09-09-1998 ARC Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
CITY OF MEIVDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AGENDA
September 9, 1998- 7 p.m. - Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of August 12, 1998 Minutes.
Unfinished and New Business:
, a. Preliminary Discussion of Sound Attenuation Ordinance
�tR� tJw r� b. Introduction of Ground Noise Study Report (Available Wednesday)
Osuu�re�.,
5. Updates
�
�
:
MASAC Handbook
Airport Plan of Action (Enclosed in Friday Packet)
Letter to MASAC on Corridor Departures
Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
Airport Noise Reports for July 31, 1998
MASAC Agenda for August 25, 1998 and July 2$, 1998 Minutes
MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for July 1998
MASAC Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis for July 1998
MASAC Monthly Complaint Summary for July 1998
Eagan ARC Agenda for September 8, 1998
City of Richfield Letter to MASAC August 24, 1998
Other Comments or Concerns.
., .
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 City ofi 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 HEIGHTS
September 4, 1998
To: Airport Relations Commission
��
From: Kevin Batchelder, City Adml ��
Subject: Unfinished and New Business for September Meeting
DISCUSSION
This memo will cover the two items on the agenda for Unfinished and New Business.
Preliminary Discussion of Sound Attenuation Ordinance - Based on discussions held
during the April Comprehensive Plan Workshop, and subsequent City Council
workshops, the Council wants the Commission to consider the usefulness of the current
Sound Attenuation Ordinance. (Please see attached copy of the Ordinance.)
Wednesday evening's discussion is intended to be prelilninary in nature, intended to re-
introduce the Commission to the Ordinance, and inform the Commission about
discussions held at the Council workshops regarding this Ordinance.
The Corrunission will recall that during the Comprehensive Plan workshop in April, the
recent changes by the Metropolitan Council to their Aviation Guideplan Air Noise
Zones increased the size of the noise zones in Mendota Heights. The City's existing
sound attenuation Ordinance was adopted at a time when the noise zones were smaller
in area and closer to the airport. This increase in air noise zones has created a number
of land use issues, as well as, legal issues relating to zoning and comprehensive plans.
Staff will be prepared to update the Commission on these issues for a discussion about
the cunent ordinance.
2. Ground Noise Studv - At the August 14, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee
meeting, MAC staff presented their Ground Noise Study and a preliminary discussion
was held. (Please refer to August 14, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee minutes in
the MASAC Agenda Packet that is included under Acknowledgments on your agenda.)
The discussion at MASAC Operations was continued for one month to allow MAC staff
to research sound attenuation technology for run-up pad enclosures. MAC staff is
producing 7 extra copies of this lengthy study for distribution to our Commission
members on Wednesday evening and we will introduce the report to the Commission at
that time.
�
�
Codified As Ordinance tt1509
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOT�
ORDINANCE NO. 23�_
ORDINANCE FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENU�TION
An Ordinance promoting the health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens o� Mendota Heights, Minnesota,
requiring compliance with noise reduction standards
in building construction.
SECTION 1. Statutorv Authoritv
This ordinance is adop�ed pursuant to M.S. Chapter .155, 473.192.
SECTION 2. Findinqs of Fact
The City of Mendota Heights finds that development within certain areas
of the City is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the
regulatory authority of the City to control; that certain uses of land are
inapproprlate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not
adequately attenuate aircraft nose resulting in negative impacts on the
health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the
structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to
attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative :
impacts; and that the requiremen�s of this ordinance are necessary to f,
promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Mendota Heights.
SECTION 3. Purpose
The purpose of this Ordinance is to require that new or redeveloped
portions of buildings within.the City of Mendota Heights be constructed with
materials and in such a manner that aircraft noise is attenuatec7. by the
structure to an interior level which has no adverse impac�. on the health,
safety and general welfare of the residents, all in accordance with the
Metropolitan Council's Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft
Noise. This ordinance shall not apply to remodeling or rehabilitating an
existing residential building, nor to the construction of an appurtenance to
an existing residential building.
SECTION 4. Definitions
For purposes of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this section have
the meanings given them in this section.
AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONE. Aircraft Noise Zone means any one of the four zones
identified on the map attached hereto as AppendiY A and incorporated herein.
CONSISTENT: Land uses that are acceptable.
dBA. dEA means a unit of sound pressure level weighted by use of the A
metering characteristics and weighting as speciiied in the American Nationa�
Standards Institute Specification for Sound Level Meters (ANSI 51.4-1983),
which is hereby incarporated by reference. dBA is also referred ta as an A-
weighted decibel.
INCONSISTENT: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical
treatment were incorporated in the structure.
"INFILL DEVELOPMENT" pertains to an undeveloped parcel or parcels of land
proposed for development similar to or less noise-sensitive than the
developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcel (for example, a new
house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a
vacant parcel in an established industrial area).
Leq. Leq means the equivalent continuous saund level which over the period
of one haur has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.
Ldn. Ldn means the day-night average level, or the 2a-hour equivalent
continuous sound level (time-averaged A-weighted sound level) from midnight
to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels measured
from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
"MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT" means a relatively large parcel of land with all
structures proposed for extensive rehabilitation or demolition, and
different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and
hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of
,__� warehouse to office and commercial uses}.
�
-) "NEW DEVELOPMENT" means a relatively large, undeveloped tract of land
proposed ior development (for example, a residential subdivision, industrial
park or shopping center).
NOISE REDUCTION I�EVEL. Noise reduction level means the difference between
the exterior and interior sound level, e�ressed in dBA, which is achieved
by the intervening structure.
RECOGNIZED ACOUSTICAL SPECIALIST. A recognized acoustical specialist means
a person qualified by education and experience to conduct saund analysis of
buildings and approved for such purpose by the City. The approved
individual shall have at least three years of experience in the field of
sound control; a degree from a recognized institute of higher learning in
the process of sound analysis of buildings.
"RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES" pertains to replacing a
structure destroyed by fire, age, etc., to accommodate the same use that
existed before destruc-tion, or expanding a structure to accommodate
increased demand for existing use, but does not pertain to remodeling or
rehabilitating existing residential buildings nor to the construction of an
appurtenance to an existing residential building.
SOUND. Sound means energy that is transnitted by pressure waves in the air
or in other materials and is the objective cause of the sensation of
hearing. It is commonly called noise if it is unwanted.
SOUND ATTENUATION. Sound attenuation means the reduction in sound level
which occurs between the source and receiver.
SOUND LEAK. Sound leak means an opening in a structure through which sound
can pass. Sound leaks are often extremely small holes or cracks. In
general, an air leak is a sound leal.
SOUND LEVEL. Sound level means the level of sound pressure measured with a
sound level meter and one of its weighting (frequency) networks. When A-
weighting is used, the sound level is expressed as dBA.
SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS (STC). Sound transmission class means a single-
number rating for describing the degree of sound transmission loss specified
for a wall, window, partition or other building element. The higher the
STC, the more attenuation the building element will afford.
SECTION 5. Scope and Effect
The Aircrait Noise Zones established by this Ordinance shall overlay
the zoning districts established by Ordinance No. a01, adopted April 3,
1962, so that any parcel of land lying in an overlay zane shall also lie on
one or more of the established zoning districts. Territory within a given
overlay zone shall be subject to the requirements established by the other
applicable ordinances and regulations of the City. Within each adopted
overlay zone, all uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations
for the underlying zoning districts, provided, however, that the apprapria�
building permit is first obtained, and provided further that no use
designated as inconsistent on the Noise Compatibility Tables, attached '
hereto as Appendix B and incorporated herein, shall be permitted. This
Ordinance applies to all construction and any reconstructed portion of a
building requiring a building permit after the effective date of this
Ordinance except remodeling or rehabilitation of an existing residential
building or the construction of an appurtenance to an existing residential
building.
SECTION 6. Prerequisites to Issuance of Buildina or OccuAancv Permit
Any application for a City of Mendota Heights building or occupancy
permit pertaining to land located in an Aircraft Naise Zone must demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance prior to the issuance of
such permit.
SECTION 7. Establishment of Zones
The following Aircraft Noise Zones are hereby es�ablished as part of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Citv of rlendota Heiahts.
Aircraft Noise Zone I
Aircraft Noise Zone II
Aircraft Noise Zone III
Aircraft Noise Zone IV
The boundaries of the Aircraft Noise zones are as delinea�ed on the diagram
att h d
ac e hereto as Appendlx A and incorporated hereln. (.
SECTION 8. Noise CompatibilitV Tables
All construction or reconstruction requiring a building permit and
located within an Aircraft Noise Zone shall be constructed in such a way
that the applicable noise level reduction requirements contained in the
Noise Compatibility Tables (Appendix B) are met or exceeded. Where a
particular structure contains different land uses, the more stringent
requirements of the applicable table shall apply, except where it is
architecturally possible to achieve the approprzate noise reduction level
for each diiferent use, and the uses are acoustically separated by a wall or
partition with a minimum STC of 25.
SECTION 9. Enforcement
The provisions of this Ordinance shall be enforced pursuant to Sections
10 and 11.
SECTION 10. Plans and Specifications
A. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the
application all plans, specifications or other information required by
this Ordinance. The plans and specifications shall describe ln
sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building
materials, heating and ventilation systems, including but not limited to
the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls, windows, and doors;
and other pertinent data as may be requested by the City to indicate
�'�� conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as
_: specified in the Noise Compatibility Tables. To assure the elimination
of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall demonstrate
compliance with the following standards.
l. A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide
the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements as
provided in the State and Uniform Building Code for the proposed
occupancy without the need to open any exterior daors or windows.
2. The perimeter of all exterior windows and door irames shall be
sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction.
3. Fireplaces shall be equipped with well-fitted chimney closing
devices.
�. All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space
to outdoors shall be provided with a bend such that no direct line
of sight exists from exterior to interior through the vent duct.
5. Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close-
fitting. Weatherstripping seals shall be incorporated to eliminate
all edge gaps.
6. All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits
and the like shall be caulked airtight to the exterior construction.
The City- may reguire that plans and specifications be certified by a
Recognized Acoustical Specialist for compliance with this Ordinance.
B. Within 30 days of receipt of appropriate plans and specifications, the
City shall approve or reject the plans based upon the ability of the
proposed materials and construction techniques to adequately attenuate
noise. The City shall approve the plans and specifications if:
1. The plans and specifica�ions adequately documeni the use of
construction assemblies tha� meet or exceed the STC ratings
required by the following table:
STC RATINGS REQUIRED FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEMENTS
SPECIFIED NOISE
LEVEL REDUCTION
dBA
20
25
30
35
REQUIRED STC RATING NEEDED FOR COMPLIANCE*
Roof�Ceilinq Walls Windows Doors
40
g5
50
55
40
g5
50
55
30
35
ap
45
20
25
30
35
40 60 60 50 ap ��
*All values +/- 2 STC. The STC laboratory test of construction materials
and assemblies must be conduc�ed according to the raquirements of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM E90 or ASTM E 336); or
2. The plans and specifications have been certified by a Recognized
Acoustical Specialist as achieving the interior noise level
reduction required by the applicable portion of the Noise
Compatibility Table.
In the event that the drawings are rejected, the reasons for such
rejection shall be submitted to the applicant in writing. No construction
shall occur prior to the approval of the appropriate plans and
specifications. All construction shall be performed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications as de.termined by the City shall be deemed
to meet the noise attenuation requirements of this Ordinance. '
SECTION 11. Inspections
A. All construction or work for which a building permit is required shall
be subject to inspections by the City. Inspections o� noise attenuation
work shall be performed during the required building construction
inspections specified by the City of Mendota Heights code.
B. Field Testing. When inspection indicates that the construction is not
in accordance with the approved plans, the Ci�y may order such
corrective action as may be necessary to meet the noise attenuation (�
requirements of this Ordinance. In lieu of performing such corrective
action, a building owner may submit a test report based upon field tests
showing compliance with the noise reduction level requirements contained
in the applicable Noise Compatibility Table. The field test shall be
performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials
Standard E 336-84, Part A1.2.2. Outside to Inside (Level Reduction).
SECTION 12. SeverabilitV
If any part of this Ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or
otherwise illegal, the remainder of this Ordinance shall remain in force and
effect as if such unenforceable provision had not been included herein.
0
NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 1
Noise Reduction Level in dBA Required to Meet Standards For
Use IN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
(The Noise Reduction Level numbers specify for each type of land use the
amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be
compatible in the applicable Aircraft Noise Zone).
LAND USE TYPE
I
Leq(80+)
Residential
Single/multiplex with individual entrance
Multiplex/apartment with shared entrance 1
Mobile Home
Educational and Medical
Schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes
Cultural, Entertainment Recreational
Oifice, Commercial Retail
AIRCRAFT
NOISE ZONE
II III IV
(75-80) (70-75) (65-70)
INCO INCO INCO 25
INCO 35 30 25
INCO INCO INCO 25
INCO INCO INCO 21'
{
35 30 25 20
35 30 25 CNST
Services
Transportation-passenger facilities 35
Transient Lodging INCO
Other medical, health & educational services 35
Other services - 35
30
30
30
30
25
25
25
25
CNST
20
CNST
CNST
Industrial. Communication Utilitv 25 CNST CNST CNST
Acrricultural Land, Water Area,
Resource Extraction CNST CNST CNST CNST
1 These uses do not permit "in the wall" air-conditioning units in
Zones I, II, and III.
NOISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 2
Noise Reduction Level in dBA to Meet Standard for Use In
INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES
(The Noise Reduction Level numbers specify for each type of land use the
amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be
compatible in the applicable Aircrait Noise Zone).
LAND USE TYPE AIRCRAFT
NOISE ZONE
I II III IV
Leq (80+) (75-80) (70-75) (65-70)
Residential
Single/multiplex with individual entrance 2 40
Multiplex/apartment with shared entrance 2 40
Mobile Home 2 a0
Educational and Medical
� Schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes
Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational
��l Office, Commercial Retail
Services
35 30 25
35 30 25
35 30 25
40 35
35 30
35 30
Transportation-passenger facilities 35 30
Transient Lodging 35 30
Other medical, health & educational svcs. 35 30
Other services 35 30
30 25
25 20
25 CNST
��
,
r
r
CNST
20
CN5T
CNST
Industrial, Communication, UtilitV 25 CNST CNST CNST
Aqricultural Land, Water Area,
Resource Extraction CNST CNST CNST CNST
1 Does not apply to remodelinc� or rehabilitation af existing residential
structures, or to construction of appurtenances to e�isting residential
structures.
2 These uses do not permit "in the wall" air-conditioning units in Zones
I, II, and III.
r'
�
SECTION 14. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its publication according to law.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this nineteenth day of May, 1987.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
gy �-�~� � ,%%,,-��'
C ar es E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
K th�l e n M S an ���
w son
ity Clerk
C.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MIIVNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1998
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held
on Wednesday, August 12, 1998 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101
Victoria Curve. The meeting w�s called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following
members were present: Beaty, Roszak, Stein and May. Commissioners Leuman,
Fitzer and Des Roches were excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin
Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser.
APPROVAL OF MIIVUTES
Commissioner Roszak moved approval af the July 8, 1998 minutes.
Commissioner May seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
REVIEW AIRPORT PLAN OF ACTION
The Commission discussed when they would present the Airport Plan of
Action to the City Council. It was determined that Chair Beaty would
present the Action Plan on Tuesday, August 18, 1998. Administrator
Batchelder suggested that the presentation consist of items the Airport
Relations Commission has completed over the past year and that they should
focus on future goals.
Commission Stein indicated that he would be present at the August 18
meeting.
����
Chair� ��°i�formed the Commission that a reporter from the Sun Current
had been in contact with him and that he believes that the reporter is aware
of the City's concerns regarding air noise. Administrator Batchelder stated
that he will be meeting with Lori Blake, Star Tribune Transportation Reporter,
to discuss the City's concerns regarding air noise. Chair Beaty stated that he
would like to be informed of when the meeting is scheduled.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES �
r
The Comrnission briefly reviewed the Airport Plan of Actior�.
Commissioner May moved to recommend that the City Co�ncil approve the
Airport Plan of Action.
Commissioner Roszak seconded the mation.
AYES: 4
IVAYS: 0
DISCUSS MASAC REQUEST FOR
CORRIDOR ISSUES TO BE STUDIED
Administrator Batchelder explained that the City has received a formal
request from MASAC to consider and submit a list of Corric�or Issues to
MASAC by August 17, 1998 for their consideration. Batc6�elder explained
that the MSP Noise Mitigation Program includes an airport aperations
directive to Evaluate Departure Procedures in the Eagan-Me�dota Heights
Corridor. He stated that this topic has been added to the MASAC Work Plan
for 1998. Batchelder stated that the MASAC is asking the City of Mendota
Heights, and other corridor communities, for a list of suggested topics.
Batchelder explained that at the Commission's July meeting, the Commission
reviewed Eagan's request of corridor issues to be studied and provided (�
,� :
direction to City staff on preparing our own list. Batchelder explained that
based on that discussion, he drafted a letter to Bob Johnson, Chair of
MASAC for the Commission's review and comment.
Commissioner Roszak stated fitiat he would like to see the City's letter
supplemented with more details of specific issues.
Regarding Corridor Compliance, Chair Beaty stated that he agrees that
aircraft operations should be maintained inside the designated southeast
corridor and that operations should be narrowed as well. Administrator
Batchelder stated that with the new technology in navigational aids,
narrowing operations in the corridor should be considered.
Commissioner May inquired about the Corridor Configuration and the
establishment of the 095 degree heading policy. Batchelder briefly reviewed
the Blue Fiibbon Task Force recommendation which recommended two
changes for implementation - the non-simultaneous departuse procedures and
the establishment of the 095 degree policy.
The Commission discussed how the City should remind the MASAC of the
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES Z �
Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations and that only one recommendation
`; has been implemented. The Commission discussed how the City should
remind the MASAC of the 095 degree heading policy and inquire as to why it
has not been implemented.
Regarding narrowing operations of the corridor, Administrator Batchelder
explained that the City should reiterate its position on stopping excursions
fram pushing the corridor boundaries in that the operational abilities of
aircraft have improved over the years. He informed the Commission that
during the NOISE conference, it was indicated that the FAA's system is old
and that aircraft are capable of dealing with air noise issues/concerns. He
stated that there is another departure procedure being used at the San
Francisco Airport.
Chair Beaty stated that he is concerned that if the City agrees to the 095
degree policy, it may be tough to change the policy five years from now once
the GPS is implemented. He stated that he does not want to see aircraft
continue to sway. He suggested that the City consider suggesting thafi the
corridor be narrowed with no excursions ever exceeding the 095 degree
heading.
Commissioner Stein noted his concern with irnplementing the GPS. He
�' � stated that he is concerned that specific areas in the City will continuously
- be experiencing overflights.
The Commission was of the consensus that the following items be included
within the list of issues to be considered during MASAC's review of the
Southeast Corridor issues:
1. Corridor Compliance
A. Aircraft operations should be maintained inside the designated
southeast corridor.
B. Continuously utilize all available technological improvements
including navigational aids, GPS and standard instrument
departure procedures to narrow the southeast corridor to restrict
overflights to commercial/industrial zoned land uses.
C. With the shift in magnetic headings, the original intent of tower
orders that are based on heading designations should be
reviewed.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES 3
�
2. Corridor Configuration
Subject to the narrowing as noted above, consider the implementation
of the 095 degree northern boundary recommended by the Blue
Ribbon Task Force.
Regarding Vertical Departure Analysis, Administrator Batchelder informed the
Commission that the San Francisco Airport implement a departure procedure
that is different than the Close-In or Distant Departure. Commissioner May
suggested that City staff inquire with other airports to find out if the Vertical
Deparfiure procedure, or something similar to this procedure, is being
implemented. He suggested that a copy of the video, which was presented
at the NOISE conference in July, be sent and reviewed by staff as well as
the Airport Relations Commission.
The Commission was of the consensus that the following item be included
within the list of issues to be consider during MASAC's review of the
Southeast Corridor:
3. Vertical Departure Analysis
Alternative departure profiles should be reconsidered. Altitude analysis
l,
should be performed to determine aircraft proximity to ground levels at
incremental distances from runway ends to be compared to aircraft
capability. Departure procedures testing is required.
Regarding Head to Head Operations, Chair Beaty stated that the Preferential
Runway Use System promotes inequitable distribution of aircraft over
Mendota Heights and the fact that this happens during night time hours
when air traffic is very light.
The Commission discussed how the crosswind runway is not being used to
help relieve the burden on the parallel runways. The Commission felt it
important to inform the MASAC that with the recent reconstruction of
runway 12R/30L, it has been demonstrated how the Runway Use Systems
was intended to work.
The Commission was of the consensus that the following item be included
within the list of issues to be consider during MASAC's review of the
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES 4
Southeast Corridor:
4. Eauity of Runway Use �stem - The existing RUS is ineauitable and
relies too heavilv on land use compatibility theories.
1. The RUS calls for the use of the crosswind runway, up to 20
percent of the time during the daytime, to relieve the burden on
the parallel runways. This has not occurred as prescribed and
should be considered. The recent reconstruction of runway
12R/30L has demonstrated how RUS was intended to work and
does work.
2. Head-to-Head Operations requires the divergence of departures
over residential areas of Mendota Heights, often during night
time hours when traffic is very light, reducing the effectiveness
of the non-simultaneous departure procedures. Rerouting of in-
bound traffic or modification of head-to-head procedures should
be adopted.
Commissioner Roszak moved to recommend that the City Council approve
the draft letter, as amended above, and that it be sent to Mr. Bob Johnson,
�'� of MASAC, as soon as possible.
�-- Commissioner Stein seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
The Commission commended Administrator Batchelder for his fine work in
drafting the letter to Mr. Bob Johnson, of MASAC.
UPDATES
MASAC Handbook
Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the City received a
MASAC handbook. He stated that the handbook has a wealth of information
and that there are many chapters to the handbook which include MASAC
operations information and staffing/personnel information. Batchelder
reviewed the table of contents within the handbook. He informed the
Commission that he will request additional copies for each Commissioner. It
was noted that Chair Beaty had received a copy because he is the City's
MASAC alternate representative.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES �J
MAC and FAA Response on Cit�Council Resolution
on Corridor Compliance
Administrator Batchelder reminded the Commission that at their June 16,
1998 regular meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-35, A
RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PROLONGED HEADING
VIOLATIONS CONTRARY TO ADOPTED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
NOISE MITIGATION AT MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. He explained that
this Resolution was in response to corridor violations on the evening of June
14, 1998 and in response to the release of data by the MAC's ANOMS
system that showed repeated excursions north of the corridor over the last
year.
Batchelder stated that the City has received a response from Mr. Roy
Fuhrmann, MAC Technical Adviser, and from Mr. Doug Powers, Interim
Tower Chief, FAA. He informed the Commission that according to both
letters, on fihe evening of June 14 there were 16 operations north of the
proposed 095 degree policy boundary during the time referred to in the City's
resolution. He stated that these excursions were precipitated by
thunderstorm activity and pilot requests to avoid poor weather conditions.
Batchelder reminded the Commission that later this year, the MASAC will be
reviewing the corridor departure procedures as part of its 1998 action plan. �.
Chair Beaty inquired if the MAC has responded to Eagan's concerns.
Administrator Batchelder stated that he will look into this further.
1998 NOISE Conference
Administrator Batchelder briefed the Commission regarding his recent
attendance, with Mayor Mertensotto, to the 1998 Noise Conference. He
informed the Commission that fihe conference was held in Denver, Colorado
and that it proved to be a worthwhile conference. He stated that they had
several good sessions which included information regarding Environmental
Irnpact Statements as well as information regarding Part 150 program as
wells as a Part 161 program. Batchelder explained that the Part 161
program has been approved by the FAA and has not yet been implemented.
Chair Beaty inquired if new technology was reviewed at the conference.
Batchelder responded that Stage IV aircraft are projected to be in operation
by the year 2026.
Batchelder stated that there was a lot of information on land use and it
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES 6
appeared that the FAA is trying to expand its authority on land use issues.
, He stated that he toured the Denver International Airport and that it appears
that the airport had enough space to add 12 more runways. He stated that
he also toured the United Airlines Training Facility.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS
REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Reports for July
3 and July 17, 1998. It was noted that American Airlines has become the
first major carrier to purchase a new system designed by Raisbeck
Comrnercial Air Group which converts Stage II Baeing 727 aircraft to Stage
III noise standards with no suppression of engine noise or engine
modifications.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Agenda for July 28,
1998 and June 23, 1998 Minutes.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's
Report for June 1998. The Commission noted that Runway 4-22 was used
47.2 percent of the time during the month of June.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Corridor Gate
Penetration Analysis for June 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Monthly Complaint Summary
for June 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee
Agenda/Minutes for July 10, 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee
Agenda for August 14, 1998.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for August
1 1, 1998.
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES 7
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission adjourned
its meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlee K. Blaeser
Senior Secretary
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION - AUGUST 12, 1998 MINUTES H
_ R S' :_,��.
'"� -
. c ^, ,
.,, ,- . _ . ,: .
., ;
,_ � _
' ` ��
,.. ._ . . . . _
. _ � — -`' � �.. .
,
.a- �
� �•.,:.
� . . . ,
�.,�. .. , . . .. > , ,
. ,:,.. . � >,, ._ . .. . . .r. .. ,.. ... .�., -. ..
Auaust I8, 1998
NIr. Bob .Tohnson, Chair
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN �5450
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The City Council of Mendota Heights, at irs August 13, 1998 meetin�, o�cially adopted a list of
issues to be considered during MASAC's review of the Southeast Corridor. The list of issues is
as follows:
l. Comdor Com�liance
A. At a minimum, aircraft operations should be maintained inside a designated
southeast corridor.
B. Continuously utilize all available technoloaical improvements includinQ
navijational aids, GPS and standard instnunent departuse procedures to narrow
the southeast corridor to restrict overflights to commerciaUindustrial zoned land
uses.
C. With the shift in ma¢netic headin�s, the oriainal intent of tower orders that are
based on heading desi�nations should be reviewed.
2. Corridor Confiauration
A. Subject to the narrotiti�ing as noted above, consider the implementation of the 09� °
northern bounda.ry recommended by the Blue Ribbon Task Force.
B. The corridor is inequitabl�� hin�ed to the north and VIASAC should consider a
more symmetrical corridor confiauration.
��,—�T��,
��•,�>�a ,� - - —_—�..�
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (512) 452-1850 � FAX 452-8940
Mr. Bob Johnson
Au�ust 18, 1998
PaQe two
Vertical De�arture Analvsis -�1ltemative departure protiles should be reconsidered.
t�.ltitude analysis should be performed to determine aircraft pro:cimity to ground levels at
incremental distances from runway ends to be compared to aircraft capability. Departure
procedures testing is requested.
4. E uitv of Runwav Use Svstem - The eYistina RUS is inequitablz and relies too heavily
on land use compatibility theories. y
The RUS calls for the use of the crosswind runway, up to 20% of the time durin�
the daytime, to relieve the burden on the parallel runways. This has not occurred
as prescribed and should be considered. The recent reconstruction of run�vay
12RI30L has demonstrated how RUS was intended to work and does work.
2. Head-to-Head Operations requires the diver�ence of depa.rtures over residential
areas of ilQendota Hei�hts, often durin� ruaht time hours when tra�c is very light,
reducing the effectiveness of the non-simultaneous departure procedures.
Rerouting of in-bound traffic or modification of head-to-head procedures should
be adopted.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this list of comdor issues for review by MASAC. The �`
City of Mendota Heiah#s respectfully awaits the opportunity to discuss these issues, and those
issues subrnitted by our neighbors in the comdor. We look for�vard to cooperatin� tivith MA.SAC
to address these issues.
Sincerely,
�.� � ����
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator
1.;
.li 4. �, �£ : .� � �. �,D 7�` iO: a
. , s ,� . : : r '
r .:�
4 y �
� ' - r � �' = i Ta._ ^ ... ' . . . �c��
_ j
A bi�i•ee}:ly update on litigation, re�ulations, and technolo�ical developments
�- olume 10, Number 13
Sound Insulation
FAA FOR FIRST TIME APPROVES FUNDING
FOR LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE INSULATION
In precedent-settinQ action, the FederaJ Aviacion Administration has agreed for
the first time to provide additional fundinQ to bolstersound insulation beins
applied to homes near Baltimore-VJashington International Airport that are
exposed to hiQh levels of lo�v-frequency noise from jet depar[ures.
"ti�/e carefully developed and implemented an exterior sound insulation proce-
dure that has proven to be successful acainst low-frequency noise," said Ted
Ma[hison, executive direccor of the Maryland Aviation Administration (ivL4A),
owner and operator of BWI. "This procedure is the first such program in [he na�ion
to be approved by the Federal Aviation Adminisffation."
Wayne Bryant, director of aviation noise and abatement for M.4A, said, "We felt
we owed it to the community to find a soluaon to the Iow-frequency noise that has
adversely affected residents living near the airport. We are very pleased that we
were able to break new Qround and develop a unique solution that will Qreatly
enhance their quality of life."
The low frequency noise problem at BWI was causina vibrations, which made
more conventional methods of sound insulavon less effeccive, Tem� J. Paee,
(Cantinued on p. 98)
Burbank
CALTRANS GRANTS NOISE VARIANCE
BUT URGES AIRPOR'�' '�O DO PART 161 STUDY
The California Depar[ment of Transportation (CalTrans) granted the Burbank-
Glendale-Pasadena Airport a three-year variance from the California airport noise
standard on 7uly 29 and stronRly encouraRed the airport to conduct a federal Par
161 study on the feasibility of imposin� new noise rules.
The Part 161 study has ]onQ been saught by the City of Burbank, ���hich is locked
in a lesal battle with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority o��er
construction of a new larger passenQer terminal at the airport, which would be
located within the Citv of Burbank.
Burbank wants the airpon authorit�� to conduct a Part 161 study to determine the
feasibility of a nighttime curfew, a noise budaet rule, and cap on ooerations at the
all-StaQe 3 airport. The airport authorit�� passed a motion in 199� ro pursue a Pan
161 study but has stalled beninning the study as the leaal battle over the new
terminal heated up and che study became a pawn in the comp(ex, and thus far
unfruitful, ne�o[iations over [he terminal, which Burbank contends must pass its
zonina approval process.
The�airport is willin� to conduct the Part 161 stud}• if Burbank a�rees to accept
the Federal Avia[ion Administration's rulinQ on [he matter (and the possibility it
��•ill reject the studv) and also a�rees to approve the new terniinal pmiec[, Vicror
(Con,in«eci on p. 99)
Copyri�ht �� 1495 by Airpon \oisc Fepor .4shhurn. �'a ?014 i
F
July 31, 1995
In �"his Issue...
Sound Insulation ... In
precedent-settin� action, the
FAA approves additional
funding to sound insulate
homes near Baltimore-
Washington International
Airport exposed to high
levels of low-frequency
backblast noise - p. 97
Burbank ... CalTrans
stron�ly urges airport author-
ity to do federal Part 161
study in arantin� variance
from state noise rules - p. 97
Land Use ... ATt� con-
cerned about recommenda-
tions to FAA that non-
proprietor jurisdictions be
Qiven AIP jrants to conduct
land use projects - p. 100
Associations ... N.O.I.S.E.
selects new executive board
at annual meeting - p. 100
Airlines ... DOT an-
nounces that U.S. airlines
have made record profits in
first quarter - p. 10?
Amsterdam ... Airport
subdivides Staae 3 aireraft
into three categories by noise
level and imposes ti�hter
landing fees - p. 10?
IVoise Gra�zts ... FAA
announces AIP grant awards
for noise projects - p. 10 �
��'ews Briefs ... - p. 103
9S—_-- --- ------,- -- ,�irport 1Voise Report -
I3 j�'I, from p. 97
mana��er of the F.-�.�'s Vvashin�[on Airpor[s District Offlce.
said in a recent letter to i�tAA.
FollowinR a swdy of [he low-frequency noise problem
di�ne by the acousticai consultin�� iirm Harris :vtiller i�tiller
�� Hanson, Inc. lHt-t�-iH) for MAA, which ��•as submi�ted to
che FAA last sprin��, the a�ency agreed [o allow the airport
to use federal Airport Improvement Pro�ram funds in an
existin�T `rant to fund the additional sound insulation needed
�o mitiQate low-frequency noise.
Some �� wood-frame homes, approximatelv 2� years old
and located mostly in the 70 dB DNL noise con[our around
Btii•'I. are eli�ible for the addi�ional low-frequency sound
insulation, which costs abou� �40,000-��0-000 per home,
addin� about �I�,000 �o �20,000 on�o B1VI's normal cost
for soundproofing a home.
"The objec�ive of the residential sound insulation proaram
is to provide relief for those residen�s based on their unique
local characteristics of airport noise," F.AA's Paee said in
his letter. "In the case of the residents of Aliwood [the
neishborhood subject to back blast noise], it was determined
that [he low-frequency noise was causina vibrations, «�hich
made more conventional me[hods of sound insulation less
effective. Other factors that Ft1A considered in reachins this
determination included the locauon and orientauon of the
residences with respect to fliaht tracks, s[ructural character-
istics of the homes, published noise exposure contours for
B�'JI, and the inclusion ef so:�nd insulation in t;:e All�vood
Subdivision in BWI's approved Part 1�0 Noise Compatibil-
ity Plan," the FAA official said.
"Approval of this [ype of mi[isation," he stressed, "is
specific to [his area and is not considered a blanke[ endorse-
rnent of this type of sound insulation for all areas." Should
BWT desire to apply additional sound insulation to address
low-frequency noise in other locations, "addi�ional coordi-
na�ion and evaluation will be required," he told M:�A.
a�i�ooa stuay
The Allwood subdivision is located [o thz side and re:u of
B��'I's primary departure runway and often experiences �he
predominantly low frequency noise events produced b}• jec
deparcures, accordins to Nicholas P. Miller, president of
HMIv1H. Residents' concerns about the noise and B«'I's
recosni�ion that che quali�y and effec�s of the sound are
different From those produced by o��erflioh�s led to the
studv, he said.
H`�tMH's �round-breakin� study had three basic objec-
tives: �
� To quantify the start-oF-takeoff sound le��els at a house
in Allwood:
• To quantify a resident's judQments of these start-of-
takeoff sound levels, and
• To measure [he propagation rate of the sound le��els into
th� communitv.
These objectives tivzre accomplished b}� conductin� a
month of simultaneous sound monitorine at three homes,
toRether with monitorinQ of wall vibration levels in one
home and collection of sample tape recordines of the even[s
at one home, Miller said. A resident provided ra�ings of the
objectionable nacure of che even�s, as heard indoors.
.�nalysis consisced oF conelatinR the various sound metrics
of ehe even[s with ��ibration levels and with the resident
ra�i n Qs.
iyieasurements of A-weishted. Gweishted, and wall
vibration levels were made durinQ Au�ust 1997. Da[a were
collected simultaneously at three communitv locations that
were spaced radiall�� at approximately 3,?00 feet, 4.600 feet,
and 7,800 feet from the stan of takeoff runway end.
At the closest location, simultaneous A-weiQhted, C-
weiQhted, and RMS accelerauon levels were measured.
IvSonitors collected continuous one-second C-weishted
levels boch indoors and outdoors at this si[e, with the
outdoor monitor used to tri�aer three o[her moni[ors that
collected A-weighted leveIs outdoors and vibration levels
from accelerometers fastened to the w�alls. Sample diaital
tape recordings of sound levels were also made simultane-
ously indoors and out. Une monitor at each of the two more
distant locauons collected continuous GweiQhced outdoor
sound levels.
Durina the measurement period, Nliller explained, one of
the residents at the closest site rated the objectionable nature
of sinale departure events. The resident used a scale of 0 to
100 for ratins the least to most objectionable evenrs,
oenerally usinQ multigles oi 10 in assiQning ra[ings. Ratings
of ] 0 to 90 were used for Ieast to most objectionable so that
there would be room for the rare exceptionalIy quiet or
exceptionally objectionable evenu.
Study Conclusions
The study repon documenu the A- and C-weiQhted sound
levels, wall vibration levels, typicai spectra, and�time
histories of the takeofF events, homeowner ratinss, correla-
tions of sound levels with vibration levels and with the
ratinQs, and compares measured vibration levels with
published s:andard thresholds far human perception, Miller
said.
The followins conclusions were drawn from the study:
• It appears tha[, thoush low frequency sound enerQy is
important in determinins how a person may react to [he
noise, hiQher frequencies also play a role — if there is
enouah enerRy in che hisher frequencies, even�s also can oe
objectionable; �
• C-wei�hted meu-ics (Lmax and SEL) correlate better
with human judQments of the objectionable dearee of an
event than do the same .A-weighted metrics; �
• Vlaximum �L�al) vibration levels correlate stron�lv with
C-«�ei�hted maximum outdoor sound levels, and do so
somewhat better tnan with maximum A-weiohted leve(s;
• Outdoor Gweignted maximum exceedins abaut 7> to 80
dBC can produce a•all vibra�ions that can be felt;
• The avera�e drop off oi C-weiented maximum levels.
�irport Ir'oise Report
Jui}� 31, 1995
from �.'00 feec from [he run��•av en�i to 7,b00 feet is �•er}�
close �o spherical spreadin« —[hat is, the maximum G
wei�htzd levels drop about 6 dB for each doublina of
distance;
• The homeowner ratin�s of the e��ents. to�ether �L�ith
simuitaneous sound measuremenes of che events can be used
�o escimace how this homeo�+�ner (or person of similar
sensitivity co �he even[s) miohc rate the �vents as heard a[
nreater distances from the airport. The homeowner. livin� in
a home approximatefy 3.200 feet from the runway. ra�ed
about 7� percen[ of the events as more objectionable than -�0
on the scale of 0 to 100. If the same resident ii��ed at the
furthes� measurements si[e, about 7,300 feet from the
runway, approximately �0 percent oE the events would be
rated as more objectionable than 40.
I��Tiller said tha[ the FA.A vie�c�s the data collec[ed in the
B WI study as helpful in bepinninQ the process to assess the
impact of these types of low-frequenc�r aircraft noise e��ents.
and hopes additional similar data wil► be forchcomino as
o[her airports address these types of impacu.
Acoustical Treatment
Two demonstra�ion houses were used to test the BWZ low
frequency sound insula[ion treatmen�s. One house was used
to test exterior treatments and the o[her to test interior
treatments. It's not that anythinQ new in terms of sound
insulation was used, explained Walter Rullman, assistant
director of re31 estate for MAA, but walls and windows aot
almost a double treatment compared to houses not subjecr to
back blast noise.
For instance, storm windows were added to acoustical
windows to provide chree layers of �lass to help dampen the
low frequency noise. Likewise, a total of two and three-
eiRhths inches were added to the thickness of the interior
walls by addins a-�re-half inch layer of fiber sound board
and three five-eiahth inch layers of sheet rock. Usually only
one layer of sound board and one layer of sheet rock are
used in the BWI sound insulation program.
On [he exterior of the house, two layers of one-half inch
cement board were added, where usually only one layer is
used. In attics, insulation and sound board were used and
cement board was placed between [he trusses.
These acoustica] treatments resulted in an avera�e a-
��eiohted noise reduction improvement o� just o��er 10 dB
and an averaQe C-weiQhted noise reduction improvement oi
4.� dB, accordin� to a repott on the effec[iveness o� the
acoustical treatments done bv Acouseical Desi�n Collabora-
ti��e. Ltd. of Falls Church, VA. These improvemen� ex-
ce�ded the desinn �oals of the trea�ment.
The report recommended that a dual li[z STC fSound
Transmission Class) �4 window assembly be used in lieu ot
the STC 4� prime windo���s wi[h the one-quarter inch
laminated �lass storm ��•indo��•s. "The STC �� �aindo�ti�s ��'ill
have a �reaeer air space be[ween the �lass lites ��•hicn ti�•ill
result in increased lov.' frequenc}� noise reduction. compared
to the STC -�� windo���s." the reporc noced. .�dditionallv, i[
99
sai�1. "there ��ill he no law frequencv mass-air-mass
resonance frequenc��. due [o [he supplemental storni
«•indow, to further degrade lou� �requenc�� noise reduction
periormance."
"If homeowners are reluctant to accept the STC �-�
«•indows due to their size and potentia) difiicult�� in open-
inJ. a reasonai�le compromise is to use the STC �-� ���indo��•
as a replacemen[ for �he (arge tixed 'pic�ure' window in [he
li�•inQ rooms and use the STC �� prime windo��•s and the
one-quarter inch lamina�ed �lass storm windo���s a[ ocher
openinRs," the reporc noted �
Homeowners are pleased to be receivins the additional
insulation, Rullman said. Thev were most bochered bv
aircraft noise interfenna with television and sleep.
I�4:�-1 has insuiated about 300 homes in the B�VI airpon
noise zone at a cost of about 5�9.7 million and has a hi�h
satisfaction rate with its prosram, he noted. About 900 �
homes are eli�ible for sound insulation or purchase assur-
ance.
San Francisco Studv
.� study on low-frequency backblast noise is also under-
w•ay at San Francisco International Airport, but few decaifs
on it are available.
The �irpon Commission for the City and Counry of San
Francisco recently contracted with GTEBBN Technoloaies
for 522�,000 to study methods to reduce interior noise in
communities near the airpon impacted by ]ow frequency
noise.
Such a study also has been souaht by the San Francisco
International Airpon /Communiry Roundtable. The
roundtabie's �vork pro�ram has included investiaation of [he
low frequenc�� noise impact for a number of years.�1
Burbank, from p. 29
Gill, a spokesman for the airport au[hority, said.
The airport authority has to weiah carefully whe[her it is
willina to put its credibility on the (ine with a Part 161
study, he said. It has to study objectively whe[her there is
am• rationai analvsis for a curew that would warrant serious
consideration in a Part lbl study.
Gill also said that the airport authorit}� "will be hun� out to
dry b�� its aviation constituents" if it imposed new noise
rules ac an all-Stase 3 airport because of the precedent such
action would set.
Part 161 HoIds `Greatest Promise'
1�`hile holdin�� that the airport authoritv's current noise
planninp effoRs are "appropriate," CalTrans no�ed that
"more specific and detailed plans are required in order to
properl}� e�•aiva�e whether the Airport Authoricti� is doin�� the
best i[ can" �o reduce the noise impact area: the 6� CNEL
contour.
"Tne Airpor Authorin� has established that it is takin�*
�oo�i taith measures tu�;�ard acnievin�: compliance ���ith the
.�irport '�o�<e Repurt
1 QU Airport �'1'oise Report
Califurnia airpurt noise standard. Hrn+�ever. the re«ulation
rryuires it to take '`oc�d faith measures to the best ot its
abili��• eo achie��e [hz noise standards.' The record does noe
e�[ablish �h�c �he .-�,irport .4uthoritv's good taith etforts
cons[i�uce ehe best that it can do." CalTrans said.
The Par[ 161 process. CalTrans saicl, "ma�� hold the
«reatest promise for as comprehensive a solution to the
noise problem as possible." Bu�, it added. "Tne .Airport
,�uthority has not ��et a��ailed itself of this tool or set t�orth
estima�ed �imetables for its utilization."
The Airport Auchority noted at the hearin� on i�s ��ariance
request that acoustical insulation is essentially the onl��
avenue throuah �ti�hich it can reduce the size of the noise
impact area [the 65 CNEL contour], but tha� sound insu(a-
cion would no[ achieve the re�ulatory standard of no
incompatible development in [he noise impace area before
�o>>.
CalTrans concluded �hat further discussions reeardins
solutions to the noise problem at [he airport "should `
continue through the Part 161 process." It also required the
airport au�hority to [ake specific action wich respect to a Part
1�0 airport noise compatibiliry plan.
Noise Plan Required
Tne variance requires [he airport authoriry to develop a
detailed Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan. That plan must
6e presented within one year. Following submission of the
plan, CalTrans will solicit the views of Burbank and Los
Angeles, which also is impacted by noise from the airport,
on whether [he plan "evidences a su�ciently specific plan
to reduce �he noise impact area." If not, CalTrans will
schedule a compliance hearina.
The airport authority's plan must:
• Iden[ify specific measures [o reduce [he noise impac[
area;
� Incl�de a timetable for implementin� specific noise
abatement and miti�ation measures; �
• Provide details on a Part 1�0 and Part 161 plan as
submitted to the F,4A; or
• Provide an explanation for the reasons «�hy no Pan li0
or Part 161 pian has been submitted;
• Examine use of different aviQation easement lan�*uase
which �vould encourage more ci[izen participation in the
sound insulation proaram; and
• Provide informa�ion on what actions the Ci[v of Burbank
could [ake ro help reduce the Noise Impact Area.
Peter Kirsch. the Cit�- of Burbank�s special counsel oi
airpor[ mat[ers, said: "The Ciry of Burbank has arsued ior
vears that the Authorit�'s so-callee� 'noise reduction'
pro�*ram is little more than «indo�; dressin��. This rufin�
conclusively proves tnat the Authoriry is not doin� enou�h
to reduce noise."
Irirsch said 'ne ��•as "exvemelv pleased to see [hat Cal-
Trans has adop[ed Burbank's recommended noise ��ariance
restriction. In doin�, so, CalTrans has reco�nized that che
authc>ric� has ne��fected to adequatel�� address the ob��ious
noise proolem created by [he airport."
It the airport authonry does not comply with the condi-
tions of the �'ariance, such conduct will be erounds for
CalTrans to [erminate the variance or impose addi�ional
conditions, he noted.
But Gil( cailed Burbank's interpretation of �he variance
requirements "all spin." The airpon is not required in [he
variance [o conduc[ a Part I61 study, he said. It must only
explain why one has noc been submitted. He called the
conditions in the variance "a PR deal ror Burbank. pure and
simp(e."4
Land L'se
ATA OPPOSES GRANTS
TO NON-AIRPORT SPONSORS
The .Air Transport Association is concerned about
recommenda�ions to the Federal Aviation Adminiscration
[hat locai jurisdictions, that are not airport proprietors, be
Qiven federal funds throuah [he Airpott Improvement
ProQram (AIl') to suoport airport compaable land use
plannina efforts.
"This may not be rhe most effective use of scarce AIP
Funds," Scott F. Belcher, manaQins director for environ-
mental afFairs at ATA, told the FAA in comments submitted
in response to an aQency notice seekine public guidance on
how the F.A.A can faster better land use compatibility
planning by communities located near airports.
"If no additional AIP funds were authorized for [local land
use aranu], funds available [o airport sponsors would be
reduced to suoport these initiatives," the ATA official said.
"�loreo�'er, this issue is further complicated by the fact tha�
the noise from a sinQle airpon can impact several non-
airport sponsors with land use planninQ jurisdiction. To have
numerous entities, all vyino for the same limited funds.
would be harmful to airport development," Belcher assened.
The proposal to funnel federal arants to local Qovernments
that are not airport proprie[ors w�as a recommendation
included in [he final report of a study aroup formed by the
FAA in 199�1 under its RE&D Advisory Committee. The
task oi the study group, comprised of represen[atives of [he
aviation industry, stat� and local aovernmen[s, the FA�, and
academia, was to find wavs to promote compatible land use
around airpons.
AT.A «�as a member of the studv group but did not support
the recommenda[ion in the Qroup's final repon [o allo�v non-
airport proprietors to compete wi�h airports for AIP Qrants.
The National Ornanization to Insure a Sound-controlied
En��ironment (NOISE), which represents predominantly
cities «•ith airport noise problems [hat are not airport
proprietors, also vras on [he studv Qroup and strongly
suppor[s the recommendation. y
Encoura�ino cooperative aereements between airport
sponsors and communities mav be helpfu(, ATA said.
"provided such aRreements do not adversely impact the
Airport �oise Fep�n
�
�.
July 31, 199�
airport's role as a critical link in the n.itional and interna-
[ional [ransportatian svstem. �b'e belie��e. ho���e��er. cha[
more direct flnancial disincentives «�ill prove to be more
effecti��e in discoura«in�� construction in areas tnac are either
noise impacted or likelv to become ne�ise impacted wieh
incrzases in operations."
Optimize Fundin�
ATA said th�t the FAA's new polic�� co approve, under i�s
Part 1�0 Airpart Noise Compatibili[y ProRram. only
preventive noise mitisation measures (comprehensive
plannina, zonina, subdivision reQula[ions, buildin� codes.
real es�ate disclosure, and acquisi[ion of vacant land) in
areas of po[ential new non-compatible development shoulc�
enable the aaency to "optimize the impact of federal
expenditures for airport noise."
The airline trade sroup said it aRreed "���ith the FAA's
soal of focusina airport operators and local �overnments
more clearly on usino the federal programs to prevent non-
compatible development around airpons, rather than usinQ
funds to mitiaate noise after the fact in areas of developmen[
that could have been preven[ed."
FA4 also should consider, aTA said. workina with the
model buildin� code sroups (the International Conference of
Buildins O�cials, Southern Buildin� Code Conoress
International, and International Conference of Buildina
Officials) to develop the most appropriate bui]ding code
requirements for buildinss constructed or renovated near
airports. "As you know, che model buildino codes are
adopted at the local level and �overn all new construction
and any major renovation," Belcher said. "SimiJarly, the
model buildinQ codes could be amended to require that any
renovation of a buildinQ near an airport triQQer the require-
ment to install soundproofina measures in that buildino."
The ATA o�cia) also encouraged the FAA to develop a
model land use statute addressinQ compatible land uses and
construction requirements for development around airports.
This model statute could, amonQ other things, limit land
uses near airpons (e.g., only allow compatible uses), could
require that any party constructins a building near an airport
execute an avia�ian easement in favor of the airport. and
could mandate soundproofin� requirements," ATA said.
The airfines also said that barrino FHA (Federal Housing
Administra[ion) and VA (Veterans Administrationj loans
and other federal financial benefits for properties in hiQh-
noise areas would be an effective tool for discouraRinR
developers and others �vho u•ant ro locate incompa�ible uses
in noise-impacted areas.
Airport Consultants Council
The Airports Consuitan[s Couneil told the FAA to
encoura�e partnerships between airpon sponsors and local
jurisdictions re�*ardin� compatible de�'elopment. "Incenti�es
for such partnering throuRh FA.� fundin`� assistance or tax
inc�n[i��es for businesses could be considered [o facilitate
better partnerin��." Laddie Irion of liRS Greiner ti�'ood��'ard
101
Cl��de, :��ho prepared the comments for the �ouncil, told the
F�.-�.
Tne council also recommended tha[ the F.�A:
• Consider the use of the 60 dB DNL contour as a
buif'er area beF•ond the 6� dB DNL threshoid of residen-
tial incompatibiIity. "This buffer area could be used for
disclosure purposes and �he considera�ion of preventive land
use measures such as zones and buildin� codes.'� Irion said.
But, he cautioned, "Care should be taken" in the considera-
tion of 60 DNL for the remedial measures such as sound
insulation, easemen[s, and acquisition;
• Feview and refine the land use compatibility auide-
lines contained in Table 1 of ,�ppendi� A of Part 1�0
regulations. "It is our obsen•ation that there appear [o be
some land uses �y�hich appear [o be more sensi�ive to aircraft
noise than o[her land uses ��•ithin the same ran�e of compati-
bilitv. These include mobile homes, churches, schools, and
certain parks and recreation areas," Irion said. The 60-6�
ran�e could be considered for especially sensi[ive land uses
such as these, he said, and more de[ail could be provided for
some cypes of land uses such as parks;
• Consider the use of supplementai noise metrics. "We
have found that the use of DNL alone sometimes is prob-
lemauc for land uses which are not sensitive to nibht noise,"
he said. "This is particularly �he case in the situation of
davtime land uses such as schools and churches beins
located within noise contours which are being primarily
influenced by niQht carQo operations." As a result, Irion
;aid, th:se types of uses may be projected to be incumpat-
ible in a Part 1�0 study considering 6� DNL, even thoush
the noise [hat they would experience durins normal hours of
operation could be relatively low. In such situations,
supplementa] analysis usinQ LEQ 24, LEQ Day and LEQ
Nisht could be useful; and
• Provide airport sponsors �vith more flexibility in the
de��elopment of their future condition Noise Exposure
R•Sap (NEN1). "Rather than requirina a five-year future
Iv'E�4 alone, the FA.A should allow airport sponsors the
flexibility to subrnit more than one future scenario," Irion
said. "This would identify trends in con[our arowth and
possioly lead to better inrormed plannina on the part of the
airport anc3/or the local municipalities. For example, perhaps
the five-year fumre N`EM could be used for remedial land
use measures and the 10-ti-ear future NE:��t could be used For
pre��entive land use measur�s."J
Or;anfzations
N.O.I.S.E. ELECTS
NE�V EXECUTIVE BOARD
Tne National Or�anization to Insure a Sound-controlled
En�•ironment (\OISEj, an orRanization of primarily local
�overnments �tith airporc noise problems, announced that its
members unanimously appro�•ed their new e�ecu[i��e board
at the oreanizauon�s annual meeting neld luly �'�-2-'� in
A�rpur \oise Repor,
I t)2
Thurn�on. CO.
�•Sike Bena(lo, councilman from Commerce Citv. CO. ��•ill
ser��e as �he new NOISE presiden�. while lo Thorne, a
councilwoman from Thorn[on. C0. was sele;;ted as ��ice-
presidenc, and Susan Lienesch, a councilwoman from
Centerville, Ohio, �a'ill serve as the second vice-president. In
addieion, Geor�e �iichols, the principai environmen[al
planner for the Mecropolitan Vti-ashinQton Council or
Governments, will remain as secrzcary of the orQaniza[ion,
and Be[ty Ann Krahnke, a councilwoman irom MontRomen�
Counry, iv1D, will continue as treasurer.
The organiza�ion announced that its annual meetins nex�
year will be held in San Mateo, C�.�
Airli�zes
RECORD PROFITS REPORTED
FOR FIRST QUARTER, DOT SAYS
The Departrnent of Transportation announced that 1 1 of
the 13 major U.S. airlines reported an operatina and net
profit for the first quaner of 1998, and the combined group
attained an all-time hish for any first quarter in both
operatina and net profits.
The airlines also recorded their best financial periormance
ever for any 12-month period, DOT said.
The 13 carriers as a �roup reponed a combined operadng
profit durin� the first quarter of �1.61 bilIion, up nearly
$ l 93 million from [he first quarter of 1997, and a combined
net profit of $$�2 million, an improvement of S107 million.
"Our nation's airlines continue to prosper, despite the
problems in Asia, because President Clinton's economic
policies'have promoted a strona domestic economy,"
Secre�ary of Transportation Rodney E. Siater said. "In
addition, the industry has benefited areatly from declinino
fuel costs, and [he airlines' own efforts to cut operating
expenses. We expect these [rends to continuz."
The industry areatly benefited from a sharp �'2 percenc
drap in fuel prices, reducin� rotal fuel expenses durin� tne
quarter by over 5600 million from the first quaner of 19°7.
DOT said.
Every major airline excep[ Trans Worid .4irlines (Ttil`_�),
reported an operatin� proPit durino the first q,�arter, w•hile
every major airline, except for T�ti�A and Uni[ed Parcel
Service (UPS). repor[ed a net profic. Six majors (.4laska.
America VJest, American. DHL Airwavs. Northwesi. and
Sc�u[h���est) repor[ed all-time tirs[ quaner company recores
in both opera[in�= and net profits. US Airwa�: reported 2
record first yuarter �peratin� proiu, and Delta reporteo a
record tirst quar�er net income.
For the I? months ended I�larch 199�, the m�jor cari��s
c��mbined to achieve operatin� re��enues of nearl}• 510G
billion, and attained an operating profit o� SS.'i billion.
51.6; billion hi�her [han the previous (2 mon�hs. Net
incnrne also increased, risin� S 1.9 i billion from the pre�: i-
i�u� veur to S�.ib billion. DOT said th�t thes� impro��e,�:ents
Airport Noise Report
reflec� [he con[inued efforts bv ehe airlines to sloti�• the
�rowth ot ooeratin�� expenses, up �.3 percen�, while
boos�in� operatin� re�-enues, up �.7 percenc.d
.4msterdam
STAGE 3 AIRCR.AFT SUBDIVIDED;
OPER�.TIllG FEES INCREASED
BeQinninQ on �uQ. 1, Amsterdam's Schiphol International
Airport will divide S�aae 3 aircraft in[o three cateaories.
based on [heir noise emissions, and will impose increased
landine fees on the two noisiest of these catesories as well
as on all nighttime operations. y
Imposition of the tariffs is desiened to encourase airlines
operatinQ at Schiphol to use only their quietest Chapcer 3
(the European equivalen[ of U.S. Staae 3) aircraft and to flv
less at niaht. �
The airport has divided ali Chapter 3 aircraft into three
categories. CateQory I includes the least noisy aircraft, such
as the BoeinQ 777 and MD-1 l, which will receive a 2.�
percent discount on [he basic landin� fee. Because Schiphol
raised ali of its airport fees by 2.� percent in June, these
aircrafr wi11 effectively have no increased fees.
CateQory 2 includes sliQh[ly noisier Stase 3 aircraft, such
as the Boeina 747-�00 and the Airbus 300. These aircrafr
will pay the basic noise tarifF.
The noisiest Staae 3 aircrai[, such as hushkitted DC-8 and
DC-9 and the Lockheed Tristar, will fail under Ca[esory 3,
which will be subject to a 7.� percent svrcharge on top of
the standard noise tariff.
In addition, all Chapter 3 aircraft will pay an extra 20
percent for any takeoff or landing between 11 p.m. and 6
a. m.
Since November 1996, Schiphol has prohibited StaQe ?
aircraft from tal:ing off or landins at nieht. Ivloreover, since
November 199�, Stage 2 aircraft have seen noise surcharQes
increase be[ween �0 percent and 100 percent every six �
months over and above the standard IandinQ fee. As a resul�
of the tariffs, the number of StaQe 2 aircraft flying into
Schiphol has been reduced from l� percent in 199� to 2
percen� of the �otal opera�ions in the second quarter of 1998.
European Court Ruling
In a related develooment, Reurers reponed July 1� that the
European Court of Justice ruled [hat member states mav
impose more s�rinaent noise emission limits on aircraf[
en�ines than stipulated under European Union (EU) law.
Germany ar�ued successfullv that the EU noise reduc�ion
law imposes only minimum requirements which allow
member countries co enact more stringent standards "ichout
infrinRins on iree-trade rules.:�
-.irport �\�i;e Fepon
Ju1y �1, I99S
Graizis
FAA AWARDS GRaNTS
FOR NOIS� MITIG�,TION
The Federal A��iation Administration recently announced
the followin�7 Rrant awards under the .�irpon Impro��ement
Proaram for noise mitiaa�ion projects:
• S t.S90.000 to Birminsham Interna�ional A;rport to
acquire land for noise comp3tibili�y and to provide reloca-
tion assis�ance:
� S4.? million to Louisville International Airport to
construct runways, acquire land for development. and
provide relocation assistance;
•�7.� million to Boston Logan International Airpon [o
soundproof approximately 230 residences in communities in
East Boston, Winthrop, Revere, and Sou[h Boston. Iv1A;
• �13.004,8�� to Lambert-St. Louis International �irport
to soundproof residences in St. Louis and to acquire land for
noise compatibility purposes;
• S?2�,000 to Clinton Counry Airport in Plattsburgh, NY.
to acquire aviaation easernents and for several other
projects; and
•�1,�20,000 to Nashville International Airport to sound-
proof residences, acquire land for noise compatibility and
provide relocation assistance..9
IN BRIEF ...
Reno Contours Growing
Noise contours at the Reno(Tahoe International Airport
�rew by approximately 19 percent between 1996 and 1997.
[he airport reported. The ]araer contours �vere caused by a
?� percene increase in the number of Bozing 7?7 operations
and a 10 percent increase in the number of IviD80 operations
at the airports. Both these aircraft types only meet Sta�e 2
federal noise standards and must be brou�ht in line wi[h the
more strin�ent Staoe 3 standards by the end of 1999.
Currently 94 percent of the operations at Reno/I'ahoe
Internationa] are done wi[h Sta�e 3 aircraft.
Brown-Buntin Associates calculaced the con�ours based on
noise moni�orinp procedures including flight data strips.
sinQlz e��en monitorin�, and observin� flight tracks.
Austin Begins Part 150
Auscin-Bersstrom international Airport announced tha[ is
has be�un work on a Part l�0 Airport Noise Comoatioili[}
studv for the new airport. Tne study should be compfeted by
I��fay 1999. Noise mitiRa[ion efforts are the airport [hus far
have focused primarily on acquisition of four schools
located under the approach to the new 4,000-foot run�ra��.
Principal Planner Holland Young �a�ill steer the noise stud��
103
o��erseeinR the technical ,:ommi[te� and citizens ad� isc�r�
commi[tee.
�3� �Zillion for '�eti�� Schools
The Sc. Loui� .-�iroort Commission recen�l�� �•oted unani-
mously �o spend up to S» million co �cquire land from �
schuol district near Lambert-S[. Louis Internacional Airport.
The funds will be used [o buv approxima�ely i0 acres of
land where a hi�Th school and 'tour other school discric[
buildinQs are located and to build a new hiQh school and
elemenearv school. y
.�irporc officials are considerin� purchasin� the school
buildings at repiacement cost instzad of fair market value.
New Tampa Run�i�a_y
The ?�4aster Plan for Tampa International Airport includes
the addi�ion of a new north-south runway some�ime after
2008, but this concerns some residents who fear a third
runway will increase noise problems. But the Hillsborouoh
Counrv Aviation Authoriry, proprietor of the airport,
contends the ne�v runway would actually help to reduce
noise by allowing aircraft to reach Tampa Bay faster.
Classroom Noise
The federal board responsible for developina �uidelines
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (AD.A) is
considering a request by the parent of a hearina disabled
student that ADA guidelines be amended to include new
provisions for acoustical accessibility in schools.
The acvon is significant because it could provide a basis
for federal atrencies, including those in the Federal Inter-
aoency Committee on Aircrart Noise (FICAN), to seek
funds to study �he impact of aircraft noise on children's
abilitv to le�-n and on their health. FICAl�t has expressed an
interest in such research but has no fundins source for it.
Poor acousdcal em�ironment is a siQnifican[ barrier to
children wi[h hearing impairment, but recent research also
has demonstra[ed that excessive classroom noise impedes
the acquisi[ion of lanauase and cognitive skills by all
children, includine those�not hearin� impaired.
The .�coustical Society of America has established a
Classroom Acoustics Subcommittee of its Architectural
Acoustics Committee ���hicn has held four symposia on
classraom acoustics issues. A[ the conference held in June
1997. researchers presenced evidence thac excessive noise
levels imoair a}�ounQ child�s speech perception. reading and
spellin� abilit�•. beha�•ior, a[tention, and overall academic
performance.
The \a[ional Standards Institute (.qNSI). in coniunc[ion
wich AS.a, has �s�ablished several protocols for the meas-
urement of room sound levels. includin�� .ANSI S l�'.2
Cn[eria �or Room Noise �Ieasurement. ANSI recentl�
established a commi[tee to de�•elop a classroom acouseics
standard. :�
Airpon tioi:e heport
104
ANR EDIT4RIAL
_�.DVISORY BO�RD
1lark .atµ�ood, Esq.
Gaf(and. I:har�sch. �'�torsc & Garrinl:le
Wash�n�on. D.C.
Lee L. Biackman. Esq.
hicDermott. V.'ill 3: Emcrv
Los Anoe(es. Calif.
Dr. Clifford R. Bragdon, �ICP
Dean. School of Aviacion & Transpor[ation Do���Iin�
Colleee
Eliot Cutler, Esq.
Cuder & Stanheld
1Vychington, D.C.
J: Spencer Dickerson
Senior Vice President
.4merican Associauon of Airpor[ Executives
Edward J. DiPolvere
Administrator, National Associarion ot tioise
Con[rol Officials
Richard G. "Dick" Dver
Airpott Environmental Specialist, Di�rision of
Aeronauucs, Calii. Dept. oFTranspor�ation
E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq.
Ho�an & Hartson
Washin�on, D.C.
Jutie H. Eilis, Esq.
Mana�ing Director
Federal Express Corpora[ion
Angel M. Garcia
Co-Chairman
Citizens Against Newark Noise
E.H. `itilce" Haupt
�tanaeer, Airport and Environmental Services.
Nationa! Business Aircraft .4ssociation
Robert P. Silverberg, Esq.
Ba;ileo. Sil��eroer� 8: Goldman
�Va.ehin�on, D.C.
,loanne 1�'. Young, Esq.
Baker S_ Hoste[!er I.LP
Washington, D.C.
.4irport �'��oise Report ,
ON THE �GEi��DA...
.4ua. 20-21 American Associa�ion of Airport Executives' Aircraft
Noise and Land Use Planninv titanaoemen[ ���orkshops.
Seattle WA (con�act A�.4E; teL• (703) S`?4-0�0=� or
fax-on-demand: (1-800-470-.�RPT).
Sept 14-1� American :�ssocia�ion of Airpon Executives' Fall
Legisla�ive Issues Conference, Washinacon, DC
(contact :�ArlE: tel: (703) 82�-0�0-1 or fax-on-demand:
( I -800—�70-ARPT).
Oct. �l-7 Airporu Council International - North America's 7th
Re�ional Conference & Exhibition, Marriott's Orlando
World Cen[er (con[act ACI, 177� K St., NW,
Washineton, DC 20006; tel: (202) 293-8500; fax (202)
331-1362).
Noc. 8-10 American Associaaon of Airport Executives/American
Bar Association Airpon Law Workshop, West Palm
Beach. FL (contact AAAE; tel: (703) 824-0504 or fax-
on-demand: (1-800-470-ARPT).
No��. 16-15 IIVTER-NOISE 98, The 1998 International Consress on
Noise Control EngineerinQ, Christchurch, New Zealand
(contact Conference Secretariat, INTER-NOISE 98
Secretary, MDA, PO Box 1181, Aukland 1001, '• (
Ausrralia; tel: (+64-9-379-7822; fax: +64-9-302-0098). �
No��. 20 The 1998 International Symposium on Recreational
Noise — The Effecu of Man on the Environment,
Queenstown, New Zealand (contact Symposium
5ecretary Grant Morsan, Electroacoustic Calibrauon
Services. PO Box 76-068, Manukau City, New
Zealand; tel: +6�-9-279-8883; fax: +b4-9-2�9-8833).
t�o��. 22-27 Noise Effects '98, the 7th International Consress on
Noise as a Public Health Problem, Sydney, Australia
(contact The Con�ress Secretariat, Noise Effects '98,
GPO Box 128, Sydney NStiV 2001 Australia; tel: 61-2-
9263-2''77: f� 61-2-9262-2323).
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Charles F. Price, Conrributins Editor; htaria T. Norton, Production Editor
Published `'� times a vear at 4397S Urbancrest Ct.. Ashburn. Va. 201�47: Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (70�) 729-=��?8.
Price 5�9�.
.�uthorization �o photocop} items for intemal or personal use, or the ineernal or personal use of specific clients
is Rranted b}� Airpon Noise Repon, pro��ided �hat the base fee of USS 1.0; per paRe per copy
is paid direct(}� to Cop}�right Clearance Cencer, 27 ConUress SUeet, Salem. MA 01970. USA.
Copyn_ht t�� 1995 by Ai�por[ hoise Feport..Ashhum, Va. 20147
� :,,; �' ',? c • . :� � �, ,; ': ;,
.;. � �
,r� �� . . . �, .
. ,,:
__: :; =_� ;�; �,: ;;�
❑ Agenda fo� the August 25, 1998 Iv�ASAC meeting
❑ Minutes of the July 28, 1998 MASAC meeting
❑ Copies of I��ASAC correspondence
❑ Blank Noise Monitoring and Information Request Form
❑ MSP Air Traffic Control Tower and MAC's Aviation Noise and Satellite
Programs Office Tours cover memo
C7 Minutes of the August 14, 1998 MASAC Operations meeting with
attachments and cover memos
❑ Monthly Part 150 Update
❑ July 1998 Technical Advisor's Report
�
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
'11.
AGENDA
PViETROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEiU1ENT
COUNCIL
General Me�tinp
August 25, 1998
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
6301 34T" Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Call to Order, Roll Call
Approval of Minutes of Meeting July 28, 1998
Introduction of Invited Guests
Receipt of Communications
Technical Advisor's Runway System Utiiizaiion Report and
Compiaint Summary
August 14, 1998 Operations Committes Report - Mark Salmen
Report of the MAC Commission Mesting - 8ob Johnson
Persons Wishing to Address the Councif
Items Not on the Agenda
Air Traffic Control Tower Tours
Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Office Tours
Adjour�ament
Next Me�ting;
September 22, 1998
_ _.
MINUTES
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAF'T SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
GEI�ERAL MEETING
July 28, 1998
7:30 p.m.
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1. Call to Order Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was askeri to call
the roll. The following members were in attendance.
Bob Johnson MBAA
Mark Salmen NWA
Jennifer Savre NWA
Dick Keinz MAC
Brian Bates Airborne
T.J. Horsager Sun Country
Rolf Middleton St. Paul Chamber of Commerce
Steve Minn Minneapolis
Sandy Colvin Roy Minneapolis
Dean Lindberg Minnea.polis
Glenn Strand Minneapolis
Dick Saunders Minneapolis
Neil Clask Minneapolis
Mike Cramer Minneapolis
Kristal Stokes Richfield
John Nelson Bloomington
Lance Staricha Eagan
Jon Hohenstein Eagan
Charles Van Guilder Burnsviille
Kevin Batchelder Mendota Heights
Advisors
Roy Fuhrmann
Chad Leqve
Cindv Greene
Visitors
Geoffrey Batzel
1
MAC
MAC
FAA
City of Minneapolis
2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the 7une 23, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.
3. Introduction of invited suests
Receipt of Communications
There were no invited guests.
The following communications were received:
➢ A letter from the City of lnver Grove Heights was received appointing Mr. Charles W. Enginton as the
city's new public representative.
➢ A letter from the City of Burnsville was received appointing Mr. Craig Peters as the city's alternate
representative.
4. Technical Advisor's Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Comglaint Summary
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported that:
% Runway 22 received 42.7% of the departures for the month of June 1998. The increase in
tempera.tures has made using the south parallel runway for departures more difficult for larger planes.
% There has been a change in how the fleet mix percentage is reported. Beca.use the airlines are now able
to provide the tail numbers for each of their hushkitted aircraft, ANOMS will be able to count the
actual number of hushkitteci planes, rather than using a percentage of fleet for the calculation. (Staff
provided updated information from January 1998 - May 1998 to reflect this change.)
� Overall, the number of complaints were down, compareri to June 1997. Although, some communities ��
have higher numbers of complaints due to the rerouting of aircraft.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked why there was an increase in general aviation operations. Roy
Fuhrmann, Technica.l Advisor, referred to the "golf course" effect. He said more people fly into the airport
on private jets during the summer months for entertainment reasons.
MAC Aviation Noise Pro�rams Handbook
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, presentztl a brief overview of the MAC Aviation Noise Programs
Handbook. He said each MASAC member will receive a copy of the book and updates will be mailed as
necessary.
Mr. Fuhrmann noterl that the Noise Nlanagement Methodology report would be publisherl within the ne�ct
couple of months.
P�1ei1 Clark, Minneapolis, asked if the tower orders were included in the book. Cha.irman Johnson said thev
were not. �
Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked if faiuung aircraft was a normal noise abatement procedure for airports
in urban areas. Roy Fuhr�, Technical Advisor, said fann.ing is a noise abatement procerlure. He said
most airports use either a concentration or dispersion pattern depending on the residential land use
C
�
surrounding the airport. Mr. Fuhrn�az�n said because we have a higher concentration of residential areas
around MSP, fanning is used to spread the noise out. Mr. Fuhl-mann said he beiieved the fanning
procedures have always bcen in use at MSP.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, and Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, complimented staff on the handbook.
6. Government and Industrv Par[nership Pro�ram
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, reported that on April 3, 1998 the FAA he3d a briefing in Washington,
D.C. in order to solicit interest in forming partnerships for the GPS Government and Indust'ry Partnership
(GIP) Program for the development and implementation of the Differential Global Positioning System
(DGPS), in particular the Lacal Area Augmentation System (LAAS).
He explained that although the federal government is funding the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAA.S), the LAAS has not been funderl. He said one method the FAA is using to fund the LAAS is to
form partnerships between government and industry representatives. These partnerships include the
manufacturers of the ground base stations and avionics, the airlines and the airports.
Mr. Fuhrmann said on Wednesday, July 22, 1998 the first meeting of these partnersiups was held in
Minneapolis. He said, along with Honeywell, 14 airports and 8 major airlines were present. He said the
group is planning how best to have the LAAS system publicly operational by the yea.r 2003 (� years earlier
than has been planned). He said much of the implementation schedule depends on the airiines' ability to
equip the aircraft, as well as the airports', operators' and FA.A's ability to write the necessary regulations
assaciated with the system.
Mr. Fuhrmann noted t.hat some of the same GIP program participants are represented at MASAC, and that
MASAC will be investigating this year and next how GPS can be userl to mitigate aircraft noise.
Neil Clark, Minneapolis, asked if there would be an increase in night flights due to test flights associated
with the DGPS system. Roy Fuhrniann, Technical Advisor, said he didn`t believe there would be additional
test flights, but that the airlines would use the system in their everyday, regular flights. He said the base
. station is not considered a test facilit�•.
Cindy Greene, FAA, said the FAA dces have plans to test the GPS system during some slower periods.
She said the FA.A is planning to test during the day, but if this is not possible, there could be some night
flights. She said the FAA would pro��de the dates and times of the flights once they were scheduled.
7. Operations Committee Report
Operations Committee Chairman Mark Salmen, NWA., briefed the council members on the July 10, 1998
Operations meeting. He noted that a full briefing on the EIS process was being planneri for the October 27,
1998 MASAC meeting.
The ne,ct meeting is scheduled for Friday, August 14, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. at the West Ternunal.
Executive Committee Report
Chairman Johnson reported on the Jul�� 20, 1998 EYecutive Committee meeting. He said members
discussed MASAC's current projects, as well as the topic of using Differential Global Positioning Systems
(DGPS) for noise abatement purposes. He also noteti that members agreed MASAC should continue to
� stay involved with the issues surrounding the construction of the 17/3� runway.
Chairman Johnson said the E.cecutive Committee would meet at least once more before the end of the year. �
Report of the MAC Corrunission Meeting
Chairman Johnson reported that the majority of the Commission meeting dealt with the issue of ihe
shoesh.i.ne contract at MSP.
Chaiiznan Johnson also noted that the P&E Committ� had postponed untiI August any recommendation as
to whether a new charter terniinal should be built. He said staff has recommended that a new ternunal be
built to initially accommodate 7 gates, with the possibility of adding 12 more. Staff said refurbishing the
existing ternunal would cost approximately $30 million and building a new one would cost approximately
$50 million.
10. Persons Wishin� to Address the Council
Sandra Colvin Roy, Minneapolis, briefed the council on a public informational meeting held on July 27,
1998 at Roosevelt High School regazding aircraft noise in the district she represents, at which
approximately 400 people attended. She said the two main questions people had were 1) when would the
Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program be available to them and 2) how Stage II hushkitted aircraft
compare with manufactured Stage III aircraft.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said inforn�ation about the sound level differences between hushkitted
aircraft and manufactured Stage III aircraft were inctuded in FAR Part 36, and that he would include this
information in the Augvst MASAC mailing.
�.
1 l. Other Items Not on the Asenda
There were no other items on the agenda.
12. Adjournment
Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respect£ully submitted.
MeIissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary
�Y � �'r� �, M
G `a i � .6- .
y `�� 7 i��� f -:4, ', �
� ``�'. r;t �i �. a• • 4, � t '� i ` , .
� ` � • - �- £ �T; + � - �,
,,� t�t� }rv Y :.�w t.
Aircraft and Hushkit Comparison - Takeoff and Arrivai Data - Advisory Circular 36-1G
Sta e En 'ne Aircraft e M� Take°ff Wt
g � T`3'P (MTOW) Takeoff Arrival
2 JT8D B727-100 160 96.5 105.0
3(Hush) JTSD Fe�eral Express 160 92.5 97.6
2 JT8D B727-1t30 169 98.0 105.0
3(Hush) JTBD Federal Express 169 94.0 97.6
2 JTBD B727-2t)0 175 100.0 105.0
3(I3ush) JTSD Ferleral Express 175 96.0 99.0
2 JTBD B727-2f30 190 102.0 104.0
3(Hush) JTBD Valsan 140 92.0 99.0
-'- JTSD B727-200 205 102.0 105.0
3(Hush) JT8D Valsan 205 95.0 99.0
2 JT8D DC9-10 90 91.0 102.0
3(Hush) JTSD ABS 90 87.0 95.0
2 JTBD DC9-30 105 95.0 102.0
3(Hush) JTBD ABS 105 91.0 95.0
3(Manufaciurad) JTSD MD80 145 89.0 93.0
3(Manufactured) Ck'1�1 A320 150 8�.0 96.0
3(Manufactured) PW2Dd0 B757 220 8:5.0 98.0
3('1�Ianufactured) CF1Q B737-200 1�.5 81.6 97.4
3{Manufactured) Tr�Y FI(}0 98 81.8 93.0
�a�s.^. .,..v..fv.�.:, �. �^.�.":r,.:� �3� s_.;.�c,:+rymrc�-e'7.�.ar.a:$:X�nh7{�. F�..i�fizC.:�: us,.�`:.i.:,�.d. ,�. � .:..�:c�'r., ncks..�.:>a. G �''�,�TY,.'.AkC`.;n.H�i.a..t,. .
�7.!�,'i`F�:rs::§t97n:V? i .r. �s :�tri"•Yr�k�S.iG''�z"�!Y�'.!+!w'L'� Y:Y'x"tik`��A'.::.414'�±�a.v}-::�:�,:iiti�i •.•..� I
c�ty of .
BURNSVILLE
100 Civic Center Parkway • Burnsville, Minnesota �5337-3817 �6121 89�--4-�U�1
�.
July 21, 1998
MASAC Secretary
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 5�450
RE: City of Burnsville's Appointments to MASAC
,.:
`- =,_
Please consider this notice that at their July 20�' meeting the City Council appointed tile
following person as the altemate representative for the City of Burnsville:
Craig Peters
13$24 York Avenue S.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Home: (612) 895-1585
Business: (612) 3b1-8590
If you have any questions, please call me at (612) 895-4491. Thank you.
Sincerely,
�
Susan P. Olesen
City Clerk
,;;�, :.n�
, ,: �
t. '�
� -
� � 6700 Portland Avenue 0 Richfield, t�iinnesota 55423-2599
) City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch Susan Rosenbera Kristai Stokes
Michael Sancahi Russ Susaa
August 11, 1998
MASAC Secretary
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Subject: 1998 Representatives
Dear MASAC Secretary:
At their August 10 meeting, the Richfield City Council approved the appointment of
Mark Hinds as the alternate to MASAC for the remainder of 1998. Mr. Hinds replaces
alternate City Manager James Prosser. This appointment becomes effective
immediately. -
Mark Hinds Alternate 6700 Portland Avenue (t!� 861-9708
Richfield, MN 55423
cerely,
Ja es D. Prosser
y Manager
JDP:cak
The Urban Hometown
Telephone (612) 86'1-9700 � Fax (612) 861-9749
An Eaual Opportunity Employer
1Vl�A.SA C NOISE M(�NITORING AND INFORI►�A TION REQUEST FORM
1998
Over Please
dditional Space if Required.•
Please indicate the 1998 MASAC objectives supported by this this request:
❑ To provide information to the MAC i�r'Yheir efforts to communicaie changes in operations, due to construction
to the surrounding communities. .
� Evatuate departure compliance through the Eagarr/Mendota Heights Corridor and make any necessary
changes to the relevant procedures.
� Review the ANOMS system and noise monitors, and evaluate the need and placement of additional remote
monitoring towers. Also, evaluate remote monitoring capabilities.
� ReguestAir Tra�c Contro! personnel to make a presentation on howMSP operations are conducted.
� Look at providing incentives to carriers in acquiring and operating factory-made Stage III aircraft.
❑ Investigate how GPS and�other NAVAids could help alleviate aircraft noise.
❑ Review the NADPs and compliance.
❑ Continue discussion ofPart I.iO contourgeneration.
Please send your request via mail to: IVIASAC Secretary, 6040 28th Avenue S.,
Minneapolis, tI�IN 55450 or fax it to :(6i2) 725-6310.
For Staff Purnoses Onlv;
Request #:
Staff Contact:
Date Received:
Is this a Phone
Approved By:
Appraval Date:
Or Written Request?
Data Availability:
Monitoring Start Date:
Monitoring Stop Date:
Analvsis Start Date:
Analysis Stop Date:
Completion Date:
2
� � 1� V DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Continuing Education
August 18, 1998
As a follow-up to the MASAC Audit that was conducted eazlier this year, the Aviation Noise and
Satellite Program staff is continuin� the efforts to conduct on-going education programs for
MASAC members. One of the recommendations from the MASAC Audit was to coordinate an
A.ir Traffic Control Tower Tour for MASAC members.
At the August 25, 1998 MASAC meeting, Federal Aviation Administration personnel will escort
small groups to the tower for a tour of the air traffic control tower and the TRACON. Throughout
the ATC tour, the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs office will be open and available to
display many of the capabilities of the software products within our offices.
These tours are intended to provide an enhanced undersfanding of the noise programs at MSP,
how air traffic works and the capabiliries of various equipment.
We believe this will be a very informative evening that will address many of the common
questions you may have concernin� aircraft operations and the noise abatement procedures
currently in place at MSP.
MEETIIVG NOTICE
NIASAC OPERATIOiVS COM1t�ITTEE
The Operations Committee will meet Fridav, Auqust 14, 1998 — 10:00 a m at the MAC
West Termina! Buiiding of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, North Star Room, 6301
34th Avenue South, Minneapolis.
If you are unable to attend, please notify the committae secretary at 726-8141 with the
name of your designated altemate.
. � :
NEW BUSiNESS
Runup & Ground Noise Study Brief
Review of Modified NADP Procedures
OLD BUSINESS
Construction Update
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Mark Salmen, Chairman, NWA
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Bob Kirmis, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airbome
John Nelson, Bloomington
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Mayor Charles Mertensotto, Mendota Heights
Dick Keinz, MAC
cc: Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Advisory:
ATC Tower Chief, FAA
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
Chad Leqve, MAC
Shane VanderVoort
MASAC OP�I,ATIONS COMMITTEE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
��• t
MASAC Operations Committee
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
Runup and Ground Noise Study Review
August 6, 1998
At the April 1998 MASAC meeting an Airport Ground Noise Study was initiated in an effort
to determine the sources of ground noise on the airport and the resultant impacts of such
opera.tions on the surrounding communities: Since that meeting a period of substantial data
acquisition was accomplished and the preliminary methodology was developed.
The Airport Ground Noise Study is nearing completion. As stated at the July 1998 MASAC
Operations Committee meeting, the monitoring is complete and the analysis and summary of
the data will be presented in Draft form at the August Operations Meeting.
The report will include an Overview of the study requirements, the Study Results, an Airline <
Maintenance Survey and Conclusions and Recommendations. In addition to the above, noise
contours, flight tracks and graphs will be analyzed and provided to assist in the determination
of study impacts.
�
1��iASAC OPEI.ATIONS C011�MITTEE
���'..
��
TO: MASAC Operations Committee
FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator
SUB,jECT: NADP Compliance Assessment
DATE: August 6, 1998
1VI:ASAC
The issue of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADPs) was a topic of thorough debate and
analysis for the MASAC Operations Committee as a means of providin� another level of noise
abatement for the communities surrounding Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Upon
committee concunence and MASAC approval, a desired NADP program was forwarded to the airlines
operating at MSP for implementation no later than First Quarter 1998.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FA.A) has developed two departure profiles which are available
under the auspices of FAA Advisory Circular 91-53A. The Close-In and Distant Departure Profiles
comprise the NADPs available for airport implementation. After extensive preliminary analysis by the
MASAC Operations Committee it was discovered that prior to NADP implementation aircraft using
MSP had been utilizing the Distant Departure Profile.
Upon completion of substantial aircraft performance and impact analysis the MASAC Operations
Committee forwarded a recommendation to the full MASAC outlining the following procedures:
'}- Distant Profile: when departina runways, 12L, 12R 04 and 22.
�- ('In_s�-In Prof�t�: when departin� runways 30L and 30R.
Due to the proximity of residential development, the above procedures provided the holistic best case
for the communities surrounding MSP. MASAC forwarded the recommendation to fhe Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) Planning and Environment Committee (P&E) where it was passed on to
the full MAC Commission and approved for implementation, as stated above.
As a result of the pre-NADP implementauon use of the Distant Profile off all runway ends, the
proposal represented a chanae in operation only for departures off runways 30L and 30R. As a result,
in an effort to assess NADP compliance it is necessary to evaluate the chanae in profile procedures at
MSP, in this case, those operations departinQ runway 30L and 30R.
At the Au�ust 14, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meetin� an analysis will be presented tha[ will
review departure profiles for runways 30L and 30R. This analysis wil] compare today's operations
with pre-NADP implementation operations usin� data from the summer of 1997 and ] 998.
If there are any questions or comments prior [o the MASAC Operations Committee meetina reQarding
this topic, please feel free to contact me at 72�-6328.
MINUTES
MASIaC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
AUGUST 14, 1998
The meeting was heid at the Metropolitan Airports Commission North Star Conference
Room, and cailed to order at '10:00 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Members:
Mark Salmen, Chairman - NWA
Bob Johnson - MBAA
Bob Kirmis - Eagan
Kevin Batcheider - Mendota Heights
John Neison - Bloomington
Advisonr:
Roy Fuhrmann - MAC Advisory
Chad Leqve - MAC Advisory
Shane VanderVoort - MAC Advisory
Ron Glaub - FAA-CMO-NWA
Visitors:
Jan DelCalzo �
Dean �indberg- Minneapolis
Dawn Weitzei - Richfieid
Tom Hanson - Resident of Richfield
Charies Stamer - Resident of Richfield
John Enger - Resident of Richfield
. � .
AIRPORT GROUND NOISE STUDY
Copies of. the 1998 Ground Noise Monitoring Technicai Study were distributed to the
MASAC Operations Members present.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, brieied the committee on the Ground Noise (vtonitoring
Technical Study, section by section.
� �-
�
Section 1: Overview
Mr. Fuhrmann began with a brief review of the study's background, noting that during the
first quarter of 1998, Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, reported that she had received a significant
increase in ground noise related complaints from residents. Mr. Fuhrmann also said that at
the April 1998 MASAC mesting, MAC Executive Director, Jeffrey Hamiel, tasked MASAC
with investigating, more ciosely, the sources of ground noise at the airport.
➢ The monitoring was conducted May 11, 1998 th�ough May 22, 1998. Seven full days of
monitoring data were collected. Although the intent was to monitor 7 cantinuous days,
May 15'h through May 19"' are not included in the monitoring because of the severe
storms that passed through the Metropolitan area during that time period.
➢ Monitors were set up on the field and in the community. Six sites were chosen: two on
the field and four in the community.
➢ There were two monitors at each site: one that measured noise using A-weighting and
one that measured noise using C-weighting. Each monitor was set approximately 6
inches apart.
➢ The monitors collected data 24 hours per day. The monitor near n.inway 4/22 was
manned 24 hours per day, and the monitors in the community were manned from
approxirnately 8 p.m. until 8 a.m. each night.
Section 2: Data Analysis and Results
Mr. Fuhrmann said on page 12 of the report, types of events that occurred at each site were
grouped together and quantified. The Maximum, Average Maximum and Minimum
( ) Maximum one-second levels are given in both L� dB(A) and L� d6(C). Mr. Fuhrmann
- noted that the A-weighted measurement metric was used for the remainder of the report.
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the run up pad contours (beginning on page 20 of the report),
which were developed using Noise Map. He said Noise Map is basically equivalent to the
Integrated Noise Model (INM) program, but has a more extensive database for developing
contours for engine run-up activity.
He said the aircraft used for developing the contours represent Stage II, Stage II1 hushkitted
and Manufactured Stage I11 aircraft all at a 300 degree heading.
Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked why contours had not been developed using C-weighted
data, as well. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the purpose of the study was to
identify the airport-related sources of ground noise, and that the A-weighted noise data was
used because the A-weighted metric is the federally recognized standard for determining
noise impacts for mitigation purposes. Ms. Weitzel said she felt using the C-weighted
measurement would be most appropriate because it better measures ground noise. Kay
Hatlestad, MAC Acoustical Coordinator, said the C-weighted scale was developed for
measuring louder noises rather than certain types of noise. She said the C-weighted
measurement would be appropriate if the study was attempting to study the effects of an
�-�-Y � � � v-e-s�- �,�j �Ue.sfc � v,
�-�---_ (� �c � -F t e � cS- �n2. i-t-c-�r— a-�.-�--�c< <„�5.' - 2�( - � �
engine run up on the human ear in the run up pad.
Mr. Fuhrmann then expiained that the contours on pages 22-28 were singie event, single �
aircraft type contours representing the L�,�, A-weighted, fast response measurement. On
page 29 there is a yearly (1997) DN� run up pad noise contour.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked what "fast-response" referred to. John Nelson,
Bloomington, said fast response refers to how rapidly the meter processes and integrates
the signals it receives and how many signals it will accept within a time frame. He said the
integration is usually done in millisecond intervals.
Mr. Nelson also discussed Figure 3 in Appendix A: Filter characteristics for A and C-
weighted sound levels. He said the chart shows that if someone is most�interested in a
noise that is dominated by low frequency characteristics, the A-weighting measurement is
biased toward the low frequency noise. He also noted that the graph shows that the
human ear is most sensitive to signal� that come into it at 1000 Hz. Interpreting the graph,
then, a sound that is at the 20 Hz level would read 5 decibels (ess on an A-weighted scale.
He said, "this is why most proponents of low frequency analysis ask for the C-weighting to
be used.°
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said the yearly DNL contour is not based on a 300
degree only heading, as with the single event contours. He said the high bypass aircraft
engines require the aircraft to be heading into the wind. He said because run ups� occur
within 360 degress, the contours on page 29 are almost circular. He also said that the
contours were based on actual data from 1997, including actual run up data.
Mr. Fuhrmann noted the run up logs from the monitored days were included and that the (
time frames noted were not how long the run ups lasted but the time period in which the run
up could be performed. The associated sound levels are also included.
Section 3: Airiine Maintenance Survey
Mr. Fuhrmann then reviewed the AirJine Maintenance Survey section. He said staff
conducted surveys of maintenance personnel at Mesaba, Sun Country and Northwest
airlines, which, combined, account for over 90% of the run ups performed at MSP. The
following items were noted:
➢ The primary reasons for a run up are: engine changes, fuel control
adjustment/replacement, engine component changes, leak checks, troubleshooting pilot
reported deficiencies and systems checks.
➢ When an aircraft is scheduled for maintenance, run ups are performed during daytime
hours (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
r The maintenance personnel have problems scheduling run-ups during these hours
when there is unscheduled maintenance on an aircraft. The maintenance personnel
said their best time for maintenance is during the nighttime hours because this is when
the aircraft are not flying.
3 �,
➢ Over 50% of run ups are cond�cted at idle, 20-25% are conducted at 85% of total
thrust, and only 20-25% are conducted at take-ofF thrust. The majority of the time a
singie engine is being tested. (Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the run up pad contours reflect
a single engine run up.)
➢ The maintenance crews,said the field rule, which prohibits run-ups during the 12 a.m. to
5 a.m. time frame, restricts them.
➢ The maintenance crews suggested adding more lighting and noise dampening features
to the pad. •
Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
The predominant noise source at the airpo�t is departure aciivity, accounfing for.over
61 % of all recorded, predominant noise events.
2. Taxi activity account for 23% of the identified predominant noise sources. The levels
recorded on the airport property for this noise source were in the low 70 dBA's and in
the community were in the 50's and 60's.
3. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) activity is not a major source of ground noise in the
community.
4. The application of reverse thrust upon landing was noticeable on the ai�eld (monitored
up to a mile away). In the community, the application of reverse thrust was, at times,
audible, especially during the quieter nightfime hours, but recorded noise levels for
these events were within one or two dBA of the ambient levels. The duration of this
type of event is from 10 to 15 seconds.
5. Monitoring personnel in the community experienced, at times, sustained noise events
that resembled an engine maintenance run up at take off thrust. Yet, there were no run
ups being performed. It was discovered that, depending on the wind speed and
direction, departing aircraft activity from runways 12L, 12R, 04 or 22 could be heard in
the community, as well as on the airport. Although noise levels associated with these
types of activities are audible during most time periods, they are more noticeable during
the nighttime hours.
Ron Glaub, FAA, noted that when the airport operates at night in the same manner as it
does during the day (as was the case on May 18`h when ihe airport did not complete
recovery from a storm system until 2:00 a.m.) the noise from the airport seems much
louder than the monitored 1-3 decibel increase in the community because the normal
ambient noise levels at night are lower than during the day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said this was correct.
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis Visitor, aslced why the monitors were placed in Richfield only
with none north of the airport in Minneapolis. Roy Fuhrrnann, Technical Advisor, said
because of the limited number of monitors and the limited number of personnel to man
them, it was not possible to monitor at additional sites. He said, though, that it was
possible to draw conclusions from the information gatliered in Richfield and apply them
to Minneapolis.
6. Run up activity is a noise source on the airport, and depending on the time of day, a
possible noise source in the community. The average run-up lasts approximately 10 to
15 minutes with the majority of aircraft operate at idle power settings.
7. The DNL Average Sound Level (A-weighted) was calculated for May 12"' through the
14`h. The numbers were fairiy consistent for each site except for May 12`h at Christian
Park. When staff investigated fu�ther, it was found that construction activity had been
taking place in the park on that particular day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said
this illusirated that other sources of noise, such as construction, can contribute to the
overall noise impacts in a communiiy.
8. The "L-Value" difference beiween A and C weighting is approximately 12 dB. However,
for an individual event, there was less of a difference, approximately 4-10 dB. This
variability indicates that the A-weighted metric is better suited for use with the frequency
ranges associated with aircraft generated noise.
9. The attenuation for each type of event diminishes as the distance increases from the
ground noise source.
10. The primary source of ground noise at the airpo
departures from any active runway prior to becoming
mask this type of noise.
Recommendations
rt is the direct result of aircraft
airbome, although overFlights will
11. The run-up field rule should be modified to reflect actual requirements of aircraft.
Although the existing field rule advocates the use of a specified heading range, this has
; not been acceptable practice for a number of years due to today's high bypass aircraft
engine manufacturer requirements.
12. The installation of noise walls around the run-up pad could help reduce the noise
impacts of engine run-up activity in surrounding communities. This type of technology
should be evaluated if a change in the run-up field rule is anticipated to reflect the actual
environment and practices on the field.
Other technologies, such as "hush houses" and "engine silencers" are not practical due
to the wide range of aircraft configurations and engine types that exist within the MSP
fleet. Multiple structures or numerous engine silencers would need to be available to
accommodate all possible engine/aircraft configurations.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the field rule stated any time restrictions on
run-up activity and whether or not staff was suggesting there be a"relaxation" of these
restrictions. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said run-ups are prohibited from midnight to
C
5 a.m. He said the airlines would like not to have the time restrictions and hoped that if a
noise barrier of some sort were constructed, the time limits could be relaxed. Mr.
� Batchelder said he thought a noise barrier should be constructed and the time restrictions
kept in place.
Dean Lindberg, Minneapolis, asked for a description of a"hush house." Roy Fuhrmann,
Technical Advisor, said hush houses were developed for enclosing specific aircraft types
(such as those used in the military). He said the siructure is usually completely enclosed
with doors and works extremely well for single type aircraft. He noted, though, that because
MSP's airlines have diverse fieets, a hush house wouldn't be able to accommodate all these
aircraft.
A discussion ensued regarding aircraft manufacturer requirements for wind speed and
direction during run-ups and how � changing the heading ofi an eircraft in the run-up pad
would alter the contours provided in the report. There was also discussion regarding
possibly limiting the field rule to "preferred headings."
John Nelson asked staff whether building noise walls would eliminate the wind speed and
direction requirements. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said it was possible but he was
unsure of the extent.
Mr. Nelson also noted that the chart 6n page 39, which shows the Leq (A) max at each site
for each event type, indicates that run-ups, regardless of the fact that departures were
louder, can produce significant noise levels. He said that if the committes were to eliminate
moving aircraft from consideration of ground noise attenuation at this time, run-ups were the
next most significant source for noise and wondered if run-ups should be addressed
specifically, taking into consideration the information found in the report.
Mr. Fuhrmann reminded the committee that (1) the average number of run-ups per day was
4.5 in 1997, (2) 50% of the those are performed at idle, with approximately 1 run-up per day
at full thnast, (3) the noise from daytime run-ups would most likely be masked by departure
noise and (4) a full stage IIl fleet will alter run-up noise effects. He said he thought the
committee may want to weigh the benefits of trying to attenuate run-up noise with the
benefits of woricing on solutions fior other noise sources.
John Nelson, Bloomington, asked staff if the report`s findings could be used in future Part
150 contour updates and how the information may affect it. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical
Advisor, said the INM model already incorporates run-up activities and tt�at, since the
impacts from run-ups are minimal compared to other activities, they don't impact the
contours significantly.
Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said, even though the overall affect of run-up activity is
minimal, MASAC should still be concemed with minimizing the impacts of any type of airport
noise source and advocated further research into run-up pad noise attenuation technology.
0
Robert Johnson, MBAA, reminded the committee that there have been deflector waiis in
place for a number of years already and that there are plans to add to the existing walls this
year. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said there are plans to extend the blast deflector
wall once the reconstruction of the south parailel is compiete and operations are back to
noRnal. He said the reason for this timing is because during the deflector wali extension
construction, run-ups wiil not be able to occur at the pad and will be performed at the
approach end of runway 04, which would not have been available during the reconstruction
period. He said run-ups on that end of the rvnway will have priority over departures. He
said the construction should begin by the end of August.
There was a discussion again regarding the run-up field rule and how wind . speed and
direction affect aircraft during this procedure. Roy Fuhrmann; Technical Advisor, said
although there is a 300 degree heading specificatio+� in the field rule, the reality is the newer
aircraft must head into the wind in order not to stall the engine compressor, and that the
airlines have been performing this procedure per the manufacturer's directions for many
years. He said staff was recommending that the field rule be updated to reflect this reality.
There was also a discussion regarding the di#ferences between the C-weighted and A-
weighted L-Values.
JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND KEVIN ' BATCHELDER, MENDOTA
HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO
RESEARCH 1NFORMAT(ON REGARDING (1) RUN UP PAD NOISE ATTENUATION
TECHNOLOGY AND (2) MANUFACTUER SPECIFICATIONS FOR WtND SPEED AND
DIRECTION FOR AIRCRAFT ENGINE TESTING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION
AT THE SEPTEMBER 1998 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING. THE VOTE WAS
UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED.
.�-
ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAA, MOVED AND
SECONDED TO POSTPONE THE NADP
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING.
CARRIED.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
REVIEW UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 1998
THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, updated the members on the status of the south parallel
reconstruction project. He said a ribbon cutting ceremony was held on Friday, August 7,
1998, and that a press release was issued stating that the runway would be open for normal
use the week of the 10'h. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune newspaper reported that the
runway would be open on the 10`h and staff received a number of calls asking why airport
operations had not changed.
Mr. Fuhrmann also reported that since the north parallel runway has been used heavily this
summer rubber remova! maintenance on the runway is scheduled to occur over the next
month or so during the nighttime hours. Routine construction on other parts of the south
7 �'
parallei n.inway is aiso necessary and will take place during the nighttime hours. He said,
as a result, both parallel runways will need to be shut down at times, and traffic wiil be
diverted to runway 04/22. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked if Mr. Fuhrmann would prepare
an information sheet regarding these maintenance activities in order for her to inform the
residents of Richfield of this infoRnation. Mr. Fuhrmann said he would speak with the
Airpo�t Development s#aff about providing scheduling information.
Chairman Saimen noted that the installation of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for
runway 12R wouid be completed within the following four days.
Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said he wanted to clarify that, although some sources of
information indicate runway 04/22 will now be limited to long-haul flights, the runway is stiil
being used, to the e�ent possible, for RUS purposes.
The next Operations Meeting wil! be held September 11, 1998.
The meeting was adjoumed at 12:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Melissa Scovronski
Committee Secretary
�
H
� �
� �
O � C�,)
� �
0 Q. O
'�
C �
O
L�,, p v O
p +.. -
� +'' L N
O :� ++ cn
� � C �
o � � q
� o �
� o`�, � o
� � o ,�
.� '+ti ,x
v
� ' � S. i.�.�
O � � "'O
"C7 � O v
.�.�v`�
� � �
� � � �
�� �
0 0 � �,
� L. "' V
� t., �
cCf � � �
U."�' �
� •� '� N
C C � �•
�
� 'C7 �
'�'�1 > �
� p cn
r-i
� G�
Nr � .fJ
/") •i� `i-d
� � �M
� c,�, s.+ ,
� � � 3
� � V Q
� � � •--.�
� r �,
� M O
�O Q� �
� M �
M
��., N *�
�
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o a p o
� ^ M M — �
N N � � � M
6R 64 64 69 64 �
������ �
v;cs��nc�t� r;
v� � ci �:r co o .�
r�r s� s�-� .c,Ny yCy
b
������ �
�, � �
E � � � � E H
�x�� °� �
c��1 �V Q�i � N �t' h
""' N U'1 00 � Op (+�
� �
tA
'�
N M�i- in �p r. E.r
Q� O� cT O� O� O�
Q� Q� O� O� Q� G� Q
C
C
C __
f . .',
,� - _ 14�anneapolas / St. I'aul International Airport
MINTHLY 11qEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
c�,�:
Robcrt P..loh�soo
w« ca,�,,,�»:
T6omss Hu�g
Technical Advisor.
Roy FY�hrmann
��n���:
M�u� s��
A'vbome Ezprru:
Bt�ian Bates
A'v Tinnsport Associarim:
Panl McCraw
A[PA:
x� r�a�
Ciry ojBlaomingron:
Petrma Lee
v�m wu�:
crry ofa�,».m1��:
Ea rorur
c;ry af�R�:
Jon So6emteln
�« s���
Ciry ojtm�er Crove Hciglus:
n�� a���
Ciry ajMr�aw Heights:
JW Smlt6
Kevfn Bakhelder
City ajMinneapdrr
n� unan�,�
su�� �
x��
cr�� su�a
Sandra Cotvin Roy
Mlke crom�r
c;ty ofx;�n��td�
Krtstal SWkes
Dawu Wdtzel
c,ry ofsc lo�,;s th,;E:
Robcrt Adnws
crry ofsr. fa�r:
�rromffi a. a��
c�rv �su,�.� �:
ci�� spc�ng
Delw Air lines Ina:
L,arry Goehring
DHL Airwms:
arlan S�moason
Fedrrd E=pnss:
Dan DeBorcl
Frderd Avintian Administmtion:
� c��»
Cindy Gmne
MAC Smg.•
Dick ICe1nz
MBAA:
Robert P. Joha�n
MesaL'a Northwesr Aidink:
Phll Burke
Metropolitan Airpons Cwnmizsion:
Canmksioner Altoa Gasper
MN AirNational Guard:
M�jor Roy J. S6etka
Nanbwesr Ardines.•
Mark Salmea
]ennJfer Sayre
st��� xdme
x�ry s�ai
St. Pmr/ Cluvnber ojCommerct:
�t nf�rt��t�
Sw CauntrvAirlines:
cordou Gfaves
United AirGnes /nc.:
Kevin Black
Unired Pumef Servics
M➢ce Gcycr
US. Arr Faree Resrrve:
Captnia Davki J. Gerken
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Declaration of Purposes
1.) Promate public welfare and narional security; serve public interest, convenience,
and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state,
and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, 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
effec6ve use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area;
2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact
from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement,
control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and
3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the
public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Statement of Purpose
This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfaze of the communities
adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a
public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of
the pmblems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and
evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of
the same; through initiation, coardination and promotion of reasonable and effective
procedures, conirol and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and
of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected
communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the
problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions
initiated and taken to alleviate the problem.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
Representation
The mernbership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations,
associations and governmentai bodies which by reason of their statutory authozity and
responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users,
have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User
Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and
Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number.
The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411.
Complaints to the hotline do not resu/t in changes
in Airport activity, but provide a public sounding
board and airport information outlet. The hodine
is staffed during business hours, Monday - Friday.
i ms report is prepazeci and pnnted u� house
Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinazor
Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS 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 Page: http://www.macavsat.or
Nletropoflitan Airports Comr�issaon Aviation Noise Programs �.
� 1
Operaiions and' C'or�plaint ,Summary 1
Operations Summary - All Aircraft .....................................................................................1
MSP July Fleet Mix Percentage ........................................................................................... l
Airport July Complaint Summary ........................................................................................1
July Operations Summary - FAA Airport Traffic Record ................................................... l
,���� "'� � � c, I� � ' '�/' I-' i t �,
ComplaintSummary by City ...............................................................................................2
�lvaila.�ble �'i�rte, for �Zunway Ilse 3
TowerLog Reports - All Hours .......................................•-..................................-.--•...........3
Tower Log Reports - Nighttime Hours ................................................................................3
. ��, � I ; •`
RunwayUse Report July 1998 ............................................................................................4
i : , % ,, /; � , � ` �
RunwayUse Report July 1998 ............................................................................................5
1Va�h�ime - All Oper�ions 6
RunwayUse Report July 1998 ............................................................................................6
1l�ight�ame C'a�°�er° ,Je� Operat�ons i
RunwayUse Report July 1998 ............................................................................................7
C'a�ier,jet Oper°�ons by Type �
�lircra, ft Iden��'°ier and Z�esc�pi�on �'able 9
Runway tJse � I)ay/1�Ia�ht Periods -�.11 C�p�r�i'o�� 14
DaytimeHours ...................................................................................................................10
C'orn�un�iy Over°,�l'i�ht Analysis .�1
� � Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
.....................................................................................11
__ .
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) ......................................................11
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�emoie tllonato�n� Site Loc�a'ons 12
C`ar�ier ,Jet A.�zval Related 1Voise .Events .�3
Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT....
� , , �` � � � . � . ' � , _� ,�, ; . . ..
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ......
�'en Louc%si .A.ircra,�'i l�oise �vents Id'en�i,�"aed' I S
� � : i , .t ; ; � ` � , , ,. � ,, ,.,� �,
� , / �; {� �'7 �. , ( � i i � ,i , ,r ,�
;
/ x ,/ , ;/' ,i �, , � . � . � ; � , : � :� .. � �; �
� �/ /- -i •:. � ,� � i i � i , _ ,� � � �/�
i / /`,� �' � � , i �' i �' r � ; i �' ,�
,�
� ,/ ,,� /� i / %r
.
....................................13
....................................14
14irpori l�oise and Oper�ion� 1Vlonito�~in� Sys%m Flight Ti°acks 22
Carrier Jet Operations - July 1998 .........................................
................22
�iirport 1�Tois�e anri O�er°actions 111on�tora�� System F'li�ht Tracks 23
Carrier Jet Operations - July 1998 .....................................................................................23
�4arp�ri 1�Tois� and Oper�aiz'ons lklonito�n� Sysi�m .�l�,�ht Tracks 24
Carrier Jet Operations - July 1998 .................................................................................... 24
14irpori 1V�oi�e and Operaiions 11%�onito�n� System �l��hi �'racks 25
Camer Jet Operations - July 1998 ............................................................:....................... 25
14nalysis o, f 14ircrajFt IVoise �ve�cis �.� arcra� Ld� d�(A.) 26
�nalys�s o�'A.arcra, fi 1Vois� Events - Aircra,� Ld� c�l�(A) 27
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� .
�t � . h ` �s . 1'� 1 ',t� . ,. .
, u �, ..
.
Oper�tions Summary - All Aircraft
It1EAway 1�TTioal % Use IBep�rtuTe % Use
(?4 35 0.2% 71 0.4%
22 142 0.7% 9027 45.5%
12 6496 31.8% 3855 14.4%
30 13748 67.3% 6890 34.7%
IVLSP July Fleet IV�ix Percentage
S�age Seh��e�i 3ched�ed �NOlV� AAtOIVI,.S
_.. - ---1997 :- �. 1!�$ Coun� 1�37 Count 199�
Stage 2 42.0% 31.0% 45.1% 31.0%
Stage 3 58.0% 69.0% 54.9% 69.0%
Airport July Coanplaint Summary
Anrpog�i 1997 199$
MSP 1426 2004
Airlake 2 0
Anoka 0 6
Crystal 0 1
Flying Cloud 1 0
Lake Elmo 0 0
St. Paul 3 4
Misc. 6 0
TOT�. 143� 2015
July Daily d�perations 5ummary - F� r�irport T�raf�iic Record
�.,_ Aviation Noise & Satetlite Programs Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
'. `I i �`.: • . ,� ,; �. . .;/1 1; f;..: ,
�, i; •
•
Complaint Summary by City
City Arrivai IDeparture Total Percentage
A le Va11e 0 6 6 0.3°l0
Arden Hills 0 6 6 0.3%
Bloomin ton 0 243 243 12.1%
Burnsville 1 98 99 4.9%
Ea an 15 61 �6 3.8%
Eden Prairie 0 3 3 0.2%
Edina 0 2 2 0.1%
Golden Valle 0 2 2 0.1 °Io
Hastin s 0 1 1 0:0%
Inver Grove Hei hts 13 58 71 3.6%
Ma le Grove 5 13 1$ 0.9%
Mendota Hei hts 6 42 48 2.4%
Minnea olis 143 941 1084 54.2%
Minnetonka 3 1 4 0.2% �
Pl mouth 7 23 30 1.5%
R.ichfield 0 153 153 7.7%
Rosemount 0 1 1 0.0%
Roseville - 1 2 3 0.2%
Sava e 1 11 12 0.6%
South St. Paul 0 3 3 0.2%
St. Louis Park 6 �4 10 0.5%
� St Paul 86 32 118 5.9%
Sunfish Lake 0 6 6 0.3%
Total 2$7 1712 1999 100%
lime of Day Nature of Complaint
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Frograms
�:
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ava�lable T'ime for ltunvv�y �Jse
�ower �og �.ePo� - July 199�
All xours
0%
52% �'
7�%
44%`
2%
�
I�tighttime Honrs
0%
2%
13
,� },; -.
i
i � � F, ...
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
51%
57%
Page 3
Metropolitan A.irports Commission
' �� �I ' ._ � 1
. . � . � � � � �
.
, ,:. ' � � I
, � � �: � ;
. i � �, ,, �•� .�.
�.� i _ � � �. 4,�
�, .:„ ..�..,. ...-,. ;. .-...., _. ,.. .. .._-;r,...,.,... ,. .. , ,-.., . , ,,. , ... .. ,.,
� � �.-�� � '�1, . i .. „�
��'�.■ ' ; . .,�`±iiii�i"� ' � ■
r .�III�� � • � � i � � �� � , �
�1, , ' ,� ! '• . ' !,�
�'��■ • � i �/, ���;����I� � i
. '• .. ,�.. �•, ■ �,� �,'. _ .�I� ._....
.�'-.':.� -, .. �.,.: R � ^ �• _ ' -
_. ,.. ��,. ,_ _ . . �-�r „ „v ..._.; . ._, ��._..
. ...;.. ., ,...<,...� .�_.u,_: ,,... . ..._ , �
i• v _,.,,..:,
(� ;�r ,'` i rrk'... ��'� .. � � � � �.,'. (.,.,'... � �
1 !> t
...,,n, _.. _c,.�,: ,. ,=. ..,.,.`�. r �� .. ,,..�,..
_... ,> ,. .._ r ..,,..- , . . . � ,,:, . . . �J, „ .. . _ , . �:: �
� � ������ �_. _..,� � � ii�,,:. , .. �::� � � � � � �� ��
������ i ii i ���� �...,������� � � ���
�� ���� �� � � � � � �,�� � � � ��
i • 1 � '. '; . 1'.
II � ������ � � � ���.��� i • � � �
� � ������ ��' t��� : • ' .
,. _... ,_ , v... .: r . ,,..: .._,. ,.,�.
r �
t �� 1 �:fa�-r � �. +,`i � � • � i � 1 I � ('") i
� � (
„�,....,,: <. _...�..v:._M, .,, .......�. �,k.,.�".e�� r..dz,x.x�. .._,.�.�.,.�r�. �.._,...� :.:,���.�. �..�,.
i
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams
Carr�er Jei �perations
�tunway �Jse I�ep€�rt Juiy 19 �
0.3%
32.1 %
0.8%a
33.1
0.1 %
4�.5 0
Metropolitan Airports Commission
;,
, _,, � �
� ,', 1..�. � '' �. 4., - � , �. .,
_ ,.. , �.�. _..�. ,�. , _ . _. . K. w ��_ .� .�.,.rt.. : .yr_, .. � .... �. > ,
f. ...z�,. �, F �...��._ ,� ,�. �,: . ,....,,, , a �. � ., � .. , ,.. _:
� � ���� � � 1 '� � � • 1 1 ' � �
����� � � � � �' �;:� ' � � �' �
• . . . � ���, ; • � �-,
;
��������� � � ��;a��� ''
�
1 • 1 ', � : : '.
��iii�.■ . ui , ' ' '' i . : ■ 1 . ". ,
..,�., � ..... � , R . r
�,J" . } h"�i-„� 9f`i.h5�. � .r-.,.:r ..:.:.µ..�ro ,.�..�.... ....., .
. .., .... ..... ....- ..
� x 7 y t
�. ��. � �y��r �f x�{ `4rF S �rT�"S'y. . .. .. t: ' , .' ' � I � ' 1� , I
t F �, 1�.".:+' L�..
,. ,�„� ,���: ..,,,� ...��.-..4....+, �.. -�? .. .k. xu�k4.?,n.�.::.�....,-_,�,r��,.-�...._ ,.- :_. > ...«<x� v. �_ .w....,�.w
:',..;:n� ...._,,,;:., <.,�,,.:�.�.� _:,:.:.:, . ...�-r_:..,<
. .������ � �i i � �i
���� � � � i � i � � • � � i
������ �
� � �� ��� : i� • �i
������ � � i � i � � i � li �� � � ��
������ ��i � i � � ��
� � � �� � � �I � i �I
i� � � ��7, ��`�� ;`�,-���5�� I I � � r��, i I � �
.�r, ��r,�.�,.��,�x�
Nore: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams Page 5
Metropolitan Airports Commission
c � ,• ; �� �. ,• �. , �.
�
, • . � �, 1 i .�
, � ��
. : �� . i�
� � , � � � . � . � , ; , .
I•�: — � � �. �,.� .��
..,. . �.. ., ._�.. � ,..� ,._<, .,..n.,, ,. w . . :. . .. . ... ..
'�0� � � I ,,, . ��. ,;
� � : •, . -!; ,
. ,,, ` , � , � "� �
, � � , , ` • � �u •,;�
1 1. ' :', • � �'■
�• � � � ��� �
,y,,:r:. .�.. _„7
_.� ._:e� .� . ...: ..... .... .:..
, �, � , � _ �. W.0 ,
�..=.r.. _ _.. .,
� ,-� 1' il', �•� I-I',
, .
,, ,
,
,
,v :..:. .. ....:.... ... .. �� .:: ;:.... ., .. _,. , . .r.::, ... �. .. ,,: ,. . . . . ..:,. ,.. ,.. � .. ... , .... . :.
����-� 1 .,� �.., � � �
� '1 '. i! �� G •",
• � ,� ` , ,' ■
� / � � ', � � 1 •,
1 � 1 •'. ;: • : 1 : ".
;
� � � .. .� � • �, .
tr � _
k � �. ..::..
s � � � �� i r t � xrs ( " , �. � � . ,-;.�) ( � � ,.� � ,�... =. �.�
� � s �
..,r..;.....,. _ ...-,.. ,.,.:.�M1�. „d..�..:. n,�i ..,.,: . ■
w,. _ _,..�.,_ .. , .,_ -:.,., , � _...:,,. . >. ,..� . �., -. ,.,,. . _ � �� i
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 6 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�'
i
Metropolitan Airports Commission
N��ht��me Carr�er J�t iJperations
12unway Use Report July 19 �
0.3%
,,,
,, ��
� ',' 1•.,, � � �' `'' - � , �. .,�
�....:< , w.. .r.. .. ��. � _ .r.... .., ,.<,<. .. ., _ ..... . ......:, .. .�.,,.._ � >. ..., �,:.. � .... .�,_ s .._.
. � � ■IIi�■� i • •,, iil.�� .. ,,... ,
� � � ' � � 'r■�lifi�■ � ' �' ,
' ' 1", '; 1� ■� '.
,. .,, ,■�■ : 1',
1 • ' , ; � � '��
,
� � . . , � � � ;'�1, . .
. v_• y�a a.-zca�� y.... .s«. ,.e.. zw . .:�s.:�, . -
� `�� �,kca ,s'`��i .�,, , ,.�.�x, �. , .��. r,n.., n,. . �_. — ,h ,
ti� .
� . I : �G"lA�;�Y,i�'r� ��.:� vi'�e 3ti �..�. ,- �I I � r � �_._. ...,' �
<
f e .� t �
�5..,,,., ., ....0 . , , v.:,o�,...G,..� �;t< .., �.,r. =", ',� �t .r
: ,... ..r _�..�..,. .F�.�.�u.. < . �....��:.. .�, . _,,.�.... �._. �. .�.,,. , �.�;::.._ .� . :.:..::. ...:...�:.� � . r_.�..,:: .,..��...:
,, S■� �„/ .,.�I�■ � , ,�II �. .
, • • � �/ �'� • ,/ ■
� � i�e ..,, .: •. �� _--
. �� ��-- � �. �, .,
��o�io� � • - - :��■� , . . ,
� ,
�
� • r - � . -, 5 � � • -,
�Y 1 1� (��� t��' ¢ } 4� w rf M f�i i�# $�j�� 1 �.. ■ ." / � .5�i� �_� " ,�
. �
, s�'�'�, a.
,. II � ,. �,,., .,a.. „r .,,k.�., �.,.rrfi �,�ue�+ c'�.n-���r t.;<,..._,_.. .. ,�..,,, �-,� „�xa. .. ....,.,,. 1 �
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Commission
.' . . � '1 • .: ° 1 1 i ,•
�,p.
�,
Aircraft Typ� Count Percentage
B777 0 0.0%
B727H 533 1.9%
B72Q 175 0.6%
B73B 1028 3.7%
B74A 203 0.7%
B74B 52 0.2%
B757 3121 11.3%
B767 63 0.2%
BA46 1089 3.9%a
CARJ 238 � 0.9%
DC 10 626 2.3%
DCS 33 0.1%
DC9H 5872 21.3%
E145 214 0.8%
A300 81 0.3%
A310 61 0.2%
A320 3168 . 11.5%
� F 100 989 3.6%
L101 10 0.0%
MD 11 4 0.0%
MD80 1349 4.9%
H25B 135 0.5%
H25C 15 0.1%
BAll 3 0.0%
B727 2838 10.3%
B73A 1595 5.8%
DC8 264 1.0%
DC9 3849 13.9%
F28 0 0.0%
Total 27b08 100%
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
.'• I'', r �,- 11`
, ,/', � r- ►;
Metropolitan Airports Commission
:, �; ;�. .� .:� f' ��;`. ,h: �; : � �;.
Iden�fifier Aircraffit D�seripiaon
B727 BOEING 727
B727H BOEING'727 - HLTSH KIT
B72Q BOEING 727 - HITSH KTI'
B73B BOEING 737 - 300/400/500
B73A BOEING 737 100/200
B74A BOEING 747 - 100/2(}0/300
B74B BOEING 747 - 400
B757 - BOEING 757
B767 BOEING 767 `
B'777 BOEING 777
H25C BRITISH AER.OSPACE 125 - 1000
H25B BRTTISH AEROSPACE 125 - 700/800
BAl l BRITISH AEROSPACE 111
BA46 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146
CARJ - CANADAIR 650
FA 10 EALCON 10
DC 10 MCDONNII.,L DOUGLAS DC 10 -
DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8, DC8 70 - SERIES RE (ALL SERIES)
DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9
DC9H . MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KIT'
E145 EMBRAER 145
A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300
A310 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310
A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319
A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320
F100 FOKKER 100
F27 FOKKER F27 (PROP)
F28 FOKKER F28
L101 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011
MD 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11
MD80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES
SW3 SWEA.RINGEN METROLINER 3
SW4 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4
SF34 SAAB 340
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9
Metropolitan Airports Commission
.� ... ' � i� . � � . � .�; c ,- � • - �, ,
.
.,',11 �.' i` • il ��'i
Daytime Hours
Runway Departures Percentage Arrivais Percentage Totall)ay
Name Day Use Day Use
04 64 0.3% 21 0.1% 85
12L 2986 16.2% 3657 18.9% 6643
12R 417 2.3% 2612 13.5% 3029
22 8523 46.4% 82 0.4% 8605
30L 306 1.7% 5952 30.8% 6258
30R 6078 33.1% 7015 36.3% 13093
Total . 18374 100% 19339 100% 3i713
Nighttime I3ours
Runway I)epartures Percentage Arrivals Percentage Total Night
Name Night Use Night Use
04 7 0.5% 14 1.3% 21
12L 401 27.3% 200 18.5% 601
12R 51 3.5% 27 2.5% 78
22 504 34.3% 60 5.5% 564
30L 13 0.9% 106 9.8% 119
30R 493 33.5% 675 62.4% 116$
Total 1469 100% 10$2 100% 2551
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Paga 10 Aviation Noise & 5atellite Proa ams
Metropolitan Airports Commission
���; ����, • °'� � �' ,;
' .: �1 1 . �� ..�� ' : ,.i 1 �� � .r • 1 1'� : ,Ij �1; i
Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours
�Tumb�r l�tuu�ber Total Percent Number of
Over�light Area ���� �p�,�� C�rrier Jet Carrier Jet i�perations
Operations Operatiox�s per 24 Hours
Over So: Minneapolis/ 4618 4391 9009 32.6°l0 298.3
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 18 6618 6636 24.1% 219.7
Bloomington
Over St. Paul - 111 36 147 0.5% 4.9
Highland Park
Over Eagan! 9203 2613 11816 42.8% 391.3
Mendota Heights -
�'ota� � 8760� l�% 914.2
Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am)
1`Tuffiber 1`Tumber �O� Pers�nt Nuffiber of
� Over�lighi Ar�a C�rrier Jet Carrier Jet Operataons
%'�` . Arrieals Ili�partures Opera9aons fiper-ations per 24 �ours
� ,
Over So. Minneapolis/ 198 350 - 548 29.6% 18.0
No. Richfield
Over So. Richfield/ 5 354 359 19.4% 11.8
Bloomington �
Over St. Paul - 49 3 52 2.8°Io 1.7
Highland Park
Over Eagan/ 613 278 891 48.2% 29.2
Mendota Heights
�'ot�I 1�50 100% 60.7
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams Page 11
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
� . „� � � �; � _ . � . 1;
� � � � ' . [ '� 1' . 1 , ; 1 1, � ,
Page 12 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. . ;. �� . . ,i: � . .
.'� .- ` ..
����� �1� �
Couni of Arrival Aircraft l`toise Events for Each RMT
RiV�T Events Eeents Eeents Events
� City A.ppro�aa$e Street L�a4�on . 65dB >90d� >1
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 2982 30 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3141 ,_ 483 2 0
-3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1542 603 25 0
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 3181 1038 6� 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 1696 973 32 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & S'Ith Street 3472 3015 897 3
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th S�reet 5 0 0 0
8 Minrieapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 21 5 1 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 112 81 5 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Sireet 135 119 53 0
11 St Paul Finn Street 8c Scheffer Avenue 35 14 3 0
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 15 5 0 0
' 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 62 2 1 0
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 7093 19? 3 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 225 16 1 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane 2409 1090 15 0
17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 23 8 1 0
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 23 9 2 0
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Stzeet 14 4 0 0
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 14 2. 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 187 3 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2552 8 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenne 2315 13 1 0
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren L.ane 6364 102 1 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13
Metropolitan Airports Commission
- . • • � • .� ..; • � • � • �: � . . :
, ,� ,� .
�
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT (
1a10�T Events Events Events Events
ID Ca�' APpro��ate Street Location �65d� �tkiB >9tDdB >100dB
1 Minneapolis Xences Avenue & 41st Street 1048 347 7 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1187 587 74 0
3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1231 668 71 2
4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2352 1189 249 8
5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3038 712 55 5
6 Minneapolis 2Sth Avenue & 57th Street 4Q05 3670 2053 603
7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th 3treet 466 140 14 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 2280 -945 154 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 45 15 5 0
10 St Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 38 26 21 10
11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 47 21 8 1
12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 22 4 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1420 335 16 0 (\; �y
14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 1140 444 74 8
15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 1108 258 20 0
16 Eagan Avalon Avenue &�las Lane : 293 77 7 0
17 ' Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 4738 2275 630 40
18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 6527 6046 3771 592
19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Sireet 6180 3843 1457 64
20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 998 310 70 S
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 753 146 2 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 577 85 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 2379 1373 491 35
24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 959 269 3 0
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
C
Page 14 � Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. � �: � ' ., 1 . . ,�, . , . �';
RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st S�
11�Ifinneapolis
_. A✓C 11�
IDate 3�� . �� I.evel `�
98/07/3012:29:55 B727 94.3 D
98/07/0813:06:33 B727 93.4 D
98/07/0714:47:53 B727 91.9 D
98/07/22 22:07:23 B727 40.7 D
98/07/2315:51:41 B727 90.5 D
98/07/1610:58:32 B727 90.3 D
98/07/2112:34:49 B727 90.1 D
98/07/1511:49:53 B727 89.9 D
98/07/24 21:02:21 B72� 89.8 D
98/07/1611:55:26 B727 89.6 D
RNIT #3: �V. Elmwood S� & �elmont Ave.
Niinneapolis
Date 1� - r�/C A�Yaz A/D
- . . _ ... �'yp8 Level .
98/07/3016:40:31 B727 103.0 D
98/07/2719:25:58 B727 101.9 D
98/07/3012:29:22 B727 98.0 D
98/07/0316:12:16 B757 97.5 A
98/07/2114:47:21 B727 97.2 D
98/07/1415:45:37 DC9 97.0 A
98/07/-1-611:54:44 B727 96.3 D
98/07/30 04:59:46 B72Q 95.2 D
98/07/3016:42:55 B727 95.1 D
98/0712312:01:42 B727 44.7 D
�2MT #2: Fremont Ave. � 43rd S�
1V�inneapolis
Date 'l�me � 11�az �
I.evel
98/07/1719:36:04 B727 98.4 D
98/07/0613:42:25 B727 98.2 A
98/07/0217:32:12 B727 98.0 D
98/07/2315:51:24 B727 97.5 D
98/07/021�:27:33 B�27 96.7 D
98/07/3012:29:39 B7�� 96.3 D
98/07/3016:43:12 B727 96.2 D
9&/07/0611:31:01 B727 96.0 D
98/07/2215:40:36 B72'7 95.6 D
98/07/2915:07:00 B72Q 95.3 D
R1VIT #4: Oakland Ave. �& 49th St.
IV�inneapolis
Date TSme �IC i�Iaz �
1�yp� I.evel
98/07/12 20:58:05 B727 102.7 D
98/07/0217:31:49 B727 102.i i�
98/07/291133:48 B727 101.7 D
98/07/0714:47:14 B727 101.7 D
98/07/2215:40:12 B727 101.4 D
98/07/2315:51:01 B727 101.1 D
98/07/2219:49:18 B727 101.0 D
98/07/30 22:03:53 B727 100.8 D
98/07/3015:41:30 B727 99.9 D
98/07/1519:34:33 B727 99.6 D
Note: ARTS dara missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Page I S
Metropolitan Airports Commission
`' i l ` ' .; 1 ' • 1' ' f:
RMT #5: 12th Ave. & S8th S�
Minneapolis
Datc T"u� A/C Hlss , �
-..: : .. � _ Type Leaci -
98/07/21 15:11:55 B727 103.� ' D
98/07/0716:02:06 B727 102.4 D
98/07/1515:08:03 B727 102.4 D
98I07/0819:32:48- B727 102.2 D
98/0'7/2116:21:35 $'72� 100.1 D
9$/07/0916:39:37 B727 100.0 D
98/07/16 08:15:14 B727 99.5 D
98/07/18 05:22:45 B727 99.3 D
98/07/02 17:SO:QO B727 _ 99.2 D
98/07/2316:25:28 B727 99.0 D
RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St
Richfield
Date T'� AJC Mag A�
�`ype Level
98/07/0219:26:27 B727 97.5 D
98/07/2115:12:16 B727 96.1 D
98/07/0819:33:08 B727 96.0 D
98/07/2316:25:52 B727 95.6 D
98/07/3018:49:33 B727 95.4 D
98/07/1815:47:54 DC9 94:2 D
98/07/1515:08:25 B727 94.1 D
98/07/�S 14:59:43 B727 93.0 D
98/07/0217:27:09 DC9 92.8 D
98/07/0716:02:26 B727 92.8 D
R1VIT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St
Minneapolis
A/C Mag
- �� �� Type Level �
98/0'7/02 21:40:33 B727 109.9 D
98/07/1312:11:45 B727 109.7 D
98/07/2315:50:28 B727 109.4 D
98/07/02 21:29:1�0 B'73B 109.4 A
98/0712916:33:38 B727 109.4 D
98/07/2215:39:40 B727 109.3 D
98/07/2617:11:40 B727 109.3 D
98/07/1511:4826 - -B727 109.3 D
9$/07/1913:20:38 B727 1093 D
98/07/19 21:04:28 B727 109.3 D
RMT #S: Longfellow Ave. .& 43rd S�
Minneapolis
Date 'I�me A/C ldtax �
.1j�pe Level
98/07/08 07:13:55 8727 100.0 D�
98/07/1515:12:14 B727 99.9 D
98/07/23 07:31:27 B727 99.2 D
98/07/3013:27:34 B727 98.4 D
98/07/0814:26:09 B727 98.4 D
98/07/1511:58:07 B�27 98.4 D
98/07/2114:04:47 B727 98.1 D
98/0'7/0313:27:02 B727 97.9 D
98/07/02 17:57:00 B72Q 969 . D
98/07/0612:07:08` B727 96.9 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 16 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�'
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
,
�' 1 1' ' 't . �; � . . ,li ' �• 1�',
R1i�IT #9: Saratoga S� & I3artford Ave.
5t 1'aul
Date TSa� _ _ � � A✓D
98/07J0413:21:00 B74A 95.3 D
98/07/0415:08:21 B74A 93.6 D
9$/07/12 23:54:07 B727 92.7 A
98/07/18 23:30:08 B727 92.4 A
98J07/0413:01:47 B74B 923 D
98/07J26 23:40:46 B727 91.0 A
98/0'7/10 21:50:53 B74A 90.9 D
98/07/1615:08:19 B74A 90.6 D
98/07/1012:09:06 B727 90.1 A
98/07/1411:13:54 B74A 90.1 A
R1VI'I' #11: �inn St & Scheffer Ave.
S� Paul
Date Zim� . - � � �
98/07/0914:34:53 B727 101.3 D
98/0713011:54:11 B74A 99.7 D
98/07/0314:15:47 B72Q 98.1 D
98/07/0713:33:22 B74A 96.5 D
98/07/3013:16:39 B727 96.3 D
98/07/0612:59:20 B74B 95.3 D
98/07/0217:56:43 B727 93.5 A
98/07/0714:09:17 DC9 92.4 D
98�07/071428:53 DC9 91.9 D
. 98/07/17 09:43:29 DC9 91.0 A
R1VIT #10: Itasca t�ve. �Z Bowdoin St.
S� Pa�l
A/C A�iaz
�� �°� Type Level `�
98/07/(}914:34:37 B727 107.0 D
98/07/2616:25:28 B727 106.2 D
98/07/0613:28:03 B74A 102.5 D
98/07/1615:07:55 B74A 102.1 D
98/07/0314:15:31 B72Q 102.0 D
98/07/0714:28:38 DC9 101.7 D
98l07/0713:33:07 B74A 101.1 D
98/07/0413:20:33 B74A 101.0 D
9$/07/0Z 15:15:12 B74A 100.4 D
98/07/0415:07:55 B'74A 100.1 D
RI�1.'T #12: Alton S� � Itc�ckwoa�i Ave.
S� Paul
y3ate �ime _�� � A/Y�
98I07/0619:17:50 B727 87.5 A
98/07/03 20:01:57 DC 10 86.3 D
98/07/07 06:45:13 DC9 85.2 A
98/07/2016:28:41 A320 84.5 A
98/07/02 22:33:04 DC9 82.6 D
98/07/14 23:43:03 DC9 81.9 D
98/07/0613:31:47 DC9 81.4 A
98/07/3115:21:18 DC9- 81.0 A
98/07/14 23:14:17 DC9 80.5 D
98/07/20 08:01:12 DHC8 80.3 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17
Metropolitan Airports Commission
-' � i: ;�:; � c' , _ �._ ' _ ' >.1:' ',.i
RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court
Mendota �Ieights
Date T'u� � � A/D
98/07/1119:26:15 B727 95.6 D
9$/0'7/0116:29:43 B'727 94.4 A
98/07/0319:12:43 B727 94.2 D
98/07/2014:30:43 B727 94.0 D
98/07/2016:30:40 B72� 94A D
98/07/14 23:59:02 B727 93.6 D
98/07/20 21:53:32 B727 93.2 D
98/07/09 05:17:35 B72Q 92.7 D
98/07/03 05:31:53 B72Q 92.4 D
98/07/1413:19:50 B727 92.2 D
gtMT #14: lst St & 1VIcKee S�
Eagan
A/C Maz
Ma
�� �� Type I.evel `�
98/07/2511:59:57 B727 102.2 D
98/07/0616:34:52 B727 102.2 D
98/07/0414:06:31 B727 102.1 D
98/07/0413:13:13 B727 101.9 D
98/07/0619:3�:16 B727 101.5 D
98/07/03 22:01:08 B727 1009 D
98/07/0315:29:59 B727 100.7 D
98/07/0614:13:41 B727 100.6 D
98/07/1013:27:42 B727 99.6 D
98J07/06 23:04:12 B727 99.1 D
RMT #15: Cullon S� & Le�ngton Ave.
Mendota Heights
Date T'� A/C Mag . �
T�pe Level
98/07/20 21:55:01 DC9 95.9 D
98/07/12 09:36:26 B727 95.5 D
98/07/1413:19:30 B727 95.5 D
98I07/2014:20:56 DC9 94.9 D
98/07/2014:24:18 B737 94.8 D
98/07/2013:42:38 B'727 94.� D
98/07/20 21:53:15 B727 94.6 D
98/07/2014:08:33 B727 93.1 D
98/07/15 00:45:24 B727 92.8 D
98/07/10 21:20:22 B727 92.6 D
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
Eagan
A/C Mag
Ma
Date ZSme � Le�el . A/D
98/07/3119:23:08 B727 98.1 D
98/07/2518:41:34 B727 94.5 D
98/07/O116:15:49 DC9 94.4 A
98/07/17 21:01:39 B757 943 A
98/0�/20 23:06:46 B727 93.7 D
98/07/O111:25:43 B727 92.4 A
98/07/1714:00:45 DC9 92.4 A
98/07/2011:47:54 DC9 92.3 D
98/07/2119:59:55 DC9 92.3 A
9$/07/2219:42:54 DC9 91.9 A
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Meuopolitan Airports Comrnission
. � �; .. _ .ti, � � �� . . , �; . , ;�;
RMT #17: $4t6 S� & 4th Ave.
Bloomington
Date 1 i� � � : A/D
98/07/1918:23:28 B727 107.3 D
98/07/OS 08:21:38 B727 103.4 D
98/07/23 08:16:Q6 B727 103.4 D
98/07L03 21:00:14 B727 102.9 D
98/07/23 08:06:15 B'727 102.6 D
98/0'7/2817:22:52 B727 102.3 D
98/07/0116:36:50 B727 102.1 D
98J07/3112:05:23 B727 102.0 D
98/07/1510:22:27 B727 101.8 D
98/07/17 07:55:52 B'727 101.4 D
RM'� #19: 16th�A�e. � $4th S�
�l�offiington
.::. Date �e : A✓C . Max A/D
_ _ _ , , , . �� : I.eeel ;
98/07/3117:23:48 B727 104.2 D
98/07/2109:22:25 B727 103.8 D
98/07/2818:48:49 B727 102.9 D
98/07/1213:12:18 B727 102.8 D
98/07/1113:21:52 B727 102.7 D
98/07/2313:21:28 B727 102.7 D
98/0�/30 08:06:10 B727 102.7 D
98/0710710:36:26 B72? 102.5 D
98/07/2311:31:46 DC9 102.3 D
98/07/0618:34:58 B727 102.3 D
RMT #18: 75th St �i 17th Ave.
�2ichfield
A1C 11�ias
1D�te Z�ffie 1�pe I.evel `�
98/07/0312:10:15 B727 107.4 A
98/07/02 07:58:44 B727 107A D
98/07/04 08:12:16 B727 106.7 D
98/07/OS 08:21:13 B727 106.4 D
98/07/0515:25:17 B72� 106.4 D
98/07/26 07:47:40 B727 106.3 D
98/07/0512:19:57 B727 106.0 D
98/0712911:48:16 B727 105.9 D
98/07/0216:23:35 B727 105.8 D
98/07/0515:07:10 B727 105.8 D
I21V�T #20: 75th S� � 3rd Ave.
Richfield
�` A/C �
Date T'ime � g.evel `�
98/07/2915:54:54 B727 102.9 D
98/07/03 08:16:05 B727 102.1 D
98/07/1518:31:29 B727 101.7 D
98/07/2616:33:17 B727 101.4 D
98/07/0312:10:22 B727 1�.9 D
98/07/0814:00:52 DC9 98.9 D
98/07/02 20:02:15 B727 98.6 D
98/07/2911:53:12 B727 98.3 D
98J07/2815:58:34 B727 98.2 D
98/07/13 21:42:11 B727 98.0 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Aviation Noise & Satellite Frograms
Page 19
Metropolitan Airports Commission
;,. �. �'. : �, �; . . �`,' '1
RMT #21: Barbara Ave. � 67th S�
Inver Grove Heights
Date T'� � � A/D
98/07/0115:47:53 B727 94.7 D
98/07/0619:34:35 B727 90.5 D
98/07/Q4 17:17:27 B727 89.1 D
98/07/1411:50:20 B727 88.5 D
98/07/1111:49:51 DC9 87.8 D
98/07/0319:13:20 B727 86.6 D
98/07/1415:49:24 B727 86.5 D
98/07/2016:31:20 B727 86.3 D
98/07/0417:35:32 B727 86.0 D
9$/07/3121:47:47 B727 �85.9 D
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Nlendota Heights
Date Tiuie �� M� A/D
Level
98/07/12 09:36:16 8727 104.5 D
98/07/14 23:58:35 B727 103.9 D
98/07/18 19:15:37 B'727 103.7 D
98/07/O117:11:44 B727 103.0 D
98/07/20 20:11:13 B72'7 102.6 D
98/07/1413:19:18 B727 102.5 D
98/0'7/20 21:53:04 B727 102.4 D
98/07/04 21:04:45 DC9 102.4 D
98/07/0613:15:23 B727 102.4 D
98/07/OS 21:29:09 B727 102.3 D
RMT #22: Anne Niarie Trail
Inver Gmve Heights
Date T'u� A/C bYaz �
Type Leael
98/07/0122:26:03 B727 85.9 D
98/07/0616:30:34 B727 85.6 D
98/07/0413:27:19 B72'7 85.4 D
98/07/29 21:08:32 DC9 84.2 A
98/07/0414:56:10 DC9 83.8 D
98/07/06 21:07:03 B727 83.8 D
98/07/25 00:24:39 B727 83.7 D
98/07/l� 13:26:44 DC9 83.5 A
98l07/1819:13:07 B727 83.4 D
98/07/0418:45:06 B727 83.3 D
ItMT #24: Chapel Ln. � Wren.Ln.
Eagan
Date 'ISime A/C I�Rag �
Type I.evel
98/07/0616:35:11 B727 94.6 D
9$/07/1411:49:47 B727 93.2 D
98/07/28 09:03:10 B727 92.5 A
98/07/14 22:08:41 B727 90.3 D
98/07/24 01:43:50 B727 89.9 D
98/07/1106:21:25 B727 89.7 D
98/07/15 20:41:03 MD80 89.7 A
98/07/Oi 15:46:23 A320 89.2 A
98/0'7/07 1030:08 B73A 89.2 ' D
98/07l03 22:01:28 B727 89.2 D
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days.
Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�;
Metropolitan Airports Commission
I'li�ht 'I'�°ack �ase l�ap
Airpori Noise �nd Oper�i�o� IVlonitoring Sysiem
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 21
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� � �` • �, 1 , . . • .: 1:' 1 ',i '
,'; ,�, 1 1 �
i 1 t t . 1 1�
Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #� #9 #10 #11 #12
1 58.8 62.8 60.1 66.1 63.8 76.5 53.2 * 61.4 67.9 52.4 59.3
2 60.7 66.3 60.6 70.2 67.8 80.3 61.6 66.5 63.5 70.2 61.7 57.8
3 60.7 65.3 62.9 67.8 66.9 78.7 57.5 64.5 59.7 67.1 56.5 57.3
4 58.3 63.5 61.9 65.1 65.4 71.4 59.5 48.6 57.4 62.1 51.5 48.2
5 58.7 64.8 61.9 66.8 65.9 * 41.6 45.7 47.7 ' S4.4 4�.9 57J
6 60.2 66.1 62.3 67.8 64.7 77.7 53.1 61.$ 48.7 60.9 55.2 50.8
� 62.1. 65.5 64.5 69.7 71.8 81.0 * 68.2 579 65.8 61.0 56.8
$ 64.1 67.1 64�.8 71.7 71.0 83.7 64.5 70.4 51:3 46.3 51.8 51.1
9 63.2 66.3 65.1 71.0 69.0 82.6 60.0 69.5 56.8 65.3 59.8 51.9
10 60.0 64.9 63.3 66.6 68.4 74.2 51.0 * 53.3 58.5 56.2 58.9
11 58.5 64.0 61.6 66.2 65.0 72.8 � 40.3 54.6 55.0 61.9 55.7 59.0 .
12 57.4 62.9 61.4 67.4 64.5 77.7 55.6 64.1 62.6 64.2 58.5 60.9
13 55.0 61.9 59.9 69.9 65.1 80.7 59.5 66.0 * 59.9 54.1 58.9
14 58.5 63.5 62.5 66.1 65.1 75.6 60.8 62.6 59.2 65.4 59.8 62.1
15 62•7 66•2 64.2 70.7 67.3 81.6 59.9 71.8 * 56.9 55.4 55.7
16 �•7 66.4 67.2 70.9 69.3 82.9 63.2 69.3 * 60.7 51.6 50.7
1'7 62.4 65.5 66.1 71.1 70.1 82.� 62.4 70.7 48.6 50.0 52.3 49.3
1$ 57.0 63.7 61.2 64.9 69.9 75.1 ' 63.0 62.1 63.3 65.3 54.6 55.9
19 � �•5 65.2 62.0 69.2 62.8 80.3 62.6 68.4 50.4 59.2 53.2 56.8
2p 58.1 64.8 60.9 66.4 66.1 73.9 46.3 54.3 48.6 60.8 * 61.9
21 61.4 65.5 62.6 71.0 69.3 81.1 61.9 66.0 47.2 51.9 57.0 59.0
22 65.2 66.5 66.2 70.4 70.8 81.8 60.6 70.6 45.4 55.1 51.1 52.7
23 61.6 54.3 64.5 69.8 68.4 81.3 60.5 71.0 49.1 51.9 50.8 50.9
24 64.1 66.0 64.1 70.2 70.3 82.7 62.1 * 53:6 56.8 50.3 50.6
25 55.1 60.6 59.4 63.9 64.6 72.0 53.7 58.6 53.3 56.3 42.1 54.0
26 55.8 60.0 56.4 66.7 61.2 79.0 52.8 67.6 63.5 68.6 55.1 58.6
27 60.5 64.1 62.6 67.0 64.2 77.6 59.1 67.5 57.5 64.6 47.9 49.9
2$ 62.3 63.5 63.9 70.3 67.1 81.2 61.0 * 51.9 59.6 53.8 59.2
29 �•4 64.9 61.7 69.8 66.3 81.2 59.5 70.5 46.9 54.7 54.8 55.8
30 65.7 68.9 69.0 73.5 71.4 83.2 64.4 69.9 59.0 63.7 59.2 46.6
31 59.5 64.0 61.4 67.6 67.7 78.3 55.5 67.1 46.1 51.7 52.9 53.4
Mo. Ldn 60•8 64.6 63.2 68.7 67.5 79.4 59.8 66.9 57.7 62.0 55.6 56.5
Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
* Less flurn twenfv-fnur hours o(datu available
�'.
Meuopolitan Airports Commission
t�naly�Ils of .A�rcraft .Noi�e Even� - A�rcraft Ld.n d.�(t�)
July Ol to July 31, 199�
Noise Monitor Locations
I)ate #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24
1 63.3 68.7 * 64.1 * 80.9 76.4 65.5 61.9 65.8 * *
2 54.7 62.9 * 64.2 73.8 82.5 75.8 67.6 52.8 58.0 70.8 *
3 64.1 72.9 * 64.2 72.4 79.9 73.1 66.6 60.8 61.4 74.8 65.6
4 62.6 69.5 * 64.3 71.5 80.4 74.6 64.8 60.2 60.3 72.6 64.4
5 64.3 65.4 * 59.0 69.2 79.8 74.2 58.3 60.9 58.2 75.8 61.2
( 61.6 723 * 63.9. * 80.2 76.0 60.0 60.2 60.1 72.9 65.2
7 60.2 68.0 * 62.6 71.7 79.5 74.5 62.8 59.0 59.1 70.1 64. $
$ 44.6 65.0 52.5 64.3 73.5 81.1 72.6 63.7 56.3 55.2 56.7 64.0
9 61.6 64.5 58.1 64.7 73.3 80.5 74.7 62.2 46.9 58.5 67.1 63.3
10 61.9 69.5 64.4 62.6 70.1 80.2 75.3 58.6 60.6 62.5 74.3 65.5
11 63.9 70.2 64.6 58.6 69.2 78.9 74.6 57.0 59.8 59.7 74.4 65.1
12 58.0 64.0 61.3 59.7 71.7 $1.7 74.2 * 55.1 56.1 71.1 61.1
13 44.6 60.6 59.2 59.5 70.1 78.5 72.0 64.0 51.8 51.9 56.6 58.1
14 66.2 66.5 67.1 62.4 66.5 77.5 73.7 57.9 56.8 58.5 753 64.4
] 5 63.3 66.2 67.7 66.9 74.4 80.5 73.5 65.4 60.9 58.1 72.3 64.0
16 4b•4 65.6 58.4 * 72.5 79.5 74.3 66.7 52.7 56.4 59.5 62.5
1% 49.1 70.1 53.6 65.1 71.6 77.6 72.2 63.2 52.2 58.7 61.9 64.8
1$ 623 64.7 64.4 60.8 71.9 79.2 73.5 60.5 60.6 58.8 74.6 61.5
19 57.6 61.1 55.5 65.2 73.8 80.5 74.7 64.8 53.3 52.4 64.9 60.9.
2Q 65.4 70.6 67.8 67.0 673 79.8 75.1 57.4 62.1 60.0 77.9 64.0
21 47.9 66:8 50.9 65.3 71.2 79.1 75.0 65.3 52.9 56.7 59.9 62.8
22 44.2 63.9 55.5 66.3 72.0 78.9 73.8 64.3 49.4 56.8 58.0 63.0
23 52.8 63.8 54.1 65.9 72.1 78.9 74.9 62.5 59.2 57.7 58.3 63.9
24 47.1 65.9 53.3 66.0 72.4 79.5 74.8 62.6 43.6 57.9 61.4 64.8
25 57.9 65.5 603 63.4 69.0 77.4 73.9 57.1 56.4 60.0 70.0 62.1
26 46.5 60.7 55.8 63.6 71.0 79.4 73.6 63.1 54.6 53.6 58.4 59.4
2'7 39.8 62.5 48.5 63.5 71.5 78.5 73.8 65.1 49.6 52.7 58.0 59.4
2$ 52.4 64.8 55.7 66.7 712 783 74.8 * 50.0 55.7 62.5 63.1
29 41.3 64.5 57.0 65.8 71.5 79.8 74.4 67.5 43.0 55.6 58.6 62.1
30 42.2 66.3 50.7 67.6 73.8 78.8 * 62.3 52.9 56.3 61.1 62.6
31 63.2 66.1 66.0 66.7 69.7 79.7 75.9 59.2 63.7 58.2 76.0 63.1
Mo. Ldn �• 1 66.9 60.9 64.0 71.2 79. I 73.7 63.4 57.6 58.0 71.7 62.8
Note: ARTS data missing for 0.8 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams page 2'7
* Less �han twenh• fnurhnurs ojdatu available
Metropolitan Airports Commission
�> ; 1 1 .i . �` / , � � ' 1 � : : �. , �' ,� : � . -�- . . i .., , ;.;
,.
' • 1 � � . , , , � , , . � � ;
�, �, .
�
� �, � . . . �;.�. �, �; � ��� ,� �� .
� �� '°i �� �,
Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
�
�
�;
Metropolitan Airports Commission
°nneapol�s - 5� Faul I�ternaiional .Airport
J�.�y �99�
, � , .; ., , � � , . . � ,. � .
�;�; . . �•� • ��,
..r .
, .
� '` � ,�,,r,� ,' I' • ; r; r;� •� .:�; �;,;
90 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=87 (96.7%) RIGNT COUNT=3 (3.3�)
��
�
DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GA1E (ft)
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
_ �nneapol�s - Sio Paui Internationai Airport
July 199�
�=
�;
�i
�
;
��
2613 ... Total 12L and.12R Carrier Jet I)epartures
20 ... Carrier Jet D�parture - Eariy 7'�rnoui 0.� %
(North Sid.e �efore Three 1Vl�les)
20 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=8 (40.0�) RIGHT COUNT=12 (60.0�)
DEUIpTION FROM CENTER Of GRTE (ff)
Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
t
f
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
� . :�:, ,1 1 .s ,1�, ,1' 1 ,i . x� ,. . .; 1' • . �
i
� .� t�� ��� � �i � r � ��. : �; � �; �' .
�; �Is 1r, �
•
(. 1; � � . . . ,'; .. �; .
. .,
� �� : � ;�° �� ;�� ° .�; ,�. � �",. .1. i ' ��� � 1 � �..: � • � �
Aviation Noise & Satellite Prob ams
Page 5
Metropolitan Airports Commission �
°nneapolis - �ia Paui �ternational A�rport
July 199�
2613 ... Total 12I. �d 12It Carrier Jei I)epartures
19 ... �arrier Jet I�epariva°es (0.7 %
South- of Corridor (�outh of 30L Localizer)
19 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
� LEFT COl1NT=13 (68.4�) RIGHT� CO�NT=6 (31,6�)
0
0
<,-
��
��
-61
DEVIRTION FROM CENTER OF GATE (ft
Page 6 Aviation Noise & Sateliite Pro�ams
I1]
l..
Metropolitan Airports Commission
. 'nneapolis � St. Paul Iniern�.t�onal �irport
� July 199�
�
�
u
��
, � ,: ,,; � • , ,. . ;. �, .
.` .., .. : .. r :,; ,. :t. , . . .: " .1-.. -.: �i'' �, �
�
.,_ f� ��� � I; �' ,r.4• : I ( ��. � ;' ♦ . .
4 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=2 (50.0%) RIGNT COUNT=2 (50.0�)
�+r
�
DEUTATION EROM CENIER OF GATE (ff)
Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�ams Page 7
Metropolitan Airports Cammission
�, .. � � �.,; ;�,, �?� , �°• �• ..,_,, ' . �
.� �� �� . , �; � :, y';
;�; � � �. , . . � . �, � . • �, �. , � � � ,
1 I 1,; � �, .
Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
lr
__
Metropolitan Airports Commission
°nne�poifls - St. �.'aul Intern�tional Airport
July 199�
� r .: .: � �° . � . �: . � , .
, . . : � �; .. • � ,
.
. .. �, � ,; �� � � � � �� • �; ���� �, , i�� � ; �� . � ; . ,.
13 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COIJNT=4 (30.8�) RIGNT COUNT=9 (69.2�)
s
-41
DEVIATION fROM CENTER OF GATE (ft
�
Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9
Metropolitan Airports Commission '
_ 1Vli�nneapoii� - Sts P�ul Iniernat�ona� A�rp�rt
;,
July 1998
'�
�i
�
��
� � . . ,� � . . �.,, .
.
�' , ',� , � ' .
'' ' ' i
' 1 J 1+.• i•' 1 • 1, !.
4 TRACKS CROSSED P-GATE
LEFT COUNT=2 (50.0�) RIGNT COUNT=2 (50.0�)
�
DEVIATION FROM CENIER OF GATE (ff)
Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Pro�ams
� '
,<�.,.
� � ;:�:
:��
s,
;r:�,
�
�� � �
�
� �-._
i-1 <
.�;;
�.
�_:
�
�
;�:_;�,.:.
�
':2' F��:!i;
:.�r ��
}k 5F_^
y Ct�s K?
*2N;�
�
h ��-
�q 3,.�f t,�1{
��� ��.
, --FSH �.
` .._. ' ��_ ,. �,. . i ,+�,�-,..�..,�^.��
�
�
�. � li
� , � I
- ;� i
� �
� I
r- � : '� ,
� - -
� I
,..
� -.': �; . i
�.
� '
� �
� �� i
.-. ; �
r i
� .
�
a' _�� . °
`� ,,; `Qi ,
.� : y
. .: �
:�
� � ,�
� � i�,
� :�
� .:� �
S
� _ II
i�
� :CC3
i
.� � i
`%f :[`� ' �
� � �
�: ...:.. .....::� :;
�, ...... ......
� .___.. �i } I
I �.::::: :....... ....... -
��. �� ....... .......� y, :.
I
.................... � ..:
.................... :: � . .
:::::::::::::::::::: .. ..
E . � A
� \Q\\\\\\\\\\\�\\Q\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\� : °i .
I /�� '
Y
I ...... . 4/l , �.
.............::::::::: � �.:::::::: �:::�" � .'. .
...................... � . . :�
...................... .. .. ....
� ;
f
� a�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`\\\�\�\\\\\\\\�\\���\\\�\� � � '" � i
.. .
� � �� � ' �� I
( �::s:::€::::€:::::::::�:::€?€::;::€�s::::€:::€:;:: ...... . , r;; :°.......... . .` , �t ,� �
6�
� �..�\: \�\�\\\\\\\����\\`����\���������\�����\\������ � : t,': (`�C
I �
I V
�
�� � � b �.;:.0 1
� �' � .� ..... , . � ,�.:�
L
....................................................................... .............. : • n'
....................................................................... .............. .
� ........................................................................ .............. �i' a
....................................................................... ....................... . + � �
;� �
a�..::::::: — I
' i Q:\\\\:\\`�\� �;\\�\�\��:\�\\� \\\\\\�\\\\\�\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\��` < f:::::::: ' a%
:::
;.. .......
...�+•::::::
I :::.:. }
. :.::•.... ....
.:.:.. .. � �
>:;:...'�::::::
� i - � � . ::.. , . <�;::::::AiEEi. '
� ' '•:::i::::: . � ..
:..�.,...?:::: �.. ��
... ...:;::.....�:::
C C O O O �'..J�:;i:iF.::: ii `
C ^ C O � ,:.4'
�n c �n c ��
�i �i � ,� 'c
� ;:::::::::::::::- : .�
L
� � ::; ::::::::::::: � '� •
�7r-�'�r `��{�+��r�-7�� �T. .... � %%:i:i:i:::i:Ef
��1� Y 1��Y�� 31� i13�.�al�1Pd . E •. C
.,, (
;�; : ............
::;,:::::::::::: : � ,� c
•=:>.?<c»:;>s:::.:....:•::;•:•::•::•::::: r
:;:�;::�;:<�::.> :..:.::::.:...:.:..:..:..... .. t a+ .
-: ::•>::;.;:;: ;::•�::�::� :: :::::::::::•:: R
.: : •::::>::::::• ..::..:..:..:...........:...
�,�-, �
� ::::. ::::::...........................
::i:: ia;;�:s'?i;i;i:i:ii:iE:'riiiii:ii::Siii .: <
'.�.u. i� � �, �"� -
s. .
. . . . .. .. .... .... .... ���il� J. ���'' �
r
�
- �,_, .
� _ �. ��7�,�-�'~`� _
1 *� —
,�,-�.,� `"'-t
, t-- � `���"2'�i ,'7,�`�'+�k;+ � �
,��� ��-•Stu:-uTFw . _�µ._ � ._
0
� �
n � I
� .. -.'�Y�y I
r ' 2
� ? �: �I
.4a .= ;� li
� - `+ ��
o - ��' �, I
� I
�
� O
CA ^ .. i, "
as � 0 _� : � i
W �
�, � : '
y � � �- �: ��� � i
O � � :�� '
o '
� o �-� = " '
O � � ' , ;
::a , _� �
�., �
�u - �,
o =..� �
=:.�o ;
;� � � �
;: ;� .
::::�,,; ,: �
::�:;,.
:.0
...i�—�i.,.'�. _ .�:
r —
_ ' W =
oC
r
r _�':'�;, .
..'� .Q -,,, . . #
— — I
- � ."'...' `a.'�.� �
� ��. � ��
� �: � —� , ��:`',��
=_ — ::Q-:�
- - -.�
� � ' r""
� ,....:. :��
. , ...> ..
..... �
��:::� _
.:::::::. ,
,.� ,-. r, d � [,.
� � �
;.0 �.:. � N
� 1'�] 1.� �.L� � � � � "1.i�� �.�:`:O/0�� ���.;�[:��,:;;::::�::. . �
�
:�'.
C
r�
i{-ri.�:+eC:rr�
bk;+'
�;i
Yk.�er.
?tittiL
'1,�'�.
ai�'
�
'-'2F^:FinT'
xv.'�.'�.�il::
�"'°"� �i:;
���'
. -;a�:,
:�:ar
:� �
���
,,, ;�
:�'•
i
.:•aal.':[�;s
;;V
f
Ya �
Ei�r
#
�
k�
n
�
�—y ,
w � I��i
�J ��.��.�I
'� � I
� �C
-,. � � � - i
y "'� �
i ^�' � �
O �V C r
� � I'
16>:t+•xi�::•a>Yai>r>:4'•r O �:� a : � y .
G:.'.`.'." ':N�.��:��. � - ~'� G
^'"`�`.L"���_�1 i . _ �: . � .
_ � .�' ''.Z 1,y i-�
O. ' �. . . �,�.I.
_ j
_ �. � � ''�..
G�1�
y ��
�;.
_=:! .... .._ ti�. ..''��,,.
i
c
� F
T '
a: ,
U
4., .
.G
c
,�
,�
—' ��'.����
_. �.. ��• •: •.:�:y.�ly.;r •y,8;:•;•:;5. � -_ — S :; � C'a"" . � �#. (f.
+�; '�3�5;.��:•`:�;.<: ::.r �•:::+.; = _ ,� �
;,�.::. :.;;.:.:>.
.. ii'l6%r2+;%€�::::2:.�r:;:`.;•'.2`.�. . EiE :l: c'�+�.
i:irC?r.t` ' :: • •�; �:::;:,••;:; . C'
; a..d`'•;».:. ,,, - G't�:'
�..C: r•r:;?;,:i'.`•�::�:..::�1 - i ' �!ian � i.
�Y.:.::......:ii:i;:?ij>`:y$i"r.i�i:�::'v. _ Yn ��.'����� I
i,'+"`•:y`.:ii>;::; I C �
`i`�`:*:;` C t C
. �Y ( _(�i � ::h��.�ir.� i
.,..;.... ...... :....... : i
�� •��1: J'-F Q, I
� "�,�'4 '�' 'I�. :� ��� _.
� �� $ �
� a�� R �
� Fa � �
� , .�'.>���`. .. :i.����'� a
i
� e
i � � �I�Tk ��� G
-- o � w ��E? ��
:c `:, . N �a��-y L
: � �+'�'��ii�?�
J�'1�� Q��.�c:�� C'� � ��..I.�J. �� �o �� �-G
:�'-���'rn �
����y'7T'�{�'F-
�', F� �?�,� 1�` �
��` `�4s
. ... �rr�3��(4�� " I
. . ;:Ci�.".=;I�:�.;ij;.., %..:-
C�
�.
t
{"
��,
'•i�
:C:t
.C:
:5:.
y
:w
.o:
';�r
:��;
r+4
ii1i
�ai:
" � ? G::
s _.. �- N:.
Si�011'��]�d0 ��,1�i1. ��.'%... :. '.
1
� f
�
��
G
C .t
' 'r'
1�F3C,
1�'�G".
7�t
...�.
`i,Yt :Co
: � !.
� T 7;G
' ;.
C.:; ^�
:p5 ��i��
w°" ji9'' ;�`
.SS�� 3a�re�e?�g��".
.eeii e.gai�i:�:.yu
� :uy a.we�6::e:'
� ;�:: �;:r��
'�i �:y;'r,.
��:� �..
�
_�
,k• : ~ �
�►
�
.,t�''.�mS�� e �;
`! ,.}
z�� '�' �.z �.
p. Y ��+i:
��f+��t�� �.
�
�� . S Z� �.?`5
���� � � � .
��€ � �
� '�` P �� '�^�i�
.n-s � � "� P .,
„C�Y> ( {I
C i j �
� "^ ,4
.€r'��� �. •
�.��" z�_ }I 'R
�I� . S
-�- `�' `
„ s �
'� 'r •
�� �� ���
,�y� of r �
°:�3?�� ��{ V� .':�' . _'
t'.'. • :
.,\ �
`\
- �\ , 3 .
� , ;_ ::
_. ` �, �
:.. .' , r.� C :
S � � 11`�,� � d c� �7� � C).� � �i °la
j
�
I
�
.�
.»>:
��:
ea��.9:
'��
.:E�
'.:,,�e
� :Cy 07�:
iEEs.
-'�: ��er
..'si; cecE!
� �E2F,
. � i3�e r:i.
`!C: y5:: :1�4�7.�^•.
' :�E� ••i73?.::
t�;; �C�u�L���m
► � '�? : 3��'�9:
.SCC"
• "�'�Y :.Ste
� ��
��
� � CC
• E�
��:.- • � .
�� � �
�
.�
�� ���Y O
c n
`���.�.�KSsFT��, ~�t.�
$� . #�tiT� Y*a' r;
��,a CYS1 . 'C
.. � �ir `y�,x,
T �r"� � �'
�� �`ai "=`,
., . � r '"�y '��Ce t -� ,�
.7 � i'.� x
Y:i {` �t
�y,��. Gt.��'�`T. „- C� •
� :7}'"�TN` i
r,�,�r.;� i T;� 2
� � * {��„r
��' n �s-S- �Zy�, �
�YtF P'�y+r
����31F '
T`" i
r�t4'��f?" �/` ��'sc�' .a ..
U ti �Ur?� W
t�:'''+z�,`., �r;E •. os0c"'
, ".c�,�','i.ir;'::1 •' `C�" __'
�
\: :>:::<:;: �:. _ : r�,� �=
,� , , �t , t� �..
� u��
� J � � �' _�� •�
�., �: � �� ��'�� c'-
+ i� G,-
.-., .,
-...
_.., �.. :. �,
: . ,��j�E�
5��� �'��s�� ���.��. �� �fo :::`;:; ,,:':::
j� �!�''i���'`�,�'X•'^ ; ��
_�L.L_.1.;._L:.. ,,,,_;.�j ,
, r� , �
� n � r f's �' � J �7� ,? � I
� ,� �:
CITY OF EAGAN i - ,;� :
AIRPORT RELATIC?NS COMMISSION ' � ���_�, W ��,,,:.w,i �;?
AGENDA ..-.. ."..z�___..___._ -
Eagan City Councii Chambers
Septembe� 8, 1998
7:00 P.M.
I. Roll Cali and Adoption of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes
�II �/�cif�rc tn hQ �-1P.?��
���. ._ .
IV. Unfinished Business
A. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
V. New Business
A. Ground Noise Monitoring Technical Study
VI. Staff Reporks
� '� A. Northwest Airlines Strike
B. Eagan/Mendota Heights,Corridor
C. MASAC Update
VIi. Informative
• VIIi. Next Meetings
A. Regular Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 13 at 7:00 p.m.
B. MASAC Meeting - Tuesday, September 22 at 7:30 p.m.
ii�. ili.ijUufi i�����ili .
�'�/KM�,
. r F.�s..j.'
� -�1 ��.
�-e r_.
+ i�-.«�;,.� r f`}; � ,N.'
6700 Portland Avenue � Richfield, I�Jiinnesota 55423-2599
City Manaaer Mayor
James D. Prosser fviartin J. Kirsch
August 24, 1998
Robert P. Johnson, Chair
Metropoliian Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
6040- 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Johnson:
�
coUn�i�
Susan Rosenberq Knstal Siokes
fvlichael Sandahl Russ Susac
�
Since 1969 MASAC has deait with a variety of noise related issues. With a recent
decision by the FAA at Baltimore-Washington lnternational Airport(BWl) to mitigate low-
frequency noise impacts we now have the ability to address another.
A study by HMMH, MAC's own noise consultant, at BWl found that Gweighted scales
are a more accurate measurement in determining objectionable levels of ground level
noise then A-weighted metrics. This paralieis a study by BBN Technologies, Richfield's
noise consultant, that the low-frequency noise impact from the proposed north/�.cauth
runway will adversely affect over 3,000 Richfield residents.
MASAC is an organization "dedicated to the control and alieviation of ai�craft noise at
( l and around the Minneapolis/Saint Paul Airport." With the FAA's decision that low-
-' frequency noise is a mitigatable impact, MASAC needs to reevaluate how we measure
noise.
At this time the City of Richfield urges MASAC to start measuring and analyzing noise
impacts using both A-weighied and C-weighted scales. This will provide an accurate
picture of the noise impact at MSP. MASAC should also undertake a study detailing
the low-frequency noise impacts of MACs airport expansion plan. This study should
take into account all af the affected communities(Bloomington, Minneapolis, Saint Paul,
and Richfield).
We believe through this study the fuli impact of the north/south runway can be
measured. By taking this action MASAC wiil be fulfilling its community responsibilities.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
��� � � =�,� -�; �,.y
Krist�l Stokes
MASAC Member
Enclosures
DW:MJH
_ ,,
,/��'1 ��`./, /n'�
V ti �� 4�i�
Dawn V�/cITZBI
MASAC iUlember
ihe Urban Homeiot�in
7elephone (6'12) 56�1-9700 a Fax (6�i2) 80'1-97�9
P,n Equal Oppor1unit�� =mployer
.:wtS � a�.:: ��` _
j.� ������ _ `�� � '� ���
F1
A 6iwoe3ciy update on litigation, regulations, and technologicst deti•elopments
Volume 1Q, Number 13
Saa�d Insulaiion
FAA FOR �..�T Tlti�l� APPRO'�+�5 FT_TI�I�3Il�1G
FOR LOW-F�Qi.TENC�' NUISE INSULATIOI�t
In precedcne-setting action, the Federai Avistien Administration has agr�d far
the fint time to provide additianal fundin� to bolster sound insulaLion bein�,.
applied to homes near $aitimore-Washingcon InternationsJ Airport thaz are
exposed to high levcls of low-frcqucncy noise frotn jet depacNzts.
"We carefully developed and implemeated an exterior sound insvlabon pmcc-
durc that has proven to be succcssful aosinst low-ircquency noise; ' said Ted
Mathison, cxe.^,utive director of the Maryland A��acion Administration (M.4A),
owner and operator of BWI. "Zhis pcoc�ure is the first such pmgram in chc nation
to bc approved by the Federai Aviatian Adm.in:ssstion."
Wayne Brysn� director of aviation noise snd abatement for.I+ilA.A, said, "We felt
we owed it [o [he cornmurtity to �nd � soluiian to thc low-frequency noise thaz has
adversely a.ffected residents livin$ near tlze airport Wc are very piease.c! that we
were ablc to brcak new ground and dtvclop a uniqve solution that will �rcatly
enbaner their quality of 3ife."
Ti�e low frequency noise problam at BWI was causing vibrations, w�ich made
more conventionsl m�thods of sovnd insvlarion less effecrive, Terry J. Paje,
(Continurd on p. 98)
.8urban�t
•, • . � � .
� ' "i' � 1i ' � t i
�he Califa ia Depar�ncnt of TransForcation (CalTransr���ed the Burroank-
Glendale-Fas a Airport a three-yeac variancr fr�m the IOtiiid gifpOTt noise
sr.andard on July 2 d strongly encoura'ed the ai�o b conduct a feder�l Past
161 stvdy on thc feasi " ity of imposing new noise '.
Thc P� 16l study has g�n sought by th iry of Burbank, which is IocSccd
in a legal battle v,rith the Bur -G1end
consuvction of a n�w lar�er pa Qer t�
lccated vrithin the Ciry of Burban.lc.
Burbank wancs thn a;r�ort authori t
fzasibilicy �f a ninhttime curiew noise
atl-5ta�e 3 airport. Th� air�o uthority
�enz Aisporc Authoriry ovrs
2t the 3ir�'ort, wh.�ch would be
. a Part 1S2 srudy to �etermir,e the
r�le, and c3g on o�eradons at tne
�ocion in 1995 ca g+.Tsuc a P�r
ibl study but has sta.11zd �anning the study as : cgal battle ov�r t'ts� ncw
t�rminsl he3ted up and c study be��ne a pawn in th omplex, and thus far
unftuiuul, ncgouatio over thc tcrminal, which Fiurban. nttncs must pass iu
zoning appro�ia! ess.
Tne airpnr ' illing to conduct tt:t Part lbl st��cy if Burb�.n� r: e�s
the F�dera viation Administration's ruling on t�':e mat*.�, (and t}�e
wi11 r�i t the study) and also ab cs [o a�rove �,e new c.:,cminal projc
(ConinL
Co�rrrignt a l`�? �;; l,irpc~ tioi:c Rr�
to acc_:.,t
�ioiliry it
I, �Jictoi
p.99} L
: Va 2034'
,Tuly 31, 1998
,�n T�iis .�ssue...
Sound Iiuulrztion .., In
precedent-setting action, the
FA.A approves additional
funding to sound insulate
hornes near B�timore-
Washington Internauonal
Airporc exposed to high
levels ot low-frequency
backblast noise - p. 97
Burbank ... CalTrans
strongly uraes airport author-
ity to do federal Part 161
study in g��anting v�r-iance
fram state noise rules - p. 9?
.L�nd Use ... A?A con-
cerned about recamrnenda-
ti�ns to FAA that non-
proprietor jurisdictians be
given AIP granis to conduct
land use projects - p. 10U
�ssocintion� ... N.�J.I.S.E.
selects new executive bc�2sd
at annual me�ting - p. 100
Airlines ... DOT a.n-
nounces that U.S. airlin�s
have m.ade recard profits in
first qu�,�t�r - p. 10?
Amsterdam .. , Airport
subdivides Stage 3 aircraft
into [hxe� categories by noise
leve! and ir�poses ti�hter
landin� fe�s - p. 102
NOtS2 Cri't2iItS ... t��r�
announces AIP grant awards
for noise pmjects - p. 1(�3
�+'s�s B�z.�j-s . . . - p. 1 C�3
98 � Airport Noise hepart
i BWI, from p. 97
manager of thc F.4A's Washingt.on Airpons Disvicr O�cc,
sa.id in a r�ccnt lcttcr to MAA_
Following a study pf the Jow-frtquency noise problcm
e�one by the acoustical consulting fir,n Harris Niiller Miller
& Hanson, Inc. (HMMH) for Mr"�A, which was submittai to
thc FA.rl last spring, thc aQency a�r�i co allow chc airparc
c� use ftdecal Airport .Improvcmcnt Program funds in an
existing granc co fund the additional sound insuladon n�c�.i
co mici�ace low-frequcncy noise.
Sorne ;id wood-framc homcs, approximatc3y 25 ycars o]d
and locatrd rnostfy in th� ?0 dB DNL noisc contour around
$WI. xre cligible for che addicional Jaw-frequency sound
insulation, which costs abant �40,O�10-350-000 per hamc,
adding about S15,000 to 520,000 antfl BWI's normal cost
for soundproofing a horne_
`Th� abje; tive of the residential sound insulaaon progrsm
is to provide rolief for those r�sidznrs bascz3 on their uniquc
local chsracteristies of si�part noisc," FAA's Pa�e said in
his Ictter. "in thc case af the residenu ot Allwood [ti�e
neishbarhocad subject to back bIast noise], it was decerrnin�
that tht low-frr�ucncy noisc was causing vibrations, which
made mor� convendonal mathods of sound insulacion lrss
cr"f�tive. Ckher factors that FAA cQnsidered in rcacivn� rhis
-. determination incIudcc� thc iocation and oricntaeion oi tha
� ) r�sidenc� with respecc to flight tracks, strucwral character-
isrics of che homes, publishd naiso �x�osure eontours for
BWl', and the inclusion of soond insulatian i�r-�e Allwecd
Subtiivision in $1�'I's approvtd Part 150I'3oise Comgatibil-
ity Plan," the FAA ofC�cial said.
"Approva! of chis type of miugatio�," he stressed, "is
specific to this area and is not considared a blankes endo�se-
ment of this type of sound insulatiott iar all areas." Should
B WZ desiro co apply as�ditional sound insul3aon to a�ddress
low-frequ�ncy noisc in other locations, "addition�l coerdi-
naGan snd cvaluation will bc requird," he told MA.A.
Allwo�d Study
Thc Aliwac>d subdivision is )ocated to thc sidc and rear a�
$WI's primxry dcparCur� runway and often axperiences the
predominantly Jow �quency noise events prcx3uced by je;
dcparc�res, according co Nichotas F, Mille:, president of
H:'vihiH. Residents' concerns z6out the nois� and BWI's
recognition [hat the qualjty and affacu of the sound ��t'�
difterent from those produced by averiights led to !hc
study, he said.
HMMH's grcund-breaking study had thrc� b�ic objec-
tive5:
' 7o quanuf;• thc start-of-takcoif sound levels at u house
in Alfwocd;
� �� To qc;xntify a resident's judgmen�s oi these star�-of-
_ _ ca�;eoff sound levels, at�d
• To mea5ure lhe prop2gation rat� oi the sound Icvels irc,,,�
the cornrnuniry,
Tnese objutive; were accompfish� by conductin; a
month of simulcaneous sound monitoring at threc homcs.
togethcr wTt3� monitoring of wall vibraeon Ievels in one
horne snd collcction of sample tape re; ordings of tht events
at one homc. Mi11er said. A resident providai ratings of the
objectionable nature oi the events, �s heard indoors.
�nalysis cunsist� uf corr�lating the various sound merrics
of the �venu w-ich vibration Ievels and u•ith [hc resident
ratinSs-
Measuremencs of A-weighted, C-we.igntr.�i, and wa31
vibraiiau lcvcls wera made during Augusc 1997. Data were
coltccitd simvltancously at chrcc communiry locations that
were spac-d radially ac approximat�ly 3,200 fect, 4.600 fc�t,
and �.500 f�t from the scut of ta}:toff'runway end.
At the closest locstion, simulcsncaus A-weightul. C-
weigi�t�d, and RMS acceloration l�v�ls werc mcasurcd.
Monitors coll�tai coetinnaus one-sccond C-w�ighted
laveis botit indoors and outdoors at chis site, with the
outdaor monitor usec3 to tr�is3ger thtee other rnonitars that
collectcci A-weighte� Icvets outdaors and vibration lcvels
from ac,.�lero�eters fast�nal to the w�lls. Sarnpla digita7
tape r�ottiings of sound levels werc also made simultane-
ously ir�aocs and out. One manitor at csch of the two morc
distant }acadons colt�tcd continuous Gweighted outdoor
sound loveLs.
Dta�ing the measarement period, Mill�r explained, onc of
the residsnts at the ciosest site raced che abjG:,tionable nanvc
of single deoamae evcnts. The resident used a scale of Q to
lOd fc�rrating the least to most objecrionable events,
gcncraiI}� using mvltiplrs uf l0 in assigning ratings. Ratings
of 1 Q to 9� we: e used for lrast to most objc: tionai�le so that
th�st would Ix rcom for the rare exczptionaIly quiet or
cxccptionally abje: tionable evenu.
Study Canc]usiqns
Tne siudy report decurnents the A- and C-weighted sound
leveLs, wall vibration lavels, typi�al s�tra, and time
histories of tht ta3ceoff events, hamea�rner ratings, correl�-
tians of sound levels wi� vibration Iev�ls and with the
catings, and com¢2res mtss� vibranon levels with
publi�hz� standard thresbolds for human perc�puon, Miller
said
Trse foilowin� canciusions were dtawn from the study:
� It appea;s tha�, chough iow fr�gucncy sound enero}• is
imcor�ant in dc:�.-;,uning how a Fcrson may r�ct to [he
noise, hiQher iraqucacies �.lso play a rola — ii cher� is
cnnugh encr�zy in thr� higher fre.auenci;s, events also can i�c
objecrionable:
• C_weionc..d mctrics (Lmax and SEL) corrclacz b�cur
u'ith human judgmcncs af tF,e o6jectionable dogra- of an
evenr than d� the szmc A-weighted metrics;
��faximurn wa]1 vibraaon Icvc?s corrc3atc strongly with
C-weightcd m�ximum outdoor sound levels, and do so
some•�hat �e!tcr th2n with m�ximum A-wti�hted icvcts;
� Outdc�or C-weight-:i ma.:inum exce�ding about 7a ta 80
c1BC c:� prcaducc wall vibrarions that can Lw fclt;
> Tr.e avcr�gc drop otf of C-�:�cighted m.3ximum )cvcls,
Jul,� 31, 1998
from 3,200 fecc from tho cunw•ay end to 7,SQ0 feet is ���n�
close eo spherical spr�ading — ehac is, che maximum C-
w��ight�d Ievcls drop about 6 dH for �ach doubling vf
distance;
• The hom�owner ratings of the ev�nts, tog�thcr with
simultancous sound measurem�n�s of che events can be vsed
to estimate how this homcuwncr (or porson of sim;isr
sensitivity to the evencs) might rat� the cvcncs as heatd at
greater distances from Ch� eimort. The homeowttef, living in
a home approximat�ly 3,200 fcet from the runway, rated
about 75 pe�cnt of the events as more objcctionablc than 40
on �he scale of 0 to 106. If th� same resident Iived at the
furchest rnoasuremencs sitc, abc�uc 7,800 f�t from che
runway, approzimxtcly 50 per�ent of the evenrs would be
race.� �s more obj�tionable chan 40.
Mifler said thsz,tbe FA.P. views the data collccted in the
BWI scudy as heipful in beginning tha procass to assrss t6a
irnpact of thcse types of low-frequency aimrsft noise evenu,
�nd hopes additiona� similaz data will be forthcoming as
other airports address these typ�s of impacts.
Acaustical Treatment
Two demons�aaon houses werc uscd co tcst the BWI 1ow
frequoncy soond insvlaiion ttzazmcnLS. One house was usLd
to tcst excerior trGatrnenu and che other to test iaterior
treatments. It's not that anyti�ing ncw in terms of sound
insulation was used, �xplaincd Walter Rullrnan, assistant
dirertor of real �statn for MAA, but walls and windows got
almost a do�cble ti-earment comp�d to houscs noc subje,:.t co
b:ack biast noise.
For instanc�, storm windaws wcr� added to acoustical
windows to provide ttu-ca layers af giass to help dampen rhe
low frcr.�ucncy noise, Likewis�, a total of two and three-
eiahths inch�s w�rc added to the thickness of th� interinr �_
wa11s by sdding a one-half inch layer of fi�cr sound board
and rhree fivc-tig�sch inch Isycrs of sheet rock. Usu3lly oniy
one layer of sound board and one layer of shect rock are
usc.zi in the BWI sound iasulation p;a�ram.
��
On tho extorior oi the housc, two layers of one-half inch
c�m�nt baard wcre sdded, wh�re usually onIy one tayec is
used. In attics, irtsulation and sound board were used and
c�ment board ws� placed ixtwc:n thc wsscs.
Thesa acoustica! treatmcncs resul�ed in an average A-
weighced noisz rr,ciucaon imQrov�rnent of just ovcr IO dB
and an ar•erage C-wei�htccl naise reduccion improvement of
4.5 dB, aCCUrtiing to a repor� on tha eTiectiven�ss oI Che
acoustical trearmenu done by Acoustical Dcsign Collat�ra-
uvs, Ltd. of Falls Church, VA. T"ncs.: irnprovement ex-
ce�e;1 the dcsign goals or'the trratrnent.
Thc recort rc; ommcndcd that a dual lite 5TC (Sound
Transmission Class) 54 window assembty �c uscd in lieu n�'
the STC 45 prim� windows w�ich thc on�•auasr.er inch
la�ninaced gias; storrn windows. "Th� STC Sd windows wii!
havc a sreatcr air space becween the glass lites which wi11
rc�ult ir incrr�rsed �ow frzqucncy noisc r�duction, comQas-�
to thc STC 45 windows," thc r��r notcd. rl.dditionally, i?
99 �''
ssid, "there wii) be oo low frcqucncy ma�s-air-mass
resonance frrquency, du� to ct�e suppiementnl scUrm
w�indow, to fiuttier degrade low frCyucncy noise reduccioc�i
par?ormanct." '' ' t,
"If homcowncrs nrc rclucrant to acccpt thc STC 54
u•indows due to thesr size and pountial difficulty in opon-
ing, a teasonablo �ocnpr�misc is to use thc STC 54 window
as a replaCcmene for the large fixed 'picture' window in the
livin� taoms and use tht STC 45 prirnc u•indows and the
;
one-c�uart�; inch laminated glass storm windou•s ac ocher
oCtnings," thc repoR notcd.
Horr�owners ar pleased to be rccciving th� additional
insulacion, Rullman said. Thcy were most bo�hercd by
aircrafl noisc intcrfCring with television and sleap.
h1AA has insulat�d about 300 homes in the B WI airpart
nois� zonn at a cast of about 549.7 million and has a high
sadsfacpon rate with its ptograrn. hc noced. About 400
homes 3rc eligible for sound insulation or purchase assur-
xnce.
San Francisco Study
A study on law-iia}uency bacicblast nois� is also under.
way at San Francisco 3nternational Airport, 6uc fow detai}s
on it ar� ava.ilabta
Tho Airport Commission for thc City and Connty of San
Francisco r�cntly contr3cted wa�}t GTElSBN Teshnologirs
ior S?25,OIX1 co study methads to r�duce inte:ior noise in
communities ne.�r the airgort impacre3 by !ow frcquency %
noisa `
Sucfi a study also has tx�n sought by the 5an Francisco
Intcrnational Aicport /Community 12oundtablc. The
roundtable's wark proQram naa included investigation or" the
low frequency noise impact for a nun�ber of years.�
�°m p� �� -
Gil(, spokcsman for the airpott authc�rity, said.
7he r authoriry has to weigh careiully whether it '
willin; to t iu crr,dibility on the line with a Part 16
study, he sai 1t has to sn:dy objt�tivcly whether ere is
any rauonal ana sis for a curfcw that would w ant scrious
consideration in a }fit study.
Gill also said that t airport suthoriry " i(1 be hun� out to
dry by i�ti aviarion cons ' encs" ii it i osed n�w noisc
rules at an all-5tsgt 3 a� bcca of thc przc.vdcnt such
action would s.ct.
P�rt 1��. �-Iolds�r�tEst Pror��sE'
u nile holdine chat the,fi.irpor. authon 's cumenr naise
pl�cnin� z�ior�s are " oropriata." CaI? s noted that
"more specific and etai}ed plans ate requir,. in order tu.
pro�rly �valus u•hethcr tht AirF�rt Authr,ri is doing che
best it can" r:,�uce the noisc impact araa� the CeY"�L
contour.
"T Air�r Authority has established thac it is ta',c, g
gaad f�th mcasur�s towzrd achicving cornp(ianc� with
AirFor, Noiu Rcpert
�;