The URL can be used to link to this page

06-22-2006 ARC Packet1. Z. 3. 4. 5. G'� 7. � CITY OF MENDOTA I3EIGHTS . ; AIRPORT RELATI'ONS COMIVIISSION AGENDA � �I� �. � s ' �� 1� �,� � � , � 9 � �i� �'� � � '� �� 1� �1� e �� . � , � � '� "� � _�� "� �� '� 4 `°� � � � � �� `� ; Call to Order — 6:00 P.M. Roll Call Acknowledge Eagan Notes from May 9, 2006, Joint Meeting of Eagan/Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission. Unfnished and New Busine�s: a. FAA Tower Tour ( Meet at Tower) Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Renorts/Correspondence: a. b. C. d, e. f. g• Eagan letter to Representative Tim Wilkin Technical Advisor's Report — May 2006 Eagaa�/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis — May 2006 Airport Noise Report, May 24, 2006 Airport Noise Report, June l, 2006 Airport Noise Report, June 7, 2006 MSP Noise News, December 2005 Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns Upcomin� Meetin�s City Council Meeting July 1 S, 2006 — 7:30 NOC Meeting July 19, 2006 —1:30 Public Input Meeting Ju1y 18, 2006 — 7:00 (Richfield City Ha11) MAC Meeting Ju1y 17, 2006 - 1:00 8. Public Comments 9. Adiourn �� Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Aclministration at 651-452-1850 with requests. C �� NOTES EAG.AN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMI��IISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 7:30 P.M. EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A joint workshop of the Eagan Aiiport Relations Commission and the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on May 9, 2006 in the Eagan City Council Chambers. Both Commissions introduced themselves. Ea�an/Mendota Height Corridor: • Eagan — Operaiion compliance at 94-95%; should be higher o Mendota Heights — Most of noise complaints are from residents north of Highway 110; _ _ _ _ -_ _ --.._. _----_ -----------_____._ _ __ ._ __ _ _ __ __ _._ __ _---- __.__--__ _ regional jets biggest problem Nighttime Operatians: s Mendota Heights —Number of nighttime operations are double fiom last year�, while general operations for entire airport are down. Chad Leqve stated he will put this item on the NOC agenda in an upcoming month Representation on Metropolitan Airports Cornmission: � Eagan — The City of Eagan is asking for a permanent or at-large seat to the Metropolitan Airports Commission or an at-large community seat representing the cities of Eagan, Bloomington, Burnsville, Richfield and Mendota Heights; communities touched by 65 DNL. • Eagan — Letter was sent to Eagan's legislative delegation three months ago asking for feedback and Eagan has received no response to letter. • Mendota Heights — Would like copy of letter the City of Eagan sent to legislative delegation • Mendota Heights' Representative — Tom Foley • Eagan's Representative — Bert McKasy • Mendota Heights — Has had their MAC representative attend and speak at an ARC meeting e Mendota Heights — Lobby for 20/20 Plan; concerned about one carrier at the main airport Impact of New Runwa� s Eagan is number one in complaints • Eagan — New runway has not yet been utilized to fullest extent • Eagan — The Eagan City Council has approved Phase II of the Noise Study which will be conducted the second and third weel�s of June 2006 to analyze the impact of the new runway s Mendota Heights — They were supposed to see relief fiom the new runway, but have not because the parallel runway continue to be used as the preferential iunways. Coping Skills: • Mendota Heights — The City of Mendota Heights, along with their AR.C, made a brochure for residents with information on airport noise and includes ARC Commission members home telephone numbers • Mendota Heights — Mendota Heights put together a 17 minute video "Why Can't They Stop the Noise?" It's a general video and includes information on sound-proofing, fleet mix; they run it on cable TV and it can also be signed out from City Hall. • Eagan — Miller requested a copy of the video to show at Eagan's next .ARC meeting Adjourned at 8:50 p.m. � March 16, 2006 Representative Tim Wilkin. 551 State Office Building St. Pau1, MN 55155 Dear Eagan Legislative Delegation: As a community impacted by three runways at MSP International Airport, it is exlremely important that the City of Eagan be well represented on the Metropolitan Airport Comtnission (MAC). In order to receive the representation the community deserves, the Eagan City Council, at the recommendation of fihe Eagan Airport Relations Commission, would like to get your input and position on two proposed options for changes in how the City's representation on the MA.0 is deternzined. As you well know, with the opening of Runway 17/35 in October of 2005 and with the e�sting operations off of the parallel runways over northeast Eagan, the entire City is now impacted by - - - - - --- - --- - -- - -airport-noise-to-var-yiug-extents.—Moreover,—as-the-home-to-Northwest-Air-lines� Mesaba, and-- - - -�l numerous transportation companies that utilize MSP, the aviation industry and the success of �_,� MSP is critical to our co�nmunity. Given both the noise over the community and the value placed on the aviation indushy, the City of Eagan's represeniation on the MAC is of utmost unportance to our community. Under current State law, the MAC Cominissioners are appointed by the Governor, with the exception of the Coirunissioners serving the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, who are appointed by their communities' respective Mayors. The City of Eagan is currently represented by t�ert Ivicl�.asy, wnose district covers ahnost a1l oi �akoia Couniy, ranging irom ihe Ciiy oi Eagan in the north to Sciota Township in the south (see attached lnap). It has been the City's experience that the positions of our representative on the MAC oftentimes do not reflect the positions of the City of Eagan, particularly as it relates to noise abatement and rnitigation. Furthermore, as an appoiniee by the Govemor, our representative rarely, if ever, contacts the City for input on any given decision being brought before the MAC. Given the lack of representation that the City is currently receiving on the MAC, the City is proposing one of two options for changes on the MAC, both of which would require Legislative action. For this reason, the City is seeking your feedback on the proposed changes. Option #1 Like the cities of l��inneapolis and St. Paul, the City of Eagan is greatly impacted by MSP Airport and would request a permanent seat on the MAC to be appointed by the Eagan City Council. City of Eagan / MAC Representation March 16, 2006 Page 2 Option #2 In addition to Minneapolis and St. Paul having their own seats on the MAC, there are also MAC Corrunissioners who represent greater Minnesota, including representatives from Duluth and St. Cloud. It seems logical that if greater Mi��nesota and the core cities have representation on the MAC, so too should the cornmunities most impacted by the airport's operations. There are four communities that encompass the 65 DNL noise contours that do not currently have their own representa.tion on the MAC—Eagan, Bloomington, Richfield, and Mendota Heights. It is suggested that at an-large seat either be reassigned to represent the cities in the 65 DNL contour or an at-large seat be added to the MAC in order to allow these four communities, on a rotating basis, to have a single representative on the MAC. Lastly, as a request for consideration, given the population shifts and impact of the airport on certain communities, there is a definite need to adjust the current MAC districts. The City understands that the districting for the MAC coincides with the Metropolitan Council districts; however, impact of the airport, both positively and negatively, should be a consideration when - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --determining-representation-on-the-MA:C.–Glear-ly-Eagan is impaeted-far- gr-eater and-differentl-y- - by the operations at MSP than Sciota Township in southern Dakota Coun.ty is, yet, ��- com�nunities have the same representation. The MAC districts need to better reflect populat��.. _ concentrations and the impact of MSP, and thus redistrieting should be strongly considered. As representatives of the City of Eagan, you know how important it is that the City's interests and positions be heard on the MAC so that the needs of the aviation industry are balanced with the needs of our residents' quality of life. Therefore, if you could please share with the City your feedback to the two options set forth in this letter, and/or any input you have pertaining to our representation on the iv1AC, it would 'be greatiy appreciated. LTpon nearing from eacn oi you, the City will then determine whether to seek the introduction of legislation during this session to address the issue of Eagan's representafion on the MAC. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the City's proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or City Adlninistrator Hedges at (651)675-5001. I look forward to hearing from you very soon, and wish you the best as you begin this legislative session. Sincerely, Pat Geagan Mayor cc: Eagan City Council �, City of Eagan / MAC Representation March 16, 2006 Page 3 State Senator Metzen -- Siate Senator McGinn Representative Wardlow Representative Hansen Governor Tim Pawlenty . , . �: � • . , � �r .,., ytt�-e'�' �.�: �r� �� tt �'+ .l . . +,....i.-- r}��.,�iL , i n �: , „� , ` r t �..�: V i f"� � 5 • t..,.��'y�."."'_.,......�,7 4--..3i�"'.�� . � .,..ri.... _...., � � �.,..,w�J .......:.::. .r..... . ;..v ..... .. • / ��, � ��' ' ./. ,. ` ..: /.: �. ' . ., �. � • � �., ' Tab1e of Contents for ��ay 2006 � Complaint Summary 1 Noise Complaint Map 2 FAA. Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type ' 9 ( MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Depariure Related Noise Events 17 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events l g Carrier Jet Depariure Related Noise Events 19 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32 , -., Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 C A Product of fhe Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program MSP Complaints by City May 2006 Notc: Shadcd Culumns represcn� MSP compiaints filed via the ]mcrnct. - Sum of % Total of Compioints may no� cquot ]00% due to rounding, Ii� �' 'As of May 2�05, ihe MSP Complaints by City report inciudes multiple \ mmplainl descrip�ors per individual compl�inL Therctorc, �he nvmber of ��----� � compinint descriptors may be more Ihnn �he number ofreported compinints. Report Generated: 06/13/2006 08:29 - � - MSP International Air�ort Aviation Noise Complaints for Ma.�06 Number of Complaints per Address � �';.. �`< 1-4 5-15 16-31 32-51 52-79 80-143 -2- s�,; .��,. �� , r:,: � 4� ' ,. � -:� Report Generated: O6l09/2006 13:30 C- C m Available Hours for Runway Use May 2006 Report Generated: O6/09/2006 13:30 FAA Averaae Dailv Count Air Carrier 930 802 Commuter 443 388 General Aviation 92 103 Militarv 8 6 -3- All Operations Runway Use Report May 2006 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rounding. - 4- Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report May 2006 Note: Sum of RUS % rnay not equal 100% due to rounding. Report Generafed: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 5- May 2006 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet C.omposition Nole: Sum of (leet mlx % may not equa� 100 % due to rounding. ;- � � Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage 111 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation ;, : (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine re4rofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. � •The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented per aircraft type during take-off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise �evel). •EPNL is the level of the time integrai of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels. - 6- Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report May 2006 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 100% due to rounding. Report Generated: 06/09i2006 13:30 - 7- Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ' . - '-•• , i!. Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. ' $ - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 � � May 2006 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet �perations by Hour Hour ��r. „� Count,,,, 2230 491 2300 435 240Q 142 100 28 200 15 300 25 --400__----7-4__ __ _ 500 546 American American Atlantic Southeast Airlines America West America West America West Continental Exp DHL DHL American Eagle American Eagle American Eagle FedEx FedEx FedEx FedEx Pinnacle Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk Mesaba Mesaba Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Sun Country Airtran United United United United UPS UPS UPS UPS Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 92.2% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. : : �:� � . . . � : � . � � :e � � 'r � �� . � : � � � � i � : � . ; . . . � . � : � � � •� - . : : . � : : : � �� : : . � :� Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 9- 70� 650 600 550 �y 900 � � :N: 450 � � 400 Y�. O � 350 c.. � 300 � �' 250 � 200 150 100 50 O May 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. AAL ASQ RWE BTA OHL EGF FOX FLG KHA MES NWA SCX TRS UAL.. UPS 1'1Fr[i n � . '�Manu�act.ured^Stage^:3r Stage 3,t�-N�Stage 2�.T� May 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines - 10 - Report Generated: 06l09/2006 13:30 C � Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — May 2006 May 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4210 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4181 Carrier Jet Departures May 1 thru 8, 2006 — 282 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 1 thru 8, 2006 —177 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 � Airpor� Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — May 2006 � May 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4265 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4215 Carrier Jet Departures C� May 9 thru 16, 2006 — 273 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 9 thru 16, 2006 — 157 NightEime Carrier Jet Departures ' � 2- Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — May 2006 May 17 th�u 24, 2006 — 4245 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4239 Carrier Jet Departures May 17 thru 24, 2006 — 296 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 17 thru 24, 2006 —163 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 -13- Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Op�rations — May 2006 May 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3651 Carrier Jet Arrivais May 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3602 Carrier Jet Departures May 25 thru 31, 2006 — 249 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 25 thru 31, 2006 —159 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures - 14 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 � C � �� 1 MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations � ; �t= :` `�`;` Remote Monitoring Tower ,� ��: Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 -15- Tir�ne Above d6 Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events May 2006 , � 5 : � � � 4 � � �� v � � x i �.i � I 4 h. � �� n � J � � �� i �: 4 1 ��n �� i . � � � f ' di � RMT � : ` r , � � � f , � Time;> � Time > � Time�> a Time�� r , ;: ..�� .. . �. . .. .:_ , ' Ci�!_::.� . �"......' ....._.. .. '.,'�4.. :�� . Add�ess < , �� f 65dB' .�.. ,�:.::SOdB.._ E: ,90dB j.. .:.::�IOOc1B� �,.< . . . . �..... . _ .... . � 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 15:43:17 00:00:34 Od:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 15:36:21 00:05:43 00:00:11 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 17:34:46 00:55:43 00:00:08 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 15:41:42 00:18:17 00:00:01 OO:OO:QO 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave, & 58th St. 18:01:06 03:57:4i 00:02:22 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 18:13:38 03:17:31 00:05:07 00:00:00 7 Richfieid Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:26:57 00:00:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfeilow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:11:58 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:00:27 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Afton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:44 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:10:2Q OQ:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 31:18:53 00:01:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:56:45 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 26:25:51 01:35:43 00:00:10 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. OQ:00:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:43:21 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:35:26 00:00:11 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:07:03 00:00:06 00:00:02 OQ:OQ:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:25:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 18:22:07 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 04:20:39 00:01:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 31:26:49 00:04:09 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:07:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 02:23:1Q 00:00:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:08:05 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 01:12:06 00:00:52 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:01:39 00:00:09 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 05:51:56 OO:OQ:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:00:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 OQ:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:33 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsviile North River Hills Park 00:02:37 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:09:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 08:16:50 00:00:42 OQ:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valiey Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 13:58:03 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:06:48 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:01:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. OO:Q2:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 y,� : t,y ,;, Tofal T�me fpr Arraval Noise Events ., r, ',10 22 '15 OQ 08' 01, UO 00 OQ ;� ' ' , 249 47 28 ' �6 - Reporf Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 � C �". , � Time Above Threshold dB for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Even�s May 2006 ; , C , � , T � �� ' �� RMT � �� ' � ' �' �me Time `Time Time ; �' :� � i �� r� ; � E < < ..,�;. - t � ,. � � > , ,.ID . .: . .. ... . . C�.tY . .: ' . ..A.'.. �;. . ..` ..'.: . ± � .... � ,: . Address..:. ,.,. , .. ;..' � � . ::. .65dB.: :. . �, 80dB... .� ::: � 90tlB::. . . �. � 100dB � ; 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 05:40:38 00:06:19 00:00:03 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 07:13:56 00:09:48 00:00:21 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 15:47:36 00:32:23 00:02:45 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 17:20:04 00:43:05 00:01:15 OO:OO:Oa 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 53:09:55 05:58:33 OQ:59:20 00:00:18 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 60:26:49 08:28:03 01:30:48 00:01:04 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 29:28:52 01:16:56 00:03:04 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 16:01:06 00:36:15 00:00:30 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:02:57 00:00:00 OQ:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paui Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:01:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:05:14 00:00:05 aa:oo:o0 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:02:33 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 08:31:45 00:05:58 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 09:15:05 00:29:20 00:00:58 00:00:00 15 Mendata Heights Gullon St. & Lexington Ave. 1Q:14:20 00:10:58 OO:q0:03 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 10:30:36 Q1:01:49 00:07:31 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:20:31 00:00:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th 5t. « 17th Ave. 07:2Q:23 00:01:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomingtan 16th Ave. & 84th St. 05:12:30 00:02:15 00:00:07 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 01: � 0:32 00:00:37 00:00:03 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 03:54:59 00:01:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 02:51:31 00:00:52 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 19:01:38 01:20:38 00:09:58 OO:Q0:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 06:49:56 00:09:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park �321 Jurdy Rd. 04:52:34 00:00:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05:28:35 00:05:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 16:25:29 00:2638 00:00:20 00:00:00 28 Rich ield 6645 16ii� Ave. S. 31:41:02 00:17:30 00:00:29 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. 5chooi 4315 31 st Ave. S. 09:59:27 00:05:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 13:31:21 01:07:33 00:03:42 00:00:00 31 Bioomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:53:56 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Blo�mington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:22:29 00:00:35 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hiils Park 04:13:57 00:01:33 00:00:00 OO:Op:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 01:54:35 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 02:06:48 00:00:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 00:43:24 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 01:31:23 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 02:34:19 00:01:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 01:48:41 00:01:23 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 �' ' Total ?�me for De�sarte�re, No�se Events ' 388 42 45 23 27 22 ` 03 0� 17 00 01 22 �,._ ;�, ., . . :;,., „ �� .. , . ..,. ., , �.4 . Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 17 - Arrival Related Naise Events . 5.. � � � ; � , k `' � ' ` � � ' � � � ' � ? Arr�val ` , Qrnva�' Arrival° � Arrival �' !� r � �r � � i�� . � i ,t � � � �� r r � '. . { � .. 4 �! ; � � ,I ry : i �.� � �� . RMT ,� r, a A j i�{{ r �� , E�enfs ? Eventsi > Events � Euents > . : p4' ...�a�,�i�i. ai .�!15�i L it��{� t , �+, : �. ..:�,� t , i .�� .��e �� c [,� ..� - 4 r�;:�D . .. �:..:. . ..� _.: :City�..: __,,�'�+... . ..�� f�� . � �i Address,.. �. :.. : . ..� ..... ... �. . �65dBA.: i 80dB " 4 90dB ,.... ',: E 10UdB � .. �_... . � .:. . G.......F. . ..._ ..."' . ._..., a'.� ".. _. ,..... . . ....�.,.:. _.�....... 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 3726 8 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 3359 96 1 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Beimont Ave. 3474 782 3 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 3497 310 1 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 3641 2620 52 0 6 Minneapolis 25fh Ave. & 57th St. 3701 2899 175 0 7 Richfieid Wentwo�th Ave. & 64th St. 70 6 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellaw Ave. & 43rd St. 37 2 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 0 0 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 2 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 2 0 d 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 3 1 Q 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 39 0 0 0 14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 6801 32 0 0 15 Mendata Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 156 3 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 5010 1135 2 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 3 0 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 204 9 Q 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 95 5 Q 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 20 1 1 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 112 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 4097 5 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1078 12 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 6647 84 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 295 0 0 0 26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 602 9 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 irving Ave. S. 31 2 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 215 13 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schooi 4315 31stAve. S. 5 1 1 0 30 Bloamingian 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1497 5 0 0 31 Blooming#on 9501 12th Ave. S. 5 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 2 0 0 0 33 Bumsvilie North River Hiils Park 12 0 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 33 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1944 18 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 2445 6 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 28 0 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 7 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 11 0 0 0 �.� � � . � ,�y� r � � ^`Cotal Arnval �loise Events -- �' � � �.;` + Q1 � �. k +F � •L. � �. 4 ' i�. i..;.: .,,..,�<�,�...7.r4. .,:�...:a i,��,.�..�.�.. .. .��.... ..,�......� .. ..�....,,. .i�..,�:.�.. ...,..:�. � ��i' � i� yi 3 a �2906 U6 36 0 �, �,. ' �$' Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C C � i Departure Related Noise Events May 2006 �. . � .. :: .., R � � �. . ; , ;; D artur De rtur D artur De artur RMT ; : Ev nts �e Events >e Events;>e Eu nts >e ID C�tY . . ....' : . . . . :: ... ... .. : . � ..,. .Address .. . �� . � 65dB 80dB. ... .: .,.90dB . . ,':100dB �. -� : . . '. .. ...., . .. . .... . . .. ... .. .... . . ...... .. . .,.. . _ . 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 1019 53 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1276 101 6 0 3 Minneapolis West Eimwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2784 224 35 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2968 348 19 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 7778 1983 620 8 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 9127 3253 683 31 7 Richfield Wsntworth Ave. & 64th St. 4600 557 39 0 8 Minneapolis Langfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2679 282 11 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 13 0 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 7 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 18 1 0 0 12 St. Paui Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 8 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1632 97 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 1523 213 . 12 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 1853 115 1 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane 1626 324 76 0 17 Bloomingion 84th St. & 4th Ave. 65 4 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17ih Ave. 1413 49 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 944 33 2 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 231 6 1 0 21 Inv�r Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 765 27 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 501 16 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 30Q9 488 120 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 1156 105 1 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 668 5 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1044 61 Q 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 2892 284 6 0 2fi Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 4972 297 8 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1789 75 Q 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2074 384 62 0 31 Bloomingfon 9501 12th Ave. S. 187 2 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 70 3 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 776 25 0 0 34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 437 7 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 431 10 0 0 36 Apple Valiey Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 138 4 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 271 21 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 461 21 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 349 15 0 Q � Tota1 Departure Noise Events �< ; �' „ ......:..,. , �, . . , . .,. .,,: . .. .. . , . . ., ,.�:;. „ ... .. : . .... : . ' 949 = 63554 ' ,., 3 1703 39 ;: � ,,:..,. ,.. � . , . .. , , . .. . ,....:.. .. :.... ... . . .. ... �. Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 19 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP (RMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. (RMT Site#3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. - 20 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 � �. C � �1 Top Ten Loudesfi Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St. (RMT Site#5) 12th Ave. & 58th St. (RMT Site#6) 25th Ave. & 57th St. Report Generated: O6/09/2006 13:30 - 21 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. (RMT Site#8) Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. (RMT Site#9) Saratoga St. & HartFord Ave. - 22 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C C (� ) Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. (RMT Site#11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. Report Generafed: 06I09/2006 13:30 - 23 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP � May 2006 C (RMT Site#13) Southeast end of Mohican Court (RMT Site#14) 1 st St. & McKee St. �rcivi i 5ite�� Culion St. & �exington Ave. C - 24 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 ( i Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave. (RII� I Site#� 8) 75th St. & 17th Ave. Reporf Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 25 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St. (RMT Site#20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave. (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67tti St. - 26 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C ;- �' ; Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Ave. 05/2412006 8:45 05/07/2006 7:13 05/26/2006 8:53 05/02/2006 23:11 05/24/2006 6:58 05/12/2006 7:43 05/02/2006 15:22 05/01 /2006 12:00 05/15/2006 19:48 05/08/2006 7:32 CCP1430 DH�1648 NWA1840 XNA123 CC1706 N WA608 NWA42 N WA99 N WA597 CGP1464 Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 (RMT Site#24) Chaqel Ln. & Wren Ln. .� : • : : : : � :. : :. :. :. :. -27- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for �/ISP May 2006 (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05/11/2006 7:36 05/30/2006 6:56 05/06/2006 9:05 05/02/2006 6:53 05/03/2006 8:33 05/26/2006 7:36 05/17/2006 11:56 05/17/2006 9:19 05/12l2006 8:06 05/12/2006 21:05 (RMT Site#27) Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. CCP1460 NWA44$ GCP1430 CCI706 CCP1430 CCP1464 N WA99 CCP1430 CCP1464 DHL197 : t� � • t► : � f:iii:i � � r � : � : t► �� 94.4 91.8 91.7 91.7 91.5 90.2 892 89 89 88.3 - 2$ - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C C (' ; Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP (RMT Site#28) 6645 16th Ave. S. (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. (��" Siie#30) 8715 River Ridge Rd. Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 - 29 - Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events fior MSP ` May 2006 � (RMT Site#31) 9501 12th Ave. S. (RMT Site#32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. (RMT Site#33) North River Hills Park - 30 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C ( '. � '. Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2006 (RMT Site#34) Red Oak Park (RMT Site#35) 2100 Garnet Ln. (�iviT Site#36} Briar Oaks & Scout Pond Report Generated: �6/09/2006 13:30 - 31 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP . ��. (RMT Site#37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. (RMT Site#38) 3957 Turquoise Cir. (RMT Site#39) 3477 St. Charles PI. ( �_ C May 2006 Remote Monitorina Tower Too Ten Summarv The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for May 2006 were comprised of 91.5% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 35.7% of the highest Lmax evenfs. May 2006 Technical Advisor Reoo�t Notes � Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the month of May 2006. - 32 - Report Generated: 06/09l2006 13:30 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL May 2006 Remote Monitoring Towers , i!, Date' � #1 #2 ; #3 #4 #9 f #6 #7 #8 ' ` #9 #10 #11 #12 , #13 #14 #15 : � . . ,,.:.. ., , ,..... .. .. . .... �, ., . ,, ... :;. ,. �: 05/01/2006 60.8 63.1 67.3 63.6 73 72.2 60.2 57 NA NA NA 34.1 57.3 62.5 59.3 05/02/2006 57.5 59.6 63.9 61.5 71.5 71 61.4 57.5 31.1 25.2 NA NA 58.1 67 59.4 05/03/2�06 54.4 56.2 59 61.1 71.3 73.8 66.6 61.9 47.9 29.5 48.8 38.3 45.1 63.2 46.4 05/04/2006 55.7 56.9 60.7 62.5 73.3 74.6 68.5 62.7 35.4 37 NA NA 45.6 64.6 50.3 05/Q5/2006 56.7 57.4 60.4 62.7 71.3 73.8 66.6 61.4 30.9 34.1 NA 36.7 36.2 61.5 39.8 05/06/2006 55.1 56.9 60.5 59.3 69 72.6 59.9 60.6 25.5 33.3 NA 34.5 48.7 60.6 49.8 05107/2006 58.9 59.8 65.1 60.2 68.8 67.1 31.3 NA 26.2 NA 27.9 29.2 59.3 64.3 59.8 05/08I2006 61.7 63.3 67.4 62.9 71.4 69.8 48 37.3 NA 40.5 35 41.6 58.7 62.5 60 05/09/2006 57.1 59.7 63.6 63 72.9 74.4 66.3 61 30.6 NA NA NA 55 64.3 54.8 05/10/2006 55.9 55.8 61.3 61.3 72.3 75.3 67.1 63.8 NA 44.1 30.1 38.3 37.7 62.5 44.1 05/11/2006 55.1 57.5 61.2 62.4 73.4 75.3 68.3 63.8 31.7 35.6 NA 29.2 31.9 62.7 45.5 05/12/2qQ6 53.7 54.2 59.1 6Q.3 71.8 75.1 68.8 60.1 NA 32.9 41.5 35.9 30.2 63.6 41.1 05/13/2�Q6 54 56.7 61.6 64.2 70.7 73.8 64.8 60.7 27 NA 31.2 31.4 NA 61.2 NA 05/14/2006 53.9 56.2 60.2 61.7 71.2 73.2 67 60 29.8 35.3 3Q.3 NA NA 60.5 37.5 -05/1-5/2006--54:-1- -57:2--61:8- 62.-9--7-3�7 75.4- 68-.1 61.1 39:5- 28:5 38�7- 45:6-35.-8--60_5--41.5 - 05/16/2006 56.4 58.8 62.2 63.1 72.6 772 68.9 63.4 39.3 41.4 40.6 40.2 28.8 61.2 45.4 05/17/2006 55.8 55.9 60.7 62.6 73.7 75.7 68.4 63.6 28.8 40.4 38.6 38.5 50.1 61.3 46.1 05i1$/2006 53.8 55 60.8 61.3 72.5 75.4 68.5 62.6 41.6 NA 46.1 26.2 36.5 60.9 50.4 05/1912006 61.7 63.7 66.1 65.5 70.9 69.8 48 52.1 44.9 NA NA NA 58.9 67.1 59.7 05/20/2006 54.1 54 61.4 58.6 70.6 71.8 63.3 61 24.6 26.5 34.5 33.1 35.4 60.4 37.3 05/21/2006 55.4 58.3 61.3 58.8 67.5 67.5 60.7 53.8 39.6 25.8 32.6 30.4 56.4 62.7 57.9 05/22/2006 58.2 60.6 64.3 61.1 68.5 68.4 42.7 34.4 27.9 34.9 37 36.2 58 65.2 60 05/23/2006 60.2 62.3 66.6 63.5 70.1 69.5 36.1 34.4 39.9 27 NA 39.5 61.7 64 63.7 05/2412006 60.3 63.1 65.5 65.6 73.9 76.7 63.4 61.2 46.4 32.8 40.5 45.9 57.3 66.1 59.5 05/25/2006 56.7 59 62.2 66.7 73.6 77.1 68.3 63.1 36.7 34.1 NA 26.5 36.1 62.7 51.6 05/26/2006 55.2 57.5 63.4 62.2 74.1 72.3 61.8 61 31.5 37.1 41 31.4 54 65.3 55.5 05/27/2006 59 60.7 65.9 61.7 69.7 67.6 36 37.9 34.6 NA NA NA 57.6 61.2 58.1 05/28l2006 57.7 58.6 65 602 69 66.6 40.4 33.4 30.7 31.9 NA 40 56 NA 57.5 05/29/2006 58.2 59 64.3 61.1 69.3 72 55.7 54.2 35.4 30 31.9 36.8 57.1 NA 55.3 05/30/2006 56.2 56.9 62 62 72.4 76 65.7 65.6 40.5 37.9 43.6 NA NA 56.8 37.4 05/31/2006 57.3 59.4 62.7 64.2 73 75 63.7 62.3 36.8 36.3 25.8 NA 53.6 60.9 52.7 Mo DNL;� 57 5 59 3 63 5 62 6 71 9�73.7 65 1�6d 6 38`7 35 5 38 6 3i 4 54 7 63 2 561' IA . : ��.,..�r......:<"7... t�......:.r. ��. ,.:�-',.. ..,.:.. .� i �..�. .�p,. ,�� Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 -33- Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL May 2006 Remote Monitaring Towers ( �'' Dater �a #16 #17, ; #18� #19 #20 #21 � #22 #23 � #24 #25 #26� #27 � #28 #29 � u..v:..r � .�....:.: .��...� �. .�.. ....� S.a .�r�..�. ...__�i��. �i[. �i:... �.rr�: .Ln �.i ..�. ..�� ' nv .�.�..- ...�.1�5� �.:rcv.V:�� 45/01 /2006 66.6 42.7 54.6 53 44.5 52.6 54.8 66.9 59.6 49.1 54.2 60.8 60.7 52.3 05/OZ/2006 69.6 51.6 50.4 50.9 47.3 56 61 67.1 64.5 54.6 59.5 64 60.1 55 05/03/2006 67.8 55 51.1 56.3 59.7 42.9 59.9 54.5 62.7 43.6 54 70.2 62.9 60.4 05/04/2006 68.2 55 46.7 4d.9 59.5 41.1 60.4 59.9 64 46.4 52.9 60.7 63.5 58.8 05105/2006 67.2 46 47.1 50.1 45.7 35.9 59.7 48 62.1 42.2 49.6 59.7 61.7 59.3 Q5/06/2006 65.5 46.2 54.4 50.8 49.8 49.2 56.9 57.4 59.9 44.1 52.1 57.$ 55.6 55.3 05/07/2006 65.5 26.5 54.6 57 37.5 56.6 56.4 68.2 60.9 51.7 57.$ NA 53.1 NA 05/08/2006 66.7 50.3 62.9 66.2 37.8 56.1 51.2 67.8 57.1 57.9 58 39.5 65.2 34.5 05/09/2006 68.3 44.4 53.5 4$.6 49.4 50.3 59.4 62.7 62.1 50.3 49.8 61.3 62.1 56.4 05/10/2006 66.9 44.9 40.9 41 45.8 46.7 592 53.6 62.4 35.7 50.8 61.5 61.2 58.8 05111/2006 66.4 38.5 50.6 28.3 51.6 45.5 60.6 54.3 63 51.6 50.5 61.1 64.8 58.1 05/12/2006 67.8 39.5 43.9 34.1 49.8 28.4 61.3 52.3 64 44 49.5 59.4 63.8 55.9 05/13/2006 66.9 NA 47.8 40 40.5 39.1 58.6 46.2 61.2 37.7 43.4 57.7 62.1 53.1 05/14/2006 64.7 32.7 48.1 44.1 44.1 40.5 58.5 47.2 60.5 46 48.4 59.2 62.1 52.4 05/15/2006 65.9 36.9 49.3 32 47.8 41.8 58 47.9 60.1 48.5 39.4 60.5 64.4 54.8 05/16/2006 65.4 42.5 52.1 40.4 50.9 42 57.$ 54.3 61.2 47 49.2 60.7 62.1 58.6 05117/2006 64.9 25.1 45.3 42.7 37.4 45.8 57.8 56.3 60.9 47.8 51 63.4 61.9 59.8 05/18/20�6 65.3 NA 43.1 46.7 47 38.4 56.9 53.7 60.3 40.8 46.3 61 62 59.1 05/19/2006 68.6 34.4 55.6 53.5 38.1 55.5 5$.6 66.8 62.9 58.1 59 43.3 58.9 49.8 05/20/2006 65.1 29.4 42 41.9 37.4 46.3 56.7 51.8 59.6 38.8 47.9 57.6 58.8 5$.5 05/21/2006 65.1 NA 55.8 542 26.1 53.6 55.1 66.3 60.3 49.7 56.5 54 57.1 53 05122/2006 67.2 NA 54.1 53.5 36.9 54.2 56.9 67.4 62.1 54.5 59 40.3 60.5 NA 05/23/2006 66.6 31.5 55 51 43.9 56.9 57.1 702 61.4 55.2 60.8 41.6 54.9 39.1 0512412006 66.1 43.1 51.8 49.6 43.6 52.5 57.6 65.9 62.2 52.3 56 612 57.9 51 05/25/2006 67.7 42.3 44.5 43.7 40.8 44.4 60.1 55.8 62.5 46.6 48.3 61.5 62.6 55.6 05/26/2006 69.4 362 39.7 45.6 42.3 52.7 60.6 63.9 63.1 52.8 59.2 64.2 61.1 52.9 05/27/2006 64.2 NA 54.2 50.9 24.7 51.3 52.8 64.2 57.5 51.7 55.5 NA 56.6 3fi.1 05/28/2006 62.9 32.3 52.7 47.6 37 52.1 51.8 65.8 58.2 50.4 58.6 37.3 51.6 NA 05/29/2006 63.6 NA 51.9 47.7 NA 54.9 52.4 63.fi 58 49.1 57.1 51.1 52.5 50 05/30/2006 67.3 29.4 44 44.9 46.5 42.8 54.2 44.9 58.4 47.1 47 63.5 60.9 53.5 05/31I2006 64.4 30.2 52 49.8 42.2 49.5 55.8 60.7 59.9 4$.3 54.6 63.4 60.1 50.5 '�tla'DR�� '66 7 45 6 53 ; 53 7 49 6 51`5 58 1�63 5 61 5, 51 1� 'S5 2j �1' 1 61�2' S5 5' �.�...�..�...z �..I. �.. ...�::�....v .....r.. ':.�..ci�. i.. . �.� . .,....i:.: u� .r..��. .v�. � i- �.,..��. . ,�a.�. :... � .i �� ...,.:i:.. ... ,.. 3.�� '�r�.i. - 34 - Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 C. C Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL May 2006 Remote Monitoring Towers . , , ,. ,, ; .� .:: ; Date � #30 #31 #32 #33: #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 �t. k.}.r 05/01/2006 63.9 46.6 38.7 53.9 47.6 49.8 48 46 47.8 48.9 05/02/2006 58.9 46.5 NA 49.2 45 49.3 52 44 46.3 50.6 05/03/2006 54.5 39.5 38.7 37.4 35.7 53 55.3 38.6 49.5 49.9 05/04/2006 51.8 47.2 54.8 41.1 42.5 54.7 56.6 NA 27.2 NA 05/05/2006 50.2 50.4 41.2 NA 33.4 52.2 56.8 NA NA NA 05/06/2006 60.7 45 40.6 49.5 49.5 50.3 49 47.4 3$.8 44.7 05/07/2006 63.2 39.7 NA 52.9 48.9 48.9 44.1 47.9 49.4 48.3 05/08/2006 69.7 60.9 59.8 55.2 52.5 55.8 54.2 .54.3 55.5 57.6 05109/2006 58.3 49.2 45.8 30.6 32.9 53 54.8 53.8 50 44.4 05/10/2006 53 44.9 45.7 39.8 27.7 53.7 56.5 37 NA NA 05111 /2006 51.6 25.9 NA 37.5 38.8 53.8 56.6 41.4 NA 27.6 0511212006 51.1 36.3 322 NA NA 48.5 52.9 NA NA NA 05/1312006 48.6 32.3 28.6 34.5 NA 50.4 52.6 37.6 NA NA 05/1412006 51.4 26.8 45 NA 31.6 50.6 54 42.3 NA NA -05/15/2006 49�6 27.-2- 40:6 2�:9 -46:1 50.9- 54:5 48:4 - NA 35.4 - 05/16/2006 51.5 37.8 44.6 30.1 40.6 52.1 55.3 43.1 30.7 32.5 05/17/2006 51.5 36.$ NA 32.6 28.6 53 56 4�.5 35.7 44.9 05/18/2006 50.6 NA NA 37.9 39.4 51.3 54.9 43.6 38.9 45.6 05/1912006 64.9 49.3 32.6 53.6 48 48.1 52.2 50 52.6 48.6 05/20/2006 49.5 27.1 41.7 NA 25.3 51.8 54.6 4Q.5 37.1 41 05/21I2006 64 37.4 NA 51.8 47.9 50.5 42.6 53.9 59 51 05/22/2006 62.6 39.4 NA 52.5 48.7 48.5 41.6 48.7 50.2 48.8 05/23/2006 61.1 35.4 NA 51.9 46.8 46.9 39.5 49 50.9 51 05/24/2006 62.3 45.2 47 51.8 49 51.2 49.5 48.3 48.7 49.8 05/25/2006 49.6 32.6 45.2 33.7 44.8 51.1 54.6 34.9 NA NA 05/26I2006 52.6 37.2 NA 42.2 39.1 52.2 53.3 38.5 36.9 40 05/27/2006 62.9 41.1 NA 50.7 42.5 46.9 39.7 46.5 49.8 46 05/28/2006 58.5 35.6 35.3 47.6 40.7 40.5 38.2 43.4 46.8 46.2 05129l2006 60.7 39.3 NA 50.4 47.5 46.3 40.6 44.5 45.4 46.6 05/30/2006 48.4 NA 39.2 NA NA 50.5 54.4 NA NA NA 05/31 /2006 61.2 34.7 NA 49 44.6 50.7 51.2 49.7 50.7 43.9 .� �.. , , Mo DNL 60 4 47 7 47 ; 48 6 45 1 51 3 53 2 47 3 48 8 47 5 :,;;. , � ,:.;;. ., . ::: ..:. :., . . , . Report Generated: 06/09/2006 13:30 -35- � C C I ', . 1 ' :, '- - - � , -,- � , , I 1 .. � • � l ,►' � ' , . Ivletropolitan Airp°rts Conunission 12g2. in _N�-ay 20�6 �un�'ays 12�`, an a in the C°rrid�r �..� -�e�arted -�e-maine �r � , : 3804 �a r�`er�.�eo �� those D�erations �' �'' � : r � ti �, , , a� .� �{ > ti X rat�� {5 f� y �4�".�t 'if�'1ti 6•J /�� : � r r -s '�ue °r ,,7 f{�� + � �'� ��" f-s 1�� r a �� ` � t' c >' r�' `��a�� z'L�a� xit y� Twi � i 367 = _ ` ...�._._ � � 4 �` ,�s�f�a� � � ; . , . � � f��.. '' , ..f.�,_ ) li M }�._.��.�. r". t � r �. .. � ..�,✓ � .�;`�,�.� `��t.;`'�. .��E �. ....i}.��i _, ��; � .f > ,:.�...�"_--- e arture _ __ _::.- $ '-.. - & 12R Carxiex D p 3gp4 �ota112L Opexations .. d � 3��SS i�.r.i:i;..:. ".......�.-.,.... , ; . „ ,r�,� ,_ _ - Carrier ,.w� ...__. -_ -- 5 /o� „rota112L.&t e Corridor 36'11(96• � Departuxe �PetationS in� ,.. ._ {t,. , ; . "' gt. Pau► Corridor � ' _ N►inneaPolis-� Gate In_ Gate Plot f�r 1f2�06 00:00:0� �861 �50� � , penetration ��;00 - 06►0 30�0 , R�gh� k,�.�.�.�� . ,. � -: 00: 1810 �49 � � hM.�''°�"a �S�-+�'1'��" : _. `'. 0510112p06 Left = � Sed Gate ,:�� . .: ��r.. � , ... ��a �.. ..... � cks CrOS .�� . ;� `� . .: . 3671 Tca��,�.,�,.��~ ,�.. : , 6000 m . � 5000 � � � � � � . � � � 40Q� •...-• d . W 3000 � " � � � � . °ts. 2000 " � � . . . � ' � �� _.' � � .� Y • • ' 2 . � � �. . � 1 � 1000 � � �• O °s Gate (�►lesl Q, 0 '� ter of � �A De� Cen , -2 �ation FrOm .�:��:.��,�.��.�� pverflight: v� � ,�� : , : . ...... ...... arture �,�. ,�,,.,.,<.�,�,.�.,.- �'�.,�`�'°3 , DeP ,�.��""",�...,<: �,;; �.: " C� ,� �, ,�� .�' _ z -'� a1 sis prr►val �' .�'. ~ `' dor An Y ��,.,�,,, ��", e Corri , • "'""'.., „ ;:: ts DePartu�' a�Mendota Hetgh .. � Monthly Eag � �.� Metropolitan Airports Coimnission ° 58 (1.5%) Runway 12I� and 12I� �arrier Jet I)eparture Operations were North of the 090° Corridor �oundary I)uring 1Viay 2006 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Corridor 05/01/2006 00:00:00 — 06/01/2006 00:00:00 58 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 8(13.8%), Right = 50 (86.2%) .� 6000 w : : � �, . . : v5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. � . . . o � : : v4000 ................ : ............... : ................ .... .............. � . . d : : : W3000 ........................................... .. .........: ....,.. ......... � : : C:� �;E�';: C>'� Q 2��0 • .•. . f� `� �� LJ`�T �� L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. C ). .�� . . . J:: � . . . . . . . . . . 'L7' {i i y L% '•'Cj�..��' Q . f�9,�j '"t..? (� C_2..1 ' j � i.. � ' 7 p1000 .. . .. ... .. . ... . . . .:.... . . . . . .... . �. . .:. . .. . . .�-. . . . . . . . . . :. . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .Q : : : `= 0 —2 (Runway End) -I- Arrival —'1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �Corridor End) �=� Departure ❑ Overflight Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission 75 (2.0%)12unvcTay 12L anc1121� Carrier .�et I)eparture Operations were - South of the Cor�idor (South of 30]L Loealizer) I�uring IVIay 2006 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 05/01/2006 00:00:00 — 06/01/2006 00:00:00 75 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 52 (69.3%a), Right = 23 (30.7%) � 6000 : . - � . . . v5000 �• ................:...................:..................:.................. c . : : o • • • a4000 ..................:..................:..................:.................. � : : : w : . : � 3000 ��--r- ..:...................:..................:.............:.... �.......... . . . , ' � ; G .., � . Q- 2000 ..� ��a .�. .� . �.� .l . U., . � . . . ; :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . a �... � � G . U C� C>'UR. �� . �.'�,.�� . a� . . . . . . . ..:.,.r) . ' ,k, . -� . �. .,_�, p 1000 ....... . : �"p Ci �i, U.. r?�c.� ................. .Q : : O d� d p —2 (Corridor End) ��;�� ,.,,�_.,...,..<,-.Arrival —1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �wY �=� Departure ❑ Overflight Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparhue Corridor Analysis Page 3 t3;� '�` k*� � �' 'y`�yrf ^�i ��. ,�s ��.�.�, k ��* �;,.e;, �,s�., �'� ;, ��,.�a. �;� � �,� y.,.'�� 4. c�r,� fi.� �r=�"�;>, , � € �.r YK � �� t � � ..� m� �i„�c� n, � � .�:s�. ��, �'s,. �,` „>r�t- � � a" 7 ,r�: .��.� �� A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 18, Number 17 Part X50 Program .. . �.,�, �,. � �.� .. I �' ' � . • � � The Pederal Aviation Administration recently announced its apjiroval of Part 150 AirportNoise Compatibility Prograrris for Vero Beach (Florida) Municipal Airport and Collin County (Texas) Regional Airport. On May 18, the FAA announced that six of the 11 noise mitigation measures submitted in the Vero Beach Part 150 program were approved; one measure (a proposed noise abatement depariure track) was disapproved because of its impact on the safe and e�cient use of the airspace; and four measures were approved oniy in part because they address issues outside the 65 DNL contour and the local community had determined that no non-compatible land uses exist beyond that point. Disapproved by the FAA was a proposed straight-out noise abatement depar- ture track for jet aircraft that would be put into effect after the installafion of an ASR-11(airportsurveilianceradar)system. In rejecting this measure, FAA said that the current three departure headings (straight, left, and right) are needed because of current non-radar service at the (Continued on p. 66) Adl' Gra�zis EIG�i'I' AII�'OR'�'S I1�T C��'C)fl�1IA, 'I'E�.S �,WA1�ED �42.2 TVIILLION �T l�TOISE G�,1�TS Between May 8-15, the Federal Aviation Administration awarded six airports in California and two airports in Texas a total of $42.2 mil lion in federal Airport Improvement Program (AIl') grants to support noise mitigation projects, according to data posted on the FAA' website: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ airports/aip/grantapportion_data. �'he following airport proprietors received AIl' grants to support noise mitigation work: • City ofBurbank, CA, received a$10 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of Bob Hope Airport; • City ofFresno, CA, received a$1 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of Fresno Yosemite International Airport; � City ofMonterey, CA, received a$2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of Monterey Peninsula Airport; • City of Ontario, CA, received a$5 million grant to acquire land for noise eompatibility within the 70-74 DNL contour of Ontario International Airport; • City of San Diego, CA, received a$10 million grant for noise mitigation (Continued on p. 67) G'� May 24, 2006 .I12 TIZtS .lSSItG'... Part 1 SO Program ... FAA announces its approval ofnoise compatibilityprograms for Vero Beach (Florida) Municipal Airport and Collin County (Texas) Regional Airport. The agency also says it is reviewingtheproposed Part 150program forMobile Regionai Airport - p. 65 A(IP Noise Grants ... FAA awards six airports in California and two airports in Texas a total of $42.2 million in federal AIl' grants to supportairportnoise mitigatioii projects - p. 65 Land Use ... The Transporta- tion Research Board formal ly arnlounces its search for a con- tractor to conduct a $500,000, two-yearproject aimed at devel- oping landuse compatibility guidance for airports and sur- rounding jurisdictions -p. 67 News Briefs ... Truckee TahoeAirportofficials saythey have worlcedwith a glider opera- torto successfully reduce noise from tow planes by 12 dB by changing the aircraft's propel ler ... UPS announces a $1 billion expansion of its main hub at Louisville IntenaationalAirport. UPS plans to add 1.1 million square feet to its hub - p. 68 2006 airport. In addition, the agency said that the straight-out departure procedure does not satisfy Part 150 approval criteria because "it does not provide evidence of a noise benefit" Measures Approved only in Part Measures approved only in part include: • Voluntary touch-and-go flight training pracedures: FAA approved the airport's current practice of setting the tra�c pattern altitude for touch-and-go operations and restricting the hours during which they can be conducted. But, for reasons of safety, the agency did not approve proposals to close the cross-wind runway to touch-and-go operations at night and to conduct converging operations when the tower is closed. • Airport Zoning: The city proposed expanding the current Airport Noise Impact Zone, which e�ctends one mile from the runway sides and two m iles from the runway ends, to encompass "areas of known high community annoyance and areas where noise monitoring and modeling data support special consideration." FAA said it could only approve the expanded Noise Impact Zone to the extent that it includes the existing and forecast 65 DNL contour. However, the agency said that as a matter of policy it "encourages local efforts to prevent new non-compatible land uses immediately abutting the 65 DNL contour and to provide a buffer for possible growth in noise contours beyond the forecast period." The federal government has no authority to control local land use, FAA reminded the city. Only locai governments have the authority to imple- mentthis measure; • Real EsYate Disclosure: FAA endorsed measures to periodically publish noise contours overlaid on the Noise Impact Zone, to educate and inform local Realtors, to notify properiy owners that their homes are within three miles of the airport, and to monitor efforts in the Florida Legislature to enact a state statute requiring noise disclosure at all state airports. But FAA said it has no authority to control local land use; • Periodic noise, operations, and flight track monitor- ing: The city proposed the periodic collection of data to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary touch-and-go training operations and the "close-in" noise departure procedure by jet aircraft, and to monitor changes in fleet mix and other operational characteristics that could trigger the need to revise noise maps or the Part 150 program. FAA reminded the city that it has adopted the federal guideline designating 65 DNL as the threshold of residential land use compatibility and that the city has not adopted a standard below the 65 DNL contour. FAA said that, for purposes of aviation safety, its approval of periodic noise, operations, and flight track monitoring "does not extend to the use of monitoring equipment for enforcement purposes by in-situ measurement of any present noise thresholds and shall not be used for mandatory enforcement of any voluntary measure." 66 Approved Measures Measures in Vero Beach's Part 150 program uncondition- ally approved by the FAA include continuing the practice of recommending that pilots use the close-in noise abatement departure profile; pilot education on noise abatement, including inserts for pilot flight manuals; development of an ongoing community information program; and annual review ofthePart 150 program implementation. The city also recommended that an FAA Tower Order be used as the mechanism by which it and air tra�c control personnel wili agree on noise abatement procedures to be implemented in the tower. FAA agreed with this concept but only for measures that normally would be included in a Tower Order, such as touch- and-go procedures and altitudes. The agency told the city that it will determine "the appropriate elements of the noise compatibility program to be included in the Order and the language describing them." For further information on the Vero Beach Part 150 program, contact Lindy McDowell in FAA's Orlando Airports District o�ce; tel: (407) 812-6331, ext.130. Collin County Regional Part 150 On May 22, FAA announced that it had granted outright approval to 13 of the 21 proposed noise mitigation measures in the proposed Part 150 Program for Collin County Regional Airport; had rejected three proposed program measures; and had disapproved four program elements pending submittal of addiiional iniomlation. Disapproved program elements included a recommendation to remove runway end signs, a recommendation to include selected alternatives for study in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, and a recommendation addressing jet aircraft visual arrivals to one runway. FAA said these program elements did not meet Part 150 approval criteria of reducing non-compatible land uses exposed to 65 DNL. Also, the recommendation regarding jet aircraft visual arrivals had the potential of create unsafe operating conditions, FAA said. Elements disapproved pending submission of additional data include (1) establishing departure procedures for one runway, (2) establishing noise abatement departure proce- dures for jet aircraft departing to the south, (3) designating engine run-up locations, and (4) restricting hours in which aircraft engine maintenance run-ups may be performed. Supporting information for each of these four program elements is required, FAA said, "to quantify affects on non- compatible land uses and demonstrate potential benefits." Approved by the FAA only as voluntary measures were recommendations regarding helicopter operations near the airport and continuance of the practice of conducting flight training mainly east of the airport. Another nine program measures addressing future noise abatement and land use control were approved by the FAA but not detailed in its announcement. However, these measures will be specified in the FAA's Record of Approval Airport Noise Report � ( , � C May 24, 2006 67 ofthe Collin County Part 150 Program, which will be avail- able on-line at hitp://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/ 14cfr150/indexl4.cfm. For further information on the program, contact Paul Blackford, an environmental specialist in FAA's Fort Worth, TX, office; tel: (817) 222-5607. Mobile Regional 150 under Review The FAA also announced on May 18 that noise exposure maps submitted by Mobile (Alabama) Airport Authority for Mobile Regional Airport meet federal requirements and that the agency's review of a proposed Part 150 program for the airport will be completed by Oct. 27. For further information, contact Kristi Ashley in FAA's Jackson, MS, office; tel: (601) 664-9891. G��ants, fi�om p. 65 measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of San Diego International Airport; • City of San Jose, CA, received two grants: $6 million for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of San JoseTnternational Airport and $12 million to install a noise monitoring system at the airport; • City of Laredo, TX, received a$2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of Laredo International Airport; and • City of San Antonio, TX, received a$5 million grant for uoise mitigatioii measures ior residences within the 65-69 DNL contour of San Antonio International Airport. Land Use r r, �, � �,,i k'�� 1�.��° �� s� ��.�+ ��' On May 23, the Transportation Research Board (T12B) formally announced that it is seeking contractors for a research project under which guidance will be developed to protect airports from incompatible land uses that impair and constrain operations and future airport development. The $500,000 project is among the first to be funded through the new Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which was established in 2003 in the legislation reauthorizing the programs of the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration. The project, entitled "Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility," is expected to take two years to complete and will begin in October. Those interested in conducting the project must submit 20 single-bound copies of their proposal by 4:30 p.m. on July 18. "Encroachment of incompatible land uses around airports, particularly in the critical approach/departure paths, is a significant national problem," TRB said in describing the project. "Incompatible uses, which often occur on land not under the direct control of the airport owner, include uses that impair the safe and efficient operation of aircraft and airports,. and subject residents and others to excessive noise impacts and/or safety risks. Without appropriate guidance, neighboring jurisdictions may permit such conflicting uses regardless of the best effort of airport owners and public officials to ensure that land uses are compatible with airport operations, in terms of operational efficiency, safety, and noise exposure." TRB said that state and local governments "need a common basis for establishing zoning regulations that protect the public interest and investment in airports." The project is divided into two phases. Under the first phase, current and past land use guidelines and their effectiveness will be reviewed, interviews with key stake- holder will be conducted, and airports will be identified for further case study. In Phase 2 of the project, case studies will be done to illustrate good and innovative land use compatibility guidelines near airports, land use tools and strategies that have been effective, types of problems for which state and local land use agencies have little or no guidance, situations where existing guidelines and regulations are not being implemented appropriately, and barriers that prevent compatible development and conditions that lead to incompatible development. The contractor also must develop a framework for assess- ing the types of problems and costs attributable to incom- patible land use near airports; analyze the reasons for success and failures in land use compatibility planning; recommend best practices; develop model state legislation and land use tools, such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes; identify additional research needs; and prepare a fmal report with stand-alone executive Silil1I113ij�. The Request for Proposals for the ACRP Project 3-03, FY 2006, is available on-line at http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/ A11+projects/ACRP+3-03. The manager of this ACRP project is Diamze Schwager; tel: (202) 334-2969; e:mail: dschwager@nas.edu. Panel Will Select Contractor A panel of experts will select the contractor that will conduct the land use compatibility project. That panel includes Frederick Busch, director of Planning and Noise at Denver International Airport; Mark Johnson, associate director of the consulting firm Leigh Fisher Associates; SandraLancaster, manager ofthe Noise Compatibility O�ce at Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport; Steven Pflaum of the lawfirm McDermott W ili & Emery; Raymond Rought; director of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's O�ce of Aeronautics; and Amiy Varma, an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at North Dakota State University. FAA liaisons to the panel include Patricia Friesenhahn, an environmental specialist in the FAA O�ce of Environment and Energy; Ashraf Jan, special assistant to the FAA Airport Noise Report 24, 2006 68 � ANR EDITCDil' IA.I. associate administrator for Airports; and Lori Lehnerd, a program analyst in ADVISORY $OARD the FAA's National Planning Division. � Other liaisons to the panel include Richard Marchi, vice president for Technical and Environmental Affairs at the Airports Councii International — \ John J. Corbett,Esq. North America; and Kimberly Fisher, senior program o�cer at the TRB. Spiege( & McDiazmid Washington, DC In B��ief ...� Carl E. Burieson Director, O�ce of Environment and Energy ' Federal Aviation Administration (�rIiCICI'TOWPIariBQUiCte(1 John C. Rreytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michae( Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockweli LLP Denver Suzanne C. McLean Chief Devetopment Officer Tucson Airport Authority Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Laguna Niguel, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago MaryL. VigilanEe President, Synergy Consultants Seattle The Truckee Tahoe Airport District announced May 19 that it has been working with Soar Truckee, a glider operator at the airport, to find a way to reduce noise from glider tow planes. Soar Truckee conducts nearly 10,000 tow plane operations at Truckee Tahoe Airport each year between May and September, accounting for nearly one- quarter of the total traffic at the airport. Noise from tow planes comes from the propeller and the e�chaust, the airport explained. A four-bladed propeller was installed on one of Soar Truckee's three tow aircraft to assess its effectiveness in reducing propeller noise levels. Initial assessments by the airport staff show as much as a 12 dB(A) noise reduction with the new propeller. The four-bladed propeller has been used for nearly 10 years in Europe, the airport said. "A glider operation in Boulder, CO3 also has had great success with these propellers on their aircraft." Tests conducted in Boulder showed a substantial 18 dB(A) decrease in noise level with no significant loss in the tow aircraft's performance, according to the Truckee Tahoe Airport District. It said that Boulder Airport and Truckee Tahoe Airport are similar in that they are both.high-altitude airports. ITPS �xparediaegLouasei9HeHub UPS Tnc. announced May 17 that it is planning $1 billion expansion of its main air cargo hub at Louisville International Airport, adding 5,000 jobs and 1.1 million square feet to its hub, know as UPS Worldport. When the expansion of the hub is completed in 2010, the computerized package sorting system will feature 197 miles of conveyors. The hub's sorting capacity will grow by 60 percent to more than 487,000 packages per hour. About 260 LTPS cargo flights arrive and depart fram the Louisville hub each day. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 44 times ayearat43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703)729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airporinoisereport.com; Price $750. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use; or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. C C t � , «� �,. �, � N� � � �� `� `,�, k �-��,� ,.�" �� t��%� ��,� ��'`"1e- ` ��'"�'� xr,+r � ,� ,�,,".- ,c� ,.,.,.f. f��. ii....a? `"„� �`.'� �,e.�,^' �, a. `�, .. �.. �k.�,M�' `�e�.. .,€d`� �;t> �F �.,�k. .f� �£,.� r�! � � .:izt�. A weekly update on litigation, regutations, and technological developments Volume 18, Number 18 Noise Modeli�zg FAA ISSUES UPDATED VERSION OF I7v1VI; iJNCLEAR W�IIAT Im WILL DO Tf� CONTOURS On May 22, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an updated version of its Integrated No9se Model (INIv1), the standard tool used by the agency for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. The new INM Version 6.2 updates Version 6.1, which was issued in March 2003. A further update of the INM (Version 7.0) is due out early next year and will include a helicopter noise model. These updates are being done to enable the FAA to meet its goal of releasing a new advanced modeling tool in 2010, which will combine aircra$ noise and emissions models. INM Version 62 updates noise data for several models of Boeing aircraft, includes new audibility metrics for assessing noise in national parks, accounts for attenuation due to terrain shielding, and can disable lateral attenuation for helicopter and propeller aircraft to simulate the propagation of sound over acoustically hard surfaces. No one knows yet how the updated INM will affect noise contours. "It depends on the fleet mix at a particular airport," said Mary Ellen Eagan, president oi the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., which has been (Continued on p. 70) Airspace PY�OPOSEI) F� AIRSPA.CE �IiESIGI� DOE+ � 1�0`I' GO I'.�4.R EI�O�.TGH, P�T'�J SA'YS The Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey (PANYN� appears to have dealt a major blow to the Federal Aviation Administration's proposed redesign of the airspace over the NY/NJ/Philadelphia metropolitan area, saying that even the best of the agency's four redesign proposals does not go far enough and "pro- duces a huge noise impact to local communities." Calling the major airspace redesign a"once in 40 years opportunity," the PANYNJ told the FAA it "needs to think out of the box and come up with better and wiser ternninal airspace changes" than those it has proposed. Some 21 airports are included in the FAA's massive airspace redesign project but particular focus is being placed on operations at five airports: Newark Interna- tional, Teterboro, JFK International, LaGuardia, andPhiladelphia lnternational. Because the PANYNJ is the proprietor of four of these airports, it makes the powerFul bi-state agency's criticism of the FAA's effort particularly biting. In comments on the FAA's proposed airspace redesign made public on June 1, the PANYNJ asked the FAA to redesign the terminal portion of the airspace over its four airports in order to improve tra�c flow, to further increase efficiency, and to reduce noise impact. The Port Authority told FAA that it wants noise abate- ment departure headings at Newark, which FAA had dropped in its proposed (Corztinued on p. 71) 69 June l, 2006 .�n This Issue... ! Noise Modeling ... FAA I issues an update to its Integrated Noise Model. The newversion, I]�]M 6.2, updates noise data for several models ofBoeing air- planes, includesnewaudibility metrics thatwere developedto assess noise impact innational parks, and accounts for attenua- tion due to terrain shielding. For the first time; the FAA is requiring INM users to get agency pre-approval to use the new audibilitymetrics andthe FAA or Volpe Lab will perform the one- third octave bandnoise analyses on which these new nnetrics are based - p. 69 Ai�•space Redesign ... Tlze PortAuthority ofNewYork and New Jersey criticizes aproposed FAA airspace redesign in the NY/ NJ/Philadelphia area for not going far enough and nat cons idering noise mitigation measures -p. 69 News Briefs ... Two positions open inFAA Office ofEnviron- meniandEnergy ... National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee to meet soon ... San Francisco InternationalAirportlCommunity Roundtablewill celebrate25th anniversary at reception -p. 71 June 1, 2006 assessing INM 6.2 and is in the process of comparing data modeled with 6.2 to data collected from noise monitors to see how closely they match. The goal of modeled data is to get it to closely match monitored data. INM 6.2 changes the weights of some aircraft and, with the 737-300, thrust cutbacks happen earlier but the aircraft is assumed to be heavier, so the noise contour goes further out but is narrower closer in, she told ANR. For some aircraft types, INM 6.2 can model data that is as much as 2 dB louder, she said, but not all aircraft will be louder. Noise contours are driven by the noisiest aircraft in the fleet and those are usually MD-80s and Lear 25s, she said. As long as those planes are the loudest in the fleet serving an airport, they will be the ones that continue to drive the contours. Steve Alverson, vice president of ESA Airports, a consulting firm specializing in noise, environmental, and airport planning services, made similar comments on the impact of the new INM version. "The efFect of INM 6.2 on an airport's existing noise contours will vary depending on the previous version of the modei used, the fleet mix at their airport, and the terrain between the airport runways and nearby residents." But he said that the new INM version will have implica- tions for airport master plans and environmental projects that are already underway. "Some projects are too close to completion to switch to the new version, while projects that have just begun are more likely candidates for using the new version," Alverson said. He stressed that "it is best to seek direction from the project's FA.A contact rather than leaving it to chance" Using the most current version of the INM is the most legally defensible strategy, he told ANR. Alverson said his airport clients have been calling since the INM update was issued. "The location of noise con- tours can ha�e major implications for many of our airport clients. They are anxious to know how this new version of the INM is going to affect where aircraft noise exposure from their airports falis in the nearby communities." FAA spokesman Hank Price said that airports with questions regarding what version of the INM to use in current noise studies should contact FAA field offices who will work in consultation with headquarters personnel in the o�ces of airports and environment to respond. Capabilities of �NM 6.2 I�M1v1Ii discusses the capabiiities of INM Version 6.2 in a special newsletter available at http://www.hmmh.com/ imm �ewsletter.himl. HNII'vlf� also has scheduled new INM training courses on INM 6.2 for September in Copenhagen, Denmark, and on Oct. 4-6 at the firm's Burlington, MA, headquarters. Further information is available at www.lumnh.com/inm/html. HIviMH notes that Version 6.2 includes modified data for Boeing'137-300, 737-400, 737-500, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, and 777-200 airplanes outfitted with various engines. This was done to better reflect the way the current in-service fleet is operated. 70 "The new Standard [departure] profile assumes that the initial thrust cutback occurs after the aircraft has reached 1000 feet AGL [Above Ground Level]; this resuLts in slower climb performance. The bottom line: noise levels for standard departure profiles for these aircraft in the fleet will be greater farther out and under the flight path but lower closer to the airport," I��IIvIH explained. Audibility Metrics Included The new INM version also includes new audibility metrics that grew out of studies done by the FAA to assess compli- ance with a congressional mandate that natural quiet in the Grand Canyon National Park be substantially restored. INM 6.2 includes the metrics: • Time Audible (TAUD): the amount of time that an aircraft is audible at a particular location to an attentive observer; • Percent Time Audible (%TAUD): the percentage of time audible for a given period; and • DeltaDose (DDOSE): the arithmetic difference between the aircraft noise exposure and the ambient sound level. However, use of these new metrics, IIlvINII3 explained, requires the collection of one-third octave band ambient noise data, "which is resource-intensive and should be perFormed in consultation with FAA and the National Park Service. The ambient data are incorporated into your study through a binary file, which must be processed by FAA. In other words, you must have FAA's pre-approval (and processing) of your ambient date before initiating any TAUD, %TAUD, or DDOSE calculations," FI�vIlVg-I stressed. This is the first time that FAA has required INM users to have the agency process noise data, �IIvINII3's Eagan told ANR. This is new requirement and it could take lNM users months to get FAA approval and data processing done, she said. FAA spokesman Price called the requirement to get FAA approval of the use of audibility metrics and agency process- ing of one-third octave band data "new policy guidance." The FAA wants to have oversight of the process in order to ensure that proper data processing procedures are followed, he said. The one-third octave band data wili be processed by FAA or by the Department of Transportation's Volpe Lab. In terms of terrain shielding, IIIvIlVLEI expiained that the prior version of the INM "utilized terrain input to adjust the source-receiver distance but did not account for the attenua- tion due to intervening tenain." The new INM version inciudes an algorithm that can account for that attenuation. "The new INM wili fill in missing terrain datawith user- defined values for cases where terra,in data is not available (e.g., over water)," HI�INII3 noted. INM 6.2 is available on the FAA's website at http:// www. faa. gov/abouboffi ce_org/h eadquarters_off ces/aep/ models/inm model/. Airport Noise Report �/ � June l, 2006 �i�space, fr•oni p. 69 airspace redesign, to be reinstated and nighttime noise abatement procedures to be empioyed. The Port Authority endorsed the airspace redesign proposal that FAA appears to favor (the Integrated Airspace Design with the Integrated Control Complex, orICC, which would expand the current available airspace and consolidate air traffic control facilities) but says that, while it produces the best operational benefits, it also produces the most noise for outlying communities. Disappointed Noise Not Addressed "While noise reduction was not in the FAA's purpose and need for the project, the FAA promised to look at noise and reduce aircraft impacts where practical," the Port Authority told the agency. The PANYNJ said it was "very disappointed that the FAA has not addressed noise in any of the alternatives. The explanation given during the community meetings is that the alternatives presented are the best operational alternatives and the FAA will look at noise reduction as part of a mitigation strategy later." The Port Authority said it "respectfully disagrees with the FAA in this assertion. The amount of time and money that went into providing alternatives that are very wealc at best from an operational standpoint could only be improved if the FAA included some noise measures as part of the plan." Aiso, the Port Authority told FAA, more consideration should be given to the time of day that runways are used and land use compatibility options for noise mitigation. "These are particularly important aircraft noise abatement considerations at [Newark] in light of the fact that so many new people are to experience significant noise. "The FAA's estimate of 5,480 people significantly im- pacted by aircraft noise does not tell the whole story. In fact, a large percentage of this group will be newcomers to the significantly impacted status without any previous experi- ence in that position. "Usually, the populace within an aircraft arrival or depar- ture corridor has been exposed to aircraft noise to varying degrees over many years. The FAA proposed dispersed depariure headings at Newark will introduce many people in the City ofElizabeth, NJ, to significant aircraft noise for the first time in areas they believed to be free of overflights. "In addition, tens of thousands more people in less significant noise zones will be experiencing aircraft over- flights that they did not previously experience. The FAA needs to look at ways to mitigate this noise increase for so many people." `More Can Be Done' The Port Authority told FAA that its ICC proposal "is cleariy the best from an operational analysis" but said "it barely `tweaks' the terminal airspace that by the FAA's own assertion has not been changed since the 1960s." The FAA needs to go back and look again at the terminal 71 airspace as part of its redesign process, the Port Authority said. "There clearly was no major overhaul in the develop- ment of the terminal tracks, just a minor tweak to fit the new enroute designs where the major changes in airspace occur. We find this to be of concern since the terminals are where the delays occur and the largest noise impacts are pro- duced." The Port Authority told the FAA that it must look at expanding the airspace east of Newark International to allow Newark air tra�c controllers to run arrivals or departures along the Hudson River corridor. "This would greatly improve the efficiency of Newark and reduce conflicts with Teterboro traffic. Tt would also provide much needed noise relief in the area around the airport. Currently, LaGuardia tra�c occupies the �Iudson River corridor. If these aircraft are shifted east, there may be additional benefits achieved by sequencing over the Long Island Sound." Comment Period Extended The FAA announced June 1 that it will extend the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment on its NYlNJ/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign an additiona130 days to July L The comment period was e�ctended, FAA said, due to numerous requests from elected o�cials, including hoth New Jersey senators, and others. The airspace redesign involves a 31,000 square-mile, five- state area with a population of 29 million. The FAA did not identify a preferred alternative of the four it proposed (18 ANR 1) but it did state in the DEIS that the ICC would provide the most benefit. The agency said it will select a preferred alternative after the public comment period closes and it has had time to review the more than 400 comments it has received on the proposal, which has been very controversial in communities that wiil get increased noise impact. In d��ief� Positions Open in FAA Noise Office The FAA Office of Environment and Energy has two posi- tions open for Operations Research Analysts. The closing date for applying for these positions, located at FAA head- quarters in Washington, DC, is June 9. The first job vacancy announcement (Number AWA-AEE- 06-JD55690-86585) is for an Operations Research Analyst at a salary range of$46,189 to $85,578. Duties include "formulating, analyzing, and preparing recommendations for programs and projects re]ated to monitoring and modeling the effects of aviation noise on the environment; employs the use of indices, dispersion models, and monitoring systems to assess environmental trends and conditions to predict the impact of proposed public and private actions concerning aviation noise and to determine the Airport Noise Report June 1, 2006 �� , �,� li �l '; �' :t•''1. John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegei & McDiarmid Washington, DC Carl E. Surteson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esg. Gatzke, Diilon & BalIance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver Suzanne C. McLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Laguna Niguel, CA Steven F. Pflaum,.Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago MaryL. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle 72 effectiveness of programs for protection and enhancing the quality of the environment; develops comprehensive operations research methodology for use in solving multi-discipline aviation noise problems; and develops and applies analytical models to determine the economics, cost effectiveness, tradeoffs, and operational solutions to aviation noise problems involving airport, aircraft, and airspace operations. For further information, go to http://jobs.faa.gov/ announcement detail.asp?vac id=86585. The second job opening (Vacancy announcement Number AWA-AEE-06- JD55765-86587) is also for an Operations Research Analyst but at a salary range of$65,832 to $101,130. The duties included in this position are identical to those ]isted above for the first position but it pays better! For further information, go to http://jobs.faa.gov/ announcement detail.asp?vac_id=86587. Parks Overflights Group to Meet The Federal Aviation Administration announced June 1 that the next meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee will be held on June 27-29 in San Francisco, CA. The group was established in the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. By law, it must be a balanced group representing general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Indian tribes. The group advises the FAA and the National Park Service on issues relating to the quiet operation of air tours over national parks. For further information, contact Barry Brayer, manager, Executive Resource Staff, inFAA's Western PacificRegion; tel: (310) 725-3800; e-mail: Barry.Brayer@faa.gov, or contact Karen Trevino, manager ofthe NPS Natural Sounds Program; tel: (970) 225-3563; e-mail: Karen Trevino@nps.gov. SF'O Roundtable to Celebrate 25th Anniversary On June 7, the venerable San Francisco International AirportlCommunity Roundtable will celebrate its 25th anniversary at an evening reception that will be attending by past and current members as well as San Francisco Mayor GavinNewsom. The Rountable is widely recognized as a model of intergovernmental cooperation on aircraft noise issues. Correction ANR incorrectly reported in the May 24 issue on p. 67 that a$1.2 million Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant awarded by the FAA to the City of San Jose, CA, was for the installation of a noise monitoring system at San Jose International Airport. The noise monitoring system is being installed at Reid-Hillview/Santa Clara County Airport. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT AnneH. Kohut, Publisher Published 44times ayearat43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $750. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or ihe internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. ��.� , � z = n + {{ a� tw �� 'Y,�.. ��. p,w'9' � � f' < a,c�r°ga� k �, ,2 � ,'� � ;gi �/r.' "frr�; ✓ ��. rtt, � k�I,�� fl�� .i- t � �,� ��`� `� �* .�,�rt .a. , �'! .t � �.�^ A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 18, Number 19 Los Angeles Int'Z � � � . � � . . T. i �. � � � ,� . . � ��,� . � � Making good on his promise to slow the growth of Los Angeles International Airport and to work to regionalize air tra�c among Southern California airports, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villazaigosa announced June 2 that he plans to reactivate the Southern CaliforniaRegional Airport Authority (SCRAA). The SCRAA, a Joint Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside County, Orange County, and the City ofLos Angeles, "will work to regionalize air tra�c among the airports operated by Los Angetes World Airports (LAWA) and other airports in Southern California, formulate ideas to promote the regional dispersion of air traffic in Southem California, and act as a key player in the joint-pianning and joint-marketing efforts to help promote regional air tra�c," the mayor explained at a June 2 press conference. "By working together, we wiil accomplish our goal of regionalizing air traffic and making our airports better neighbors to our residents, all while remaining a vital economic engine for the entire community;" Villaraigosa, said at the news confer- ence, which was held at LAX. He was joined by Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), Los Angeles County Supervisor (Continued on p. 74) Pompano Beaclz Ai�po�•t .� ��, �,�� ., ., .: ., a�= ;�� :. i�- ��- - -�- _' ' � - - ' :�- - = ' -'� �- -1 � 'f - - - The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) asked the Federal Aviation Administration on May 30 to reject a plan proposed by the City of Pompano Beach, FL, for bringing six contested restrictions on flight training activities at Pompano Beach Airport into conformance with federal law. The City proposed changing the enforcement scheme for the rules from manda- tory to voluntary but AOPA asserts that the rules, codified in city ordinances, must be rescinded. Last December, in response to a formal complaint filed by AOPA, the FAA ordered the City to cease enforcement of its restrictions on stop-and-go opera- tions, touch-and-go operations, intersection takeofFs, taxi-back activity, prolonged engine run-ups, and the inclusion of rotorcraft in these activities. The FAA concluded that enforcement of these rules, some of which date back to the mid-1970s, is unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory and thus violates the terms of the quitclaim deed by which the city obtained title to the airport. The FAA ordered the city to cease enforcement of its rules on stop-and-go operations and intersection takeoffs, which were based on concerns about safety and e�ciency, until FAA Flight Standards and/or Air Traffic determine that these activities impact safety or efficiency. A study by FAA Flight Standards concluded (Continued on p. 74) 73 June 7, 2006 IfZ TIZZS ISSIte... Los Angeles Int'l ..: In an effortto slowthe growth ofLAX andregionalize airtraffic inthe Southern California region, Los AngelesMayorAntonio V illaraigosa announces that he plans to reactivate the dormant Southern CalifomiaRegional AirportAuthority, whichhe says will serve as aneffective forum fo opening discussions on howto disperse growing airtr�cmore equitably - p. 73 Pompatzo Beach ... AOPA asks FAA to reject a proposed plan by the City ofPompano Beach, FL, for bringing si�c contested restrictions on flight training activity at its general aviation airport into conformance with federal law. The city seeks voluntary compliancewiththe measures andFAA endorsement of them - p. 73 San Diego Int'l ... Miramar Marine Air Corps Station is selected as the new site for cramped in-town San Diego International Airport by the regional airportauthority but military brass and somepowerful local politicians are opposed to the move, which would occur by the year 2020 - p. 75 June 7, 2006 Don Knabe, and Los Angeles City CouncilmemberBill Rosendahl, who was appointed by the mayor to serve as the City of Los Angeles' representative to the SCRAA Board. Rosendahl said that the reactivation of SCRAA "demon- strates that the City of Los Angeles will exert leadership in making regional aviation a reality. LAX alone cannot shoulder the burden. We cannot continue to squeeze 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag." Said Rep. Harmon, "What a difference a new mayor makes. Bringing all the parties together will lead to enhanced security, better service, shorter lines, cleaner air and less tra�c near ali our airports. Antonio Villaraigosa and Bili Rosendahl both get that." SCRAA was established in 1984 but was disbanded several years ago when ptans for air tr�c growth in the region were in dispute. Over the past year, there have been discussions regarding the creation of a regional airport authority that would control the operations of all airports in Southern California. However, Los Angeles airport o�cials reportedly were concerned about other jurisdictions getting control ofLAX. But Villaraigosa said that SCRAA would have no direct control of the operations ofthe airports within its purview, Rather, the Los Angeles mayor believes the regional airport authority can be an effective forum for opening discussions with neighboring jurisdictions on how to disperse air traffic more equitably through the Southern Califomia region. Commitmentto SettlementAgreement Villaraigosa also said that the reactivation of SCRAA will demonstrate his commitment to the LAX master plan settlement agreement reached last December (17 ANR 175). Under that historic agreement, a controversial $11 billion master plan for LAX was essentially scrapped to settle a host of federal and state lawsuits challenging the modern- ization plan that were filed by the cities of El Segundo, Inglewood, and Culver City, Los Angeles County, and a community group. All but one ofthe disputed master plan elements will be reconsidered under the settlement and gone is the most controversial element: an off-site passenger check-in facility. In exchange for the litigants dropping their lawsuits, Los Angeles agreed to try to slow passenger growth at LAX by gradually closing airplane gates, to seek to spread air traffic to other airports in the region, and the speed up efforts to sound insulate homes near the airport and to reduce air pollution. The agreement provides an additional $266 million over 10 years to accelerate sound insulation of homes in communi- ties near LAX and for other projects, and an additional $60 million for various air quality and environmental justice projects. The Southern California Association of Governments estimates that the region will add 2.2 million people over the next 25 years and that the greatest demand for air traffic will 74 come from the eastern side of Los Angeles County and the fast-growing neighboring counties to the east, called the Inland Empire. LAWA owns LAX, Ontario Internationai (where expansion is sought), Palmdale Regional(which is located in the High Desert and has no carrier service), and general aviation Van Nuys airports. Pompano, fi�om p. 73 that they currently did not. FAA also ordered that the city cease enforcement of all six of its contested restrictions until the city can provide evidence that these noise restrictions are (1) justifed by an existing non-compatible land use problem, (2) are effective in addressing the identified problem, and (3) reflect a"balanced approach" to addressing the identified problem "that fairly considers both local and federal interests and the FAA Oriando Airports District Office makes a determination regarding the reasonableness of these restrictions based on noise abatement " FAA also ordered the city to submit a"corrective action plan" consistent with the principles discussed in the agency's determination on the legality of the restrictions. City's Proposed Plan On May 11, the City ofPompano Beach submitted its proposed corrective action plan to tha FAA and groposed revising the enforcement scheme for the six rules to convert tha mandatory prohibitions to voluntary, recomnzended measures. The city said it also would take "all reasonable steps to strongly encourage pilots to conform to the measures" For example, the city said, it would "publish the voluntary measures and educate pilots about the measures, encourage fixed based operators at the Airpark to sign a Letter of Intent indicating their intent to support the measures and commit- ment to take reasonable actions to promote conformance with the measures, and encourage air traffic controllers at the Airpark to infonm pilots of these voluntary measures as appropriate." FAA support for the six measures also is essentiai, the city said, and asked the FAA to expressly state that its determina- tion "was based on the mandatory enforcement and penalty scheme for the rules, that it recognizes the value of the underlying measures, and that it would support the City's efforts to encourage pilot conformance to the voluntary measures." Should the FAA refuse to provide those requested statements, the city said it reserves the right to "refine" its proposed corrective action plan. The City also told the FAA that it "has no intention of abandonin� the six measures" and that it did not read the FAA determination as stating that the measures "are pei• se inappropriate, but rather that the violation of the measures cannot be punishable as currently provided" in the City ordinances. Airport Noise Report June 7, 2006 AOPA was highly critical of the city's proposed plan, which it called "a proposal for developing a new ordinance to keep these restrictions in place utilizing a different scheme." "The City claims, without any foundation whatsoever, that the [FAA's� determination is merely limited to the `enforce- znent scheme' and does not apply to the substance of any of the affected restriciions," AOPA said. "The [FAA's] determination directed the City to cease enforcement of these various use restrictions. That does not mean the City is somehow able to continue to apply and enforce these restrictions utilizing a new or different `scheme'. It means cease — to end the application of these use restrictions," AOPA told the agency. "The City proposes to require FBOs and other airport tenants to support the City's position on use restrictions, the very use restrictions which the FAA has found to be in violation of federal law — presumably, such requirement deriving from a function of lease negotiations making it a contractual obligation, i.e. enforceable against the FBO. There's no other way to say it — this is an unreasonable exercise of bargaining position that attempts to circumvent the FAA's findings and directions," AOPA said. But the association did say that it was willing to work with the FAA and the City to educate airport users and residents and to develop voluntary programs that "may help address any communify concerns at the airport " AOPAAction Limited AOPA filed the formal Part 16 complaint with FAA over Pompano's flight-training restrictions at the request of several members in the Pompano area and has no plans to begin challenging similar restrictions at other airports, AOPA Vice President Bill Dunn told ANR. The AOPA members complained that the Pompano restrictions made it impossible to complete night training activity needed to maintain FAA pilot certification. Daniel Reimer of the Denver law firm Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, who serves as counsel for Pompano, said that AOPA's members could have gone to other neighboring airports to conduct flight training activity and that AOPA has not demonstrated that the City's rules had harmed AOPA's members. But Dunn said that harm does not need to be shown in order for FAA to determine that the restrictions are unrea- sonable and he asked why pilots should have to go to other airports to train. The curfew on touch-and-go operations has been in efFect since 1995 with no opposition to it. In late 2003, it came to the attention of the City Councal that pilots were getting around the restriction by landing, taxiing back, and taking off again. It was after the City Council amended an ordinance to bar taxi-back activity that AOPA's members took action. The gist of FAA's determination, said Reimer, is that no matter how Iong airport noise rules have been on the books and no matter how effective they are, if the end result is no 75 incompatible land use, mandatory penalties cannot be imposed. It is ironic, he said, because it is these kinds of rules that help keep the balance between the airport and the community. Reimer said he also finds troubling the notion that airports must prove that a restriction is reasonable under FAA's Part 16 complaint process. AOPA can file a Part 16 complaint against an airport and then it is up to the airport to defend it, he said, adding that is a tough position to put an airport in. "AOPA and others can just drop a bomb and waik away." The D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling in the Naples case confirmed that it is FAA's job to investigate the reasonabie- ness of an airport noise restriction rather than asking the airport to justify it, Reimer said. But the Naples case also made clear to airports what it takes to challenge an FAA determination. Pompano is a small airport with limited resources and is in no posation to take on the FAA, he said. San Diego Int'l MII�,.A.MAR BASE SELECTED AS AIRPORT RELOCATION SI'I'E Ending a three and one-half year search, on a 7-2 vote, follow3ng an over five hour contentious meeting with sirong opposition from the military, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority board selected Miramar Marine Air Corps Station, home of the "Top Gun" jet fighter training facility, as the preferred site to relocate San Diego International Airport. On Nov. 7, San Diego County citizens will be asked if they agree. The Airport Authority voted to place Miramar on a non-binding ballot measure which will ask the following question: "To provide for San Diego's ]ong-term air transportation needs, shall the Airport Authority and government officials work to obtain approximately 3,000 of 23,000 acres at MCAS Miramar by 2020 for a commercial airport, provided neces- sary traffic and freeway improvements are made, military readiness is maintained without expense to the military for modifying or relocating operations, no local taxes are used on the airport, overall noise impacts are reduced, and necessary Lindbergh Field improvements are completed?" Located on just 661 acres near down-town San Diego, Lindberg Field has no way to grow. It is the busiest single runway airport in the country with an operation every 94 seconds. The airport will begin to be operationally constrained in the 2012to2015timeframe.In2005,some 17.4millionpassengers used the airport and that number is expected to increase to 30 million by 2030. Miramar was selected for the relocation site because it is cenirally located in the County only a few miles from downtown San Diego and because there is room for a 3,000 acre commercial airport that aliows for two 12,000 foot runways separated by at least 4,300 feet, which would allow Airport Noise Report June 7, 2006 :_•1�� . I,��.f JohnJ. Corbett,Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC Carl E. Burteson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gafzke, Esq. Gatzke, Ditlon & Ballance Cazlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver Suzanne C. McLean Chief Development Officer Tucson Airport Authority Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Laguna Niguel, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago MaryL. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle 76 for simultaneous operations in bad weather and would, for the first time, allow long-range trans-Pacific flights out ofthe airport. Moving San Diego International to Miramar also would cost $6.8 billion, less than relocating it to other sites, several of which were 70 to 100 miles away from the current site. "We have no other solution. We have looked everywhere," Airport Author- ity Board member Bill Lynch said, the Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News reported. However, there are many opponents to the move. In addition to the military, residents in wealthy communities near Miramar or under new flight paths are opposed to the move as are some powerful county politicians and congres- sional representatives who strongly support the military presence in San Diego. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, recently introduced legislation passed in the House that would bar the use ofMiramar for commercial operations. The bill is expected to be passed by the Senate soon. Military officials contend that joint use of Miramar is incompatible with military training operations, especially those simulating landings on carrier decks which involve curving flight paths and touch-and-go operations. "No amount of dialogue or wishful thinking will make ttiis joint-use proposal work," said Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert, commander ofMarine Corps Installa- tions West, a collection of West Coast Marine bases, Knight-Ridder reported. Noise Impact Some 10,765 dwelling units and 18,471 people currently are located within the 65 CNEL and higher contours ofMiramar due to military jet training opera- tions. Relocating San Diego International to Miramar would add 5,456 dwelling units and 12,231 people to these contours, according to an estimate prepared for the Airport Authority by Ricondo and Associates. Ricondo estimated that, if San Diego International were relocated to Miramar, approximately 12,113 dwelling units and 16,560 people would be newly exposed to an increase in noise of 1.5 dB CNEL or higher. What does the relocation of San Diego International mean to its current noise mitigation program, which includes an extensive residential sound insulation program? In terms of noise impact at Lindburgh Field, some 10,583 residences and over 24,144 people were in the airport's 2005 65 CNEL contour, according to Dan Frazee, deputy director for noise mitigation at the airport. Frazee said that the Federal Aviation Administration said that as long as the airport is at its current location and impacts people as it does, the agency will continue to look favorably on efforts to mitigate noise on the community. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Pub]ished 44 times ayear at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703 ) 729-486�; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $750. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Airport Noise Report, provided that the base fee of US$1.03 per page per copy is paid directiy to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,:MA 01923. USA. i; � � \