Kennedy airpons will be dropped for regional jets on March l, 2000, and for all aircraft by Jan. l, 200`7-� Burbank, from p. 7I sale of the land. The judge said he cannot convey title to the property to the airport, even if the authoriry pays for it, unless ihe Ciry of Burbank approves the sale. Followina the state court appellate ruling affirming the authority of the City of Burbank to control ttie expansion of Burbank Airport within its city limits, the airport authority submitted a 16-pate scaled back version of its ori�ina] 19- aate terminal. On 7une 27, ihe City of $urbank announced that it had accepted the application for the less ambitious terminal plan but said it would take the city 92 days to review it — lon�er than the 60-day window imposed by the court "We've come to the most critical point in the past nine years of pursuing this project," said Airport Authority President 7oyce Streator. `Burbank has said it needs four month or more to consider the auport's application to buy the land, but the court is only �vinD us 60 days. Unless Burbank is wiliinD to speed up its review — which is something totally within its power to do — it is very possible the ternunal replacement effort utilizin� Lockheed land will come to an end. We will have to relocate the facility to , existing airport proPenY• There is no way the authority can prudently justify further cash oudays if it is not clear we wi13 be able to use the Lockheed land," Streator said. Over the past four years, Burbank has said it would oppose the new terminal unless the airport authority imposed a mandatory curfew and caps on fli�hts. In May, the Federal Aviation Adminisuation issued a formal legal opinion stating that Burbank Airport has no authority under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act to impose a cap or' curfew unless it first conducts a federal PaR 16l study, a process the airport says will take several years. 30 Percent Smaller Terminal The revised proposal envisions initial construction of a terminal about 30 percent smaller than the original proQosal in square footage. The number of gates would be reduced from the proposed 19 to 16; �but the airport would be allowed to expand to 19 gates in 2010. No expansion would be allowed beyond those limits without approva] of the Burbank Ciry Council. The proposal affirms the Airport Authority's intencion to se�k a mandatory curFew on transport category aircraft, a noise bud�et and/or noise cap, and a phase-out of the noisiest, Sta�e 2 business jets by conducting a federal Part 161 study. Whether any of these )imits is imposed would depend on approval of the Federal Aviation Administration after a review of the Part i 61 stud��. The commission is Airpon f�oise Repurt '7q Airport Noise Report already in the process of conductina the study. The smaller terminal "represenu a substantial compromise and the Commission's sincere effon to address Burbank's concerns," said Commission President Joyce Streator. "It recosnizes that the airpor[ is located within the City of Burbank and gives the Burbank City Council control over expansion of the terminal. This is something they have always said they wanted." Other major elements of the airport authority's proposal include: • An airport commitment to seek an FAA ban on easterly takeoffs over Burbank because of the safety hazard of the mountains to the east; • Airport compliance wi[h a maximum noise impact area as defined by a November 1998 state Appeals Court decision, an area of roughly 370 acres outside the airport's boundaries; • Rapid acceleration of the program to sound insulate homes located within the noise impact area with a$10 million grant of airport funds and application to the FAA for an additional $50 million; • A"wide range of additional steps" to reduce the noise impact area which aze contained in the airport's current Part ] 50 study, as well as the curfew, noise cap, and phaseout of Stage 2 business jets sought through the Part 161 process; • An incentives program in which commercial aircarriers that comply with the voluntary 10 p.m. to 7 am. cnrfew would be financially rewarded; • Reimbursement, "to the extent permitted by federal law," to the city for lost property taac revenues from the terminal site and partial funding to defray the cosLs to the city to improve its services to the new terminal; and - Airport agreement to ma�cimize to the extent possibie private development on a portion of the terminal site to �enerate tax revenue for the city.� Lambert-St. Louis Int'1 FAA TELLS COURT PROPER REVIEW DONE OF RUNWAY By Charfes F. Price — The Federal Aviation Administra- tion, supported by the City of St. Louis, filed briefs recently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eishth Circuit insistin� that correct and lawful environmentai analysis procedures were followed when FAA approved a new parallel runway at Lambett-St. Louis International Airport. The Iviissouri cities of Brid�eton and St: Charies, as well as St. Charles County, all near the airport, have sued the FAA over its approval ot� [he so-called "W 1-Vd" airport expansion plan, under which the new runway is pointed in their direc�ion. The cities and countv contended that when the a�Tency selected the W I-�V airport expansion alternative, it violated requiremznts ot' the National Emironmental Policy Ac[ (NEPA) by not adequately evaluating a ranee of r�asonable alterna�iv� zxpansion pians. The communities said �hev will suFt'er nuise and other impacts frorn the alternative endorsed by FAA in its Record of Decision of Sept_ 3Q 1998. In its appeals court brief, FAA arwed its approval "is consistent with the FAA's statutory obligations and [is) well-supported by the record." It called its environmentai review "thomugh" and said it "progerly analyzed all reasonable alternatives and evaluated potential increases in noise impacLsfrom the new runway:'"£he agency said it was justified in findina that "no feas�te and prudent alternative" existed beyond the one approved. To charaes by the communities that it failed to consider viabie alternatives other than the one it preferred, FAA claimed all the alternatives favored by the communities "either raise cost issues, constructability problems, or faiI to achieve the purpose of the ... expansion project" and were, in fact, adequately and correcdy studied. FAA argued that the study outcome was the result of "more than a decade of sponsor-led studies, ihe forecasts developed in these studies, and upon examination of forty- plus alterna6ves developed to determine how best to provide sufficient capacity ... to accommodate projected demand levels: ' � The Lambert expansion is meant to ease conaestion and delay. In its supporting brief, the City of St. Lauis said Lambert is "one of the nation's busiest airports" but is "exceedingly wlnerable" to weather-related delays, which reverberate and multiply�•through the national system. FAA has classified Lambert as a major national air transportation bottleneck and "has warnerl that Lambert needs a suitabiy located new runway to avoid annual delay costs in the billions," the ciry asserted in its brief_ "During the decades of planning that led up to ... selection and appmval," St. Louis said in its brief, "both SG Louis and FAA ... studied dozens of alternatives, including alternatives to aviation, alternative airport sites, and a wide ranae of alternative expansion configurations at Lambert. None of the opponents now claim that alternatives to expanding Lambert were inadequately studied, question the need to expand Lambert, or dispute the underiying traffic forecasts. Each opponent simply prefers an alternative runway site that would direct impacts elsewhere. [They] champion a handful of alternacive at-Lambert expansion configurations — all of which FAA carefully appraised for suitability and objec- tively reported upon in the [Environrnental Impact State- ment]." ReQarding the question of noise impacts, the FAA said in its brief that St. Charies city and county experience noise levels below 6Q dB DNL and chus are considered to be outside the impacted area. FAA uses 6� dB DNL as the threshold of compatible residential use in its environmental analyses. The asency said the Council on Environmental Quality has identified no procedure "for measuring the FAA's environmental duties by reference to sinQle event or time- above threshold noise data," an approach the communities had advocated. "The cumul�tive day=night sound level has lon� been accepted as the appropriate methodolov�• for Airpon Noist Repon C� � � � . C July 2, 1999 presentina all impact of aircraft noise;' the agency insisted. The FAA called it5 noise analysis method a"well-settled , and judicially approved methodoloay for measuring and �assessinQ the impacts of aircraft noise," and said "the ]ion's share" of the communities' challenaed to FAA's NEPA compliance were no more than attacks on the "lona standing standard." Appeal of State Court Ruling In related action, Bridoeton Mayor Conrad Bowers held a press conference to site several "challenges that will ultimately sink W-1 W." Amona them are: • Liti�ation is state court — Bridgeton will appeal of a lower court ruling which found that state law does not allow the city to use its zonin� powers to stop the expansion of the airport into its jurisdiction. The state statute only applies to new airports, not expanding one, a lower court judge ruled, expiaining that the region's need for the W-1 W expansion plan outweighed the rights of Bridgeton's residents (11, ANR, 47). � �- The first step of this apgeal will be submission of a motion to have the judge reconsider his ntlin$ in liaht of the failure of the Missouri legislature to pass a bill which would have `"exempted W-1 W from Bridgeton's zoning. That failure "makes clear that the le?isiature has left in effeci the current statute which prohibits an airport proprietor from locat�ng an airport in a city in violation of the host city's zoning," Bowers asserted. If the mocion to reconsider fails, the ciry ' �'" —' ,� wiil formally aopeal the jud�e's ruling to a higher court. _, • Failure to aet the State Le�slature to Chan�e the siate law — Leaistation that wouid have �ven the City of St. Louis "unprecedented riQhu to invade and rezone property in Bridaeton" for expansion of the airport was passed by the State House but failed in the State Senate," Bowers said. "Despite an unprecedented effort that en�a�ed as many as 401obbyists, the State Senate was not willing to alIow such IeQislation to be passed without major concessions, such as requirina a real time study to confirm the capacity and safety of W-1 W or removina sole ownership of Lambert from the City of St. Louis, and transfemn� it to a regional authority. The City of St. Louis will simply not make any concessions that may reduce their ability to control a metropolitan facility," he said. • LitiQation in federal court—The City oEBridQeton, the Air Line Pilot's Association (ALPA), the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), and others repeatedly warned the F.�.A that the airport was usin� technically and leQally flawed assumptions and analysis to support the choice of tiV-1 W. The FAA chose to i�nore these warnin�s, and now wi]1 have to defend theRecord of � ) Decision in a court of la�v, Bowers said. � Pilot's linion demand for a real time study —"Ulti- mately, our community cannot ianore the fact that both NATCA and ALPA believe thatyW-iW is unsafz and will not deliver the capaci[}• that has been promised.In fact, the Citv of St. Louis no lon�er contests the fa� that VJ-I�V will �s not deliver on the primary reason cited for its selection over less expensive alternatives — it does not allow two runways to be operated independently in bad weather." • Absence of Fundin� —"There is an elephant in the room that everyone is trying not to notice — that our community does not have the money to build W-] W," Bowers said. "Only a fraction of these funds will come from the federal �overnment, and ... TWA is without cash and without capacity to raise its ticket prices:' Bowers said it will take at least 53 billion to complete the W-1 W expansion plan.0 Hush Kits NORDAIVI RECEIVES 26 NEW ORDERS FOR KITS Some 26 new orders for NORDAM 737-200 hush kits have been placed for commercial and privately held aircraft, Jack M. Arehart, vice president of The NORDAM Group, announced June 1. • According to Arehart, the combined retail value of these oiders including spares is estimated to exceed $30 million. "These new orders also bring our total hush Idt orders-to- date ro 345 shipsets," he said. ' The foliowing companies ordered the hush kits: • Triton Aviation, a leasing company headquartered in San Francisco, ordered four shipsets for aircraft operateci in Canada and ihe United States; • Frontier Airlines, based in Denver, ordered two shipsets,' which will be delivered during the first quarter of 199�; • GS Aviation Services, a New York City-based aircraft leasin� management company, has placed an order for six shipsets. One shipset has been delivered with the remainder scheduled for delivery later this year; • Celsius Amtec Corp., an engine and aircraft manage- ment, leasing, and trading firm and a subsidiary of Stock- holrn-based Celsius t1B, has placed an order for two • shipsets. 'These hosh kits have already been delivered and are in use on planes operated by Air Malta; • Three shipsets have been ordered for privately owned aircraft_ One shipset was delivered for use on a plane based in Saudi Arabia. One shipset was installed on a plane chartered to the Sacramento Kings, and another shipset was installed on an aircraft owned by the Cleveland Cavaliers — two National basketbal] Association (i�TBA) teams. Other NBA teams that use aircraft ou�tted with NORDA�1 hush kits include the Atlanta Hawks and the Washington Wiz- ards: � GECAS, a previous customer, has ordered and taken delivery of two additional shipsets for Vangu�rd t�,irlines. Casino Express has ordered three shipsets and ?.ir Niediter- rane� has ordered one additional shipset. These hush kits were delivered in the first quarcer of 1999; • Air Caribbean placed orders for t�vo shipsets for aircraft that fly from the United States to TrinidadlTobaQo. One of these hush kits was delivered in April ��it the other sched- uled for delivery in i�fay; Airport Nuise Repor, 76 Airport Noise Report • UNICAPITAL Air Group, a Florida-based aircraft leasing firm has ordered three shipseu. These kits will be installed on aircraft that will be delivered to Van�uard AirIines later this year. NORDAM said over two dozen customers worldwide now have their hush kits, including Deita Air Lines, United Airlines, US Airways, American West Airlines, Lufthansa, Eastwind Airlines, Air New Zealand, and Alaska Airlines.0 AIP Grants FAA�ANNOUNCES GR.ANTS FOR NOISE MITIGATION On June 22, the Federal Aviation Administration an- nounced the following grant awards under the federal Airport Improvement Prob am to airports to conduct various noise mitigation projects: • Tucson International Airport — a grant of $2 million for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 dB DNL noise contour; • B urbank-Glendaie-Pasadena Airport — A o ant of �2 million for noise mitigation measures for residences; � Fresno Yosemite Internationa] Airport — A grant of $3 million for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 70-74 dB DNI� noise contour, • San Diego International Airport—A a ant of $2 million for noise mitigation measures for residences; • San Francisco In[ernational Airport—A grant of $2 million for noise mitigation measures for residences in the community of San Bruno. A a ant of $1 million was released the same day for noise mitiDation measures for residences in South San Francisco; • Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airpoct — A �rant of $2 million to acquire land for noise compatibility; • West Palm Beach International Airport — A�rant of S2 million to acquire land for noise compatibility; • DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (GA) — A �rant of $4 million to acquire land for noise compatibility; • Atlan[a Hartsfield International Airport — A grant o( �2,067,Od0 to acquire land foc noise compatibility: • Alexandria (LA} Incernational Airport — A �rant of $176,000 to conduct a Part 1�0 airport noise compatibility Study: • New Orleans International Airport — A grant of 526.tXX3 to conduct a Part 1�0 noise compa�ibility plan update: • Shreveport Re� ional Airport — A �rant of $?3 million to acyuire land for noise compacibiliry and to provide reloc:a- tion assistance; • Boston Loaan International Airport — A Qrant of 5�,45�,3� 1 for noise mitiQatian measures for residences • Baltimore-Washin;ton International Airport — A grant of 51,240,000 for noise miti��ation measures for residences within the 6>-69 dB DNL noise contour in the cornmunity �f Aliwood: • Detroit Me�ropolitan ti'�'avne Counry Airport — a grant of $5 million to so�ndproof residences in Romulus and Huron Township and to acquire land for noise compatibility; • Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport — A�rant of $5,740,14� to soundproof residences in Minneapolis; • Lambert-St. Louis International Airport — A �rant of $2,070,000 to acquire land for noise compatibility; • Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport — A arant of � 162,000 to update a noise compatibiliry plan swdy; • Chica�o Midway Airport — A Q ant of $3,342,143 was released on June 10 to soundproof a school; a�rant of $200,000 was released the same day to design soundproof- ing for a school; • Louisviile Intemational Airporc - A�rant of $891,790 was released on May 20 for several projecu including acquisition of land for development and ta provide reloca- tion assistance; a grant of $3,683,000 was released the same day to acquire land for noise compatibility/relocation.0 Reno/T'ahoe Int'Z AIRPOI2T H()LDS MEETING '�'o. D�S{:USs �w U�P� �� - On June 23, the Airport Authority of Washoe County held a public meeting to address community concerns over the noise impact from a new United States Postal Service hub at Reno�i'ahoe International Airport set to open on Aug. 28. The airport authoriry said it is very concerned about the overall impact of the USPS project and wili immediately begin to update its federal Part 150 airport noise compatibi]- ity proQram. The authority said that it may seek a permanent noise monitoring system, new arrival and departure proce- dures, and sound insulation and land acquisition programs. USPS has already agreed to an airgort requirement that all its aircraft be compliant with federal StaDe 3 noise standards from the first day of operations. However, USPS is not expected to select a contractor to conduct the carQo opera- . tions until late July, so it is not known at this time what type of Sta�e 3 aircraft will be used at the USPS hub. The airport expects the cargo operations to be conducted with either hushkitted 727 or DC-9 aircraft, Adam R. Mayberry, a spokesman for the airport authority told ANR. EiQht arrivals nnd departures will be conducted between midnieht and 2 a.m. and three arrivals and departures betwe�n 9y10:30 a.m., he said. Mayberry said only a"vocai minority" in the community has expressed opposition to the hub. They live in a commu- ni�y three to five miles south of the airport in the arrival and departure corridor, he said, and have expressed concerns about noise, saEety, reduced property values, and the cxpansion of the aitport into a larser carao hub. "Il�e USPS hub is expected to have a total economic impact oF �7 million on the community, brinQina 100 pan- time jobs payin� 513-� 14 per hour. An interim carQo facility will be buiit north of the existinQ passen�er terminal and a permar.en[ carao facility is planned to be construc[ed within Airpon Noisc Rcpon '� �,� � (:: I July 2, 1999 three years. The airport authority said the USPS hub "is an extraordi- � nary opportunity for the community." It will �.ive Reno a � competitive edae in attracting new businesses because it wiil provide a major link to the world markets, the airport . noced. "Airport revenue from USPS will offset �ssenger carrier costs makinQ the airport more financially attractive and with a reduction in ]anding fees, the [airport) will attract new or additional passenger service."� FICAN FICAN TO HOLD SYMPOSIUI'� ON PRESERVING NATURAI� QUIET The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) is co-sponsoring a special session on the preserva- tion of natural quiet at the 138th semi-annual mcetinD of the Acoustical Society of America which will be held in - Columbus, Ohio, on Nov. 3. The purpose of the session is to examine the issue of natural quiet and to identify further research needs. Speakers will present technical papers representing a variety of ' perspectives on the issue, which will be followed by a panel discussion. The followina papers will be presented: • National Park Service issues — Wesley R Ae�nry, William B. Schmidt, and Rick Ernenwein of the National Park Service, Washington, DC; • Loss of natural soundscapes within the Americas — � Bernie Krause, Wild Sanctuary, Inc., Glen Ellen, CA; • Challenges of modeling aircraft noise in nahonal pazks — Kenneth J. Plotkin, Wyle Labs, Arlina on, VA; • Educating national park users on preserving natural soundscapes — Rick Ernenwein, Wesley R Henry, and William B. Schmidt, I�lationai Park Service; Washin�ton, DC; • Guidelines for the measurements and assessment of low- level ambient noise — Gregg Fleming, Acoustics Facility, Volpe Center, Cambridae, MA; • Usin� visitor responses to rank order national park soundscapes — Nicholas P. Miller, Harris hiiller MilIer & Hanson, Inc., Burlin�ton, MA; • Measurement of natural soundscapes in south Florida na[ional parks — l�licah Downina. Christopher Hobbs, and Eric Stusnick, Wyle Labs, ArlinQton, VA; • Respondents' interpretations of impact measures for dose-response studies — RobeR BaumQartner, Haaler Bai11y Consultins, Madison, tiVI. A panel discussion on lessons ]earned from current and past efforts to preserve natural soundscapes will be held after all papers have been presented. The sessioa wiil be moderated by Dr. George Luz of the US Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive l�ledicine. The �eneral public is invited ro attend the special ASA l session. ArranQements have been made for admittance to the conFerence for the session. For additional information on the session, visit the FICAN web pa�e at www.fican.or� or �� contact Mary Ellen Ea�an, 5enior Consultant, HMMH, 15 New England Executive Park, Burlington. MA 01803; tel: (781) 229-0707; fax: (781) 229-7939 or e-mail at mea�an@hmmh.com. For additional inforrnation on the ASA meetinQ visi[ the society's web pa�e at http:/lasa.aiQ.or� or contact Elaine Moran, ASA o�ce manager; tel: (516) 576-2360; fax: (� 16) 576-2377.� IN �.R.I.��' ... , Noise Abatement Position at SFO San Francisco InternationaI Airport seeks individuals for full-time Noise Technician and Noise ProQram Mana�ement positions responsible for supporting the aircraft noise abatement pr b�ram, and operation af the airport's aircraft flight track and noise monitoring system. Candidates must have knowledDe of aircraft noise abatement and computer system technolo?y. Successful . candidates will be employed on an interim basis by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., and will be assigned full-time at SFO. Salary levels are negotiable_ � Fax resume and covez letter immediately to 781-229- . 7939; Attn: Alison Moore, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., 15 I�'ew Ea'lanct ExecutiveP�rk, Burl�n�to�, MA 01803. Noise Position at Boeing Field The King County Internationai Airport (Boein� Field), Seattle, WA, is recruitin� for a Proaram Analyst I, to serve as a member of the Noise Project Work Team. Primary duties are to gather and analyze noise complaint information and data using a variety of software, to draft professional correspondence, and to respond to telephone inquiries and complaints. - This is a term-limited position which will end by April 30, 2002. Pay is $17.26 -�21.94/hr with full benefits. Send application, resume, and letter detailing backsround immediately to DCFIvi, 500 - 4th Ave., Rm. 320, Seattle, WA 981(}4. Fax: (2Q6) 296-018b: EOE Applications: http:// www.metrokc. Qov/ohrm/openi n�s.htm I. AvAero Hushkit Orders Hushkit manufacturer AvAero, based in Sa'rety Harbor, FL, announced June 14 that it has received two firm orders and six options from Pegasus Aviation for its Boeins 737- 200 hushkit. Southwest Airlines has added t�t•o more hushkit orders for its 737-200 tleet brin�ina the airline's tocal to �� AvAero hushl:its. y WestTet Airlines took delivery of t�vo additional !:i[s increasinG i�s total to se��en. Other rzcent orders and qirport Noise Report �g Airpor� Noise Report ANR EDITORIA,L � deliveries include two 737-200 Stage 3 hushkits to each of Bahamasair � and Cayman Airways, one kit to First Air, and one additional kit to ADVISORY BOARD � International AIl2 Leases bring the IAL total to four AvAero kits. Steven R. Alverson � AvAero 727-200 5tage 3 hushkit owners/operators include 20 airlines, Manager, Sacramento Office 13 leasing companies, and three private operators, as well as The Boein� Harris Miller Miller $c Hanson COmpaDy. John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washin�[on, DC James D. Erickson Director. Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administradon John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associaces San Francisco lYiichael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gaczke, Diilon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Cuder & Stanfield Denver Suzanne C. McLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority John NI. Meenan Senior Vice Presidenz for Industry Policy Air Transport Association Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. Presiden� Mestre Greve Associates Newpott Beach, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emzry Chicag0 Karen L. Robertson Manager, Noise Compacibiliry Office Dallas/Fott Worth International Airport Mary L. Vigilante Pesident. Syner�y Consul[ants Seattle Lisa Lyle Waters � t�tanaaer, Noise Abaremtnt Proeram Palm Beach Counry Depanment of Airports SFO to Improve San Francisco Bay The San Francisco Intemadonal Airport Commissiore a�reed June 15 to spend $9.5 million to improve endangered habitaLs in wetlands around San Francisco Bay. The funding will create a total af 37.5 acres of new wetlands and improve another 472 acres of existing wedands. "The commission's vote once again shows the airport's'commi[ment to improving our region," said Airport Director John L Martin. "SFO's Master Plan construction program is readying SFO become the leading airport in the new century. Partnering with national, state, and local agencies and other city departments, SFO is provinD that running a first- rate international airport goes hand in hand with environmental protec- tion: ' SFO wants to build new runways into San Francisco Bay to reduce delay at the airport, reduce noise impacts, and accommodate the larDer airplanes being planned by some manufacturers. Restoring bay wetlands would offset the loss of bay area that would occ�from fillina the bay to add the runways. The airport's Runway Reconfiguration Pr baram is currendy at the beb nning of its environmental review process. No new runways can be added in the bay without the approval of the Bay Conservation and Development Cornmission. N.O.I.S.E. Conference The National Or�anization to Insnre a Sound-controtled Environment (NOISE) will hold its annual meeting July 18-21 in Millbrae, CA, near the San Francisco International Airport. Monday's session wiIl feature FAA and other speakers providing regulatory and le�slative updates and discussing aircraft noise certifica- tion standards of Staae 3.5 and beyond, A1P fundin' for noise miti�ation, and how the European Union's noise policy will affect the United States.' Tuesday's session will focus on noise issues at San Francisco Interna- tional Airport including the airport's noise abatement proQram, low frequency noise mitigation efforts, new technology to help reduce noise impacts, and airport/community relations. Tours of the United Airiines maintenance facility and communities in the airport's noise insutation pro?ram will be conducted. For further information, contact NOISE at tel: (202) 434-8163; fax: (202) 639-8238).� AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Charles F. Price, Contributing Editor; Nlaria T. Norton, Production Editor Published ?� times a vear at 439%8 lirbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4�28. Price $�49. Au�horization to gho�ocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granczd by �.irport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US�1.03 per pa�e percopy - is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Cong-ress Street, Salem, MA 01970. USA. Copyright �O 1999 by Airport Noise Rzport, Ashbum. Va. 20147 f,..�. 1 � MEETING NOTICE MASAC OPERATIONS C�MMITTEE The Operations Committee will meet Friday, Juiy 9, 1999 — 10:00 a.m. at the General Offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, MASAC Small Trailer 6040 28�' Avenue South, Minneapolis. If you are unable to attend, please notify the committee secretary at 612-726-8141 with the name of yaur designated altemate. • ,/��.7C1��► OLD BUSINESS Airport Construction Update RMT Site Update Part 150 Update Progress Review NEW BUSINESS Technicai Advisors Report & Corridor Revisions MEMBER DISTRIBUTION Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA Bob Johnson, MBAA Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan Ron Johnson, ALPA Brian Bates, Airborne John Nelson, Bloomington Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Mayor Charles Mertensot�o, Mendota Heights Dick Keinz, MAC cc: Kevin 6atchelder, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, NWA Mark Hinds, Richfield John Alabach, NWA Tom Worum, NWA Advisory: Keith Thompson, FAA Ron G1aub, FAA Cindy Greene, FAA Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chad Leqve, MAC Shane VanderVoort, MAC Jason Giesen, MAC C C C� MA. 5.�. C O�'EI..AT I DNS C 0��1MI �'�'E � TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhnmann, Technical Advisor NISP RUN-UP PAD & NWA ENGINE 'TEST CELL TOUR July l, :1999 �' ��5'. The MSP RUN-UP PAD & NWA � ENGINE TEST CELL Tt�UR is ` sched.uleti for Thursday J�y g,1999. � The bus will begin loading at 8:45 A.M. in front of the MAC Aviation Noise �_� and Satellite Program Office at 630134th Ave. South, Mi�nneapolis, MN. This tour is scheduled to last approximately two to three hours. If you have not reserved a seat, please call Shelly Ludwig at 726-$141 as soon as possible. If you have any guestions, please contact me at 725-6326. Thank you. C� MA.SAC OPEI,ATIO.NS C0.��1MIT�'EE TV.��II�✓I�J�..A,NI) �sAc TQ: ivIASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUB�ECT: Construction Update DATE: � July 1,.1999 The reconstrucdon of the south parallei runway is in tlie twelfth we�k of construction. The contractor is in the process of completin; the under�ound u�lity work navin� installed �most �:11 of r�e storm sewers. Similarly the majority of [he sub-�'ade excavation work is complete except for a small remnant of taxiway Whiskey. Current efforts include compleuon of installation of the 16 inch water main and 20 inch fuel line as well as the �lycol collection lines -- Pavin� forms were set last week and the contractor paved the first 25 foot wide section of concrete on � ) Nfonday, June 29th. There are eight lanes, twenty five feet wide and 3,400 feet long of 20 inch thick .., concrete to be poured in the runway reconstrucrion area The paving will continue as the main construction effort over the next 6 weeks. • Although the contractor has encountered 15 days of wet weather, the project is still scheduled to be complete by labor day with the runway open to normal use. At the July 9, 1999 i'�SASAC Operations Committes meeting, MAC staff will provide an additional update on the South Parallel Runway Reconstruction Project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 725-6326. C (° ��.. 5A C O.P E.l'�.A.T IO.�T S C 0.��1MI T T� E TO: FROM: SUB�ECT: DATE : •'� � �SAC Operations Committe� Members Chad L.eqve, ANOMS Coordinator Remote Monitorin� Tower (Rti1T) Update June 29, 1999 NIASAC Since the last R1ti1T update si�ificant pro�ess has .be�n made at all of the five new RiV1T locations. A iease for each oi t'tle iviinneapolis Public Sct�ocl sites has been si�ned and approved �acilitatin� ��1 procurement of those sites. The cement slabs, anchoring bolts and all the ne�ded utilities (phone and power) have be,�n installed at the Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Richfield and Anthony Middle. School locations. The only remaining element at the mentioned sites are the RMT poles. The complexity of the Ericsson Elementary School site necessitates different installation procedures relative to the other sites. Althou;h the Ericsson Elementary School site is a more complex installation, si�nificant progress has been made on the installation. On June 25, 1999 an access panel was installed at Ericsson Elementary school and the installation of anchorin� bars are planned the week of June 2$, 1999. The RMT poles are scheduled to be delivered on June 30, 1999 with installation, on a site by site basis, begging on July 6, 1999. It is anticipated that the project will be completed around July 30, 1999 and the acceptance test�n� would occur approximately August 20, 1999. If the current pro�-ess trend continues it is possible the. compietion dates could be earlier than the current schedule. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff will keep the MASAC Operations Committee informed on any such changes. An update will be provideri by MAC staff at the July 9, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meetin�. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-632�. MASAC OPEI.ATIONS CC�.��MIT�'EE ' � � ' � ' TO: FROM: SUB�ECT: D�.T� : MASAC Operations Committee Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor Part 150 Study Proaress Review July 1, 1999 NIASAC The Part 150 Study Update is continuinQ to move forward. Numerous important topics have already ceea ciiscussed with HNTB for evaluation anc c�nsieeration. Tne public anc �iu� S:� t:- memoer comments are being reviewed as part of the on-�oin� work During the month of July, HNfiB and MAC staff will continue to process and analyze the information necessary for a thorouQh review of the Part 150 Study. 'Ihe following list of major events with respect to the Part 150 Study Update process, identifv the work completed to date and the si�nificant topics under review: 1 ?, 3. 4. 5. � i7 January 26, 1999 - Announced at MASAC meeting that MAC will begin a Part 1�0 Study Update February 23, 1999 - Mr. Evan Futtezman and Ms. Kimberly Hu;hes from I�i tTB led i�1.ASAC with a discussion of the following Part I50 related topics: � �Purpose and Description of Part 150 •Noise Measurement and Analysis in the Part 150 Process •History of the Part 150 Pro�am at MSP (1987 and 1992) •Scope of Current Part 150 Update at MSP •Additional Issues/ Concems to be Addressed in Part 150 Update (MASaC input) �•Prelim.inary Time frame for Part 150 Study •Draft Scope of Part 150 Distributed to MASAC members. Niarch - Draft Part 150 Study Update Scope available for review Niarch 12, 1999 - MAC Staff presented a comprehensive review of MSP niQhttime activity Nfarch and April 1999 - Comments concerning the Draft Scope of the Part 1�0 Study Upda.te were received from seven communities in eiQht letters. April 8, 1999 - The i�1AC hosted a City and Agency �feeting to discuss the Draft Scope of the Part 170 Study update. April 9, 1999 - i�is. Kim Hughes, HNTB, reviewed the contour aeneration process with the i�i�,SAC Operations Committee members. The discussion included the following main topics: •FICON establishes the preferred me[ric as Di'�iL •DNZ characteristics ( 1 •Dt�IL nighttime penalties •Intearated Noise �iodel (IN�1) inputs •A:�iOMS informa�ion as li��t input C�. •Fleet-mix characteristics •Aircraft Sta�e lenQths . 8. April 1999 - Comments from the meetin� were incorporated into the Final Scope of the Part 1�0 Study Update. 9. �1ay 14, 1999 - Nis. Kim Hughes discussed the Part 1�0 Contour Boundary Development process. Reviewed the past Part 150 submittals and the issues that FAA. identified wi[h previous Part 150 contour boundary deveiopment Niembers directed HNTB to: 10. 11. •Evaluate the current contour and develop an updated contour based on the Intersecting Block Method for initial contour edge considerations. •Develop propose�l � neighborhood and natural boundaries to be reviewed by MASAC Operations Committee who will make recommendarions to the full iV1ASAC body for approval. �Iay 2�, 1999 -.MASAC updated on the current pro�'ess of the Part 150 Study lipdate. June 11, 1999 - MASAC Operations Committee, Nis. Kim Hu�hes, HN'IB, briefed the members on the Eaaan/Mendota Heights Corridor and associated procedures. The briefin� included the following: . •t:r�a n aT the corridor . �Corridor refinement over the years • 1995 - FAA submission for Crossing in the corridor . •Corridor Boundary Compliance Monitoring •Potential modifications to the placement of the corridor 1. SIi�IlbIOD analysis with respect to narrowing of the corridor 2. Shifting of the boundaries, north or south, would adversely impact residential groperties. •Established noise abatement procedures to be considered in Part 150 • •Re-analyze NADPs/validate distant departure procedure usage •Investigate new technology for carridor ed�e compliance •Research development of standazd departures, FNIS and GPS technologies •Evaluate use of Runway 4/22 operations. 12. June 30, 1999 - Land use update letters were sent to communities requestina current land use information from neighboring municipalities. MA.0 staff will provide an update on any other issues related to the pro�ess of the Part 1�0 Study Update. at the July 9, 1999 re�ularly scheduled MASAC Operations Comrnittee meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 72�-6326. M.A.. SAC OPE.RA�`IO.NS CO.��MI�'T.�E TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MASAC Operations Committee �Iembers Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator i1%IA SAC Technical Advisor's Report and Corridor Report Review and Revision June 29, �1999 Effective communication and data dissemination are ttie focal points of successful analyses and the art or conveying ccmplex information in a rr.�anin�iul mar�r. As a resul�, at �e July 9, I999 ti1nSAC Operations Committee meeting the content and format of the Technical Advisor's Report and Comdor Report will be reviewed and revised. The intent of the review and revision of� the reports is to ensure the highest de�ree of communication inte�rity and provide pertinent information dissemination with respect to aircraft impact information for communities surrounding the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Draft report proposals will be submitted by iVletropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff at the 7uly 9, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting. The community perspective provided by the membership will be critical to the success of the review/revision session. To ensure proper resource utilization contributin� to the optimal outcome of the proposed Technical Advisor's Report and Corridor Report packages, all of the technological resources available should be considered, including but not limited to, Al'�10MS capabilities, internet capabilities and reportina capabilities. Committee member input will be critical to the success of this initia[ive, as a result, please come prepared with ideas and proposals for the new report formats and compositions. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 612-725-6328. NIIi�TUTES iYT.�.SAC OPERATIONS CONI1VIITTEE -- June 11, 1999 The meeting was held at the �Ietropolitan Airports Commission iv1ASAC Conference Trailer, and called to order at 10:00 a.m. The folIowin� members tivere in attendance: 1blembers: vlark Salmen, Chairman, NbVA Dick Saunders,-l�linneapolis Bob Johnson. NIBAA 7ot�n Nelson, BloominQ-ton vlavor Charies Ytenensotto, V(endota Hei�hcs Jamie VerbruQae, Eaaan . Kevin Batchelder, tYlendota Heights Advisorv- Chad Leqve -1vJAC Shane VanderVoort - MAC Roy Fuhrmann - tiIAC Cindy Greene - FAA Visitors- tilark Hinds, Richfield Neil Clark, �linneapolis Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights Jan DelCalzo bVendy Burt, MAC Public Information Officer AGENDA 1tiISP R W- UP PA.D � tVW� EtVG� T�ST CEZL TO UR DATES � Chairman Salmen confirmed the date of the �ISP Run-up Pad & N`VA EnQine Test CeII Tour to be .Tuly 3, 1999 from 9 a.m. until noon. Busses will load in front of the West Terminal BuildinQ by the Noise Department entrance at 8:�� a.m. Persons plannin� to attend should RSVP Shelly Lud�viQ, i�L�SAC Secretary at 612-736-8141 or Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor at 612-726-6326. IyIAS�C COtYLtifUNIC�TIOr�IS PROPOSAL — yYendy Burt, �YL4CPublic Irrformatio�i Offrcer (PIO) Wendy Burt briefed members on tlle Communications Proposal developed as a result of the i�Iay l�, .' 1999 NIASAC Operations NSeetinQ. The proposal hi�?hliQhted communication Qoals, key audiences, 1999 tactics, year 2000 tactics and an estimated cumulative budQet of $99,290 (see artachment): 1999 i lYIAC Website — enhanced, more user friendly format providinQ more information ��;000 ➢ City Newsletter — provide cities/communities with information for esisting ne�vsletters �4,090 2000 i Direct Ititail — flyers or postcards indicatin� resources and information about iti1t�,SAC �s0,000 i NlflSAC Commiinitv tVe3Usletter — published quarterly by i�Ir1C Staff �21,000 �-,c �nn :- Commu�zi 'ry tvew�przper �cive.*riserrie,rt — periodic acias abeuc meet;n�s anci pro,; ams ��,_�� ➢ Publiciiy — periodic l�IASAC pro�am news releases �9,000 I�Irs. Burt eYplained iVIAC Staff needs to take into consideration �vhere to budget for these tactics and �' � how to establish a process of collecting and distributing the information �ivin� e:camples of topics and -- information previous(y re(eased to the public and possible topics for future release. JOH�ti NELSON, BLOOiYL�i`tGTON iVIOVED TO ACCEPT THE COiY1iYILTiYICA�'IOi�t PROPOSAL A.�'�iD TO PRESENT IT TO THE FULL ' iY1ASAC BODY FOR REVIEtiV, SECOiYDED BY DICK SAUNDERS, lYLLtYi�iEAl'OLIS. AFTER A BRIEF DISCUSSTON, T'HE NIO'TION PASSED ITN:�.lYTiYIOUSLY. Iylelissa Scrovonski, i�SAC, will attend the neYt NIASAC Meetina, June 22, I999, to help ans�ver questions regarding the proposal from the Public Relations Department perspective. At this time, the minutes of the ylay 1:, 1999 �SAC Operations Committee 1�leeting rvere approved as presented. EAG.AN�IENDOT.A �IEIGHTS CO.RR.IDOR DEPf1RTUREPROCEDURES-Kim Hu�Ites, HtVTB tilrs. Hujhes presented an y1SP Part 1�0 Update Study brief highlighting the Ea�an/blendota HeiQhts Corridor and associated procedures. The presentation included d�e original corridor assumptions and history, operational use of the corridor, comp(iance, limitations and noise abatement measures to be considered: i Tl�e corridor �vas first analyzed in 1969. 2 C i In 199�, tiIAC completed the 1994 baseline contour, submittin� "crossinQ" proposa! data compared to the baseline, 2 proposa(s were initially considered: ~ - C Proposal 1: Whenever possibfe under rron-simultaneous departure conditions, maintain 105 degree Qround track on departures off Runway 12R and 118 dejree around track on departures offRunway 1?L. y + Proposal 2: Whenever possible, under simultaneous departure conc�itions, establish a northern boundary of 095 degree from Runway 12L, departure end and maintain a southern boundary alon� the south edge of the Runway 30L localizer. r Proposal 1—"Crossin� in the Corridor Procedure" was approved by tl�e FAA throu�h a findinQ of no significant impact (FONSI) and proposal 2 was removed due to the FAA's uncertainty about the feasibility for.e�ciency reasons. ; Analyses of corridor use and compliance �vith the boundaries revealed the use of the corridor I�as increased and compliance has been consistent since implementation. i SIMIvSOD analysis found narrowing the boundaries of the corridor would, for peak hour tra�c, result in si�nificant delays directly impactin� the capaciiy at iv1SP. The findinQs supported the FAA's initial hesitancy in 1996 relative to narrowing the corridor from an efficiency perspectrve. :- Maps indicated shiftin� the corridor to the north or�south would adversely impact r�idential properties in either direction. y Noise abatement procedures to be considered include: C Re-analyze close-in and distant departure procedures in the corridor with consideration of Hush-kitted aircraft perFormance. � : Validate effectaveness of current distant departi.ire procedure usage in corridor. C Investi�ate utilization of new technology to increase corridor edge compliance. C Research the development of standard departures based on esisting navaids and the possible application of F�IS and GPS technologies. C Evaluate variables related to increasin� operations on Run�vay 4-22. Kevin Batche(der, ylendota Heiahts, e;cpressed concerns about corridor compliance, the magnetic sl7ift relative to the corridor and land use compatibility. 3 i 1 Cindy Greene, Ft�., stated air traffic has no abiliry to maintain the proposed 09�. The F�, has done what they've al�vays said they could do and the 09�-de?ree document is flatived by imp(yin� air traifc is doinQ somethina wron; when it says they are nortll of something they never said they tivould stay within. ti1rs. Greene stated use of the 90 degree headin� will increase nest month and even more neYt year. Comp(iance isn't the issue; it's the increasina number of aircraft flyin� the 90-de�ree headinQ. ivfs. Greene suQgested the 095-deQree document should show e;tactly �vhat the cocridor is (090-de�-ee north boundary) and how �vell air trafftc is doin� what they are asked to do. � �Ir. Batchelder, commented that this points out the corridors bility to accommodate the increasin� tra�c and land use compatibility. He su�gested an analysis lookin� at the three mile cone and land use around the three mile cone on both sides of the corridor, taking into consideration land use 2-3 miles do�vnstream from the 3 mile corridor end, tivhich is heavily residentia(. The other issue Mr. Batchelder discussed was the lack of re(ief in the corridor because ofthe Iiti�ation which has resulted in a reduction in Runtivay 4-22 departure operations relative to the estimated 20%. NIr. $atchelder suagested an r' adjustment to the run�vay use system will need to be made to account for the new runway and asked why �e � they are still usinQ � when there are other options available. He e:cplained he didn't � understand the need to continually brin� planes in on run�vays 30L and 30R late at niaht when planes are depa�inQ on run�vavs 13L and 12R (head-ta-head), implyin�� ct;zre h«d �� be other optior��. . Will Eginton, Inver Grove Heights, stated the corridor and boundary issues affect his community as �vell. Looking at where the planes actually leave the b ound and make their 15-degree tum to the north . off of the north parallel rvnways at locations further back on the airport arounds puts the aircraft further into �Iendota HeiQhts and further to the north. Leaving the ground even 1000 feet sooner and applying the 15-degree anQle over a 6 mile run, makes quite a bit of �round track difference. In rejards to the original corridor assumptions, the two parallel runways do not meet the FAA's safety standards for sep3ration supporting centerline operations on both runways. Inver Grove Heijhts, after comp(etinQ their own destination study, believe the north diversion is part of the problern. �fare than 50% Of all the u(timate destinations are south of the runtivay centerlines, which they notiv turn north of. The feeling is, hardly a single plane would natura(ly fly over their community if it �vas not for the 15-de�ree separation requirement and the centerline requirement for the south paralleI during simultaneous operations. Ivlr. EQinton �vent onto state the assumptions when the corridor was initially set up. He stated there was no impact beyond 3 miles where the corridor ended which was based on the number of flights at that time. Due to no impact in the community, residents were not allowed to vote on issues. The number of flijhts taking place is much higher no�v, having a tremendous impact on the community. He asked for clarification that the Eagara/tilendota Heijhts Comdor is a noise distribution mechanism not an abatement pro�edure, and that it re-distributes noise from one place to another. He requested a study of distance from the rumvays verses noise generation for various planes to determine exactly when the noise from overfliQhts is no longer an impact and asked to generate operational procedures that maximize the use of the nois� absorptive areas. Roti• Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, asked for clarification of the request to refine the corridor bo�indaries rete; rin; to the 090, requestinQ proposal for the refinement. Kz�•in Batchelder, �tendota Heights, e:cplained tivhat �vas meant by refinement and referred to leokinQ at land uses trom an abatement prospective, �vith respect to �vhere the most compatible land uses are fuRher out than just the 3 mile cone. VIr. Batchelder mention the analysis of distant departures verses C close-in departures bein� based on a areater good for the greater whole instead of treating the �vorst first as it has been in the past esplainin� all analyses need to be consistent. - 1bSayor l�lertensotto, 1Vlendota HeiQhts, asked wl�en d1e use of tracks instead of lieadings was implemented. Chairman Salmen referenced proposal 1 implemented in 1995 wi�ich stated around tracks were to be used whenever possible under non-simultaneous departure conditions. � Neil Clark, iYfinneapolis, aslced i�1rs. Hughes to explain delays between aircraft and how that reiates to diversion. Mrs. Hu�hes esplained air traffic has to maintain certain separations between aircraft, under simultaneous conditions. She stated as a result of consistently departin� aircraft off the parallels making the distance bet�veen the aircraft smaller in concert with nvo streams on two separate runways resultin� in the need for heading divergence off one runway. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked l�Irs. Hujhes if the dua( track noise contours to the southeast e�tend beyond the land use area known �as the Eaaan Mendota HeiQhts corridor and if that contour �vas the LDN 65 or 60 and if any homes had been insulated beyond the 3-mile cone? Comments from members reflected onlv homes �vithin the LDN 6� l�ad been insuiated as part of the Part 1�0 Program. �Ir. Nelson clarified the follotivinv points which members had bron�ht un znd ��vere not ir�corporated in t�e corrdor brief: > Conduct a review on the analysis of the Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP) in the corridor. �C Assess the hush-kitted component in the determination of departure procedures in the corridor. C Validate if the distant departure procedure is applicable in ti�e corridor. Revie��v the ' consistency of the methods and philosophy used wit1� regard to various analyses and the departure procedures off the parallel run�vays in the corridor. � Better corridor edje compliance with the use of the GPS navaids, when available, for standard departures, and stated we need to address the issues I�1r. Batchelder expressed : Tl7e magnetic shift in the comdor. C Land uses further downstream from the end of the 3-mile cone. C The 15-deoree separation requirement on centerline departures. C InvestiQate GPS Standard Instrument Departures off Runway 17/35 using the river corridor :- Land use in an e:ctended cone. ti1r. Nelson su�Qested submitting the LDN 6� as the proposal and resolve the issues berive�n the 6� and 60 by takin� it up �vith the VI�C. The misapprehension is that the FtW tivon't fund out to 60. i�Sr. i l Nelson clarified a su�Qestion from N1r. Eginton regarding a distance verses impact study. Ivlr. Eginton stated beyond three miles it is almost impossible to generate a contour because the model puts such a small weighting on each event at that distance from the airport, yet Inver Grove Heights generates 5 times as many complaints monthly on avera�e as Eagan. He asked if there are 400-500 overfli�hts on a specific ground track, why can't a contour be generated � miles out. Chairman Salmen Qave the floor back to Kim Hu�hes, HNTB to finish her presentation including 15 s(ides showing the results of a destination analysis. The analysis hi�hli�hted flight track and produced the top I S destinations for the month of ivlarch off 12L & 12R and the top 5 destinations for each specific destination airport headin� range (85-125, 45-16�, 45-270, 270-165) from March of 1999. Chad Leqve, MAC Advisor, e:cplained the difFerence in the number of e:cpected and actual fli�ht operations. ANOIVIS takes the intended flijht schedule published by OAG, matching the fliQht numbers to the actual aircraft operations at the airport. Chan;es in flight numbers betrveen the time of the publication of the intended fli�ht schedule and the actual aircraft operations makes it impossible to tie the published data at 100% to the Ai�tOti1S data reflecting an 35.5% match rate. ;- 57% of departures off Run�vays t?L 3c 1?R went to destinations on Ileadings bet�veen 0�� and 16� de��rees from �icp. ➢ 9 of the top IS destinations are east of YISP, which is 23% of departures off Runways 1?L & 12R. Ti�e top 1� destinations included 9 to the southeast, 5 to the south�vest and 1 to the north�vest. Departures on Iocation headings from 45-degrees to 165-degrees = 4,142 or 56.7% of total departures. . ' ➢ Departures on location headings from 4�-degrees to 270-de�rees = 931 or 1?.7% of total departures. " ➢ Departures on location headings from 85-degrees to 125-dejrees = 2,714 or 37.1% of total departures. ➢ Departures on location headinas from 165-deQrees to 270-de�rees = 2,320 or 31.7% of total departures. Will Eginton, Inver Grove Hei�hts, stated diverting 50% of the planes north to brinj them back south didn't seem reasonable to communities under those fliQht trac;cs. Compass headinas to all major cities to the east and south reflect only a couple headings north of the centerlines of the parallel rumvays. The community �vas tivilling to take the noise from those fliahts but didn't understand tivhy fliQhts to Netiv Orleans would be diverted over their community on a 95-dearee headina. Cindy Greene, F.�.:� esplained in order to run the vo(ume of traffic that we have going to the eastern destinations, multiple variables need to be determined in tl�e initial routing for on-course heading assianments. : � C� Will E?inton, Inver Grove Heights, expressed concerns that iv1SP has outgrown the corridor established 25 years ago and the assumptions made at that time are no longer valid. Mr. Ejinton requested fooking at the impact of each fli�ht, the 90 deQa-ees of airspace that is a no fly zone and whether or not the corridor did wl�at it was established to do without impactin' something beyond the oriainal scope of impact. Inver Grove Heights is lookina for operations chanQes to allorv re(ief or an esplicit statement that the corridor is a noise re-distribution mechanism, which for the �reater �ood, chan�es noise from one area to another. Todd Rusher, Tnver Grove Heights requested a three dimensional analysis for noise incorporating altitude. Chairman Salmen eYplained this request has already been made along with a request to re- evaluate the noise abatement departure profiles, tivhich should cover i1�Ir. Rusher's request. Lance Staricha, Eaaan, stated a lot of tlleories l�ave been expressed at this meetin' tivhich he could contest or comment on but didn't. He explained Eagan is not ansious for chan�es in the corridor and they hope the issues wi11 be approached reasonably. Jamie Ve,bruV�e, Easan, stated airolanes s;ioul� be concehtrated in areas that are land campatible verses spreadin� d�at impact around �nd increasing number of people who are most hi�hly impacted. Kim Hughes, HNTB, stated at this point, the plan is to evaluate departure procedures and altitude analysis. Chairman Salmen stated the northern boundary needs to be evaluated and determine if the ma�netic change has had an impact. Jill Smith, Ivlendota Heishts, brought up the issue of the impact of the corridor beyond the 3-mile cone and future impacts beinQ imposed on other people through increased tra�c and operational confi�urations. y CONSTR UCTIOtV U.1'DATE — Roy Fuhrmann, Teclinical A�lvisor Ivlr. Fuhrmann eYplained the construction project is in the 9th week and is currently at a 35% completion rate. UnderQround storm and electrical work is 90% complete and eYcavated soils nearly 75% complete. Concrete work �vill begin by the end of neYt week. Ten days were lost due to weather and the anticipated completion date remains Labor Day. PART 1.50 UPDATE — Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor ivlr. Fuhrmann briefly updated members on the progress of the Part 1�0 Study. The timetab(e remains the same for the mid 2000 submittal. Letters have been mailed to various communities establishing a contact person and requestina the most recent land use from the contacted communities. Responses tivere requested by July l2, 1999. Chairman Salmen asked members to review the hard copy of the presentation by Kim Huahes, �-NTB and fortivard comments not covered in today's meeting to Shelly Lud�vig, Committee Secretary via mail 7 C ; � at 6040 23t1� Ave S, ylinneapolis, NfN >j��0 or fax to 612-72�-6310. The ne:ct NIASAC Operations ivfeeting will be he(d in the small trailer Ju(y 9, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. The meetin� was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Shelly Ludwig, Committee Secretary 0 � C C MASA C NOISE MONI TORING AND 1'NFORMA TION :�ZE'O UEST FO.RM 1999 A TT� CH ANY LE7TERS OR Date: ,q�� On whose behalf are you ret�uesting: Name: � j� �'rrj'�� Yourself � Address: �rj � � jy�,�� t✓ City Council ! l �i0�� Mayor _ � �' S��' � � . Citizen P1-:�.^.�. � � �"'! �- 1� r.�r"i .�+�'• � . � i ur�anization . � - . Other 'Is this a one-time request: Yes �r 3va � �_ Beginning Enci.ing . If no, what is the eapecterl time frame for this request? tp Which of the folIowing best describes the nature of your request: (Circle all that apply) , _ Ground Noise Overtlights � Run-Ups Contours Part 150 Other FORMAL RES`OL UTIONS _ � � � �� .1 . �.r; �: • .- � or 1 v e --.�.. ��s . p �u�� Over �lease C �� C Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee �, Wednesday, May 19, 1999 Room 3040, Lindbergh Terminai Wold-Chamberlain Field MINUTES The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee meeting was called to order at 3:40 p.m. The following were in attendance: Members: Mike Sandahl, Richfield; John Himle, MAC; Sandy Colvin Roy, Minneapolis; Larry Lee, Bloomington Technical Support: Gien Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration; Brian Timerson, MPCA; Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council; D. Saunders, M. Salmen, MASAC Expert Panel: Andrew Harris, HMMH; Sanford Fidell, BBN Others: N. Finney, J. Unruh, C. Leqve, J. Giesen, MAC; B. Johnson, MBAA; S. Dibble, J. Del Calzo, City of Minneapolis; M. Hinds, D. Brauer, City of Richfield; D. Pemberton, Richfield CARE; J. Sayre, Norihwest Airlines APPROVAL OF MINUTES IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY COLVIN ROY, TO APPROVE THE t } MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28, 1999 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED. 2. LOW FREQUENCY NOISE METRIC RECOMMENDATION — REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT CHAPTER Andrew Harris, HMMH, presented information regarding the noise descriptors under consideration. Two potential descriptors were identified for further study: maximum LF sum (25 to 80 Hz level) and C-weighted sound levels. Mr. Harris reviewed the analysis used and measurements taken in evaluating which descriptor to recommend for the LFN study. Based on the analysis, the Expert Panel recommended use of the maximum LF sum (25 to 80 Hz) as the descriptor for LFN. Although it is not as easy to measure as C- weighting, the maximum LF sum looks at the frequency range of interest and has been used in LF studies at other airports. Discussion followed with Sandy Colvin Roy suggesting that the Expert Panel factor into the recommendations consideration of what will be most acceptable to the FAA and others in the industry reviewing the results. Mr. Harris � responded that the only descriptor that he feels the FAA would readily adopt is A-weighted levels. He indicated that the technical information would include information that justifies the use of the maximum LF sum as the descriptor. He also stated that the FAA may look at the value of DNL that corresponds to the final criterion that is adopted. If the criterion draws a line that is similar to a DNL of 60, the FAA may be willing to treat LFN in those locations. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee May 19, 1999 Page 2 John Himle asked if other communities working on LFN issues have gone to the FAA with recommendations and if there are any guidelines that suggest using a particular metric. Sandford Fidell, BBN, and Glen Orcutt, FAA, responded that the program at Baltimore is the only LFN approval at this time. Mr. Harris indicated that the Expert Panel is planning to meet with the FAA to discuss the direction the MSP study is taking and to discuss policy issues that they feel may arise. IT WAS MOVED BY SANDAHL, SECONDED BY COLVIN ROY, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXPERT PANEL, THAT THE MAXIMUM LOW FREQUENCY SUM (25 to 80 Hz) BE USED AS THE DESCRIPTOR FOR LOW FREQUENCY NOISE AROUND MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED. 3. UPDATE — CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABILITY OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE IN RESIDENCES Sandford Fidell, BBN, reported that an experiment was conducted asking people about annoyance from sideline noise compared to overflight noise and sideline noise with and without rattle. The experiment also looked ai the effect of varying degrees of C-weighted noise reduction. Mr. Fidell reviewed the method and techniques used to carry out the experiment and provided a brief summary of the results. Mr. Fidell also reported on the social survey currently being designed to be conducted in the area north of the intersection of Runway 4/22 and 12U30R. Results of the field and laboratory testing will be included in the final report of the LFNPC. 4. UPDATE — TYPES OF TREATMENT REQUIRED TO IMPROVE NOISE REDUCTION Mr. Harris reported that HMMH is in the process of taking measurements of low frequency noise in areas directly northeast of the airport in Minneapolis and west of the airport in Richfield in homes that have either been insulated or are scheduled to be insulated through the MSP Sound Insulation Program. Mr. Harris provided preliminary results of same of the homes that have been tested. Mr. Himle asked if the data holds and the level of LFN attenuation due to construction standards, etc. is higher than originally thaught will the real issue be dealing with rattle rather than trying to attenuate the level of low frequency noise within the structure. Mr. Fidell responded that the structural vibration causes the rattle and some action would be necessary to stop the rattle. Laboratory measurements will start in the next few weeks. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. C MA.SAC/MAC Community Outreach Frogram 6-1�-99 Goal • Unify understanding of MASAC's charter and purpose • Communicate information to the publics MASAC is designed to serve Key Audiences • Residents in MASAC member communities o Community outreach or communications staff person for member communities, cities and organizations e Appointing bodies and key constituents • Minnesota Legislature Tactics to be phased in: X999 -- � MAC Website - Use MAC web site as a communications vehicle by expanding � 1 community section. A new web site is already underway that will include information about MASAC, its programs, frequently asked questions and answers and program updates for the less technically inclined. New information on the "community and environmental issues" section will include more explanation about noise for the general public in layman's terms. � City Newsletters - Regularly send MASAC information (program updates, meeting notices, etc.) to community and organizatians that can be included in their own newsletters. 2000 Direct Mail - Publish and distribute a flyer or post cazd that can be direct mailed to residents in MASAC member communities. It would include information about MASAC and its programs. Additionally, it would include the hotline number, web site address and ask people to request the MASAC newsletter. To conserve budget, we can explore alternatives to mail such as inserting it in community newspapers. MASAC Community Newsletter - Publish a quarterly newsletter with new developments and updates on MASAC program and distribute it to key audiences including residents who request it from the direct mailer. The newsletter can be a simple four-page, 8-1/2" X 11", two-color, self-mailer format. One issue per year can serve as the "annual report." Community Newspaper Advertising - Periodically produce and place ads about MASAC programs and meetings in community newspapers. C Publicity - Develop and place news stories about MASAC programs in community newspapers. An option to this program is to incorporate some of these tactics into the Part 150 update that is underway. Budget: 1999 Community and Environment Issues expanded Web page $5,000 (This includes internet consultant time. In addition, the Environment Dept has detailed an employee to public affairs who is spending'h to 3/a of her time a week writing and developing new copy for the site, which includes more information about MASAC) City Newsletters (send quarterly news release to editors) $ 4,090 Initial set-up $ 650 Attend meeting quarterly, issue news release and contact city newsletter editors, $860 per quarter 2000 MASAC Newsletter (2,500 two sided, self-mailers, published 21,000 � quarterly, $5,250 per issue) Copy and graphic design, $2,500 per issue Printing $750 Lists and mailing $1,000 Coordination $1,000 Direct Mail Program (60,000 pieces) Postage (pre-sort, non-profit rate, .09 each) $5,400 Lists and handling (.15 per) $9,000 Graphic Design $1,500 Printing (post card, 2-sides, 2-color) $15,000 Copy writing and coordination $7,500 Contingency $1,600 .- Community (Weekly) Newspaper Advertisements Copy writing and graphics ad, $2,700 per quarter Estimate cost for 4 quarter-page ads, $ 3,600 per quarter 25,200 Publicity AIlocation for contacting editors and suggesting and faciIitating stories throughout the year. Total Annual Budget • 111 $99,290 Resources required: In addition to a commitment to fund additional community activities, staff or consultants will be required. Public affairs consultants, such as MAC's continuing consulting firm, � Padilla Speer Beardsley, will have to be utilized. Or, Public Affairs or Environment Department should consider additional staff who cauld do some of the legwork and writing. C� � � N H � v� O "' aa c� O Q" � ,� � ..0 . � � :,F -� t� � C� O � � r �� O � � � � � � � O � U � � � O � v�i N � O C31 O '� � + � �j U � � � -� .fl v� _ "b � O U ''"' .� �°i U a� � � �� a' o a� ,.�,, U .ti � � CS� U �' :" � �� ...(�� .S"'." ,� � � � � � > � � a � � r-�; . [ ,� N ..fl � � ��^ �� ...�+1.! (,H � • "�" p � U O � p � O .,..� «Y 4-� h � a U� M N � �Y r .• 'M-� *� N W � M h M � N b � �? M N M O O o O O' c O O O O O �� C � � M M � � � < 00 �t P� t� Q1 ^^ � N N �-+ --� � M c b4645R69Ff3��6 � � � � � � � � v, cT �r �n r� r; �n < d' vi O d' O O v1 � FFt 63 ��--� N N N 64f�b4b46R6 � � xxxx�xx� Q� M tT M�.,a [� N�- � N� 0�0 � O�O , G1 c�+ � N M d' V1 �O [`� oo C o,cTrno�o,rnrnc 41 Q� Q� G� Q� CT Q� C .-� .-. .-+ cn � H O Rpr 08 99 02:26P Charles E. Mertensotto (6121 222-4?55 p.l Aircraft Noise Ordinance Pubfic Nearing Draft } March 3'i, 1999 METROPOLITAN A(RPORTS COMMlSSiON C}RDlNANCE NO. _ An Otdinance #o promote and conserve the pubiic safety, heaith, peace, convenience and weifare; to regulate aircraft noise at Minneapolis-St. Paul (nternational Airport by prohibiting operation of aircraft excesding the noise limits established under federal law for Stage 3 Aircraft as of January 1, 2000, and prescribing the penalty for vioiation ihereof. WHEREAS, Congress passed #he Airport Naise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521- 47533, in 1990, which requires that all aircraft that da not meef Stage 3 certification requiremen#s must be phased out by December 31, 1999, but allows carr�ers to request a waiver delaying such reguirements; and -� WNEREAS, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act and fhe associated Department . of Transportation regulations al(ow local airport operators to enact rnare stringent restrictions on non-Stage 3 aircraft operators; and � ,., WHEREAS, the 1996 Minnesota Legislature, expressing concern tor aircraft noise � ) (evels, passed a law requiring fhe Commission to prohibit operatian of aircraft not complying with Stage 3 noise fevels at the Airport after December 31, 1999, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.608, subdivision 24; and WHEREAS, the Cammission has conducted an analysis of such a restriction and cornplied with United Sfates Code, title 49, section 47�24(b) and other applicable federai requirements; and WHEREAS, the Commissian has the authority to adopt ordinances according to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.608, subdivision 17(1). NOW THEREFORE, the Metropolitan Airports Commission does ordain: SECT'lON 1 — DEFINlTlQhS 1.1 Aircraft. A civil subsonic turbojet airplane with a maximum certificated weight greater than 75,Op0 pounds, or as otherwise d�Tined in 49 U.S.C. §�7528�a). 1.2 Airport. Minneapofis-St. Paul Intemational Airport locaied in Hennepin County, Minnesata. 1.3 Cornmission. The Metropolitan Airparts Cornmission, a public corporation organized and operating pursuant to Chapter 500, Laws of Minnesota '! 943 and amendments thereto. 1.4 FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Government ar any federal agEncies succeeding to its jurisdicfion. - 1 C C Apr 08 99 02:26p Charles E. Mertensotto (6121 222-4755 p.2 Aircraft Noise Ordinance Public Hearing Drat# 1.5 March 31, lggg Staqe 2 Aircraft. An aircraft as determined in accordance with section 36.1(�, Title 14, Code of Federal Reguiations, and �ederal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 36-3G, Estimated Airaiane Noise Levels in A-WeiQhted Decibels, or successor docurnents. 1.6 Staqe 3 Aircraft. An aircraft as determined in accarda�ce with section 36.1(fl, Titte 14, Code af Federal Regulations, and Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 36-3G, Esfimated Air�lane Noise Levels in A-Weiohted Decibels, or successor docurnents_ S�CTION 2— AIRCRAFT NOISE RESTR1CT10NS 2.1 2.2 Operatina Resiriction No person sha(I operate af the Airpart an Aircraft exceeding the noise limits established under federal laws far Stage 3 Aircraft: EmerQencv Exemotion Air carriers operating S#age 2 Aircraft wifhin fhe continentat United States and enroute in the National Airspace System which experience an inflight emergency and must be diverted to the Airport for safety reasons are exempt frorn this Ordinance. � SECTION 3 — GENERAL PROVISIONS 3• � Enforcement 3.2 3. 3 Enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance may be by any action permifted by faw, including injunctive relief or enfiorcement through a tenant's lease. Provisions Severable !f any part or parts of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid, this does nof atrect the validity of the re;riaining pa�ts ofi ti�is Ordinance. 7�he Commis�ion declares it would have passed the remaining parts of thrs Ordinance without the unenforceable provisions. Effective Date This Ordinance is effective as of January 1, 200p. ONnose ordtnnnce pUGk hoar.np yn� C (. Rpr 08 99 02:2�p Charles E. Mertensotto f6121 222-4755 )n order to enforce the state legislative mandate, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has begun the process required under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 161 to impose airport noise rules and ban Stage 2 aircraft at the Minneapolis-St. Pau! Internatiana( Airport. As part of this effort, the Cornmission has prepared a cosUbenefit analysis of the noise restrictian required under Part 161, and wilf provide all interested parties the opportunity to comment on the propased Ordinance. Additionalty, the Commission has requested fhe airfines petitioning for Federal waivers voiuntarily to agree not to serve the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with any aircraft that will not meef Stage 3 noise standards after December 31, 1999. Notice of Proposed Restriction The following particu(ars are provided herein pursuant to the requirements of 14 C.F.R. 161.203: (�) A►rport• The proposed O�dinance applies to Minneapolis-St. Pau! lnternational A'rrport, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Jurisdiction af the Metrapolitan Airports Commission encompasses the seven county metropolitan area. {�) Description. The proposed Ordinance prohibits aperation of aircraft exceeding the noise Eirnits estabfished under federal !aw for Stage 3 aircraft at Minneapofis-St. Paui Internaiional Airport after December 31, 1999. This is a rnandatory Stage 2 restriction for civil s�bsonic turbajet airplanes with a maximum certificated weight greater than �5,000 paunds, or as otherwise defined in 49 U.S.C. § 47528(a). The complete texi of the Ordinance, including sanctions for nancomAliance, is avaifable for public inspection as stated in Paragraph 9. i3} Need for Restriciion and Goa). MAC is required to implement the resiriction by Minn. Stat. § 473.608, subd. 24. The goal is to prohibit the operation at MSP of any aircraft not meeting Stage 3 requirements with a maximum ce�tificated weight greater than 75,Op0 pounds, or as otherwise defined in 49 U.S.C. § 47528(a) after December 31, 1999 in order to limit aircraft noise in the Minneapolis-St. Pau( metropolitan area. {4) Affected 4Rerators and Aircraft. The only operators that may be affected by fhis restriction are tf�ose operating aircraft ihat do not meet Stage 3 requirernents and that may receive waivers or exemptions from the requirement of 49 U.S_C. § 47528(a) or which fail to compiy with such sfatutory requirements. The types of aircraft expected to be a�fected include airc.afi powered by the JT-8D type ofi engine, or similar engine, fhat have not been rnodified to comply with Stage 3 noise (evels, which aircraft inc)ude, but are not lirnited to: DC-8, DG9, 8-707, B-720, 8-727, L-1011, and certain 8-737, B747, and DC-10. (5) Effective Date Method af ImQlementation Enforcement Mechanisrn. The proposed effective date is January 1, 2000. The restriction will be impiernented by MAC Ordinance pursuant to Minn. �Stat.�-§ ��73.8p8, subd. ��•�(��j, --Proposed enforcement mechanisms include injunction against operations in violation of the Ordinance and such other enforcement mechanisms as authorized by Eaw. � i �6) Analvsis of Proposed Restriction. MAC consultants have prepared an Analysis of the -' PraPpsed Ordinance according to 14 C.F.R. Par't 161.205. The Analysis is available for inspection as stated in Paragraph 9, p.3 C ( Rpr 08 99 02:Z7p Charles E. Mertensotto (6121 222-4755 p.4 (7) Comment Perioci. MAC invites comments on the Analysis and proposed Ordinance. The deadline for comments is May 21, 1999. Written comments shall be submitted to the name and address stated in Paragraph 9. (8) Co ies. Copies �f the complete text of fhe Analysis and proposed Ordinance, inctuding a�Y Sanctions for noncompfiance, may be obfained by contacting MAC as stated in Paragraph 9. ig) Contact Name and Address. Rebecca Zwart Metropo(itan Airporfs Commissian 6040 — 2$�' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN �5450 Phone: (612} 726-8197 Fax; (612} 726-53Q6 Email: rzwarf@rnspmac.org _ Dated this 5th day of April, 19gg. Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel Execufive Director - Mefropofitan Airports Commission � ) 6040 — 2g�'' qVenue Sauth 11�1inneapolis, MN 56450 GUneae ord, Notka final .... ................_._...._ . ��'ROP�L�I�' � i�RT'S �i�i�l. SSIC�I� EPPj-"5 S4jti, Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport �j t'� 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 � o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 at y t a O N �0 F o �, q 'f G� ry 41RPOAt� June 1�, 1999 Kevin Wendland 10125 Yukon Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55438 Dear Mr. Wendland I am writi.ng in response to your letter regarding the distribution of hearing protection to residents in close proximity to Minneanolis S� Paul International Airport. The Metropo�itan Air}�orts Comrsission {M_AC) would like to assure you of our continuous efforts to be sensitive to the feelings of those who live in close proximity to Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airpart (MSP). There is no doubt the airport imposes an impact on our neighboring communities. As a result, the MAC is continuing to explore ways of minimizing the irnpact of airport noise on surrounding communities. In regard to providing hearing protection, as outlined by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1VIOS�, applying workplace standards to our communities would provide discontinuity between the intent and framework of standards such as those provided as part of 1VIOSH and .the community � environment setting which you are referring to. While it is true that aircraft overflights can produce sound pressure levels exceeding 1QOcIBa near the airport, the cumulative levels in most cases don't meet the 1VIOSH threshold guideline that would require an employer to rnandate hearing protection. MAC is continuously striving to achieve a quieter environmen� We have made great strides to ensure the federally mandated year 2000 phase-out of older, noisier stage 2 aircraft that will occur at MSP, regardless of the success of air cazrier waiver applications to the federal government. MAC has continued our pursuit of decreasing nighttime noise by solidifying a voluntary nighttime agreement with airlines operating at the airport in an effort to exclude stage 2 operations at night and in cases of operational necessity, endorse the use of quieter stage 3 aircraft. In addition to tbe mentioned aircraft and ogerational specific measures MAC has spent 110.7 million dollars on the Sound Insulation Program as of April 22, 1999, as well as, countless other programs and efforts intended to make our surrounding communities a better place to live and raise a family. I can assure you that the MAC is diligent in our pursuit of continuing to investigate all measures available to the MAC to provide effective noise reduction around MSP. I hope this letter has answered your questions completely. I invite you to attend one� of the monthly Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) meetings held at 7:30 PM the fourth Tuesday of every month, at the MAC general office, located at 6040 28th Avenue South, in Minneapolis. MASAC brings together the public, airport users and MAC officials to address and comment on noise and operational issues at the airport. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIF:LAKE . ANOKA COCTNTY/HLAINE . CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELIvtO • SAINT PAUL DOWN'POWN If you have any further questions please contact Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program Manager at 612-725-6326. S' ely, Je ey H 'el Execurive Director, MEROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION cc: Mr. 7ames Verbrugge, Assistant City Administrator, Eagan Mr. Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator, Mendota Heights Mr. Steven Devich, Acting City Manager, Richfield Mr. Steven Bianchi, Deputy Mayor, Bloomington Mr. Chazles Eginton, MASAC Representative, Inver Grove Heights page 2 May 17, 1999 Mr. Jeff W. Hamiel Executive Disector Metropolitan .Airports Corsunission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Hanuel, PROVIDING Et1R PROTECTTON TO RESIDENTS It has come to mp attention that several of the RMT sites have been documenting noise events e$ceeding 100dbz's. Because permanent ear damage occurs at these levels (1), with only 15 minutes of exposure per day, residents near these RMT's must be provided with NIOSH appraved ear protection. I am especially concerned with chiidren, since they tend to be outside more duxing the summer months than adults. S' er , � ,� �� .'•', Kevin wendland cc: James Verbrugge, Assistant City Administrator -��. Kevin Batchelde� City Aclministrator .Tv ye-t ,,1-L. Stenen L. Devich, Acting City Manager -x /?. ;`; �;.; ;�, .,...%,.-:, Steve Bianchi, Deputy Mapor ---y (3 (a a r- ��--, � � Charles W. Egintoq MASAC Representative -� � G.fi_ " (1) NIOSH (1998). Occupational Noise Exposure revised crite=ia. Criteria For A Recommended Standard. 10125 YUKON AVE. S. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 �� . ;� ,�� `� ,* , r � �� ' � � � f h � � i �� '�� , '�7, ti S, � ;f , ✓�•'' � ..�'- /� �,;" ��' „ ' i; �'�r � ��_ � ,. ,,; .. . :�, , r. -.."., ... _.,... , -�..,- 4��;: ERIC TORBENSON sTaFFwR�TER nited Airiines wiil take a gate away frorn Eagan-based Northwesi Airlines this fall, with the Metropolitan Airports Commission on Monday approving the switch. United has added up to 500 more seats for its routes from Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport, a move ihat has created big crowds around its three gaies 7 CONTINUED FROM lE spokeswoman for Northwest. The camer doesn't know yet which flights might be lost. While commissioners laaded tiie prospect of adding more competi- tifln against Northwest, United re- mained mnm ahout the. chance of adding more flights because of the new gate. United's Tvvin Cities ser- vice has been profitabl� Ieading to the increase in seats, and the prospect of more routes hasn't be+en ruled out, said spokesman Joe Hopkins. � "We're always evaluating our markets," he said. � lYorthwest has used the gate be- tween six and seven times daily, near its airport � average of 7.2 times ger gate. Under the terms of United's lease, the MA.0 will re- view how United uses the.gate af- ier three months. Manq of the air- port's 70 gates are under short-term leases, allowing ihe MAC to switch them to other car- riers on three months' notice. United will have four gates com- pared with Northwest's 54 after the switch. United's 26 daily flights compare with Narthwest's nearly 500. United withdrew its initial re- quest to let some of its turbopro- peller planes use Ehe e�tra gate. Turboprop planes are confined to a regional airline gates on the Green Concourse. The airports commission decided Monday to keep all turboprop planes away from gates designated for jets. United had wanted to put its smaller planes closer to its jets to facilitate moving baggage and passengers to its larger planes. In other 14SAC news, the con- ';! in the Blue Concourse. Starting Oct. 1, Chicago-based United will have full use of a fourth gate, No. 43 on the Blue Concouise. Northwest said the loss of a gate may force it to cut ser7ice. The airiine con- trols 55 out of 70`gates at the airport. "If we need"to cut a flight, we'll attempt to make� it the least inconvenient ,., :. for our passengers," said Marta Laughlin, ._�`GATE coKriNUE� oN 8E l Uniied remaine€1 mum al�oart �he Cl�ail+Ge O# 's]dta9tlg :;IOt L' �Ig�i�'S �Cat�S@ O� �I@ pEW ga'��. struction of the new Hubert I3. Humphrey terminal conti.nues to be on schedule for a March 2001 opening,. and MAC Staff unveiled the fust computerized renderings. The new two-story terininal will feature five�gates (egpandable to eight) and 44 ticketing stations to be used by both charter planes and Mendota Heights-based Sun Coun- trp Airlines' scheduled service. Sun Country will use iour of the first five gates and 16 ticketing stations. MAC will award ifis first contract for the new terminal next month. The Twin GSties area sup- ports the nation's largest charter air market. Eric Torbenson, who covers airiines, can be reached at etorbenson @pio�eer- press.com or (651) 228-5435. EARNINGS r1 , HEI Thirti Qtr, ended May 29 �sss issa Sales 55,032,C00 So.026.000 Net inc. S(176,000) 53-S7,000 poss) P=r Share S(0.04) 50.08 Nine Mon[hs Saies S 18,220,000 g 14,738,CC0 Net Inc. 5{70,000) S»�37,G`00 (Ioss) Per Share 5(0.02) 30.I i HEI (Nasdaq: HEII), Victoria, designs and makes ult2miniature microelectronic �evices and high-technolog� products using those Ce- vices. - '_ ___ _- .. . .._ . . . . . .... ._. ... . .. . . . . _.. . . _...I . .. . . .. . . W . . . . .. .. . ... �, . �