The URL can be used to link to this page

04-11-2007 ARC Packetl. 2. 3. 4. 5 G �/ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA April 11, 200'7 — City Council Chambers Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the March 14, 2007 Airport Relations Commission Meetings. Un�nished and New Business: a. Update Plan of Action b. NOC Meeting Update c. Cities Meeting Update d. MAC Open House e. Updates for Introduction Boolc Acknowled�e Receint of Various Renorts/Correspondence: a. February 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report b. February 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Corridor Analysis c. Airport Noise Report, March 16, 2007. d. Airport Noise Report, March 23, 2007. e. Airport Noise Report, March 30, 2007. Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns Upcomin� Meetin�s City Council Meeting NOC Meeting MAC Meeting 8. Public Comments 9. Adiourn 4-17-07 - 7:30 5-16-07 - 1:30 4-16-07 - 1:00 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Minneapolis-Sk Paul Internationat Aixport 6311 34�' Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450 Apri16, 200? Vern Wilcox NOC Co-Chair & City Council Member City of Bloomington � , Kathleen Nelson � NOC Ccs�Chair & Northwest Airlines Regianal Director — Airline Affairs Re: Runway Use at MSP with Runway 17/3S in Operation . ?�. Dear Ca-Chairs: � We have received your letter dated January 25, 2007 and have carefully reviewed and given consideration to the issues which you raised. In the letter you posed 7 queslions'related to use of tlie runways at MSP since opening Runway 17/35, specifically during the period of December 2005-IJovember 2006. Before we answer the questions, the following provides some background information far you. The Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower was asked to answer questions and make presentations to many different audiences (including the NOC Committee). We were asked why the percentage of use predicted on each xunway is not at the levels prescribed in the March 1998 Dual-Track Airport Piaiming Pzocess Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Runway 17 Deparhue Procedure EA/FONSUROD (EA). As we have shared with those groups, Management at Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower af%r the nmway opened chose to be conservative. Specifically, the choice was initially xnade ta keep the operation as simple as possible with a primary emphasis on ensuring safety. This decision caused the limiting of use of Runway 17/35 to use mainly in one direction. For example, if landing Runways 30I.-R, we would also land on Runway 35 (not depart on Runway 17). Conversely, if landing Runways 12L-R, we would also depart on Runway 17 (not land on Runway 35). This canservative approach aliowed all tower personnel to become familiar with the uniqueness of each configuration �nd ensure a safe operation while gaining fainiliarity in these naw configurations. . We stayed in this conservative mode for the first 4-6 months of the new runway use. As time progressed we added conf"igurations such as land 30L-R/depart 17 and land 12L-R/land 35 and depart i2 L-R Controller familiarity with these configurations has steadily grown. Because of safety coricerns a decision was made to not simuitaneously ]and on Runways 12L ar R while landing on Itunway 3S. We are however usi�g the configuration wher$ aircraft land on Runway 35 while departures aze occurring on Runways 12L- R. ' • We recognize that Runway 12L is predicted to have 9.9% af the total departures while Runway 12R is predicted to have 16.2%. The Tower has a long history of using the Runway Use System (RUS) which doss not place a priority an Runway 12L versus 12R, but does specify a priarity of depariing Runways 12L-R first, then Runway 17. As a result, the number of departures offRunways 12L and i2R have been inconsisteut with those predicted. Community Officials have questioned this inconsistency of departtues. In response we have had intensive discussions with staff and believe the reason for this is twofold. One reason is based on the position of gates at the Lindberg Terminal for staging aircraft with available depariure runways. If an imaginary line �'vere drawn in a southeast/northwest direction fram the coniro2 tower through the middie of the Lindberg Terminal and a count of gates were made northeast af that line versus southwes� the difference is more tUan 2-1 (79 gates northea'st versus 37 gates southwest). Without a speciStc priority of one nuiway over another (e�le i 2L versus 12R) the praximity of the gates closer to Runway 12L t1�an Runway 12R has resulted in a greater percentage of departures affRunway 12L. , The second reason is with the lighter amount of traffic demand as there are more opporh�nities where fewer airivals are occurring with deparques, As the �affc volume builds, to expedite this volurne, co�rtrollers � r�'°� deParhn'es to �unways based on departure routes/destinations and not to the closest nynway. This utcreases efficiency and lessens complexity. Prior to the controllers receiving their briefings on ti�e percentage of use, it would be reasonable if an aircraft is leaving $om Gate Cl6 and could be taxied to either Runway 12L or 12R, th�t the sircraft is directed to Runway 12L based on its closer proxiznity and no br minirnal atrivals. This is also likely to be tl�e situation during night or midnight oparations. We are responding to tlie questions in a different order than they were raised to provide for a more understandable explanation � (Qaestion 4) The FAA, aud the community closely monitor the traffic percentage/trends that are reported each month, Consistent with what I briefed the NOC on July 19, 2006 as weli as the Finance, Development, and Environment Committee on September 6, 2006 the statistics aze preliminary and vvill not reflect what the long-term results will be because we have been "conservative" in using a11 runway cc+nfigurations. Iu September and October af 2006 we began briefing all personnel on the need to � � incorparate Runway 17 degartures more into our operation. This is especially irnportant when in a northwesberly fiow (landing Runways 30 L-R), since this configuration is weather dependent as aircraft have varying eapabilities to the tailwind they can accept This.conservative approaeh has resulted in a ��' Pe��ge af depariures offRunways 30L-R especially when it's calculated over a lang period . which you included. In the,future, greater use of Runway 1� can be expected.lfiis wili also result in nu►way use percentages more consistent with what was predicted for departures on Runways 12L-R and 30LR, ' . (Quesiiaa � We have recenxly started what we have labeled the final phase of the new nmway utilization. This assumes that all personnel are familiar witb the di�erent configurations and are confident that safety is not compromised. Not to infer the nmway comfigurations at�MSP aze unsafe, but experience'has shown that it is not prudent to iniroduce major changes in air traffic cotttroi procedures/processes withoat ensuring � that controllers have complete familiarity and confiderice with thpse procedures and processes. Based on our safety iecord since the runway opened in October of 2005, I would say that it has been a good plan. Captain Tim Beutell, NWA Chief Pilot and NOC Member recently told me that NWA Airlines was the only major air carrier in 2006 not to have �an NTSB reportable even� Aithough we cannot take credit for this great accomplishment we can recognize that our canirollers had a part in their success. In the future it is expected as traf�a inereases, especially during the nighttime hours and as we have more familiarit}+ with sIl runway configurations, runway use will approximate the percentages set forth in the FEIS and EA. Quest�on 2, 3) We have briefed all Tawer personnel on the runway use percentages year to date and the predicted percentages outlined in the FEIS and EA. Each controller is becoming familiaz with the runway priorities outlined in the RUS as descn'bed in the FEIS and EA. The briefing that each of our cantrollers received included an expectation that, when weather and traffic conditions ailow, we will be increasing the use of departing Ruuu,�y i� and lauding Runwa.y 35. The lang-term impact will be an increase of aircraft that depart Runway 17 as well as land Runway 35. This wi11 result in an increase in ti�e overall percentages af departures affRunway 17 and as wsll as an increase of arrivals on Runway 35. Also, it will result in nmway use pezcentages that are more consistent with what was predicted for departures on Runways 12I.- R and 30L-R. (Question 1) The data that you included points out that during night operations the perceatage of departures offRunway 17 is at 2.8 %, which is well below the 34.6 % predicted. The FEIS document deson'bes "Traffic Demand Period Criteria" in Table A-3: To summarize, this table outlines the limits of the RUS. In the table it is descn'iied that with fewer than 3.5 aperations in a 15-minute period "traffic levels allow for maximum ilexi'biiii�, in run�Y s�lecdon and RUS ir�lemetttation..." It goes farther to describe thut with traf�c dernand betwean 3.5 and 1S operations per IS-minute period "traffic levels allow for efficient selection ofnznways based on noise considerations, given requirements for.runway crossings, capacity, and safety... moderate use of the RUS." W��nn weather/winds requirc operations in a sontheast flow, traffic ievels (between the hours of 10:30�PM to 6:OOA1V� are such that they do not currently require controllers ta use 3 runwaye to preserve capacity. An example of thrs occurred diuing the periad of Wednesday, January 1 ��' at 10:30 PM until Thursday, January 18m at 6:00 A1VI: � On that evening the prevailing winds were southerly from 7-10 knols, which resulted in a southeast flow the entire night Traffic during that period was: Arrivals Departures 10:30-11:00 PM 11:00-Midnight Midnight 1:00 AM i:oo-Z:oa �vr 2:00-3:00 AM 3:00-4:00 AM 4:00-5:00 AM . 5:00-6:00 AM' 4 15 10 3 z 4 i i � 1 2 0 4 � 18 � g It is expected as iraff'ic increases, especially during tlie nighttime hours and as we have more familiarity �� Y �p�S�tions, runway use will approximate the percentages aet forth in the FEIS and EA. (Questian 5� The �bave example is typical of traf6c on a weelmight with the current sirline scheduie and volume. During this time frame p aircraft departed offRunway 17. The deniand that evening was not enough to use .Rvnway 17, which is consistent with the Traffic Demand Criteria outlined above. Therefore, all departures that night used Runways 12L and R. When weather and winds allow us to operate in a northwest flow (land Runways 30I.-R) there will be more opporiunities to depart on Runway 17. However, based on the current low demand, reaching 34.6% will be difficult without compromising the RUS priorities. On weekends the normal tr�ffic during these periods is even less. If iraffic at MSP increases during the nighttiine hours there will�be more opportunities to route tra�'ic to Ruaway 17 for departure consistent with the infor�na6on in Table A-3. Also, if there are interruptions in the traffic during the day (auch as thunderstorms, snpw events, airlme computer issues, runway closures,) departure banks may be delayed into the nighttime hours, This may result in cantrollers using Runway 17 during nighttime hours. (Question 7j The operadons of the auport, which resuited in the runway use percentages you have referenced, are consistent with the overall assumptions used in development of the FEIS and $A. These assumptions continue to be valid. We are confident as we gain familiarity with all nuiway use configurations, and as operations increase it will result in percentages of runway use that are reasonable and approxirnate those givsn in the FEIS and BA. However, based on the cu�rent low dernand during nighttime hours reaching Runway 17 use, nighttime percentages will be difficult without compramisittg the RUS priorities. . �� i.� C • In that it is anticipated that average anuual runway use yyill approxunate the percentages in the FEIS and E�°i, additional enviromnental eyaluation vyi� �flt be necessary. I ttust that this letter adequately answers your questions. If we can provide any further information, please contact me, at (612) '713-4000. � SincerelY, �� ' Carl E. Rydeen . District Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower cc: Nigei Finney, MAC Tom Anderson, MAC ��tby F� MAC Glen Orcutt, FAA Annette Davis, FAA � Chuck Prock, FAA i �--- -- - • � C. � �� t��, � �� 5 � _.._. � � ✓ �'' ' ' ��I� L '� �� • m � �.tiyL'�-'!� %ry�'�VV � � �� ,.. � �_ ' �� i � / ' 1l�rvl.� 1�- '� � .� - GCe� (M.� ,_S �'�`�- I ,w'�-`�,•. ,._ a °''�,v, - \! �,/ �Rs��r c �t�'}��S �linneapolis/Sto Paul I�fiernational 64orpo�t (M�P) Noi�e Oversighf �er�r�if�ee (NOC) Meefiing Agenda April 11, 2007 1:30 P.IVI. Lindbergh Conference Room fVIAC General Office Building 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, IVIN 55450 (Vern Wilcox, Bloomington City Council Member & NOC Co-Chair, will be the acting Chairperson for the meeting) *Note: 1:00 to 1:30 — Committee Agenda Review Session (NOC members only in the Stapp Conference Room) 1. 1:30 to 1:35 — Review and Approval of January 17, 2007 NOC M@@tltlg M111UtE;S (official start of the public NOC meeting in the Lindbergh Conference Room) 2. 1:35 to 1:55 — Update on FAA's Runway 17 215-Degree Departure Heading Test 3. 1:55 to 2:10 — Update on Runway Use System Implementation 4. 2:10 to 2:20 — Runway 30L/12Ft Construction Informational Postcard IVlailing Area 5. 2:20 to 2:35 —11/lendota Neights Letter Regarding Departure Headings off Runway � 2L During South Parallel Runway Reconstruction 6. 2:35 to 2:45 — Update on Part 150 Litigation and Associated Developments ��'��; ��,�J: /�ic�u��.G� '�/'lk�-- �, d�v ��c�i:s 2� C�` �� ,� 7. 2:45 to 3: 0— Public Comment Period � i�� G�i � �' �wlvl i c... 8. 2:45 — Adjourn�ent ITEM 2 �� TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager — Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs SUBJECT: UPDATE ON FAA'S RUNWAY 17 215-DEGREE DEPARTURE HEADING TEST DATE: March 27, 2007 BACKGROUND Since the opening of Runway 17/35 at Minneapolis/St. Paul international Airport (MSP) in October 2005, departure flight track use off Runway 17 has been the topic of significant analyses and discussion for the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). Subsequent to initial analyses, feedback from Burnsville residents, and information from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC� personnel, it was discovered that approximately six months prior to the runway opening the FAA had implemented a westbound heading restriction of 190-degrees when the airport is operating in a southeast flow (i.e. departing runways 12L, 12R and 17). This was done to separate Runway 17 departures from aircraft operating within the Class B Airspace transition area to the northwest of MSP, as well as aircraft on a downwind to land on Runway 12R.' The environmental documentation leading up to the runway opening assumed that the westerly departure heading extent during southeast operational flows at the airport would be a 230-degree heading over the unpopulated Minnesota River Valley. Following extensive discussion and analysis at the May 17, 2006 Committee meeting, the NOC voted to forward a letter to the FAA requesting information related to the departure heading issue. On May 19, 2006 a letter from Co-Chairs Kathleen Nelson and Vern Wilcox was sent to the FAA (see Attachment 1). In response to the concerns expressed by the NOC and City of Burnsville, on June 19, 2006 the FAA expanded the westerly heading constraint to a 200- degree departure heading. However, Burnsville residents reported little change in` aircraft overflight impact as a result of the heading change. In an effort to address the issue, the FAA continued investigating all options for increasing the westbound heading constraint to more closely correlate with a 230-degree departure heading extent during southeast operational flows. The FAA expressed a willingness to report back to the NOC with their findings. On December 26, 2006 a letter was received from Mr. Carl Rydeen, Manager of the MSP ATCT with a proposal (see Attachment 2). In short, the FAA concluded that expansion of the Runway 17 westbound departure heading extent to 215-degrees should be possible during southeast operational flows at MSP. The FAA proposed a test of the 215-degree heading and indicated that, with favorable results from the test, the heading change could be implemented. Additionally, the FAA stated that it is committed to maximizing use of the 230-degree departure heading off Runway 17, during northwest operational flows at MSP, consistent with the FAA's on-course routing practices and safety requirements. i At the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting the Committee unanimously endorsed the 215-degree �, heading test and committed to review results at the next NOC meeting. ' The Class B Airspace transition area northwest of MSP was created to accommodate Runway 17/35 opera6ons in the airspace around MSP. 215-DEGREE DEPARTURE HEADING TEST RESULTS On February 7, 2007 the FAA began the 215-degree heading test at MSP. The FAA has indicated that use of the heading has not resuited in any operational issues with regard to effective, efficient and safe airspace management. The FAA has indicated that use of the 215- degree heading poses no operationai issues and is available for implementation. In an effort to quantify the aircraft overtlight effects of the 215-degree departure heading, south of the Minnesota River Valley (in northeast Burnsville), MAC staff conducted a flight track analysis relative to the 190-, 200- and 215-degree departure heading scenarios. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the number of aircraft overflights of residential areas in northeast Burnsville and the associated flight track overflight densities related to each of the respective headings. The following details the analysis findings related to each heading and a conclusion related to the 215-degree departure heading test findings. 190-Degree Departure Heading Impacts MAC staff analyzed 1,826 departure operations off Runway 17, focusing on periods when MSP was in a southeast operational flow from May 1, 2006 to May 29, 2006 when the FAA was using the 190-degree departure heading. Of the total Runway 17 departure operations, 794 (43.5%) flew over residential areas in northeast Burnsville (see Attachment 3). Moreover, the heaviest flight track densities were over residential areas in northeast Burnsville (see Attachment 4). 200-De ,c�ree Deaarture Headinc� Impacts MAC staff analyzed 1,835 departure operations off Runway 17, focusing on periods when MSP was in a southeast operational flow from January 2, 2007 to February 6, 2007 when the FAA was using the 200-degree departure heading. Of the total Runway 17 departure operations, 622 (33.9%) flew over residential areas in northeast Burnsville (see Attachment 5). Moreover, the heaviest flight track densities included the residential area of northeast Burnsville and other residential areas further west along the northern boarder Burnsville (see Attachment 6). 215-Degree De�arture Heading Impacts MAC staff analyzed 1,866 departure operations off Runway 17, focusing on periods when MSP was in a southeast operational flow from February 16, 2007 to March 7, 2007 when the FAA was using the 215-degree departure heading. Of the total Runway 17 departure operations, 174 (9.3%) flew over residential areas in northeast Burnsville (see Attachment 7). With the use of the 215-degree departure heading, the heaviest flight track densities are focused over the unpopulated Minnesota River Valley, south of the residential areas in Bloomington and north of the residential areas in Burnsville (see Attachment 8). 295-Deqree Departure Heading Test Conclusion Considering the findings in the above detailed analysis, the FAA's use of the 215-degree departure heading dramatically reduces the instances of aircraft overflight impacts south of the Minnesota River Valley in the City of Burnsville. Additionally, the 215-degree departure heading optimizes westbound aircraft overflight of the unpopulated Minnesota River Valley. The FAA's cooperation in this effort has been extraordinary and should be commended. Based on the 215- degree departure heading test, and these analysis findings, the Committee should endorse the FAA's implementation and continued use of the 215-degree departure heading off Runway 17 during southeast operational flows at MSP. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED ENDORSE FAA IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 215-DEGREE DEPARTURE HEADING OFF RUNWAY 17 IN SOUTHEAST OPERATIONAL. FLOWS AT MSP. p 1°d�ISE ��SIGI�T C� I'�T�� (l�t��) , ; 1Viinneapalis/St. Paul Iniernational Airport (MSP) 6QA0 — 2$t1i Avenue Soukh — Minaeapofis, MN 55450-2T99 g o� Phone {672) fi23-6d55 � , �y�!riCur coxM�yt4c May 19, 2046 11�inneapalis Airport FAA ATGT Attn: Mr. �ar! Ryd+�en Manager �- MSP Air Tr�ific Contrai Tower 63'I'1 34th A�enue �auth Mfineapolis, MN 55450 RE: Us�e +af the 190-Degree D�parture Head�ng oif Runway �17 at Nlinne�polis- St. Paul ln#erna#ivnal Airpart �MSP3 Dear Mr. Rydeen, ,. Thank you for your May 15, 20061e#ker detailing FAA's inves#igations into the use of the 190-degree departure heading off Runway 17 during southeast operationai flows at Minneapolis-S#. Paul Intemafional Airport {MSP), As we know yau are aware, this topic was a discussion item at the May 1�, 200fi MSP No�se Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting and concerns stili exist in the cantex# of a 200-degree heading. By way of background� it is NOC's belisf that the planning process and the consuitation and coordin�tion that went into ihe development of Runway 17135 at MSP has be�n extensive. This planning pracess adhered ta FAA guidance under the pravisians of FAA Order 5�5IJ.4 and FAA Order 105Q.1. It was through this process that documents such as the May 't998 MSP Dual-Traak Airport Planning Pra�aess Final Environmental Impact Statement (hereafter referred to as the Duat-Track FEIS), the July 20�3 Enuironmentai Assessment {EA} far a Dep�rkure Procedure {DP) off Runway 17 (hereafter refierred to as the Runway 17 DP EA) a�d the November 2004 QVISP 14 C.F.R. Part 15Q Upd�te were dev�loped. The most r�csnt �AA dacumentatian related to the aperation af Runway 17/35 at MSP was an August 27, 20U3 Finding of No Significant Imp�ct (FQNSIjIReaord of Decisian (ROD} issued by the FAA approving the July 2Q03 Runway '17 DP EA. The catalyst far the EA was FAA's position tha# an air tra�c cantro! procedure change not anticipated in the Dual-Track FEIS, which routineiy routed air tra�a over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,pQQ feet AGL, required an evaluation consistent with FAA tyrder 105Q.1. It was unders#ood in the planning process for Runway 17/35 that certain operational in#erdependences exist with the paraliel runways at M�P. Specificaliy, vrrhen the opera�onal ftow at MSP is in a southeast configuration with arrival and departure operations on Runways 12R and 121., westbound departure operations aff Runway 17 , have a westeriy he�ding restrictian. It was documented that this prowisian was to de- conflick Runway 17 departures from arrivals on Runways 12L and 12R. nnay ��, zoo6 Mr. Rydeen Page 2 In the Ntay 1998 Dual-Tr�ck FEIS, the July Zfl03 Runway 1 i DP E�1 and the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update, per FAA input, this was assumed to translate into a 23U- degree extent {{IViVI Flight Track L over the Minnesota River Vailey) for westbound Runway 17 departure operations when the airpprt is in a southeast flow.� Hpvuever, fo�lowing #he opening of Runway 17I35 at M$P, i# was learned thafi the FAA had �n�lized the airspace design araund MSP in August 2�Q5 and determined the furthes# extent af w+estbound departure headings off Runway 17 would be 190 degrees when Runways �12R and 12L were being used for arrival operations. it is our understanding that this procedural change was impiemented for the following two reasons. 1. Aircrafk that are being directed by Air Traffic Control to land on Runways 12L or 12R begin a descent when they cross the 19U�degree traak off Runway 17. Keeping Runway 17 departure aircraft at or east of dhe 190-degres heading ailows #he arr�ving aircrafit to descend for landirtg while ensuring they are separated from aircraft that are dep�rting Runway 1 T. 2. There is a carridpr of airspace just to the wesfi of the 19U-degr{ae track tha# a!lows Air Traffic Control ta transition non-EUfaP aircraft north and south of the airport while ensuring they are separated firom aircraft arriving vn Runways 12� and '12R or departing Runway �17. The operation�l change represented by use of the 190-degree heading, as d�fiailed above, has resul#ed in cancentrated departure aperations betaw 3,(l00 feet AGI. aver residential neighborhaods in northeast Bumsville. For reference, in tha above mentioned F2unway 17 DP EA document the 185-degree track (clo�est track to a 19U-+degr�e heading} was modeled at 34.� average daily deparkure operatians representing appro�matefy 12.0% of the totai average daily Runway 17 departure opera#ians and approximateiy 20.7% cyf #he total westbound dep�rEure operatians with a for�cast pf 5T5,404 total MSP oper�tions (289.4 average daily Runway 17 departure operafions}. To #urther anatyze the specific flight track trends that resuit from the 194-degree heading pravis�on MAC staff analyzed actual flight track data off Runway 17 ?he v�+UyodWrnca� ,n�orma��on �ysiem tui�� anarys�s tocusetl on an area defin�3d by a geographic extent tha# was determir�ed by the 2�Gtual locatian af #he �19Q-degree heading flight tracks over the ground. The specific area analyzed for overfligh#s was defined �y the flight track concentration an the west side of runway heading off Runway 17 in January 2006 during time periods when Runways 12L and 12R were �eing used for arrival operations. � �__ . _ _ _ _ _ �"FU�aI f�t�Aronrr�ental Assessrr�eM and Findtrtg nf No S�rtlfiCant Irn� (FONSIjI Reaord of ()edsion (ROD) hx U►e imp�nen� of a Qepard�re Pnoc,2dure Mi Rttrrvvay 17; FAA, duly 2UO3, p. A-9 May '19, �t106 Mr. Rydeen Page 3 in summary, there were 1fi,214 total (92,1 average daily} Runway 17 departure aperations from t�ctober 27, 2QU5 ta April 2a, 20Qfi. 4f those 25,5°l0 or 4,139 tatal �23.5 average daily) operations with westbaund destinatians p�ssed through the 190-degree heading gate. The � 9U-degree heading op�ratians with westbound destinatians represented 54.4°!0 of the total 7,�it}7 �43.2 average daily} Runway 17 departure aperativns with wesibound destinations. During this time periad there were 'f '1.8 average daily Class B Airspace transition operations to the northwest of MSP. in the context of the mast recent environmental dpcurnentation on Runway 17135 tRunway 17 DP EA) the exist�ng aperational trends would result in 9i .2 average daily Runway 17 departure operations on � 190-degree headinc�. This aperational provision resutts in the highest utilized departure heading off Runway 17, by orders of magnitude� and mar�►ver, it is NUCs belief that this restriction represants a heading that was not modeled in prior environmentaC dacumenta#ion. As a resutt of these departure aperatians MAC Naise Fro�ram staff and the City of Burnsvilie have been receiving numerous complaints from Burnsviqe residents under the Runway 17, '190-degree departure heading. A cornmon inquiry is why some operatians cannot be directed over the unpppulated Minnesota Rhter Valley {i.e. INM Tracic l. -- 230-degree heading), which is more an course writh the destina#ion they ; � appear to presently be raufied to by the FAA after passing over the residenti�i areas on the nartheast side af Burnsville. in cvnsideratian of this c+ancern and the cornments pr�sented by the City of Bumsville at the May 97, 2046 NOC meeting, th� N4C un�nimously voted ta forw�rd the fallowing qu�stians to the FAA for a written response: 1. Verify the discrepancy between the actual departure procedures and thase envisioned in the dac�ments li�ted above. 2. Explain why the 'i9U-heading restriction was not incladed in the planning documents listed above if it is operatianaily necessary today. 3. If the Final Enviranmental tmpact Statemsnt and the Enviranrnental Assessment were based an departure pracedures from Runway 17 that are significantly different fram the pracedures �ctually being used, won't new envirc�nrnent�l evaluations be necessary including a reevaluation of the DNL no�se contours resulting from the origina! madeling? 4, What procedures will the FAA implement ta provide relief to those negafiveiy affected by this +unforeseen, unplanned, and unannounced departure pracedure? 5. Assuming that the Class B Airspace transitians are a sign�icant driver of the 190- degree stipulation, what is FAA's pt�sitian on the priori#ization of rninima! Class B transi#ion apera#ions {11.8 average daily operations} over thausands af departure operations off Runway 17 at MSP? � r � M�y �19, 2006 Mr. Ryd�n Page 4 We are forvuarding the abc►ve �ve questians on behaif of the Nt3C and lao�C forward ta your respanse. As aiways thank yvu for yaur cpnsideratian and att�ntivn tr� air tra�c noise issues araund MSP. Sinc�erely, �Y°" Vem Wilcax NOC Go-Chair & City Council Member — Ciiy of Bioomington �"'}G2.�%� �.�..E,� .�5��--�'` 1 Kathieen Nelson NOC CaChair & Northwest Air9ines Regional Directar -- Airline Affairs cc: MSP NC?C Mr. Torr� Hansen — peputy City Martager, City of Burnsville Mr. Nig�l Finney -- deputy Executive Direc#or, Planning �nd Environment Mr. Tom Anderson -� MAC General Counsel Mr. Roy Fuhrmann — Director of Enviranmen# Mr, Chuck Prock -- F,�A Great Lakes Region Legal Counsel Mr. Glen 4rcutt — FAA Minneapolis ADC3 Ms. Annette �avis — FAA Great Lakes Region Environmentai Specialist £1.S. C}epadment af Trar�pdrtratian Ferderai Avlpilan AdrninEstrafian Deceznber 26, 2U46 Vern Wilcox, Chairperson Naise Ovetsi�ht Committee Metropolitara Airports Comrnission (lV�;tAC} 6Q40 28t1' Avenue Sou#h IY.tinneapalis, N,tN S5�i50 Dear Chairperson Wilcox: Air Tra�c ConWi Tower 83'1 i — �a"' Avanue 5outh Minneapolis, MN 55450 Minneapolis Aixport Traf�c Cotttrot 'I'awer (MSP ATCT) personnet have received nun�erous requ�sfs �rom aommunity officials lacated soutE� of M.inn�apalis Intern�tianal Airpqrt t4 inerease use af headings thaf would direct aircraft departing Runway 17 to areas more aver the Minnesota River. As stated ta tk�e Noise OversEght Committee (NaC) mennbers at the July 19, 2006 meeting, MSP ATCT aontro�lers currentiy direct aircra� departing Runway 1'7, onto h�adin,�s that follow tE�e Minnesota River during periocis w�en arrivai aircra�ft ar� landi�ng Runways 3dI.,IR. {RecebtEy, X hava taken action to reinind a�e txa�c contral personnei r�ia Refresher Training, to utititze headings that rouce aireraft aver the Minnesota River to the maximum exterrE safary wsil ailavc+.) When aircrafl: are landing Runways 12L/k�, aircra�t dapartitrg Runway l 7 have nat been issu�d headings greater than 200 degrees due to safoty concerns. ThE MSP ATCT s#affhas cazefuliy studied this issue. After extensive review the following conciusion hast been drawtt. When arrival a'ucraf� are utilizi�g kt.unways 12L/R, present day pracedures car� be madified co address those cancerns to safefy allow fpr use of a 215 dagree heading. �:}qring #he evalua�ior� it was determined that use of headings west af 22 S dagrees are presently preciuded by aircraft ianding Runways I.�LIR at 1VtSP as well as transient aircraft over flying MSP. Tower sta€f has de#ernained ihat with a modifieation to airspace and radar nnaps, as wetl as cantrQil�r training, use of a 21 S-degree heading can be safely achieved. Because Ehe �nvironrnental Assessroent (EA} for th� implomentation af a departure prucedure ofF of Runway 17 pravides for use of i�eadings in five- degree incre�ent� within a departure fan af 09S ta 28S degre�s, use of a 215-degcee heading wauld be cansistent with the EA. As sueh, additional environmentai evaluation wo�Id not be required, If recommended by NOC and endorsed by tFie 1vletropolitan Airports Cornmissian {MAC}, tpwer sta�f wauld he witliog ta conduct a test, addin� heading 2 i 5 to ihe current day departure a�ea when Runways (2L1R are being used far arrivals. A, test period of approximately 6U days wau�d ailow Ehe �ederal Avia#ion Adininistration (FAA} to evaluate op$rationa! concerns. Additianall�, it wauld ailow ]VQC and MAC to evaluate the noi5e bene�ts/disadvanta�ges of utilizing the additional2 t S- degree h�adEng and to provide feeciback with regarr� its permanen� irr�ptementation. C6airperson Vi+ilcox Decem6er 26, 20U6 Letter Page 2 of 2 Sttould N1�C deten�ni,ne us� of tEte 2]S degree heading Eo be of na 6enefit, towsr personnet would revert to the present day procedure whereby departin� aircraft would he turned no further west than 2U0 degrees. As pxeviousiy siat�d during the evaluation that revealed #he passibility of using a 21 S- degren heading, investigatiun a�use of mvre wesierty 6eadings also acouned. The FAA has rsviewed its procedures and has determined, due ta safety issues assaciat�d with the de�endenoi�s between arrivat, departure, and aver flight airspaae, MSP ATCT wili not be able ta ntilize head�ngs weat of21 S degrees when Runways 12L/R are in use �'ar arriva) t7rafftc. Sincerely, „ �arl Rydeen Managsr, MSP ,ATCT cc: Mr. Chad Leqve, MAC �t.N/.iP 0 � --'-' .. . ..... ......... . . . .. . .. . . .. .. ...... ....... . ..... . .... ... . ........ .. . � a __ m � � � a x w `n 2 N 0 0 rn o N � � n � � � . .. � �� . . � r c m �' " c F- E= ° c. y O .G .0 � . .. m V. =n Ln Q a . . � .. � . . � � � U LLC LLc Y O .t N N �.tV- .t�f- u� ^ ro h O {ry� eO Oi Oi uNi tOi+ fvV O N. � G C � �" .�- � N Cl Y M h r m��^ N N N tV N M Y u') i� � O 1 �O O Q� m e- OJ � C N Cl�] I� O � M 'Cyl� N m. Z Z {� � vi � O^ N N C�l V N i� m� m� � � � m� � m W N N N N N ��'i � N r � LL z ooa0000000000000 �€� 0000� _ �� 0 � �, �� c�i rn � � � � � N � � � � � _ r C � � � fl. �p - Z N � � `� o rn N N � N N N � � m � � E � � � � � Z' � ro � c t- F- a °� U O �° _ � � � � � m rn rn O� N y� : �y tL . . ,.'��' O JC � > �L7 � � � . U Z t> � �Z Z ? ` C '1 w �''�� J � � OC :.. \\ .��``\� � \\ G � . . ��'1 ��,. m _ . ..,` � � � 'a 4 � !I '� � � � �.: � \ �; �: � ' _: -`��. . . �.:.a� .. _ ._=. . ._ - ' _ _ '_ " _ (.,! .=- " �. .- �...�;::::: II ..:'.. � '� �:- ,.- .�. : i .. . ,�:. , ' ,.._. . ... � ��.�� : ... . .. :: � � � � _ � � .. � . Z N � ,. � 0 0 o rn N N = � � > `1 y .�.� ..��(0 m !— �"'i C C . C j0 p� m Q y .e �.t .. �p �N �� L IL IJ.. V O N N m Q u�i u�i i�+ 0�0 N O� �•��y- ��•�- �� m N N N N c� t7 tm�1 V�.umi � n U Z Z Z �� a YI � m N t��l < N N t� W N O � N C1 V N t0 n O) N N N N N� t��) � M� V tn N� � i��.1 � .. - W Z �a��a�� k� � -�+'� �� J � --� � ° �i�� "��F �I l , ; ;i , `. � ; - ,. � �� , � � �;� � � ; � ��. ' ,� � f . . .. . _.._ ' I � .._. O� .� �`' ... . � � �'� ' m 1 _ .:��- y ` '�} ' :Y S- ,� ;' (9 .1 ! 1 ' � ,� �1-+. .: :� �'.: .:, ': '� f ! � ; �. � � �� z l � M e � 1 �. . W _ ". � �f A.� � 'a r i l ` � . l . : � . �: : ? ; . . . - k � ,. t .. , � � :*_ � � . { Y� � # t`�� 1 � . y'� { I 1 1 i �I.I '� _ 'iC �.5'� . 1 4 -� � �(U .t � . I �;� t ' r'#'i' 1 f� i� (�,'�i�1��f��k'� fn /' '�` � �u ! § 1 t �� N1:! �'i„ 1 s � �, i , s-� �ss�,,!' � i .c� �s�,x,e .�� . � � � . ^ i ' ' _ � �� ` � � � p , � �`�'�.x �k ra�d t' �", � r i � r h � ' t i i �'^ � sft n r �. ��,{ ��'" s S�� "��}- .:� � � � H �' � : t e � ��c � i /'SI, � � s � �'� f�4x .�h. x � ��"i °�' r� � 3 � �. t � � a c rS� �� )r t��Yt i S. � `- ; � §�. ` �S F t v'"� � e$.d'� , `�, f r' ➢ � � , � -...`'�. ' i, � ( r . .� � �� Sr��J�� ti � �ri�� ;f � S�u t� � ��3 Y t � . � � : � �� t I `� t tt� P z��j �S st"2 a��t�v'"'. ��' e�� i /� � l'�.7 t'� :�� `z��"w^�e4k� tlw '��`� 3 � h"r > d�. � � � `�l � 4 �" �C� .. �t� � �`K� y �l Pf t �k� �. . � . � ' � �� +�,� . �f' i�t�'�,, ��'$3'' C ; r, '� f + r a �.. /, � �i,F„��r ss�. _ ��x�.,'�tt �' k 3 � � � ��3� � i � � � ,`i f � �: l J�� ..... � .. �j�s�� i?!y I � �`!�� _ �� r �. � � �� .: i � � ,-��'r�� 4,�t.��`� '�! �, �. �� '�' ss�'u a � ' '� „.�„��, ��'"�'�-E�`�'r' n ` �� - �3,�t �� r ` � I �'rs-�� a �� , � -,,,--"�� ``� f t a.C�. t�g� ,�y��`�� ;� �� 4��'�3�i r'Df�,�'� ' �,� � `'4 � � � � -��, ��iwf� °' �� r :� � k � r. ,�- � �+� !a£ wuc �,��. . '�� *wn. \ \ �.� �� 1'�'�u ��, ''�,,�li, �,�• . .,. � :�'��' r^'�`' /��tfi � �'�,y�� { t � �� r ;z.��:� . a• t� ��:U U.�� '� : ...c�...a,....,...... � � � aa%: � h . °��'i:L!`a�.�R�S� ,n ....� � . N �t. U 's. _ ....... � ,: . . .. . i,; �,s��' � w� ��,i� ' ;: 'f' �' � ' i �xN � � - _ : . . _.�� - . i � . tq � � . .. . ; 'm . . �..: . .. �� ' ,.. I �i � _ , _ �-.-. _ ._ �. .. -- ._. � ' �I�, . - �-- . . _..... . . �� 4 . % i, ,,c.:. � . . . �. . ._ ,;. i_ ..._ ....__. :.- . � . --...,. _,1._ _.,._ __ —_. ,_ � __._ ( , „ � , � ,.�, � r�r �; . , , ,� ... . ` . � - '�� o o�o a M rn � vi c � � 21 d � � c T '� m � � � o a ro•S = c� 0 �_" U/ � � N N � N — � � � � � m . . � � t�tl � '=C Q U YJ E 'E a� � � v m U � � N 'C 'C � � h < � m m . .�O � � � Lt' lt' . .,�.'^ O �SC � � � W � � U Z tl � KZ Z z N , � � �� j . �. . . � 'J � � c� 0 m ^ a � N � m � � � m = � � 2 N � ' ��p0�1!S.�. . . � � . . . :�'�QPJ l' � N � 4 . . . ' � �' '�.' � � � a e ��`� N Q N ] C �/� �� m ~ ~ 'N O N �T �� . C � � � Q � . . . � � �� O � 4% LL �j. Y Q M N N a] N d N h M N V N N1 0� n ��H�K, �+ � � :1 ' in O N N m �.N- �.�- �� N N N N N N M C�i c�i m uS METfl O N M V •t I� m e- (V v V � �U Z Z Z ~ N'- 41 .'- � N M V U�i r N m•�- N th V v�i ro n W � N N N N� N N� M C�f t�] ci N m � ;-, LL z ooaaaa00000000aoaa �� :.J � . ��, �. . i n 1 � i �,: 4 ,� . ,'. '�� ' : �t � � � .� � . - t,,, �r \ �, � a � r �`�V �i' � , , '`E ° ,7.� � s 1 ,. il� ; r _ _ i' r '`'� �' �'r e ��_ � .�i� � �. � ,� � :i; i5 . � �'` x ��`` �-,.._._." � � � � , � _: �. � �"�. t � s' ...� _ '.! .... � f/I ��—' �� t :F g 3 ", � - +�+ � tt �'.. i i r � �+ . .. � � '�` ' ! a , ,. ._ � � �; � ,� �� N � 1'i ' � rY�F , 3 � � i' ( � u�i il} �. i.� .,� �� i :� �� !; � � , '�i � � � i.;� cN'_st�r � � �'`t- � ��s � � t i � . ` v � � � F's ,,rt' a �,-� r : 'N - �� . : 's m� �'�� . . ��t Pa T'��i". n h �n z � " i � ; r � � i.,' m i t,i = .��.''° � ,a < � , 0.: �� "�ar,,, '� E � r � ! 1 - .. t�� /' t 4'� `*=t �.. i,._ _ � � C-� t"`�.��' � ck 4 � r�� , 7 I} j � i '��, � ` �k-"'y�'".�f i�S t t'� �r :: � '��; \��+ �; '� � .. � I i t . . r�r { � : ��,�ia `' � �'� � i . �.. �� --- ^rr r-�� 't iu ' ��`.3�`�� 11 e � � �-- � �.' � ti 3 ,�°� � �t� f�,' �� r��`�z��rt �w,, �1 .� i i ""`�� .� x'`+�� `'' f-c r"r;�` i`��... � �''�'�. k, ",,,� .7 -�,�,�€.s b t �y w,ax A� � �� , '// „ ,��g �4 t,� ,. 7 ; i "Y �� ,.'r:. 7 ' i ,� fi�p � � �s ��^;, � ��xWr �ye-',a,-rt r�i � t ,i A, . I . � � �. ,�� ;� ,1 4y,, . 'sr �' a'°�7# '-� r"+�"� . �-r g � 1 v G . : fi. _. � I -1 S`t :��"�« 7a�f�'" ��J'� ,,��z 1 i�� , ` � i� LZ. � � ' ' -' �' � .; ' ` � � ' �5 < � ;� .a�� -J. � � f �� , ; - � / ' � ` �t°. t `� s��-"��'r,.�.��' � ��t^ s #' i x� . ` . . .. . ,�. . -.. -�f �,� d q � `i � � s J . .. ��f.` ,�..,,.�. � I _ _ ta . t�` �-�� J �� jy � ��N {'�# f � y,. .. �k� �..^n _ . _S . . i ' . ,, . .�. . �YE '�`�� , � y, ,�� t��at � � r 3 . � � �.� � , � ' " �'*��,�1� �` 2Y�k�-tn� £. ,� E � " 1 � 2c� ��, �� .�r � �, : ,�,�` ' "��'�i ' '� ' �" ; �+ 1 �`\ �� n�' ' i \ , � �?'�� '"��9� Y � ' { . . _ `: _ : .c ; �«..�"� t � r`'�s'-` � � F . � �,` ' i ,. ; . r� � �1sf,7%r� � .. � � � � t+'ma#c ��r�� .. _ _ ' . i � ::�. E S '��`�t'�n,�t.,�7"i„g �' � � r1 � � ^� : , � � ; ': h r ,k� i��+s �'"C � .�,Y` � � �� vr '� �. r- ss § ,. -r n; °1�� .... . . . .. . T fi'f�^�' c t�'x � '� R' �� ' . \ �� Y ��'.�y �cux.�.-v-�z�.'i�4`� � � y . � . . . � � �„� ' � j_,.�.rxs"� aa�`��. � � S �a3��.�-} . � �. � � , . � � �" `��' � g�`�'�� , .��'"u ��-� i � �.� ; � � �" �*�'�� "��' �� ' ��tk, ,,w''� �� ,,�p � ��*� i' � �. ��. "4,��r �. ��au� . � ��''�v�'`'�,�.�'�,�*.,�'�-� a�.� � ,z �z . i . ., �� ... �.. �' � .„� +n�e✓, a�'•�•' .� �:°'� t. �� — � �..t..a . .�: �� ' �,..�i.� �d. :z4�� k L x""��"c„ • .. �._�..� .,�_..._ _��Y. . ......'_' ..�...... .: �' .. �' �� M ��-. ��,..�..�� >-. t.� t. � �� i� ' �j . . I �I g�� `�+"A}'#"-,�T sL'if�! 7 �� ,A I �' ��F. ,�`� ��y�� . . � . .. . . ..��r'�.�t ?1 rka4i ?afl Fi � . � � �... .. , , . � _ . . C � ��" �Ze'+"t��'��+�t '�. z� I . � � O ,� £ ,� '�'� �p*�k h.�, '<,�,.�X} . i . p� ..,�.� h"i7�� . �t"�xt .�o . . �. t �, � �, � ... � . . . i , , O . . „ .a��' w� �i��'�� ...� � ��aa �: i; O ��z� a, Sx�' � ' �4 . . . m � :t cf � �`'et �,�+,�.�"'� z, � � �` > €�, � r: . . . . � � �,� . : : � � 3 �f � "�..�� ^�-: ��t{ � `� . � � . � � t}I't'b.' wt^i"Gu� G x"�t�ya vv$'Y i I5'�4� � Y ., �.. V�i �� t � ti' ��' „,� } �,ti �� s� . �.o�.._ ._ � ' � . rs y��-e� � ��. `;' ` , � f �` . . � ' . � " � _ . .s*�,p�`� i . a,.�w� �� 7, : ttf � f ^r'A.'' �-iii,1.-� � " �i� .. •��i .:�r3+.,,.�w."<�.,h+?'U:s�..4. .�w.,4.�y`d . 3. .'� . . \.;' I -_- «: ' � . ' _'_':.. . . .. .. ... _'_ ... . � .. _ ' '. .... _._...._. _._. ._ . . '.: . . .... . _ :.._ . . __ : . _ �. .� � .�: ��. I � . . . , . .. � . �:�.�� . . � . . ITEM 3 TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager — Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: UPDATE ON RUNWAY USE SYSTEM IMP�EMENTAITON DATE: March 27, 2007 At the January 17, 2007 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting the Committee reviewed runway use trends at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The discussion centered on runway use trends following the opening of Runway 17-35, and the operational assumptions included in the environmental documentation leading up to the opening of the runway on October 27, 2005. Following review of the staff analysis, and after receiving input from Cammittee members, the NOC voted to forward a letter to the FAA requesting information on the runway use percentages to date, in the context of the operational assumptions that preceded the runway opening. On January 25, 2007 a letter, signed by NOC Co-Chairs Vern Wilcox and Kathleen Nelson, was sent to the FAA (see Attachment 1). Subsequently, on February 20, 2007, Mr. Carl Rydeen, FAA, responded stating that the FAA was in the process of coordinating a response to the Committee's January 25�" letter (see � Attachment 2). `' As an update, it is important to report that recent operations data indicated a significant increase in Runway 17 departure operations at MSP. For example, in 2006 the average annual percentage of departure operations off Runway 17 was 15.2%. In February 2007 the percentage of total MSP departure operations on Runway 17 was 21.6%. However, from March 1, 2007 to March 22, 2007 the percentage of total MSP departure operations on Runway 17 was 32.8%. When looking at the runway use trends in the last seven days of available data (March 16tn _ 22"a) the total departure percentage on Runway 17 is 40.0%. These trends indicate a significant increase in the use of Runway 17 in the time since the January 25t" NOC letter to the FAA. MAC staff will provide an update on the runway use topic and related developments at the April 11, 2007 NOC meeting. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 3 Tabie A.3-7 - Runway Use tor MSP AlteenatPve - Average Annuai Use Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage of Arrivals 4 1.0 percent less than 0.05 percent t2� 12R 17 22 30L 30fl 35 Totai 7.4 percent 16.3 percent 36.6 percent less than 0.05 percent 15.4 percent 23.3 percent tess than 0.05 percent 100.00 percent Source: HNTB Analysis 21.3 percent 15.1 percent fess than 0.05 percent less than 4,05 percent 21.7 percent 25.p percent 16.9 pe�cent 100.0 percent In describing Table A.3-7, on page A.3-17 of the FEIS, the following is stated: "The runway use percentages in Table A.3-7 are operatianal goals based on weather conditions (both wind and visibility), direction of flight� noise impacts and operational efficiency; however, the actual use of the runways could vary on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, but should closelv approximate the percenta ecLQoa/s over an average year." (emphasis added) Subsequently, page 4 of the September 1998 ROD provides a list of required actions a part of the proposed action stating the foilowing with regard to FAA Air Traffic ControL- "Air Traffic. The proposed action will require that the FAA's Air Traffic Division expand the Class B airspace surrounding MSP and establish new air traffic procedures, consistenf with the information contained in the FE/S. Related Air Traffic actions may also involve redesign of the terminal radar appraach control (TRACON) airspace surrounding MSP." (emphasis added) In 1999 the MAC began construction of the 2010 airport expansion project. Simuitaneously the MAC began the process of updating the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) and Noise Exposure Nlap (NEM). As committed to in the above-detailed Dual-Track Planning process, the MAC, along with the communit'ies surrounding MSP, began analyzing various options for a departure procedure off Runway 17 to reduce noise impacts in the City of Bloomington. Foilowing the determination of a possible option through the Part 150 Update, an EA process commenced for implementation of the Runway 17 departure procedure prior to the opening of Runway 17/35. The catalyst for the EA was the FAA's position that an air traffic control procedure change not anticipated in the Duai-Track FEIS, which routinely routed air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet AGI., required an evaluation consistent with FAA Order 1050.1. The July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA (for the 2.S nautical mile turn point for westbound departures off Runway 17) included implementation of the Runway Use System January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 4 (RUS as detailed in the November 2001 MSP Part 150 Update document) which resulted in minor changes from the runway use percentages in the FEIS. However, as stated on page A-7 of the EA: "Due to the consistency beiween the Part 150 Update RUS evaluation criteria and the criteria utilized as part af the EIS process, the change to the environment around MSP is minimal. Because there is no significant change in the noise environment around MSP as a result of the RUS modification, the modifications are not subject to further environmentai review." Below is Table A-6 from page A-7 of the EA, which provides the appraved updated runway use percentages with Runway 17/35 in operation. Runway 4 zz 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Q.1 % a.s�io 21.7% 14.6% 21.1% 25.5% 0,1 °/a 16.6% Tabie A 6 ti�evised RUS Forecast 2005 Average Annuai iZunway Use 2.5% 17.8°!0 12.0% 24.2% 26.0% 0.1 % 13, 7°10 100.0% 0.7�0 21.2% 14.3% 21.5% 25.5°k �.1 % 16.2% Note: Totais may not equai 1U�°io due to rounding 0.2% Q.1 % 9.5% 15.9°,6 14.8% 22.496 37.1 % 0.1% 0.8% 12.5% 18.6% 13.2°fo 19.9% 34.6% 0.1 % 100.�°� 0.3°� 9.9°� 16.2°k 14.5% 22.1 % 36.790 0.1 % Change from Unrrttigated FEIS Forecast 2005 Annual Average Runway Use 0.0% -0.1 % -0.2% 0.1 % 1.096 0, 0% -0.8% � Souroe: HNTB analysis. 3.7% 2.0°Io 1.5% -1.7°/a -7.9% 1.7% a.a�iv 0.6% 0.2% Q.1 % -0.3% -0.9% 1.0% 0.0% -0.7°!0 -U.1 % 1.3°� 0.0°k -0.3% -0.7% -0.1 % 0.0°k 0.$% 2.2% -2.0% -1.3% -0.6% 0.7% 0,0°,6 0.1 % 1.4% -0.4% -0.5% -0.6% -0.1 % 0.0% The runway use percentages �esulting from the 2007 forecast of operations with the RUS that was submitted to the FAA in the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update document are virtually identical to the 2005 use numbers in the EA, with minor overall percentage use differences (less than one percent) due to the updated forecast operations informatian. 8elow is Table 7.26 from page 7-31 of the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update that provides the 2007 forecast runway use percentages with Runway 17/35 in operation. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 5 4 0.0% 22 0.5% 12L 21.8% 12R 14.7% 30L 21.1% 30R 25.1% 17 0.0% 35 16.9% _ _----- Total 104% Note: Totals may not Table 7.26 Revised RUS Forecast 2007 Annual Average Runway Use Night___ Overal! Dav Nip,ht 3.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 2.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.8% 17.2% 21.4% 8.9°to 14.1% 12.4°!0 14.5% 15.9% 18,3% 25.1% 21.4% 15.0% 12.8% 26.4% 25.2% 22.?% 14.2% 0.0% 0.0% 37.2% 34.6% 12.7% 16.5% 0.0% 0.0% _ __ _ ... __. _ . .------_ _ 100% 1Q0% 1Q0% 100% _ . .. _ .__._.._.__._..�_-..___ _- --- ual l OQ% due to roundin� Overall 0.2% 0.1% 9.3% 16.1% 14.8% 22.4% 37.0% 0.0% 100% 0.1% 0.3°l0 15.3% 15.3% 18.0% 23.9% 18.6% 8.4% 2.1% 1.6% 15.6% 15.3% 19.0% 22.8% I7.1% 6.4% Overali 0.3% 0.4% 15.4% 15.3% 18.1% 23.8% 18.5% 8.3% L00% Analvsis of For�casted v. Actual 62unwav Use Percentaaes For purposes of analysis the foliowing charts and tables detail the actual runway use percentages from December 2005 to November 2006 as compared to the runway use percentages forecasted (for 2006) in the 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA. The EA is the most recently approved FAA NEPA docurnent related to the planned operation of MSP with Runway 17/35 operational. 40.0�� 35.0% 30.0°r6 25.0% 20.0% 15.0°� 10.0% 5.0°r6 0.0% Actual vs Forecast Runw�ay Us� System - Arrivals December 2005 - Nove�nber 2ti06 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Runway Arrivai Day Actual GlArriva! Night Actual January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 6 ao.o�� 35.096 30.0°,6 25.0% 20.0°� 15.0% 70.0°rb 5.0% 0.0°r6 4ao�� .o�� 30.0�� 2s.o�� o.o�� 5.0�� o.o�� .o�� o.o�� Acival vs Forecast Runway Use System - Departures Dec�mb�r 2005 - fVe�vember 2006 Forecast 4 22 12L 12R 30� F2unvvay 30R 17 35 Departure Day Actual ❑ Departure iVight Actual Actual Vs Forecast Run�ray Use System - Total December 20�5 - IVovember 2006 Forecast 4 22 12l 12R 30L 30R 17 35 62unw�y � Total Arrival Actual O Total Departure Actual January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 7 July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA 2005 Forecast Runway Use V. Actual Runway iJse Decerr�ber 2005 to tdovember 2006 arrival Day Night Runwe Forecast Actual Ditference Forecast Actuai Difterence 4 0.1 °k 0.0% -0.196 3.8",5 O.O�i6 -3.89b 22 0.5% 0.0°� -0.5°.fi 2.5°,5 0.0°k -2.5% 12L 21.7% 22.3°.h 0.6% 17.8% 14.8°� -3.096 12R 14.6% 21.7% 7.1% 12.0% 23.4% 11.4% 30L 21.19�6 19.7°.0 -1.4°� 24.2°.5 37.296 13.0°� 3UR 25.53b 23.0% -2.5°k 26.0�.5 23.9°�5 -2.1% 17 0.1°�fi 0.0% -0.1°,6 0.1% 0.0% -0.1% 35 16.6% 13.345 -3.3°,fi 13.7°�fi 0.7°,b -13.0°.fi u�wa Forecast Actua) Difference Forecest Actual 0'rfferenc 4 0.2% 0.0% -0.2% 0.4°�ti 0.0°.''0 -O.d°bi 22 0.19�6 0.1°,6 0.0°� 0.8°k 0.0�.6 -0.8% 12L 9.5°.6 19.0°k 9.5°�6 12.5°,5 20.3°� 7.8% 12R 15.9°�t+ 10.9% -5.0% 18.6�i6 22.99U 4.3% 30L 14,8°� 25.8°,6 11.0°% 13.2°� 28.895 15.696 30R 22.4% 28.1°Xi 5.79�6 19,9°�6 25.2% 5.3°,6 17 37.1°10 16.1% -21.0°.5 34.6"� 2.8°k -31.8°.4� 35 0.'i°.5 0.0% -0.1°.0 0.1°�6 0.0°% -0.1% 1 •lr I Arrivai Departure Runway Forecast Acluel Oifference Forecast Actual Difference 4 0.53fi 0.0% -0.5% 0.2% U.0°i6 -0.2°fi 22 0.7°i6 0.096 -U.7°,fo 0.3'% 0.1°� -0.2°h, 12l 21.2°.5 21.6% 0.4°6 9.9°.5 19.1% 9.2°,6 12R 14.3% 21.8% 7.5°6 16.2°,6 12.7°.b -4.1% 30L 21.5% 21.4% -0.1°� 14.5% 26.2°� 11.�°� 30R 25.5°.b 23.1°r6 -2.4% 22.9°.5 27.8% 5.7°% 17 0.1% 0.095 -0.1Rfo 36.7°,5 14.8�.b -21.936 35 162% 12.135 -4.1°.6 0.1°.5 0.0°% -0.1% Assuming that a difference of less than 5% between the forecast and actual numbers is within an acceptable range of variation, several trends emerge from the above figures. The following provides a summary of the findings. • Nighttinae Runway Use Percentages: Nighttime arrival operation runway use percentages on the south parailel, Runway 12R and Runway 30L, are over forecast by 11.4°/a and 13.0°/a, respectively. It appears that the primary factor affecting the use percentages on the south parailel is the fact that Runway 35 arrivai runway use percentage is lower than forecast by 13.0%. Nighttime departure operation runway use percentages are higher than forecast by 15.6% on Runway 30L, 5.3% on Runway 30R and 7.8% on Runway 12L. It appears that the primary factor affecting these departure runway use percentages is Runway 17 usage, which is lower than forecasted by 31.8%. � • Total Runway Use Percentages: Arrivai operatians are trending well with the forecasted runway use percentages. The only notable difference is the arrival percentage on Runway 12R where the actuai percentage is greater than forecast by 7.5%. It appears that this is a result of focused use of Runway 12R to accornmodate arrival demand during southeast operationai flows. In the case of departure operations, Runways 12L, 30� and 30R are over forecast runway use percentages by 9.2%, 11.7% January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 8 and 5.7%, respectively. The Runway 17 runway use departure percentage is lower than forecasted by 21.9%. it appears that these differences are being driven differentiy during southeast and north�res# operational configurations. Specifically, in a southeast operational canfiguration the airport is operating with lower than anticipated use of Runway 12R and Runway 17. 2 Conversely, in a northwest operational configuration it appears that the differences are being driven by a higher frequency of Runway 35 arrivals than Runway 17 departure operations while arrivai and departure operations are occurring on Runways 301. and 30R. In consideration of the actual runway use percentages, it is also helpful to consider the number of operations which result on a given runway as a factor of the total number of overatl airport operations when assessing the impact of actual runway use percentages. The 2005 forecasted number of operations in the July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA was 575,000 total MSP operations. From Decernber 2005 to November 2006 the total number of airport operations as reported by ANOMS was 469,460. The following table applies the forecast and actual total operation numbers to the respective runway use percentages detailed previousiy. July 2003 Runway 1? Departure Procedure EA Forecast Average Daily Operations V. Actual Averaged Daily Operations from December 2005 to November 2006 Total Arrival Difference (Actuai Runway Forecast Actua! minus Forecasted) 4 3.9 0.0 -3.9 22 5.5 0.0 -S.5 12L 167.0 139.6 -27.4 12R 112.6 140.9 28.2 30L 169.3 138.3 -31.1 30R 200.9 149.3 -51.6 17 0.8 0.� -0.8 35 127.6 78.2 -49.4 Total 78T.T &16.1 -141.6 Total Departure Difference (Actual Runway Forecast Actual minus Forecasted) 4 1.6 0.0 -1.6 22 2.4 D.6 -1.7 12L 78.0 122.3 44.3 12R 127.6 77.4 -50.2 30L 114.2 167.7 53.5 30R 174.1 177.9 3.9 17 289.1 94.7 -194.3 35 0.8 0.0 -0.8 Total 787.7 840.7 -147.0 2 FAA ATC personnel have in�pted that this Is due ta a desire to avoid departure sequenang In aMvai flows on Rurnnray 12R, and Runway 12R rurnNay crossing impads when ta�dfng airaaft to Runway 17 for departure. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 9 As provided in the above table, regardless of the overall reduction in total operations from the forecast to the actual, average daily arrival operations are higher than forecasted on Runway 12R and actual average daily departure operations are higher than forecasted on Runways 12L, 30L and 30R. Receuest In consideration of the background and anaiysis contained in this letter and the comments presented at the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting, the NOC unanimously voted to fonnrard the following questions to the FAA for a written response: 1. The City of Mendota Heights feels it was promised relief in #erms of noise impact reduction as a result of the opening af Runway 17/35. However, there has been an increase in operations over the City of Mendota Heights, particular{y nighttime operations. Why then is the FAA cantinuing to operate the airport in a manner inconsistent with the runway use outiined in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSUROD? 2. When can we anticipate runway use at MSP to becorne consistent with the runway use figures provided in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 3. What steps can be taken, or should be taken, to ensure that the FAA operates the airport in a manner consistent with the runway use outlined in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EAJFONSUROD? 4. Are Runways 30U12R and Runways 30R/12L operating at capacity and, if so, will any additionai capacity/operations growth be occurring almost exclusively on Runway 1?/35? 5. Given the facts that: (1) nighttime represents a low-demand operational period at MSP, (2) the FAA's runway use selection based on the Runway Use System (RUS) is most conducive during low-demand time periods, and (3) Runway 17 is the number two priority for departure operations behind use of Runway 12L and 12R in the RUS, how is it that nighttime departure operations an Runway 17 are lower than forecasted by 31.8%? 6. Is the FAA presently using Runway 17/35 primarily for the purpose of ineeting demand during high-use periods and secondarily for the purpose of noise redistribution? If so, is there a way to achieve more equitabie noise distri6ution so that use of Runway 17/35 is brought into line with what was projected in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 1? Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 7. If the FAA continues to operate incansistent with the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD, or is of the position that the assumptions and associa#ed runway use information within these documents are not valid, when will action be taken by the FAA to initiate an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental lmpact Statement (EIS)? We are forwarding the above seven questions on behalf of the NOC and look forward to your response. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 1 Q As a(ways, thank you for your consideration and attention ta air traffic noise issues around MSP. Sincerely, ��..�e�� .� 4�-'. Vern Wilcox NOC Co-Chair & City Council Member — City of Bioamington / r �� -�-�C� � , --, �� _ �._r��--- Kath�een Nelson NOC Go-Chair & Northwest Airiines Regional Director — Airiine Affairs cc: MSP NOC Mr. Nigel Finney — Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment Mr. Tom Anderson — MAC General Counsel Mr. Ray Fuhrmann — Director of Enviranment Mr. Chuck Prock — FAA Great Lakes Region l.egal Counsel Mr. Glen Orcutt — FAA Minneapolis ADO Ms. Annette Davis — FAA Great Lakes Region Environmental Specialist Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Minneapolis=St. Paul International Airpart 6311 34�' Av�nue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Vern Wiicox � NOC Co-Chair & City Council Member City .of. Bloomington February 20, 2007 Kathieen Nelson , NOC Co-Chair & Northwest Airlines Regional .Director — Airline Affairs Re: Runway Use ai MSP with Runway 17 / 35 in Operation Dear Co-Chairs: �. We tiave received your letter of January.5, 2007 providing background information on � � runway use at Minneapolis-St. Paul Internafionai Airport with Runway 17 / 35 in operation, along with questions directed�to the FAA for a written response. The questions posed.in your letters, the background information, and the analysis therein require evaluation and coordination vuith various FAA Divisions. We are coordinating wi#h those Divisions and wili provide a response in the near future. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, . � . Carl Rydeen ' District 11�lanager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower '. . Cc: Nigei Finney, MAC , Tom Anderson, MAC � �l6y. Fuhrman� MAC . Glen Orcutt, FAA .Annette Davis, FAA . Chuck Prock, FAA TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager — Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs $U�JEC'�': 6ZlDNW�4V 30L/12R COMSTR!!CTlON INFORMAI'IONA� P9STCARD MAILING AREA DATE: March 27, 2007 At the January 17, 2007 MSP Noise Oversight Committee meeting, MAC staff briefed the Committee on the south parallel runway reconstruction project and the associated impact on airport operations during the construction period. The Committee also reviewed and approved a communication plan consisting of four specific elements designed to inform residents of the temporary change in operations at MSP. To date, MAC staff has developed an informational web page on www.macnoise.com and has included information in the first quarter MSP Noise News newsletter (published in early February), both detailing how the airport will be operated during construction and areas that should expect increased operations. The committee also recommended finro informational postcard mailings; one to be distributed in mid-June and one to be distributed in early August. The postcards will include a general announcement of the operational changes, notification of the community open houses, an Internet address for the construction web page and MAC staff contact information to receive more detailed information. To determine an appropriate mailing area MAC staff examined the impact area off of each runway with the goal of maximizing distribution to the affected areas while staying within the budgeted amount for the communication program. MAC staff examined actual flight track data, proposed flight paths and the number of anticipated operations off each runway during the construction period. The proposed mailing area emphasizes coverage for areas impacted by Runway 35 departures and Runway 17 arrivals (Minneapolis), while still targeting areas that may see an increase in operations from what they are normally used to (St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Eagan, Bloomington Richfield). Approximately 98,000 households would be included in the postcard mailing under this methodology. The anticipated cost for each mailing is approximately $25,000 -$27,000. These expenses are within the dollar amounts budgeted for 2007 runway reconstruction communication efforts. The attached graphic highlights the proposed mailing area for the postcard distribution. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED APPROVE THE ABOVE OUT�INED POSTCARD DISTRIBUTION METHODO�OGY. - - i. , � �, � _ _ _ . , �,_ � , .,, �'- � ,, � . Postcard Mailing Are� TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. �eqve, Manager — Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs �'sU�JEC'i': MENDOTR+ liE1GH'�S d.E�'E!2 REGARDING DEPARTURE FlEADIIVGS OFF RUNWAY 12L DURING SOUTH PARALLEL RUNWAY RECONSTRUCTION DATE: March 27, 2007 On March 23, 2007 MAC staff received a copy of the attached February 20, 2007 letter from Mendota Heights Mayor John Huber to Mr. Cari Rydeen, FAA Air Traffic Control Tower Manager at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Given the noise content and associated request in the letter, Mr. Rydeen has requested/suggested that the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) would be the appropriate venue for such discussion and requests. As such, the attached letter and the associated Runway 12L departure heading request related to the upcoming reconstruction of Runway 30V12R will be discussed at the April 11, 2007 NOC meeting. �" � . �; 1 . .'' , , u� �� I .1I► February 20, 200'7 Cazl Rydeen MSP Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34"' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Deaz Mr. Rydeen: The City of Mendota Heights recognizes the need for the recoqstruction of Runway 12R/30L as µ� described by the Metropolitan Airparts Commission. We aze working ta inform our citizens of both the nafiue of this work and the impact upan our community in terms of increased departure operations. � We understand that during the closure, scheduled from August 13 — October 1'7, 2007, that anticipated operations include 730 daily departures from runway 12L. The number of flights aver Mendota Heights residences is a grave concern. Mendota Heights recommends and respectfiilly requests that MAC devise a plan to utilize 12R airspace during this periad in time for requisite tower and pilot preparation. We wiil incorporate your response and the operational considerations in that decisian in our communications to our residents along with MAC communicarion materials. , Thank you for your consideration of this matter, please send your Response to Jim Danielson, City Administrator. Since ely, _ Huber _. Mayor l101 YiCt+DriO C11rie e ME11dOk� �Ieiglit8, !�Y b8118 (661j 4452-H860 � H�'AX (6Sl) 4F62-884F0 ITEM 6 N��M ; i TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FE20M: Chad E. Leqve, Manager — Aviation Noise and Sateliite Programs SU�JE�"i': UPDR►TE ON PL�lR'� 150 LI'�IGATION AND A�SOCIATED DEVEI.OPNIENTS DATE: March 27, 2007 Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff will provide an update on this topic at the April 11, 2007 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting. ,`.JV jjOiSB/�Y��-„ . Q � G� i� -(" ' ' � � ' iw' -, Q,i ,s o �' .{, e " ' °' 2 : �..., �y � � �P .. V ^ � .N/W ME ROe�. i N A a m �y .�G L' � U Z � �, a � � IJ � � � N N S � V � L � LL � Z m _ � � � s � N O ' N v � LLc G Z 0 � G N O d � Y O u� N m n rr�i �r'i � n$ ry � m c�i m v� o N� v �'' N cu'n � Ci n n w m ��, '; '^rn � � � m rv i�7 iv N � � �� ..� ~��- m� � N N� V N^ m O) O�i �� N N�� w t0 � N N N N N C1 V� n � LL z 000000�ooao�aao��or�a0000a�� 1 ' '' I,� �, I' . "'"`` .. � `�5uy'- � t ;. '°s� -- j I � � : o m ' � ; � � ��f ; � .�.... . . � � ..�.� � . _�-��. __ .'t.. .. �..... � � . � . � � " :,.,_....._. � i . '. -_� ._,... i. _._ .� � ' �� '' �� . .. � . . . 1 _ _�� i m' t: . m- .--- __ ' W k . . . :.l �� _. _� --.' ......... . . �. Qi ' �A. .�i , -.i,, . ¢ ti,�* � jJ � ,. { 4 ..� i.� . ,. ,. ��;:-w. � � �� v`" r � ': : � � __ ,�,.. , ' � � �.�.,.,,. -�.,..� ... _. ,;-, . _ --. �T �� . , �.��, „�� ; .� �- �., � � : �-�..�. "�-�-�---.� _ �.�,�. �._.. _ . ... _ � �, . _._ .. ... . _.__ ._ . .- , _ ;. � � __ --- � .; � - I �N � � m � tl �1 � o m { d M C p �' °� � N I � N N C N i � N � 'p = i � C � � � � 2 N a � •� � w E o m � Of N � N 7 m fq 'C y"' U V � � c Q � �° �° m a� � F- I— b m U � ,o .c .c { � � rn rn a t � � � LL x3' O �C ��r W Z Z U Z Cf K 0..' Z .— R � -� w J I � � � d .J �, o. ''_._.. ._ � L rn _ `� � ', / � � � 0 . ;�`"potSsi�yF.�. � rQr -F o:. r'e= �' ; � ' 'm . � I Fj , ` ¢7 j��' �� ti, s�, "� ` � r i P/ : ti ��rF `�N�W METP�p�' . � � � ! � �l � ` f >'� ' * ., , f' -x � - "`.� � - 7 7 , /';r ; ' � / � . . �. r �� ` � � ', r '' � -'"� ; ' � � "°�a,� �� / � ..f_ � s . . , � � r r � „-- �" � , �� ...+'-"� _ � � � , t �J ' ` � r/ �,.-'�' -r„• ' \ \ � �� f � f t _. +"'.+t- " f ' � ' ...--'_�._a.�:,.. .-,.�+� , _ /' > >,I � .. . i� f! r "„,.�, ^;M""' _ '.;�'�"."`.+..�." �� i ` \ \ ,i�:�� _ . - - ' - _ � ..l �I � \ : � �.,' .. . ' ..� � . �. : � ,,. �� . "' �� ...... � \ ".. �� ,._.. .:_. ,'��-".,, .: � . . � . . . .. � . . .. . . . .. .. _._.. . . ... ..,�: ,.. _ �� /� _ ."-1 / M \ ' . � . . � 5. �...! : u�.cuw�.y�..___._rYa.a.w�r.u.,s,,.��.. .�-..nr�..-...�uasc�,c>.r.x . �i•w.J .. �.1 . � �� . . .. '� � � � , .. o ': � � :� `' ' � � Y �� c � z � ,� f•E �L�. .,,� ' � °o ��,` `� �� rv� � =N 'IY ; \ �'\ 1�i � ' �\ . . Qi -:.. �� t �42� \ � � `t � % ' ` i\ � `,� , , U . l S 1 "a '`.. \ ` . � ,. v'�.. �x�y . � �. � .� , c �'' t � a �``��'; ��4 � r . � f.� \+� � � \\� 4 � � i .� �� t�� w '°•'� . � � , �l?,ti . � fi �� :� t � x ` � �� `.,, � t .: . ` 5 � •� �� ,�,. � s \l �' `` . \ � , : . � , �. __._ _ . � � _ � _ 4 . �J m �� m � � � � _ N � N = N O m �V � N a- _ p C � � �. G n O � � m h I— � N'� VJ t = � v ' o � � vi C N p� p� � q M a n m mm m m �n n �.- �c .- L L LL � N O m N m v w e ti m m��^eV��`�n `m•- r' �v c� c�v H n m m v u1°i a � � ~ Ol .� H� rn N c�i V �D �O t� m m o^ N� v N N n m o N N N N M th f� m N O�i �; z z z LL z a0000000aaaooa0000�ooa000� �� P_. ��a i � —� _ ,� . `� --_� ,.? �.. , u_.. _�� .. _� � _ ��.�a..�,,m �..��:;�.�. _.,�....�.�,.. . QP/J��No�ej��o�. % �" -C' Fe m. � iN f. \ Qi ¢ �i0� ��%�: `_er. . a a : T= ; `�.� 6� — `� ' ,, �Q, ; \�N� -I" 'O��' +...�Y METROP.%� . � _ ,.__.. ..—.. r �.. � ; � , � ; p � � ( � ! � 0 _ � � i �. . , ; --_.. � � �� , . � m- - m: Ey • �, � � �``*w,,,,;,� -- �� ,�,,, _ '' a � �2 s�: � �� ,' , _� 3, , � � - �'^.e'� € s' z�a �', _. , �*i` �; ° � � � � �� ,� � , ��,� ;� � `�� ., � FPJ4 N O� ��1•`... JQ ,.,....,."".0:. ; Q � (, tN � � i� '. j ¢ j � o�" `/�..,� e � .� s. �$< �2 .: �ry � y\�p , ``.,�N/K, METRpe�� . N O a N o n v {� ��n m v m � t0 � O O� h N N � � � �� m N N N N N N�� m � 0 Q O � N ' �Y V . W N � � N �Y � � m{y � uC� O V � ��- N.'- m N t��J V Y�J r m OI m N t7 P� N �� N N N N N N t��f th tm'1 U�l � z a000aa0000a00000000�00000 � �� I�I 1011d SIBLEY P Wy�r��i=�n� . � . . _.�y ��N n :.+ = N o ��1N� �� W U \\1 � � Y ` �, v � 0 Nb'WH�b'O�; ; _,-.. 'G �' � I ' : , .��.. � ' ; '1 `; %t�lbNO � ,,, �' ��b`LI� jb �;: , � N��,� �` , ; 1 = r 1. 1 I f, % } � ' �' !, � J / �; l :. t r , � t � � ,�: e-....,, � � , �� , ,=. ' �'`� � ` �, 5 � , , � r �� ,.. � r r J„ � � �, �., j- 80N7110�Id' � ��' � �� l`d�l,�a�d .1 "'- ,,` W ;: � � ,, Q '� r U � d ' Q, � ' � � >- T' , �v?�'� > `"� � � ; .. U �; . :'��r%. ��b,. . , . �,� ~ r O� �� ,' � o� ; ��,y �, - �ti � �,�' NHt�I � 7 � , �L��: , .` y �'od ��j, �tN��y o ' . :'� � h. . 1„� �� m'. �� `� ��v � � � � ' . =��€�N,�; GJ �r,' - � o~ �-. ��\ h ��b �: , } `� � �``'� 'yp�, . _•.... -Ti; !._.:._�....,,.�.,�.. � � �. ; ,, ". � � � � � __ . �_ :<_:, ,�.. ,._� ti _ S H11�Z Nli�Z Q _p �-..,, . . , :.- c*� . .,: , ' ` � , _ c =_ �� y - ._ ^•.,�w ` N1Lc o = _ ,� Y� � z � � � .%��%f ' d, ,< m -' z O aNZZ r ir,, o�o � n. � �� ''' `.,; , � � ~ �b� � ` � ��s °� � aHd�� .' Ol LLMIIH 8N �Jt/a�� l0 = 17TH tv� ``�ifi H18L H186 i- p t- H186 � S 2 �b Hll6 .�r' = o� p � a�'„H1L6 H1L6 � �� ry � ,; H196 'Y� H194 t- z � `--` H196 � _ ,, , `�b NOIJNIW00"18 � H � NOIJNIWOOlB Q' � . ,��` . ' L �O � Hl4 4 Hl9 6 N N a, o, � �� Hltib Hlb6 00 Hlb6 `" �' .. z z°j `' , H16 6 � z Hl£ 6 Q HlE 4 Hl� � Hl£ b Hl£ 6 rn rn ' ch ° �� Hl£ 6 �: � H166 = U � o H166 n' � H104 � � � H106 H106 H106 � � H106 '� 101"Il� � _ � � 101"ll� 1011l� 101`I'1� � � � � ¢ OJd�IN� } = pPR� �•, . ,, snawmo� ti � o snewmo� _ � � o >I2�t/d � z = �i�l`dd = i- I o � ; . - �-C�AIk�l�Id�O---�-- --«a--�m--�fal�l�9---m~- -----� oa � _ � i- o `` � .m o� !� Hl9 = h 15 �" Hl5 ON`dll2lOd Hl9 = rn � o � n. Hl� m� N h r: � NO1NI�� Hli� � p � Hlti Hlti � H.L9 W ,: : a2l£ SN�A�1S C1NZ � I � aNZ �= a�lE ��°i °�' aNZ � aNZ a�l� aNZ o � a�l£ � �.; � = SN�n�1S � m �. �' � e .o --�.-�1--_... �.��-•--�—;L-S�L n ^' 1S 6 � < �'I"IO�IN Z - p m ,r, .. �' � """BL'7a1'S'D�'L � i.N.. � ��aSib'"18 c~i� m °� ll�ClSlb'�8 p rn �_ = 1�l�O�IN �,. � w °' cY. rn c~o n H1230M.LN�M Z �� [r A2jf19S�lld I A 2 1 t 1 8 S � l l d � rn rn = . m r- � ,rpP = 1Nb'St/� m 1Nt'/St/��d ° o � aNMlJ aN�IJ I t- aNV�IJ = o t- aNb23J aNt-12��J = rn `' u� al�l�21b'J a'1�I�J`d�J i °' � 1�I�I�IbF{ a"1�1�2iHJ � 131�i�1t/N � � _ � 3/Ip�, H�R�dlt/ = cv z h � �ltlaNl.l �_.._::-- �� o T �� N H�I�Ia'lb � 1N`d1.�18°m' �-'�' � ta�-L -`r � Xt/d�0� �� •' Xt1�10� c = z = o � o' NOS2��W� °' : rn = � 0 1NOd(iC] o r o h� _ ��;,: 1NOW�`�l� = -r t- �- `- m t- __ � � � o � I-Z- � a2�t/ZiI�J � � o �JNI/�2i1 JAM ( �JNin�ll JNin`�I � rn m m � 1O108WfiN `- •uoi�e�e�d�a�u�siw �o esns�tu,ro} a�q/suodsa.r aou si pue u�a�ay pewe�uo� �eua;ew ay; �o A'oemooe aaaun.�en6 aou saop uoissiwtuo� s�od��y ueapoda�e/N aql , •�fjuo sesod�nd e�ua�a�ar �o� pasn eq oa si uo�jew�o�u� s�yl 'L9�E LOOZ `66 ��W uo /enpoe�a�ui/iuoo•esrounew•sdew//:d�y A'q pa;ea�� de�I sp�o� ��oZ sxo�.�Z a.�o� doadoqm,l, �`�, uoi�z�o� a��ozdd� m s�i�m��zg rf.zepuo�as � ezy qns azn�z�daQ zan� ;' ,;' s,I,y� o s��emu�tg 6z�uzud s�o�zs qns aan��daQ � s��t�.zanp sa�e�sza�ul sx��zs qns do.�doq.mz '`, sazn�z�da�::�', ; �zZ a.zo� am�.redaQ .zan� �� s��z,I, ��ozdd� %��J s��n�zz� �\ i s�o�.�,I, a.zo� amu�daQ %�� a.r� ��duzI S£/L I sauza ��\,� �uauzan�a �zod� ��IITj/� s�zodz� ao�dsuaaz� za�� yG�y� 5�/\V H1.`� ��SULb �u��45 ��daNN�'J yU•�G LUUG! b �/�U'yy•UU LUUG/U bltU •N�!add du+!1 d�� an'��aa��al �SION��W CIT�.' OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2007 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The following Commissioners were present: Ellsworth Stein, Vice Chair; Bill Dunn, Robin Ehrlich, Brian Linnihan, and Sally Lorberbaum, Commissioners. Also present were: Jirn Danielson, City Administrator, and Mary Heintz, Recorder. Not Present: Liz Petschel, Chair; Dave Sloan, Commissioner; and Ja1ce Sedlacele, Assistant to the City Administrator. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Linnihan, to ' � approve the February 14, 2007, Airport Relations Commission Meeting minutes as �� -' submitted. Commissioner Lorberbaum abstained from the vote. Unfinished and New Business A. Introduction of Sally Lorberbaum Cornmissioner Lorberbaum introduced herself, as did other attendees, and said she was excited to be part of the Commission. B. Discussion of Carl Rydeen's letter from the FAA. The City Administrator said he called Chad Levque, who said he was happy to see the letter from Mr. Rydeen, though other Commissioners felt it might be a stalling tactic. It will be on the NOC agenda at the April meeting, which Chair Petschel will attend. C. Discussion of New Legislation HF 359 and Amendment The City Administrator provided a brief update on legislation, noting that Representative Rick Hansen had authored and then amended a bill proposing a change that MAC membership be determined by legislative districts. A subcommittee will convene to evaluate membership size and configuration. Commission Meeting—March 14, 2007 � Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Commissioner Linnihan inquired whether there was a timeframe the subcommittee would be working with, and the City Administrator responded no, but attempt would be made to � contact Representative Hansen directly. Commissioner Dunn commented that group size didn't make a difference for ARC but Mendota Heights representation would be important. Cominissioner Ehrlich said it appeared the group's focus was changing and there may be less representation. Vice Chair Stein stated that he wouldn't want to see more members added, as too many would limit what could be done. The City Administrator reported that the Minneapolis proposal is to eliminate four statewide members and start two separate MAC organizations, one for outstate airports and another for metropolitan airports. Discussion ensued as to how representation might be determined, i.e., which city mayor would represent Dakota County. Commissioner Linnihan inquired as to what Chair Liz Petschel's response had been regarding the proposed legislative amendment, and the City Administrator responded group consensus was that the next step would be to plot some strategy and see what ARC could do to help. D. Update ARC Brochuxe Commissioner Lorberbaum noted some information that was incorrectly indented and suggested that it be centered instead. That City contact information identified on the �, "Questions and Answers" page be centered instead, as well as the City and "Volume I, Updated 3-5-07" on the "Noise Complaints" page. Commissioner Dunn noted that Commissioner Sloan's phone number may be incorrect, and the City Administrator responded that he would verify with Commissioner Sloan. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired as to who receives copies of the brochure once published, and the City Administrator responded that it is handed out at City Hall's front desk. She suggested that it be distributed with the "Heights Highlites" publication, for residents and visitors who are unable to come to the building. The City Administrator responded that it could be included as an insert. E. Update 2006 Airport Noise Plan of Action It was group consensus that the agenda item be moved to the next meeting that Chair Petschel can attend. F. Updates for Introduction Book For information only. 2 Commission Meeting — March 14, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Corrunission G. View 2007 "State of Cit�' The City Administrator stated the Mayor's half hour-long video would be available for Commissioners to take home for viewing. Acknowled e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence Vice Chair Stein said he was pleased with the reduction in the number of complaint calls over 100. Cornmissioner Ehrlich cited, however, that three complainants from Mendota Heights had made 447 complaints. The question was raised whether they were phone calls, emails, or web postings, and Vice Chair Stein said the three individuals weren't helping the cause. Conunissioner Dunn said he would check out the complaint process out. Some discussion ensued about the increased night-time flights over last year, RMT Site #5's increased noise, and B72's and regional jets being more quiet than DC9's. It was suggested that the Corzidor Analysis be monitored. A. January 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report B. January 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis C. N.O.I.S.E. D. A.irport Noise Report, January 12, 2006 E. Airport Noise Report, January 19, 2007 ��_ � F. Airport Noise Report, Januazy 26, 2007 G. Airport Noise Report Annual Index Suminary Other Comrnissioner Comrnents or Concerns Airport Noise publications from February 9(page 17) and February 16 were referenced. Vice Chair Stein reported that there are plans for a 380 double-decker airbus to go into Los Angeles and New York, though also noting its runway width problems. Commissioner Linnihan inquired about ARC meetings being televised in the future, and the City Adminisirator stated Councilmember Sandra Krebsbach supported the idea. Commissioner Lorberbaum said people had watched Plaru�ing Commission meetings. Commissioner Ehrlich suggested that the meeting that Representative Hansen attends be televised. Upcorning Meetings • City Council Meeting — March 20, 2007 — 7:30 p.m. • NOC Meeting — April 11, 2007 —1:30 p.m. • MAC Meeting — April 16, 2007 —1:00 p.m. Plan of Action will be discussed at April 11 AR.0 meeting. Commission Meeting — March 14, 2007 -,. Mendota Heights Airport Relations Comrnission Adjourn Commissioner Linnihan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Heintz TimeSaver Off Si.te Secretarial, Inc. n W (;. � TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � Airport Relations Commission James E. Danielson, MAC Open House DISCUSSION: /� City Administrator ` April 5, 2007 I was contacted by MAC Staff the end of March to schedule an open house at City Hall. They want to inform our citizens of the upcoming airport construction and its impact on our city. The meeting was set for Monday, August 6t" from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. We will advertise for the meeting in our next edition of the Heights Highlites due out in May. 7 � �� SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO ARC Comm.issioners Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary Updates for Introduction Packet � . [�►�TiZ�YI — Please replace the following pages in your ARC Introduction Packet Table of Contents Operations North of the 090° Corridor Boundary The following should be replaced from your monthly ARC Meeting Agenda Packet. # 7 Airport Noise Report — Put the latest issue of this in your Intro Packet #13 February 2007 - Technical Advisors Report #14 February 2007 - Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report C , C, � C � ; � Section 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. . . ; ° � � Glossary Historical Review Eagan-MH Corridor Creation of ARC Ordinance No. 290 ARC Brochure 2006 Airport Noise Plan of Action Airport Noise Report, March 30, 2007 NOC Bylaws P&E Committee Regular Monthly Meeting Minutes MAC Approved 2007 Capital Improvement Program What's New at the MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs ANOMS Monthly Reports February 2007 Technical Advisor's Report February 2007 Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report Frequently Asked Questions Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Para11e1 Runway Crossing in the Corridor Minneapolis Tower Operational Order Runway Use Nighttime Voluntary Noise Agreements Maps ARC DVD C TO: �F CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS �� Airport Relations Commission Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary April 4, 2007 SUBJECT: Operations North of the 090° Corridor Boundary The following is a tabulation of tracks crossed gate from June 2002 to December 2006 (tracking sheets attached). 2002, June - 137 Tracks Crossed Gafie 2002 July - 85 " 2002 August - 176 " 2002 Sept. - 111 " 2002 Oct. - N/A " 2002 Nov. - N/A " 2002 Dec. - N/A " 2003 Jan. - 33 2003 Feb. - 42 2003 March - 64 2003 April - 103 2003 May - 45 2003 June - 80 2003 July - 80 2003 Aug. - 35 2003 Sept. - 45 2003 Oct. - 29 2003 Nov - 52 2003 Dec. - 94 2004 Jan. - 84 2004 Feb. - 129 2004 Mar. - 100 2004 Apr. - 54 2004 May - 204 2004 June - 50 2004 July - 93 2004 August - 117 2004 Sept. - � 174 2004 October - 180 2004 November — 108 2004 December — 135 2005 January -169 2005 February — 113 2005 March — 79 2005 April — 175 2005 May - 189 2005 June - 156 2005 July - 103 2005 August — 61 2005 September — 175 2005 October - 100 2005 November — 81 2005 December — 60 2006 January — 118 2006 February — 39 2006 March — 79 2006 April — 121 2006 May — 58 2006 June — 96 2006 � July - 85 2006 August - 110 2006 September — 95 2006 October - 114 2006 November - 118 2006 December - 96 2007 January — 81 2007 February — 88 Tracks Crossed Gate « C C �. 1;i • ` � � • - 1Viendota Heights Airport Relations Corrim.ission - 1 - 3/8/2007 T'he Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission is charged with monitoring proposed � airport rules, procedures, and programs and advising the City Council on matters pertaining to airport noise and operations. In an effort to mitigate airport noise in the Mendota Heights community and assure equity of the current runwa� use system, the Commission has given high priority to the following issues: Residential land use in Mendota Heights, particularly developable parcels that rnay be affected by airport noise. Continue input and dialog with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). Monitor Adherence to the environmental impact statement for Runway 17-35. Elimination of head to head operations. Conversion from hush kitted to Manufactured Stage III and Stage N aircraft. Non simultaneous departure procedures. Noise abatement departure profiles. Nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations Continue efforts to keep planes in the air corridor over Mendota Heights. Legislative oversight of the MAC. Develop a relationship with FA.A representatives an.d legislative leaders regarding airport � issues. Define Capacity at MSP Oversight of 2020 Plan Assess Anoms Locations Monitor CDC for any collateral positive effects to Mendota Heights Other issues that will require continued monitoring_ Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East neighborhood. The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground tracking departure procedures. International noise mitigation efforts including a new DNL metric. Part 150 Study Heighten awareness and coznmunication of Mendota Heights noise concerns. _ � ; Mendota Heights land use plazuiing has hinged on limitation to the MSP air corridor - 2 - 3/8/2007 � Issue #1: Residential land use in Mendota Heights, particularly developable parcels that may be affected by airport noise. Action Steps• Who: When: 1. Monitor applications for development for the Acacia site and the Furlong neighborhood. 2. Provide recornmendations to the City Council for development rezoning and or acquisition of these sites. AR.GSiaff ARC/Staff As apps are filed As apps are filed 3. Provide ARC with all application materials submitted StafF As apps are filed sites. Issue #2: Continue input and dialog with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Action Steps• Who: When: l. Monitor activities and processes of MSP Noise Oversight Committee 2. Regular meetings with NOC representatives and ARC to identify issues that can be advocated .• ._._ . �' •� Issue #3: Adherence of Runway 17-35 to the environmental impact statement. monthly as needed Action Steps• Who: When: 1. Monitor data and information regarcling ihe use and impact of new ninway 17-35 in the technical advisors report and its conformance to the EIS. 2. Ask MAC to provide ARC with data regarding runway 17-35 use (staying under 9.3%) on parallel ARGStaff ARC/Staff 3. Revisit corridor operations a$er a few months of use of the new Runway and impact on head to head operations, non- simultaneous departures, turning etc. ARC/Staff 4. Communicate reaction to the analysis of 1'7-35 completion ARC/Staff 5. Ask MAC to revisit/revamp the Technical Advisors report once the new runway is complete 6. Review tower operations with MAC stafi for 17-35 effects. ARC/Staff ARGStaff � j 7. Monitor MAC/FAA accommodations to communities ARC/Staff afFected by 17/35 operations for consistency with treatment of Mendota Heights and adherence to EIS -3- as avail monthly as avail as avail as avail as avail as appropriate 3/8/2007 w Issue #4: Elimination of head to head operations Action Stens• Who• When• l. Negotiate elimination/min;,,,;zation of head to head ARC/NOC when possible operations (with MAC assistance) with FA.A. Issue #5: Conversion from hush kitted to Manufactured Stage I[i and Stage IV aircraft. Action Steps: Who• When• 1. Determine when pha.se out of hush kitted aircraft ARC/Staff as appropriate will occur. 2. Advocate for i.ncentives/penalties program for Stage III ARC/Staff as appropriate compliance by airlines 3. Determi.ne what constitutes a Stage IV aircraft and when ARC/Staff as avail conversion to Stage IV will occur Issne #6: Non simultaneous departure procedures C Action Stens: Who• When• 4` 1. Monitor and encourage use of non-simultaneous departure ARC/Staff as appropriate Procedures. Issue #7: Nighttime restrictions on aircraft operations Action Stens: Who• When• 1. Have NOC representative lobby for further restrictions on Nighttime operations (prefened nighttime headings) A.R.C/NOC ongoing 2. Monitor legal precedent/litigation conceming noise AR.0 continuous level averaging Issue #8: Definition of the air corridor over Mendota Heights. Action Steps: Who• When• 1. Monitor flight data to ensure adherence to corridor ARC/Staff monthly - 4 - 3/8/2007 � Issue #9: Legislative oversight of the MAC � � Action Steps: Who: When: l. Establish strong relationship with legislators and airport Staff/ARC continuous officials 2. Testify as necessary on MAC/airport legislation StafflARC as necessary 3. Propose a bill to our Legislators to have MAC Board ARC/Staff as necessary Members be elected to iznprove MAC accountability Issue #10: Develop a relationship with FAA representatives and legislative leaders regarding airport issues Action Steps: Who: When: l. Invite Senator Metzen and Rep. Hanson to an ARC mtg Staff/ARC Winter 2006 Encourage Senator Metzen and Rep. Hanson to have Mac Board elected. 2. Invite Tower Operator Cindy Green to an AR.0 mtg (Update on how 17-35 is working) 3. Invite MAC Commissioner Tom Foley to an ARC mtg 2006 Issue #11: Define Capacity at MSP Staff/ARC Staff/ARC Winter 2006 Summer Action Steus• Who• When• 1. Detezmine parameters to define capacity at MSP ARC/Staff Surnmer 2006 - Dialog with FAAfMAGNOC - Voluntary night time restrictions - 15° Separation - Runway use - After runway 17-35 opening Issue #12: Oversight of 2020 Plan Action Steps: Who: When: 1. Identify effects of 2020 Plan on MH ARC/Staff ongoing 2. Work proactively with other Cities to require MAC to AR.C/Staff address and minimize adverse effects of implementing 2020 Plan 3. Work to require MAC's expanded use of reliever airports ARC/Staff ongoing ongoing - 5 - 3/$/2007 Issue #13: Assess Anoms Locations r 1. Work with NOC to deternune if noise monitors are at the ARC/Staff best locations; are they moveable, is technology updated Other Issues To Be Monitored: Issue #1: Noise mitigation in the Rogers Lake East Neighborhood ongoing Action Steps• Who� When• 1. Monitor conespondence between Rogers Lake East Noise ARC/StafF as avail Noise Reduction Committee and MAC 2. Provide a forum for dialogue between MAC and Rogers Lake East Noise Reduction Committee 3. Provide support/information to Rogers Lake East Noise Reduction Committee as requested if possible 4. Provide recommendations to the City Council on Rogers Lake East Neighborhood issues 5. Facilitate political solutions for the neighborhoods with MAC AR.C/Staff ARC/Staff ARC/Staff as needed as needed asneeded as needed Issue #2: The implementation of global positioning satellite technology and magnetic ground tracl�ng departure procedures Action Stens� Who• When• l. Promote standard instrument departures and final ARC/Staff continuously approaches through the use of global positioni.ng satellites to keep planes from flying over residential areas of the City (Tracks vs. heading) � Issue #3: International noise mitigation efforts including a new DNL metric Action Stens: Who• When• l. Monitor correspondence and new information on international noise mitigation efforts 2. Monitor legal precedent/litigation regarding noise level Averaging Staff/ARC .'�� continuously continuously - 6 - 3/8/2007 � �; Issue #4: Part 150 Study Action Steps: Who: When: 1. Monitor/Support Mpls's efforts to require greater sound ARC/Staff continuously abatement measures 2. Monitor the MPLS and Bloomington lawsuits continuously ARGStaff Issue #5: Heighteu awareness and communication of Mendota Heighis noise concerns Action Steps: Who: When: 1. Develop long term strategic approach to relationship with ARC/Staff continuously the legislature. 2. Convey to MAC representatives our concerns and ARGStaff continuously issues with operations and the use of the MSP airport 3. Continue to work on finding efficient means of comrnunication with the residents 4. Heighten Council awareness of airport issues ARC/Staff ARGStaff continuously continuously Issue #6: Mendota Heights land use planning has respected limitations to the MSP air corridor Action Steps: Who: Wheu: 1. Investigate whether lack of respectlenforcement of Arc/Staff 2006 corridor by MAC and FAA constitutes an inverse condemnation? - 7 - 3/8/2007 ( ) � , . � . , , .. � � . , .:� , �.�� __�,, ��: � �K �JlF�r,c�t`Y,-`",--,r,>�-�.�{�� ti7' Ctlxt, .� � �.'. :.' . , /: �. :� : / � �, �' �� :/: •� ",�'� : Tab1e of Co��en.ts for February 2007 � �� C Complaint Summary l Noise Complaint Map 2 FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage q. MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage � MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage g � �,.. 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 Departure Related Noise Events 17 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events � g Carrier Jet Deparlure Related Noise Events � 1 g , MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32 �i� Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 '� A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program MSP Complaints by City February 2007 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed �dn the Intcme�. � Sum af % Tomi of Complaints may not cqual 300% duc to rounding. ( j 'As of May 2005, ihe MSP Complainls by Ciry report includes multiple comptnint descriptars per individunl camptaint Thcreforc, ihe number of �� compiaint descriptols may be more �hon the number oCreponed complaims. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - �- MSP International Airport Aviation Noise Com�laints for February 2007 Number of Complaints per Address o � ,� 1-4 5-14 15-28 29-45 46-66 -2- 67-135 136-238 239-454 Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 (� � � i �. Available Hours for Runway Use February 2007 FAA Ave Air Carrier 814 795 Commuter 381 382 Generai Aviation 95 48 Militarv 7 7 ( ' 1 „2, 9Z : (. = 1232';. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -3- �� •• . • � . � ��•• �� . �� Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. ' 4- Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 l �� Carrier Jet Operations ' - '•�• -• . 1/ . Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. Report Generated: 03l09/2007 10:50 - 5- , February 2007 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition Note: Sum of tieet mix % may not equai 700 % due ro rounding. ,� Q Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet ail stage III criteria as outlined in Federai Aviation Regulation �� (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits 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 EPN� dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). •EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels. - 6- Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 • -' •�•. • 1 1• ••11. Runway Use Report February 2007 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. Report Generated: 03l09/2007 10:50 - � - Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ' . - •-•. -• . �� Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. ' $ ' Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 �C February 2�07 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet Operations by Hour �, Hour,,,'; '� Count; 2230 518 2300 577 2400 202 100 90 200 48 300 48 400 66 500 362 American Atlantic Southeast A America West on FedEx FedEx FedEx FedEx Pinnacle Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk Midwest Airlin Northwest Northwest Northwest 5un Lountry Sun Country huttle America United United UPS UPS UPS US Airwavs Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 90.3% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -9- 850 l300 750 700 650 � 600 � C? ;i;, 550 C�7 500 G: Q' 450 � Y,�„ 400 C7 � 350 � 300 � 250 200 150 100 50 O February 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ARL ASQ AWE CCP DHL FOX FLG KHA MEP PIWR SCX TCF UAL UPS USA A�riY:nc .��17anu.Factured �,$tage i� St�age 3� .�"�Stage 2��. �j February 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines Note: UPS DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines. " � � - Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 � � Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — February 2�07 Feb 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4004 Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4007 Carrier Jet Departures Feb 1 thru 8, 2007 — 292 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 1 thru 8, 2007 —198 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generafed: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 11 - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Fligh� Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — February 2007 � ,� Feb 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4007 Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 9 thru 16, 2007 — 3988 Carrier Jet Departures Feb 9 thru 16, 2007 — 304 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 9 thru 16, 2007 —178 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures ��. - � 2- Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 Airpor� Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — February 2007 Feb 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4075 Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4046 Carrier Jet Departures Feb 17 thru 24, 2007 — 367 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 17 thru 24, 2007 — 205 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -� 3- Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — February 2007 �� Feb 25 thru 28, 2007 — 20$7 Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 25 thru 28, 2007 — 2112 Carrier Jet Departures Feb 25 thru 28, 2007 — 200 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Feb 25 thru 28, 2007 —167 Nighttime Garrier Jet Departures - 14 - Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 ,, � � MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations ' ': Remote Monitoring Tower ; ,. ,- Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -15- Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events February 2007 , , , , , , , , ,� , , RMT ' a - e T me T j , : r a 7 1 ' . i .� i . � � i . � T�m > �Time > � � � ime >� ��.......: . � . _.:.. . C��!..:::.�. ....... ' . ... � _ .. : . . . ,: dddress ::.:: . . .:::: : :.. !. ::.... 65dB �'..::80dB� ...: `r� 90dB ,'�:100c�B ... . ... . 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 03:04:27 00:00:17 00:00:08 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 03:59:51 00:0129 00:00:00 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 05:10:40 00:10:54 00:00:04 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 04:29:49 00:04:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 06:90:28 01:04:35 00:00:39 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th Sf. 06:06:28 00:54:25 00:00:58 OO:OO:QO 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:05:18 00:00:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:03:42 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 9 St. Paul Saratoga 5t. & Har[ford Ave. 00:00:58 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paui Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:00:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paui Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:25 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:10:33 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 18:14:14 00:01:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:36:36 00:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane 20:20:39 00:55:41 00:00:05 00:00:00 17 Bloomingtan 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:00:31 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00 OO:Od:QO 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:26:20 00:00:06 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:09:41 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:dO 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:12:55 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 09:08:01 00:00:54 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 02:19:38 00:02:15 00:00:01 OO:OO:QO 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 17:52:19 00:02:06 00:00:00 OO:OO:dO 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 00:39:52 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 02:02:37 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:03:46 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16fh Ave. S. 00:26:24 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schoof 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:00:54 00:00:00 Oa:00:00 OO:Q0:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 03:49:42 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:00:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 00:01:37 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:05:12 00:00:14 00:00:04 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 05:11:40 00:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 08:34:29 00:00:26 00:00:01 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:02:39 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:00:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:00:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 ;,� Total T�me:forA"rrival Noise Events '` ': 'I19 44:24 03:20 43;`' OQ 02:00 00 00 00: - 16 - Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 � f �� (� ) � �•• � • • •i • ��•. � �� . �• • � � �• . �� _, . , = � , �� ,: ;;RMT , ; � : Time � T�me > ° T�me > T�me y �_�Cl.... : ,.. . .'.�'. :C!tY., = :... . .. :. .. ... 5��:.. . ... : Address.. .. : € � ;;: 65dB ' 80dB . =,...90dB � 100dB _ .. 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 02:19:53 00:01:39 00:00:06 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd Sf. 03:08:13 00:02:39 00:00:01 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 07:25:20 00:09:48 00:01:14 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 08:40:30 00:11:45 00:00:09 00:00:00 5 Minneapalis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 31:14:03 02:37:33 00:21:47 00:00:21 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57fh St. 41:20:13 04:44:07 00:51:58 00:00:13 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 17:22:45 00:39:35 00:02:37 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 10:49:49 00:24:02 00:00:07 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:02:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:01:49 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:02:57 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:33 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 01:33:44 00:01:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 02:09:06 00:07:16 00:00:20 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Gullon St. & Lexington Ave. 02:15:50 00:02:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 02:2Q:18 00:09:58 00:01:15 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:33:54 00:00:42 00:00:00 Q0:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 07:41:25 00:04:31 00:00:21 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 05:15:31 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:48:46 00:01:01 OO:Q0:04 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:33:06 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 00:30:46 00:00:14 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00 23 Mendofa Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 03:42:45 Q0:12:50 00:01:19 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 01:17:32 00:02:10 00:00:02 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:40:42 00:00:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 01:11:48 00:01:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 07:05:17 00:10:12 00:00:18 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 15:52:09 00:08:16 Q0:00:12 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 07:11:13 OQ:05:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 14:19:02 01:13:09 00:0228 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 01:23:36 00:00:56 0�:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:40:31 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsviile North River Hills Park 01:57:11 00:00:56 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 00:57:31 00:00:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 03:38:28 00:02:13 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 02:18:39 00:00:26 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 01:02:21 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 01:28:48 00:01:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 01:26:40 00:00:58 00:00:00 00:00:00 '�� Total Time fo� Departure Noise Events ! ,: , 213 25 02 ' 11 20 12 01 24 18 00 00 34' � . ..�; . .. . . . . ... . � Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 17 - Arrival Related Noise Events -• . 11 ;� c - , , ; � � , � ' : , , a , Arnval '' Arrival Arrivai Arrival RMT � i � �, � ' ' f � x , ; " Events � � Events ? Events � .Events > , , � , � � :� � ,.::G �� .. _ ..,..: . � .._..G�tS!"... _. � ....! . .: .. . � .�...::. .'. ....,Address. . ...:. ..� ...':.� . .. 65dB i . 80dB. � .. .' . �90dB ...._ :. 100dB.... : ....._...:_� �, 1 Minneapolis Xe�es Ave. & 41 st St, 2042 27 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1985 115 3 0 3 Minneapolis. West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2182 476 3 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2120 232 0 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2286 1542 53 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2203 1542 102 0 7 Richfield Weniworth Ave. & 64th St. 100 4 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 35 0 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & HartFord Ave. 3 1 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 4 1 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 2 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 2 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 39 � 1 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 5235 24 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & �exingkon Ave. 130 4 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 4910 806 1 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 2 Q 0 0 18 Richfield 75th S#. & 17th Ave. 138 3 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 40 2 ' 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 1 0 Q 0 i 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 60 1 0 0 � 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2842 21 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 604 18 1 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 5270 40 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 175 3 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 559 3 Q 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 84 1 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 212 8 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 4 0 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1265 2 0 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 3 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 0 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 10 0 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 31 1 1 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1518 5 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 2164 7 1 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 11 0 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 1 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 1 0 0 0 ` ', Total Arrival No�se E�ents ; 38273 ': 4890 '' 16B 0 .'.,.° . .... ; ; i� - �$- Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 �'•. - �- . •� � - . -• . /1 �_ ; ; � epa epa epa epa ' D rture D rture 'D rture D rture _ �RMT . ..�... ' ... . ..,;., .. , :... x::. ,. _. :: . , ;y Events > Events � Events'> Events >—`; ; ,� ��. . �.::�........C�tY. � ,. :' . � Address; . �... . . . ..:.. ;.65dB 80dB ' : 90dB 100dB:: .-; .. .:.�.. . _.... , .... � ..:. ,... . 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 707 19 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 877 31 1 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmant Ave. 1843 88 13 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2051 151 8 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6094 1198 281 9 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 8148 2289 599 8 7 Richfieid Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 3570 356 23 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2295 213 4 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 21 1 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 13 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 20 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 10 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 616 24 0 0 14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 950 112 4 0 15 Mendota Heights Culion 5t. & Lexington Ave. 899 42 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 976 150 27 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 128 7 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 1913 123 4 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 1411 57 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 179 13 2 0 21 inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 193 4 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 200 7 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1259 165 17 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 585 35 1 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 468 11 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 426 31 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1823 128 7 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 3666 251 2 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1655 55 1 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2809 577 63 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 429 10 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 198 2 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hilis Park 4Q9 9 0 0 34 Burnsvilie Red Oak Park 209 3 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 864 35 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 492 11 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 250 10 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 421 28 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 467 30 0 0 ' '' _ , ,, Total`Departure No�se Events ,;! , . ;; 49544 '.' ..,6276 ' 1058 � 17 . �.:: � Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 19 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (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: 03/09/2007 10:50 4.� i�� (� " Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St. (RMT Site#5) 12th Ave. & 58th St. (RMT Site#6) 25th Ave. & 57th St. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 21 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 02/05/2007 14:37 02/22/2007 22:15 02/2012007 9:45 02/01 /2007 22:58 02/27l2007 14:51 02/04/2007 7:01 02/17/2007 10:25 02/20/2007 10:3d 02/21 /2007 23:47 02107/2007 15:01 02/09I20Q7 10:56 02/27/2007 23:2$ 02/02/2007 11:01 02/27/2007 18:53 02/07J2007 12:11 02/24/2007 11:43 02/24/2007 7:45 02/28/2007 7:29 02/28/2007 6:47 02l10J2007 7:44 (RMT Site#8) Lonqfellow Ave. & 43rd St. AP,L1230 MD80 Q DHL2952 B72Q D AAL1655 MD80 D DHL304 B72Q D NWA790 DG9Q D DHL164$ B72Q D NWA748 DC9Q D NWA748 DC9Q D CC1705 B72Q D AA�1230 MD80 D (RMT Site#9) Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. gHt Number;' x A��crafE Type ' � Arr�val/ $'_ r,.� -,i� � .�n y i q �. .� �.. . �,,� � ....n„ ;� k a �� yc� �, . :, „w, ' ' De' partuce , .�: .. .. �...� . ��.�G.... rn ..�, ru.. � y ...,; i �=. NWA20 8744 A CC1705 B72Q D XCARE5 A109 A N WA810 A320 A AA�1524 MD80 D MES2792 SF34 D BMJ66 BE80 D BMJ18 BE80 D BMJ66 BE80 D BMJ48 BE80 D 30R 30L 30R 30L 30R 30L 30R 30R 30L 30R 22 30R 30L 22 30R 12L 12L 12L 12R 30R � .� .� .� :• : :• : ;.. :• :• :: : 83.9 $0.2 7$.4 77.4 76.7 73.4 72.9 72.5 72.1 72.1 - 22 - Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. (RMT Site#11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. Report Generated: 03/09l2007 10:50 - 23 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#13) Southeast end of Mohican Court (RMT Site#14) 1 st St. & McKee St. (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. - 24 ' Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 f- C i ; Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events fior MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave. (RMT Site#18) 75th St. & 17th Ave. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 25 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St. (RMT Site#20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave. (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St. ' 26 ' Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 ) Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Ave. (RMT Site#24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 27 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 02/26J2007 8:16 02/12/2007 7:51 02/26/2007 16:30 02/20/2007 8:25 02/07/2007 8:15 02/22/2007 7:00 02/04/2007 8:06 02/02I2007 17:39 02/05/2007 16:47 02/09/2007 15:41 CCP404 CCP404 GCP406 GCP41$ CCP412 GCP400 CC P400 CCP406 CCP406 CCP418 (RMT Site#27) Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L 30L ., � . ; � •� . .� .� :• . :• . :• ' 28 ' Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 f� � �; Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#28) 6645 16th Ave. S. (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. (RMT Site#30) 8715 River Ridge Rd. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 29 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#31) 9501 12th Ave. S. (RMT Site#32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. (RMT Site#33) North River Hiils Park - 30 - Reporf Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 �� Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#34) Red Oak Park (RMT Site#35) 2100 Garnet �n. (RMT Site#36) Briar Oaks & Scout Pond Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 - 31 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP February 2007 (RMT Site#37) � 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 02I20/2007 15:36 02128/200714:06 02/20/2007 18:54 02/20/2007 16:10 02/18/2007 18:06 02/2812007 19:26 02/18/2007 18:d1 02/18/2007 14:30 02l28/200T 17:09 02/27/2007 22:51 (RMT Site#38) 3957 Turquoise Cir. �ght Number ' A�rcraft Type ��;Ar�ival/ Runw : � i� � '�'� i i,:� 7 . i� � � p�. :� .. '...r:: . �..... :: � �.�....::: _..�. Deparfuce. .,....':.�.`.��<.....' NWA1494 DC9Q D 17 AAL1230 MD80 D 17 AAL422 MD80 D 17 NWA1532 dC9Q D 17 NWA1290 DC9Q D 17 NWA876 DC9Q D 17 NWA458 DC9Q D 17 AAL1925 MD80 D 17 NWA502 DC9Q D 17 DHL304 B72Q D 17 (RMT Site#39) 3477 St. Charles PI. 85.5 83.4 82.6 82.5 82.2 82.2 82.1 82 81.7 February 2007 Remote Monitorinq Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for February 2007 were comprised of 88.5% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 35.9% of the highest Lmax events. February 2007 Technicai Advisor Reoort Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the month of February 2007. - 32 - Repo�t Generated: 03l09/2007 10:50 � �. �� Analysis ofi Aircraft Noise Events DNL February 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers ' ° Date r #1 �` #2 #3 #4 ,''#5 #6 , #7 #8 #9' #10 #11 #12 #9 3 #14 #15 ' ,�,:: ., ,,,t � 4 ,..,. � 02101/2007 53.3 54.2 58.5 59 66.4 71.9 63 62.7 29.7 NA 32.3 NA NA 59.3 45.6 02/02/2007 48.9 50.8 54.3 55.5 68 71.1 64.$ 62 39.7 NA 39.8 49.6 28 60.3 48.7 02/03/2Q07 50.1 53.7 57.4 56.3 68.4 70.2 67.8 55 41.6 NA 26.6 NA 26.5 60.6 NA 02/04/20Q7 53.9 52.7 57.2 602 67.3 70.3 64.4 58.3 26.4 30.4 38.1 NA NA 582 NA 02/05/2007 51.4 50.3 54.7 56.6 65.8 71 59.9 58.6 NA 27 NA NA 34.3 58.9 43.2 02/06/2007 58.2 58.7 64.9 62.1 70 72.1 63.1 61.4 30.5 NA 26.6 37.9 48.4 60.3 50.7 02/07/2007 52.8 53 57.7 56.2 67.8 71.4 64 61.2 37 NA 32 NA 37.1 57.9 41.5 02/08/2007 50.8 50.4 55.8 55.6 65.2 68.9 57 56.7 55.9 45.5 57.9 35.3 32.4 59.9 38.6 02/09/2007 49.7 53.3 54.8 56.1 69 70.8 61.5 57.5 44.6 40.3 NA NA NA 57 3$.4 02/10/2007 55.1 50.9 54.7 54.5 64.$ 69.3 58 562 39.9 36.5 38.6 33.2 33.5 57.8 37.2 02/11/2007 4$.9 53.1 55.2 59.1 7Q.6 71.6 59.1 58.4 26.4 NA NA NA 45.6 58.5 33.2 Q2/12/2007 51.1 57.9 59.4 59.9 68.6 68.9 6p.2 55.4 39.7 37.9 39.1 NA 48.7 60.8 51.5 02/13/2007 46 53 57 58.6 68.4 70.8 64.5 60.2 NA 36.$ 37.8 NA 43.4 60.1 442 02/14/2007 5$.7 54.7 56.3 55 68.3 70.1 62.8 57 NA 27.8 26.8 NA 36.6 55.4 37.4 02115/2007 47.7 52.4 55.5 56.2 65.9 70.9 57 56.6 31.2 NA NA NA 42.6 59.4 3$.6 02/16/2007 53.8 56.6 63.8 60 69.1 71.7 57.8 57 28.8 35.9 28.8 NA 52.2 64.8 53.7 02/17/2007 52.2 54.2 57.5 56.8 68.4 71.1 66.6 58.5 41.6 42.6 48.9 NA NA 59.7 36.5 02/1812007 57.2 59.4 65 61.4 71.8 70.8 60 55.6 44.9 49.4 NA NA 53.6 59.4 57.6 02119/20Q7 57 59 65.2 62.2 71.3 74.3 63.4 60.9 33.1 NA 26.8 39 50.9 61.2 51.4 02/20/2007 56.5 60.3 62.8 64.4 692 73 52.1 58.5 37.6 28 35.2 NA 57.9 61.7 59.4 02/21/2p07 56.5 56.2 59.2 61.1 71.5 73.3 63.7 63.1 NA 302 NA NA 48.9 64.3 51.9 02/22/2007 51.7 53.8 58.9 62.9 72.6 74.2 65.3 64.3 NA 31 NA 36.9 45.5 60.2 30.3 02/2312007 62.6 64.3 69 65.5 72.5 70.6 54.4 37.9 37.2 41.1 38.5 35.6 60.$ 64.9 62.6 02/24/2007 63.6 64.1 68.$ 63.2 72.3 68.3 44.8 42.5 36.4 33.6 NA 37.5 55.9 64 58.1 02/25/2007 60.1 60.7 64.9 66.9 71.6 74.3 62.2 57.9 27.1 NA NA NA 47.3 62.9 50.3 02/26/2007 54.1 55.4 60.6 62.8 72.6 75.2 65 62.4 NA NA 38.1 362 43.3 60.1 41.1 02/27/2007 53.2 55.5 58.8 62.9 69 75.2 63.7 62.7 52.5 45.4 47.1 38.7 NA 59.8 462 02/28/2007 61.5 63.3 68.2 63.6 71.2 69.4 53.1 42.4 44.8 33.9 37.1 39.3 55.5 64 61.3 Mo DT�L 36 6 57 9 62 5:61 2 69 8 7� 9 62 6 59 5 44 2: 39 1 44 6 37 1 51 61'_'1 53 6' ;�, ,. :; ,:;: .,;, �.. Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -33- Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL February 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers � =pate #16; #17 :#18 #19 #20 #29 #22' #23 .#24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29; , a,..,,:,.�.,� ..,., ,.,,...,. .......... ..::. ..: _., ..: , . ,:::.. „ ..:: � ,, , .. :.�.,. _, , .,:�:. � � .. _ . . . ... .. .... . .. 02/01/2007 65.6 49.5 58.3 53.5 53.3 34.5 5$.2 48 59.9 43.4 43.5 54.4 58.5 55.6 02/02/2007 66.3 50.4 56.4 50 53.4 40.2 55.9 54.3 59.7 38.2 46.2 52.6 59.3 54.5 02/03/2007 67.3 35.5 49.2 45.2 37.1 50.5 58.3 44.$ 60.1 39.7 44.5 56.9 57.6 55.2 02/04/2007 64.2 NA 32.5 30.2 41.7 37.6 55.7 40.9 57.8 4p.8 53 54.8 57.6 55.9 02/05/2007 64.1 48.1 56.6 54 45.8 42.6 55.5 45.8 57.9 35.4 52.7 53.4 55.2 55 02/06/2007 63.8 35.3 54.8 49.5 39.4 44.7 53 58.1 58.1 51.7 54.7 54.4 58.4 51.7 02107/2007 64 35.9 56.1 50.4 41.2 30.7 53.9 51.9 58.5 37.2 45.7 57.8 61.4 53.9 02l08/2007 66.5 47.9 55.8 52.7 49.7 37.8 55.8 50.4 59.3 45.9 45 56.7 55.2 54.5 02/Q9/2007 64.9 41.7 51.8 49.9 43.2 41.9 54.5 41.3 58 44 43.9 56.4 55.4 55.2 02/10J2007 64.$ 44.1 54.4 51 43.5 33.5 54.2 43.4 57 41.1 44.4 44 51.4 50.6 02/11/2007 63.4 46.1 57.5 55.5 47.1 31.9 55.2 50.6 58 36.9 45.3 57.8 54.$ 52 02112/2007 64.4 29.7 46.1 46.8 NA 48.6 53.9 59.1 58.2 53.3 54.8 59.2 58.5 47.6 02/13/2007 62.3 38.9 47.2 34.8 47.6 39.1 52.7 55.4 56.4 39.6 52.9 57.7 59.2 50.1 02/14/2007 62.7 47.2 54.1 5Q.6 53.5 43.5 52.8 42.6 56 33.7 432 57.8 56.1 52.6 02/15/2007 65.9 43.3 58.3 53.5 45.8 45.7 56.2 51.3 58.4 41.6 54 53.8 55.7 54.4 02/16/2007 64.4 41.8 56.8 53.6 44.9 44.6 55.6 60.3 58.3 50.8 50.1 52.7 58.6 51.8 02/17/20Q7 65.1 28.9. 47 33.6 43.6 35.7 55.6 44.6 59.4 NA 47.2 57.3 59.9 56.8 02/18/2007 63.7 40.2 62.2 55.9 33 53.1 53.8 61.4 57 53.5 55.$ 58.4 63.3 5$ 02i19/2007 63.8 NA 56.8 53 45.2 46.6 55.3 60.6 59.2 48.4 54.1 56.3 63.3 60.5 Q2/20J2007 65.3 53.5 63.7 59.8 39.9 51.5 58.1 66.7 60.4 54.3 5$.9 54.8 59.2 53.8 02121/2007 67.4 48.1 57 56.4 50.9 49.5 60.2 58.8 63.4 49.fi 61.6 58.8 63 59.2 02/2212007 64.7 25.6 48.1 38.9 37.6 37.5 57 46.7 60.1 35.3 47.8 61.1 61.5 55.5 02/23/2007 68.1 40.3 61.5 59 31.1 53.8 57.1 66.3 60.8 55 58.1 50.3 64.4 NA Q2/24/2007 69.7 28.5 49.7 49.2 NA 49.9 54.1 62.5 59.2 58.7 56.4 42.2 57.1 NA 02/25/2007 65.5 31.6 2$ NA 32.5 46.9 56.3 62 59.6 53.4 57.4 59 61.5 47.2 02/26/2007 65.9 39.2 44.6 30.4 48.7 NA 57.2 53.2 60.6 39.1 46.1 62 62.7 54.6 02/2712007 64 48.7 60.9 58 47.6 NA 56.2 52.5 60.2 34.4 53.6 58 60.7 60.5 02/28/2007 67 32.8 60.4 57.9 NA 47.5 54.1 65.7 59.4 57.6 56.4 47 63.5 27.2 ' Ma'DNL ; 65 5 45 1 57 �1 53 5 46 9 46 7 56 59 � 59 2 50 5 54 56 8 60 1' S5 �� , , , :: . ... ....... - 34 - Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 �� Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL February 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers ', Date #30 #31 #32 #33' #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39.' .. .... . . ..::.... �, ....: . . , , . .. , ,_._,,., ,.. _. 02/01 /2007 64.9 47.8 50 52.1 41.8 56.6 54.5 41.3 36.5 NA 02102/2007 61.1 �0.1 50 48.7 47.4 54.3 51.8 36.7 NA 302 02/03/2007 56.7 28 29.8 41.7 NA 51.1 53.7 31.7 NA NA 02/04/2007 51.6 NA 48.2 NA NA 50.5 53.6 25.1 NA NA 02/05/2007 68.7 51.5 49.9 52.7 46.8 55.3 56.4 40 43 47.5 02/06/2007 59.7 50.8 39.2 45.8 41.5 50.6 49.3 46.4 48.6 44.5 02i07/2007 64.1 41.6 46.4 45 50.5 53.5 55.8 46.5 NA NA 02/08/2007 66.4 49 47.2 56.4 51.4 58.8 56.4 40.1 36.2 NA 02109/2007 60.3 39.7 40.7 44.9 37.2 51.2 53.4 33.9 34.6 54.2 02/10/2007 64.1 46.9 41.2 47.5 44.1 56.4 53.7 49.8 39.2 37.3 02/11/2007 66 46.8 44.9 50.8 48.3 58 57 NA NA NA 02/12/2007 45.4 NA NA 27.9 29.5 42.5 48.5 NA 38.3 27.3 02/13/2007 45.1 24.9 34.7 32.7 34.3 46.8 50.4 NA NA NA 02/14/2007 64.2 41.6 41.2 51.3 53.3 50.9 53.3 NA NA NA 02/15/2007 64.7 482 44.3 51 55.1 58.7 55 442 39.7 NA OZ/16/2007 63.8 45.9 45.8 48.7 44.6 52.7 50.1 4$ 52 51.9 02/17/2007 48.7 34.4 42.5 NA 27.7 50.6 52.6 28.4 NA NA 02/18/2007 63.4 45.5 41.2 48.6 39.4 51.4 35 54 57 52.5 02/19/2007 62.7 41.1 NA 52.5 46.9 56 55.5 46.4 51.2 52.8 02/2012007 6$.6 53.9 47.3 56.3 51.9 56.6 54.9 55.7 5$.7 56.8 02/21 /2007 65.8 51.5 48.4 53.4 48.9 58.6 55.6 49.6 45.1 NA 02/22/2007 51.6 35.2 44 27.5 44.5 54.3 55.9 NA NA NA 02123/2007 66.1 52.1 47.9 46.3 38.4 51.1 45.9 52.9 54.3 56.7 02/24J2007 55.1 43.6 40.3 NA NA 42.2 NA 42.1 45.5 44.2 02/25/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 26.6 NA 34.9 34.2 NA 02/26/2007 49.9 34.1 43.2 292 35.7 50.3 52.9 NA NA NA 02/27/2007 67.2 59.7 56.7 43.7 52.5 56.6 56.1 NA 54.8 46.1 02/28/2007 66 51.1 45.3 44.7 44.6 52.5 43.4 51.7 552 54.8 Mo DNL 63:7 49 4 46 9: 49 5 47 5 54 4 53:5 47 '1 49 7: 48.9 Report Generated: 03/09/2007 10:50 -35- Metropolitan Airports Commission 1914 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in February 2007 � 1622 (84.7%) of those (�perations Rernained in the Corxidor 1914 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 1622 (84.7%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor Minneapolis-St. Paui Penetratian Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor 02/01/2007 00:00:00 - 03/01/2007 00:00:00 1622 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 735 (45.3%), Right = 887 (54.7%) .� 6000 m a� �' 5000 c 0 �c 4000 > m W 3000 � 0 � 2000 �C � 1000 0 .� `� 0 ............ ....^........�...:. ^..� ...........:..................I -2 -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) -' Arrival � =' Departure O Overflight �� »4:�. t, �..� ..a . . ��s�°""� ��'>..W„�.."'"'�^"�., ww.Mw��.m� :�+ ., ��.,,,�,.�> , � ,�. ,�. „ '5.:.... . �:.,:A, ,....:.�.-��. e .....,.:: , ..,�,.:., ,:, .!:��:'.:.. Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis �. � \ Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission 88 (4.6%)12unway 12L and 12I2 Car�rier Jet Departure Operations were North of the 090° Corricior Boundary During February 2007 �� Page 2 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor 02/01/2007 00:00:00 — 03/01/2007 00:00:00 88 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 5(5.7%), Right = 83 (94.3%) .� 6000 . �, . . y5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. c . : : o : : : r�. i4000 ................ ............... .................:......r..:.......... d : : C.; '� ,- ;�`;� � �-, r� W 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:�. . . . . t�,.��r��.�� ;.��.,-. . . . . . . . . . . ,C • `; ,L� , _ �'"`'f,�s`';?�`•�: � o : �,. �'�{'�. .T.'��`��,.,�. ��<,;`'��, . °- 2000 ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•..�.�',�•.J �-, ,�?.. ,� . . . .. . .. . . . . � Q � :n : � 1000 ..................:......................................................... o : : . .a . . . a o —2 (Runway End) -I- Arrival —1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) (Corridor End) , ��, �a�.�:'~' �..�.�.�.�„�°�.�..�,,��,�.,,�.c�.�^�^�^��^t,� � �'�«�� ...��::C ...�. ; : r. . ..�...�� . .. .. ..:.::: . . . 1. .\:. ..... .i. . � .:_ ...... . . .:. f ,,: `. �: � Departure ❑ Overflight� Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission 204 (10.7%) �2unway 12I� and 121� Carrier Jet 1)eparture Operaiions were � South of the Corridor (South of 30L I�oca�izer) I)uring February 2007 Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 02/01/2007 00:00:00 - 03/01/2007 00:00:00 204 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 86 (42.2°/a), Right = 118 (57.8%) w 6000 d : • d . : . v5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. _ . . . o : : : � 4000 � � ........:..................:..................:. .`}�...� ................. d : : : W 3000 �..��'C'.�y.. U. .�.�.,�i a.,�. . ... . .0 . . . .:. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . :. .. ... . . .. . . . ... . . � t �.'�Z� C�� . � � : O i� : 0 ..�, � ; (� C� �C' ^. ,-� }'�'�J C��J . °- 2000 � : j:.�,Y . . . . . . .c.,Tn �� ,� ��';,�a`-�'; r' ','�t� . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q ' C,-��s : p J J� ' �-c'?�xL� `�-�,.� Y ' '�� a 1000 ................ : ....... ` .. .: �.;.. �' �.�,:; � ��.�...... Q � : � � --- _ -2 -1 0 1 (Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �R� -'- Arrival �=' Departure 0 Overflight ;;,� ..... ...... .._.... .... ....... ........ _ . .� . . . ........ . ..... . . .. . .... ........_.� ��...�..._._ Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Corridor Analysis 2 Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission 8(0.4%) Runway 12I, and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° South of the Corridor (5° South of 30I., Localizer) I)uring February 2007 Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Piot for Gate South Corridor 5deg 02/01/2007 00:00:00 - 03/01/2007 00:00:00 8 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 8(88.9°/a), Right = 0(11.1%) � 6000 ; : � . . . v5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. c : : : o • • • c4000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. d �7 : : : � 3000 ..................:...................:................:.:.................. oc� : : � O '� l' ;A� . Q' 2�� . . . . . . . . . . . � �. . . . .� . . . . . . .... . :. �.i . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q `� ' J u : : � 1000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. p : : : .t2 ' ' : Q � -2 (Corridor End) C� Arrival -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �R� �� Departure ❑ Overflight Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Comdor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 Runway 12I� and 12I� Departure Destinations for February 2007 � � '\ Monthly Eagan/Nlendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 5 30 � , , .� _ -�. . . � . . ,:� ,, ; �: r- . . � { ,� � ; _ ��? � � ti, � � A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volumel9,Number8 March 16,2007 Land Use i � . . . � �� , ! i, i ' 1 � �' VJhile there is little evidence that people are moving inside the DNL 65 dB contours around U.S. airports, there is evidence that people are aggregating immediately outside that contour, Wyle Laboratories concluded in ongoing research being done for the Federal Aviation Administration. The study of 92 U.S. airports found that 55 percent of lands within five rniles of the airports remains undeveloped and thus vulnerable to population encroach- ment. So, while it is late, it is not too late for the FAA to expand guidelines for non- compatible development to areas beyond the DNL 65 contour, Ben Sharp, director of Wyle's Acoustics Group, told participants at the 22°d Annuai University of California Symposium on Aviation Noise and Air Quality, held in San Francisco on March 4-7. Sharp discussed general trends Wyle has found in its research to date and the direction future efforts wiil take. FAA has asked Wyle to provide a sound scientific understanding of land use and population dynamics around commercial airports so that FAA can create (Continued on p. 31) Forecast FAA PREIDICTS 2.8� P]ERCENT INCR.EASE IN AVIA'I'ION SYSTElV[ CAg'ACI'I'Y �T FY 8007 At its annual aviation forecast conference in Washington, DC, held March 15-16, the Federal Aviation Administration said it continues to be optimistic about the future of commercial aviation and expects the industry to grow significantly over time. System capacity — the overali measure for how busy aviation is both domesti- cally and internationally —will increase 2.8 percent in 2007, follow9ng a 0.2 percent decline last year, the agency predicted. Since 2000, FAA said, "the industry has been battered with 9/11, the spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and concerns about pandemics, the bankruptcy of four network carriers, and record high fuel prices. An important yardstick, though, remains the number of passengers that traveled. Last year, that number was a record 741 million. U.S. commercial aviation remains on track to carry one billion passengers by 2015. In addition, international traffic is growing at much faster rates than domestic traffic." In terms of domestic markets, FAA predicted that capacity will increase 2.1 percent in 2007 as network carrier capacity stabilizes and low cost carriers con- tinue to grow. Regional carrier capacity, which depends in large part on feeds from the legacy carriers, is expected to increase 2.9 percent. Revenue passenger miles (Continued on p. 32) I1Z T'%2tS JTSSIIe. s • Conferences ... At the 22nd annualUniversity ofCalifornia Symposiurn onAviationNoise andAir Quality, Ben Sharp of ' Wyle Labs reports on a study for FAA showing homes aggregating just outside the 65 DNL contour ofairports ... Wyle's Bill Albee urges airportsto use supplementa.l metrics and look at increases in numbers of operations ... Rob Adams ofLandnim & Brown reports on airport noi se mitigation program survey data - p. 30 F�1A Forecast ... At annual forecast conference, FA.A says it is optimistic about future of commercialaviation; expects significant growth - p. 30 News Briefs ... FAA ap- proves Danbury Municipal's Part 150 program; Laredo Int'1 Part 150 is under FA.A. review ... AIAA awards Jay Hollingsworth Speas Airport Award to Miami- Dade County Aviation Depart- ment ... Kerry B. Long is ap- pointed new chiefcounsel ofthe FA.A ... Santa Clara County, CA, seeks firm to install NOMS system for Reid-Hillview Airport ,.. HIVIlVIHtraining course on IntegratedNoiseModel inApril wi11 offerpre-release training on FA A's new Version 7- p. 32 March 16, 200'7 effective land use and noise policies. The Wyle study will (1) identify factors, trends, and patterns of residential encroachment around airports; (2) assess potential and future land use conflicts around airports; (3) and formulate effective land use management strategies. In order to reach these goals, Wyle had to develop measures to capture the pattern of residential land use around airports for land inside the a�erage 65 DNL contour, for land in the released areas of changing DNL contours, and for land adjacent to commercial airports and outside established noise contours. Among the measures Wyle has used to measure en- croachment is a comparison of census data from 1990 and 2000 and land cover. Wyle found that the population-weighted center of residential development inside a 10-miie radius ofthe airports studied is moving closer to the airport. The greatest movement was found near airports in the Southern region of the United States. There the population-weighted center near airports moved from a point 3.05 miles away from the airport to a point 2.76 miles away. In the Midwest, the movement of the population-weighted center went from 3.73 miles from the airport in 1990 to 3.51 miles away in 2000. In the West, the movement of the population-weighted center went from 3.46 miles in 1990 to 335 miles in 2000. The least movement was in the Northeast where the population-weighted center moved from 2.69 miles away from the airport to 2.60 miles away. Airports are centers of growth and land near them is being developed, Sharp said. While noise contours have been shrinking in recent years due to the phase out of Stage 2 aircraft and other factors, contours are projected to increase again with increases in traffic growth. The results of the Wyle study show that local authorities need to establish buffer zones and limit non-compatible development outside the DNL 65 contour, Sharp told the conference. Incentives, such as environmental tax benefits, need to be established to limit development in vulnerable areas. What's next in the Wyle study? Sharp said the firm will look at underlying factors influencing encroachment patterns near commercial airports; the connection between airports, suburbanization, and the spatial expansion of cities; and whether residential growth and future conflicts with airport development can be predicted. Supplemental Metrics The need for airports to begin using supplementai noise metrics was the focus of a presentation at the symposium by William Albee, director of Special Projects for Wyle. Under contact to the U.S. Navy, Wyle has developed guidelines for using supplemental noise metrics to assess noise impact. They are currently under review by the Navy. Albee said that airports will only gain the public's acceptance of airport growth if they adopt supplemental 31 metrics to look at increases in numbers of aircraft operations and to look beyond the 65 DNL contour. "We will not be able to increase capacity if we only look at the drop in people in the 65 contour," Albee warned, adding that there is a gcowing gap between community experience and "what we show them as exposure" using averaged noise metrics. A substantial increase in the frequency of opera- tions, as is expected to occur in the future, is a very real change in noise exposure, he said. Noise metrics, such as DNL, which average noise exposure, do not reflect well increases in numbers of aircraft operations. DNL is driven by the loudness of aircraft, not numbers of aircraft. Albee advocated the use of a"frequency of operations" metric, such as the NA (Number Above), to better predict public reaction to airport growth. "DNL is no longer suffi- cient as the sole metric on [airport] growth projects," he said, noting that the FAA and Department of Defense are study- ing the feasibiliiy of using metrics in addition to DNL. But Albee said that there is "huge resistance" among airports to using supplementai metrics because they fear that communities will demand that sound insulation projects be extended beyond the 65 DNL contour line if inetrics look beyond that point. He feels this fear in an overreaction by airports. "There is no outcry from the public for other than sound insulation to 65," he said. Supplemental noise metrics improve comrnunication with the community, help assess the benefits of various project alternatives, and provide decision makers with the informa- tion they need, he told the session. If airports don't get on the bandwagon and start using supplemental metrics, they will fai] to deliver the additional capacity needed in the future, he asserted. L&B Airport Survey Rob Adams, senior project manager for Landrum & Brown, said that a triennial survey of airport noise mitigation programs shows that nighttime noise is the primary impact that airports are trying to reduce. Nearly all of the top 50 U.S. airports and selected interna- tional airports included in the L&B survey have some type of ground engine run-up restrictions, he told the conference. A comparison of survey data from 2001 and 2004, shows an increase in airport noise monitoring systems. In 2001, 67 percent of airports responding to the survey had noise monitoring systems, compared to 70 percent in the 2004 survey. These systems had, on average, 16 permanent noise monitors and two portable monitors. A comparison of survey data also shows that the average cost of residential sound insulation has increased slightly from $26,900 in 2001 to $27,500 in 2004 and thatthe average cost of insulating schools was $1.5 million. The surveys found that 30 airports have done at least one Part 150 airport noise compatibility program, up from 26 in 2001. One half of airports surveyed in 2004 had also updated their Part 150 studies. Airport Noise Report C March 16, 2007 The L&M surveys found a decrease in the average size of the 65 DNL contour and number of homes in it between 2001 and 2004. The average size of the 65 DNL contour was 15 square miles and it included 8,800 homes in 2001; compared to 12 square miles and 5,000 homes in 2004. But Adams said that decrease is due to the phase out of Stage 2 aircraft, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the in- creased use of regional jets. Operating levels are starting to rebound, he said, and the airlines are moving to larger regional jets, which will begin pushing noise contours out again. FAA Forecast, from p. 30 are anticipated to increase 2.8 percent this year, while enplanements are expected to increase even faster, up 3.6 percent. FAA said that the average size of domestic aircraft also is expected to increase this year by 0.3 seats to 120.5 seats. "Network carriers are reconfiguring their domestic fleets to increase the number of seats, while low-cost carriers with relatively smalier aircraft sizes continue to grow at a faster rate. The result is a slight decrease in overall aircraft size for the mainline carrier group in aggregate. While demand for 70-90 seat aircraft continues to increase, we expect that the number of 50 seat regional jets in service wil] continue to fall, increasing the average regional aircraft in 2007 by 0.8 seats to 50.8 seats per mile." FAA predicted that domestic passenger trip length will decrease by seven miles in 2007 as network carrier trip length remains steady while trip length in the growing low- cost carrier sector falls. For the first time since 2000, FAA said, the commercial aviation industry has returned to profitability as decreases in capacity coupled with increases in fares offset rising fuel prices. In terms of general aviation, FAA said it expects that segment of the industry to receive a boost from the certifica- tion ofthe new Very Light Jets (VLJ's), relatively inexpen- sive iwin-engine microjets that may redefine "on-demand" air taxi service. FAA predicted that, in 2008, 350 microjets will join the fleet with that number growing to 400-500 per year through 2020. FAA said that, partly as a result of an influx of the new microjets, the number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase by an average of 3.4 percent per year through 2020. The full FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2007-2020 is available at the agency website (www.faa.gov). In Brief ... � DanburyMunicipalPart 150Approved The Federal Aviation Admanistration announced March 8 that it has approved all three proposed measures in an update ofthe Part 150 AirportNoise Compatibility Program for Danbury Municipal Airport in Danbury, CT. The three measures were all administrative in nature: a pilot 32 education program, community outreach efforts, and future updates of noise exposure maps. But FAA said that various noise abatement and land use measures already approved in the 1987 Part 150 program for the airport were restated in the agency's Record of Approval for the program. For further information, contact Richard Douchette in FAA's New England Region Airports Division; tel: (781) 238-7613. Laredo Int'I Part 150 Under Review The FAA announced March 8 that it currently is reviewing the proposedPart 150 AirportNoise Cornpatibility Program for Laredo (T'X) International Airport and that its review will be cornpleted by Aug. 21. Further information is a�ailable from Paul Blackford in the Airports Division of FAA's Fort Worth, TX, office; tei: (817) 222-5607. Miami-Dade CountyHonored The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) announced March 12 that the Miami-Dade County Aviation Department has received the association's 2007 Jay Hollingsworth Speas Airport Award. The award, established in 1984 and co-sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives and the Airports Consultants Council, is presented to the person or persons "judged to have contributed most outstandingly during the recent past towards achieving compatible relationships between airports and/or heliports and adjacent environments." The Miami-Dade County Aviation Department was recognized, "For collaboration with Miami-Dade County o�cials to create the Miami-Dade County Height and Land Use Zoning Ordinance for Miami International Airport which promotes compatible land use around the Airport, provides for the safe and economical placement of educational facilities, and protects the quality of life for the public through an innovative partnership with local agencies and other entities in the community." For further information, contact AIAA Honors and Awards attel: (703) 264-7623 or at carols@aiaa.org. LongAppointed FAA ChiefCounsel The Department of Transportation announced March 9 that President Bush has appointed Kerry B. Long to serve as chief counsel for the FAA. As chief counsel, Long will serve as top legal advisor to FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey overseeing a staff of 258 employees located in FAA's Washington, DC, head- quarters as well as at 11 field offices. Long has served as partner for some of the nation's top aviation law firms. Prior to his appointment, he was a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. in Washington, DC, beginning in March 2001. There he represented airlines and aircraft and engine manufacturers, focusing on aircraft financing. He also served as a partner at Perkins Coie L.L.P. in Washington, Airport Noise Report March 16, 2007 33 ANR E�I,ro�AL DC, from 1989 to 2000. Long began his lega( career at White & Case L.L.P. in A��SORy $o.�.� NewYorkfrom 1980to 1985. He received his law degree magna cum laude in May 1980 from Cornell Law School and his undergraduate degree at Colgate University in 1972. Prior to JohnJ.Corbett,Esq. his legal career, he rose to the rank of lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, serving Spiegel & McDiarmid from September 1972 to August 1977. Washington, DC Carl E. Surleson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration Joho C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance Carisbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver 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 Santa Clara County Seeks Firm to Install NOMS The County of Santa Clara, CA, is soliciting proposals for alloise and Operations Monitoring System (NOMS) for Reid-Hillview Airport (RHV ) in San Jose, California, procurement#07-01. The goal of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is to acquire a new PC-based system which will include, but not be limited to: a central computer for overall system control and monitoring; noise event data collection, analysis and storage; a passive flight tracking system; six permanent and three portable noise monitors; meteorological monitoring; a public display system, and radio band monitoring and recording. The selected vendor also wili provide instailation, testing, and training. Those interested in responding to the RFP may obtain a free copy of the solicitation by calling 408-592-1024, or faac the Santa Clara County Airports at 408-929-8617. Copies of the RFP also are available at http://www.sccgov.org/ portal/site/scc/. Questions regarding the RFP should be directed to ken.betts@rda.sccgov.org. HMMH Course Includes Version 7 of INM The upcoming Integrated Noise Modei Training Course offered by the acoustical consulting fum Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (H[MMH) will feature a pre-release opportunity for users to learn about INM Version 7. "We are very excited that FAA has offered I�[MMH the opporiunity to showcase the new version just prior to its release," said Mary Ellen Eagan, H[MIvIIi's president and developer of the firm's INM course. "There are severai features that will be of interest to users, including new data base formats, incorporation of helicopters, and several new computa- tional algorithms. We have entirely updated our course to reflect these changes to the model," Eagan said. T'he course will be held April 18-20 at the Port of Portland, Oregon. The two and one-half day course will cover the basic steps necessary to develop noise contours using the INM, Version 7. The course includes short lectures and hands-on sessions. The I�[MMH training course will give new users a firm understanding ofthe INM and wili provide experienced users rapid profi- ciency with the new model. Additional information and registration is availabie online at: www.hmmh.com/'uun.himl. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published44 times ayearat 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$850. 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 34 � }I �I .I ' ` � ?�r' i I A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 19, Number9 March 23, 2007 Centennia[ Airport � •� � �.�, ,�� :�i � � � �ii � � ., Facing strong opposition by officials of Centennial Airport, Arapahoe County, CO, and the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), two local develop- ers gave up efforts to construct a large residential project on a 380-acre parcel of unincorporated land near the airport where homes currently are not aliowed. The land – located 1,600 feet to the east of Centennial's runways — currently is zoned for industrial and commercial use and an agreement between the county and the land owners bars residential development on the site because of its proximity to the airport. The firms — Armstrong Capital Development and 7353 Investments — wanted the City of Centennial, CO, to annex the land and rezone it to aliow construction of their development, called Tanterra at Centennial, which would have included 1,615 residential units as weil as 500,000 square feet of retail and office space. But, on March 5, the development firms withdrew their proposal for a pre- annexation agreement that would have paved the way for the Tanterra Develop- ment after airport officials asked the City Council for a vote on the project. On March l, just prior to the City Council meeting, NBAA issued an action alert (Continued on p. 3S) Pal`n Beach Int'I TRUMP, CITY OF WEST PAL1Vg B�ACH VOW 'i'O FIGH"�" EX�['ENSIOlV OF I2imTVVAY Real Estate mogul Donald Trump has joined officials and residents of the City of West Palm Beach, FL and the Town of Palrn Beach in vowing to fight the pro- posed extension of a general a�iation runway at Palm Beach International Airport from 3,210 feet to 8,000 feet to accommodate commercial jet operations. The Federal Aviation Administration recently began an environmental impact study of the runway extension project which airport officials say is needed to reduce congestion and delay at the airport by creating a parallet runway system where one runway would be used for takeoffs and the other for landings. The parallel runway system would allow the airport to atmost double its capacity. In 2006, the airport handled 193,000 flights and that number is expected to grow to 246,000 by 2020. Without the runway extension, operational delays are projected to grow to as long as 20 minutes by 2018. With the runway extension, delays are projected at only 2.5 minutes. Under the $69 million project, the airport's third, crosswind, runway would be shortened from 6,932 feet tA 4,000 feet so that it would not intersect the parallel runways. Neighborhoods east of the airport would be the most impacted by the runway extension and are joining forces to fight the project. They said recently that they (Continued on p. 35) I�Z TIZIS ISSIie... Airspace Redesig�e ... FA.A. announces its preferred alternative for the massive redesign ofthe airspace in tl�eNY/N7/Philadel- phia area. The agency plans in a few weeks to issue a noise mitigation strategy documentthat will detail its plans to reduce some' oftheincreasednoiseimpactthe ' alternativewill cause-p. 36 ' Centennial ... Developers drop attemptto build over 1,600 homes nearthe runways at one of the busiest corporate jet airports in the country - p. 34 Palm Beacri Int't ... Donald Trump joins forceswithofficials of WestPalrmBeach and Palm Beach to oppose extension of GArunwayto allow use by commercial jets =p. 34 News Briefs ... Court allows FAA to begin using new flight path atLas VegasMcCarranInt'1 that isunder legal challenge ... PARTNER announces collabora tion with a similar consortium of British universities called Omega ... Efforts underwaytobuild an all-cargo airport in northeastern Pennsylvania... TRB seekstofill pasitions for seniorprogram officers in its Cooperative Re- searchProgram�Division, includ- ing the Airport Program - p. 36 March 23 2007 �5 to the general aviation community that uses Centennial Airport – located near Denver and one of the busiest corporate aviation airports in the couniry — urging them to voice opposition to the project. "Clearly, the tand in close proximity to the airport is restricted for good reason and should remain so," said NBAA Senior Vice President for Operations Steve Brown. "This would literaily expose thousands of new residents to a lot of noise, and that translates into noise complaints," said NBAA Southwest Regional Representative Steve Hadley. Officials of Centennial Airport and Arapahoe County were staunchly opposed to the project on the grounds that it would hurt the airport's long-term viability and its potential to benefit the city's economy and would set the stage for increased noise complaints. However, officials ofArmstrong Capital Development contended that Tanterra would be located within acceptable noise levels for residential development near the airport and would not threaten the airport's viability. They also argued that their deveiopment would bring in more ta�c revenue to the City of Centennial, attract more residents to the city, and clean up an area of unincorporated land that is becoming an eyesore. Centennial Mayor Randy Pye expressed concern about the extent of residential development proposed in the Tanterra development but said he has to weigh the option of leaving the land unincorporated and having no control over it against having control of the land with some residential development on it. The mayor said his biggest fear "is that someone else will came in with more outdoor storage and barbed wire and really shoddy-looking deve]opment," the Rocky Mountain News reported. Airport InfluenceArea Robert Olislagers, executive director of Centennial Airport, told ANR that airport officials will now sit down with city and county officials to see what needs to be done to develop the land near the airport compatibly. Airport officials are fearful that some other developer wili come back to the city in the future and try to get its ap- proval of another large residential development. While the proposed Tanterra development was located beyond Centennial's 55 DNL noise contour, it was entirely within the airport's Airport Influence Area, one of the most carefully drawn in the country, he said. The Airport Influence Area was established in the early 1980s and the boundaries set in the late 1980s with input from the Department of Defense (because of a nearby Air Force Base) and the Federat Aviation Administration. The boundaries were set based on various noise and accident criteria, inciuding tr�c patterns, single event noise levels, and traffic interaction with other airports. The Airport Influence Area is very large and goes weli beyond Centennial's noise contours, Olislagers explained. The entire area is zoned industrial and commercial. The airport has offered to sit down with the city and county and take another ]ook at the boundaries to determine if they are still relevant and to sea if there is any kind of opporlunity for mixed use development that would include some residential, such as apartments or affordable housing. The City of Centennial is only six years old and it set its tax rates too low, so it is having difficulty meeting its service costs, Olislagers said. Retail and residential development would increase the city's revenue. In the end, even city o�cials reaiized that the deal with the Tanterra developers was not a good one, he said. The developers offered the city cash for a pre-annexatipn agreement that wouid have allowed them to purchase the property for Tanterra with no public process, and with no requirement for avigation easements or disclosure of noise impacts. The agreement was written by a well-known land use attorney and included just about everything that the airport did not want to see, Olislagers said. It even exempted the developer from having to pay for infrastructure costs and wouid have required the city to reimburse the developer for the entire acquisition if enough of the homes in the develop- ment did not sell. Even homeowners associations opposed the agreement, he said, because they are well aware of the probiems with aircraft noise impact. Palm Beach, from p. 30 may hire legal counsel to represent them and may conduct their own environmental study of the project. The FAA conducted a public scoping meeting on the project on Feb. 27 and gave the public 30 days to comment on it. Trump, a part-time Palm Beach resident and star of the NBC television series The Apprentice, owns a property near the airport called Mar-a-Lago, which has been designated as a National Historic Landmark but is used as a private club. Airport o�ciais said the EIS will determine whether the runway extension will increase the noise impact on Trump's property. Trump has battled the airport in the past over planes flying over Mar-a-Lago. Earlier in March, his attorney, Lewis F. Crippen of West Paim Beach, asked the airport for flight path data which it has provided. Trump has been unrelenting in his criticism of Bruce Pelly, director of Airports for Palm Beach County: "Anything involving Bruce Pelly is in my opinion going to turn out poorly. He shouldn't be allowed to run a doghouse, let alone an airport" is just one insult The Donald has lobbed at Pelly. Pelly declined to respond to any of Trump's remarks. But airport officials were criticized by the newly-selected chairman ofthe Citizens Committee on AirportNoise, a country advisory board, for not giving them a heads up on the runway extension project. Paul Agnew, a senior captain with JetBlue Airways who lives in the airport's flight path, Airport Noise Report �� March 23, 2007 said Pelly did not inform the committee about the airport extension project. Pelly said the citizens committee shouid have been included in talks with another group, the Aviation and Airports Advisory Board, which was informed that the runway e�ctension project woald be praposed. NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign . . I� I ') , , I �.► �:' ��i I I I 1'D In a long-awaited announcement, the Federal Aviation Administration said March 23 that its preferred alternative for implernenting the massive redesign of the airspace in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia area is the Integrated Airspace Alternative, an ambitious plan opposed by many communities and local governments because it will have substantial noise impact in some areas. The Integrated Airspace Alternative is one of four alternatives considered in a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the project, which covers five states and 31,000 square miles. The agency said its preferred alternative would "combine high-altitude and low-altitude airspace to create more efficient arrival and departure routes." "This new concept in airspace design will help us handle the rapidly growing number of flights in the Northeast in a much more efficient way," said FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "This airspace has been unchanged since the 1960s, and we need to look at creative new ways to avoid delays: ' The Integrated Airspace Alternative would save an estimated 12 miliion minutes of delay annually for the four major metropolitan airports: Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, and Philadelphia, the agency said. FAA said it expects to publish the Final EIS on the project sometime this summer and will hold a series of five informa- tionai meetings (one in each of the five states affected by the redesign) in late April and early May to discuss noise mitigation associated with the preferred alternative. The FAA said it expects to issue a Record of Decision on the project in late summer. The agency plans to put a video on its web site today (www.faa.gov) that addresses the airspace redesign broadly and it also plans to issue within the next several weeks a noise mitigation strategy document for the airspace redesign which will propose measures to mitigate the noise impact of its preferred alternative. Those mitigation measures include using departure headings only at certain times of day or when demand exceeds certain leveis; using RNAV satellite technology to focus planes more tightly on flight tracks; moving some flight tracks over less populated areas; and using Continu- ous Descent Approaches at night. However, these mitiga- tion measures would not be used across the board at all airports impacted by the airspace redesign. The CDA approach is being considered only atNewark and Philadel- 36 phia lnternational, for instance. Westchester County, NY, and Delaware County, PA, have threatened to sue the FAA over the airspace redesign because of the increased noise impacts their communities will receive because of the new flight paths and spreading of traffic that the Integrated Airspace Alternative entails. Eariier in March, the Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) listened to the concerns of Delaware County officials about the airspace revision and to a presentation by an expert panel assembled by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who represents the county and is seeking to avoid iitigation over the issue. Costello said he would give serious attention to those concerns. The FAA did not make its announcement regarding its preferred alternative unti12:30 p.rn. today so responses by communities and lawmakers to the agency's decision will be reported in next week's issue of ANR. NJ Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D) and Robert Menendez (D), however, reportedly have already issued statements saying they still have serious concerns with the FAA's preferred alternative. In Brief ... CourtRejectsFlightPath Motion On March 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a rnotion by the City of Las Vegas to bar the Federal Aviation Administration from instituting a new flight path at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport pending the court's consideration of the city's challenge of FAA's approval of the flight path change. The same day, the FAA began using the new flight path, which it says is needed to increase efficiency at the airport. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman called FAA's action "arrogant " In January, the city challenged FAA's approval of a"rigl�t turn" departure path at McCarran that will send, on average, 127 planes a day on a 180 degree turn over densely popu- ]ated areas in the northwestern part of the city and over parts of downtown Las Vegas (19 ANR 1). It is concerned that the new departure path wili increase noise and decrease safety by putting aircraft over densely-populated areas. Umega/PARTNER Collaboration The U.S. research consortium of universities and aero- space cornpanies known as PARTNER announced in its latest newsletter that it will collaborate with the United Kingdom's Omegaresearch consortium, amulti-disciplinary partnership of ]eading acadernics from nine UK universities based at Manchester Metropolitan University. Omegawas formed in 2006 by the British government to study the environrnental, business, and operational impacts of aviation and to develop strategies to reduce environmen- tal impacts and business risk (http://www.omega.mmu.ac.uk). W ith initial government funding of the equivalent of $9.8 Airport Noise Report .,� . , t March 23, 2007 37 ANR EDITo�AL miilion, Omega "will link the universities, government, industry, and advocacy groups in a common goal to foster knowledge transfer from research center to � ��SD�y Bi�� indushy to ensure aviation can grow in an environmentally sustainable say," PART'NERexpiained. John J. Corbett,Esq. "This is an important step forward in our commitment to align U.S. and Spiegel & McDiarmid international aviation-related environmental research," said Dr. Ian Waitz, Washington, DC directorofPART'NER. Last fall, PARTNER signed a"statement of common understanding" with C Diraot ouOffice of Environment and Energy Europe's Environmentally Compatible Air Transport System to collaborate on Federai Aviation Administration research to develop tools on which to base environmentat policy. T'he latest PARTNER newsletter is available at http://mit.edu/aeroastro/partner. John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Mic6aet Scott Gatzke, Esq. Gatzke, Dilion & Ballance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver 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 Pennsylvania Cargo Airport At what was described as a sometimes contentious hearing, residents of Hazleton, PA, in the northeast part of the state, debated the merits of a plan to build a$1.6 billion cargo-only airport in abandoned mining land southwest of the city. The Luzerne County Commissioners held the March 14 hearing to get community input on a plan to create an airport authority (the Luzerne County Authority) to consiruct and manage the new cargo airport on a 4,300-acre tract of land in Luzerne and Schuylkill counties. The plan for the airport calls for a 13,000-foot runway and 4,533 employees. It is expected to create 161,000 ancillary jobs in the economically-depressed area. The airport has been proposed by Gladstone Partners, a firm that includes the former mayor of Hazleton Mike Marsicano and its ciTy solicitor. Critics of the project include George Doughty, director of Lehigh Valley International Airport, near Harrisburg, PA. Doughty has questioned whether there is enough demand at this point to support the all-cargo airport, which Gladstone Partners hopes will handle cargo operations for the northeastern part of the counhy. Doughty said it would make better sense to wait until the capacity at New York City area airports is completely saturated. Funding for the airport is another issue. Gladstone Partners said it will not seek FAA funding of the $1.6 billion project because it takes too long, although it is seeking funding from the state. ACRP Position Clpen The Transportation Research Board (TRB) announced that it is recruiting for two full-time Senior Program Officers in its Cooperative Research Programs Division. One position will manage research projects in the Airport Coopera- tive Research Program (ACRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). The second position will manage research projects in the National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) and Hazardous Materials CooperativeResearch Program (HMCRP). Questions regarding the positions may be directed to Chris Jenks (cjenks@nas.edu) ortel: (202) 334-3089 or to Crawford Jencks (cj encks@nas.edu) ortel: (202) 3341430. .AIRPORT NO�SE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published44 times ayearat 43978 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$850. Authorization to photocopy items for internai or personal use, or the internai 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 Gopyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. '� � 38 � � � -rv � =, , . - .- � , . , �. , ; � - ,.� _ as� � �� . �, � �_ �� .. � � � ._. . A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 19, Number 10 March 30, 2007 Reauthorization AVIATION SUBCOMIVVJ[I'I'TEE IJRGEl) TO PI�ASE OUT STAGE l, 2 BUSINESS JETS A coalition of airports, local governments, and citizens groups asked the House Aviation Subcommittee March 28 to consider legislation it has developed that would mandate the phase out of all Stage 1 and 2 business jets within three years of enactment but would exclude airports that want to allow such aircraft to continue operating. Robert L. Bogan, deputy director of Morristown Municipal Airport, spoke on behalf of Sound Initiative: A Coalition for Quieter Skies, which represents 21 airports, 13 homeowners groups, and three governmental bodies. "Our goal is to encourage you to complete the job this Committee started in 1990 by phasing out all noisy Stage 1 and 2 aircraft," Bogan said. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA), approved by Congress in 1990, required the phase out of heavier Stage 2 jets weighing over 75,000 Ib. but allowed Stage 1 and 2 jet aircraft under that weight to continue operating. Today, such Stage 1 and 2 aircraft comprise about 13.5 percent of jet aircraft weighing less than 75,000 lb. but account for the majority of noise complaints at airports where they operate, Bogan told the Subcommittee. (Continued on p. 39) Airspace Redesign . . ■� ' . �' ; � . � � � ' � , • , � � ., � � Facing congressmen who are ready to go to court or try to block funding for the Federal Aviation Administration's controversial plan to redesign the airspace over five states in the Northeast, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey agreed to meet with members of Congress the week of April 16 to discuss their concerns. The meeting was announced March 27 by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) following a conversation he had with Blakey that was arranged by Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), who also has expressed concern about the impact of the project. Sestak wants the FAA to delay its ambitious airspace redesign project to address issues of noise impact and inadequate noise modeling identified by an expert advisory panel convened by the congressmen. A short delay, he told the FAA administrator, is preferably to the lengthier delay that litigation would entail. Blakey agreed to meet with Rep. Sestak, his expert advisory panel, and other members of Congress, including Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.n, who is in the early stages of developing legislatian with Sestak to address what they contend is a failed process that FAA used in the airspace redesign study. The legislation, which could be attached to the FAA reauthorization bill, is intended to ensure that the FAA airspace redesign process addresses concerns (Continued on p. 39) It2 Tl2ls .�Ssue... Stage 2 Phaseout ... A coalition ofairports, citizen groups, and governrnental bodies urgestheHouseAviation Sub- comrnitteeto "completethe job" it began in 1990 with ANCA and require phaseout of Stage 1 and 2 jets under 75,000 lb. - p. 38 Airspace Redesign ... After threats of litigation and funding bans, FAAAdministratoragrees to meet with congressmen op- posedto agency's preferred plan forredesigning airspace over five- state area of Northeast - p. 3 8 Minneapolis-St. Paullnt'l ... Judgerefusesta dismiss class action lawsuit over eXtent of sound insulationprogram;trial set for May 7- p. 40 News Briefs ... Noise Advi- sory Comnnitteevotes notto require disclosure ofnoise im- I pacts near Witham Field ... AmericanAirlines accelerates ', order of quieter 737-800s to begin replacing MD-80s ... FAA orders airtra�c controllersto get refresher training on river noise abatement corridor at Washington National ... PANYNJ loses two good noise men to retirement ... Mayor Arlene Mulder honored forcontributions inaddressing noise, emissions impacts - p. 40 March 30, 2007 He called on Congress "to complete the job it started in 1990 and phase out all noisy aircraft regardless of how much they weigh:' A recent study at Morristown Municipal showed that there would be a significant reduction in airport noise contours if only Stage 3 6usiness jets were aliowed into the airport. He stressed that other airports do not have the funds to "take on the system" the way Naples Airport in Florida did by seeking to bar the operation of non-Stage 3 business jets by enacting a restriction through the FAA's Part 161 cost/ benefit analysis process. Naples "spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultant studies to teli it what it already knew about the need to reduce aircraft noise. VJhen the airport instituted resfictions based on the Part 161 study, the airport lost funding under the federal Airport Improvement grant program. In the end, Naples successfully defended the lawsuits against it and did succeed in banning noisy aircraft at its airport. But it cost more than three million dollars, money that could have been better spent on safety or security project " "I can assure you that other airports do not have the funds to take on the system the way that Naples did," Bogan told the Subcommittee. "Rather than attempt to develop an airport-by-airport solution which has yet to be achieved even once by the Part 161 process, we believe a lasting, long-term and nationwide sotution to the aircraft noise problem can only come from Congress." Other 1Vofse Issues Addressed Several other issues relating to aircraft noise were ad- dressed at the March 28 Aviation Subcommittee hearing, which focused on Airport Improvement Program (A.IP) provisions of the FAA reauthorization proposal. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) said that the proposal would make a change to a grant assurance regarding the sale of land that an airport initially acquired for noise compatibility purposes but is no longer needed for that purpose. Current law requires that the proceeds proportional to the federal government's share of the land acquisition be returned to the aviation trust fund. The reauthorization proposal would a11ow the Deparfxnent of Transportation to reinvest the govemment's share of the proceeds in another project at that airport or another airport. AAAE said that airport executives "are concerned that the Administration's proposal does not resolve the question about what happens if an airport leases land initially acquired for a noise compatibility purpose. We would like to work with this subcommittee to address that omission: ' ExpandingPFC Eligibility Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the full Trans- portation and Infrastructure Committee, said at the outset of the hearing that he has reservations about the Administration's proposai to expand eligibility for the types 39 . of projects that can be funded with revenue from Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) because it could result in less funding of sorely-needed capacity projects. But John Clark, executive director and CEO of the Jackson- ville Aviation Authority, said he sfirongly supports revising FAA guidelines regarding which projects qualify for PFC funding. "Local airport authorities need more latitude when making decisions on land acquisitions for future runways, creative capacity enhancement projects and noise/environmental abatement initiatives," he told the subcommittee. "The FA.A's existing cookie-cutter approach to these types of local initiatives does not allow for the flexibility needed when dealing with unique issues at individual airports: ' Asked to expand on his concerns, Clark said that the Jacksonville Aviation Authority was unable to use PFC revenue to purchase land needed for a new runway because the current runway was not at 65 percent capacity as required under FAA guidelines. The airport authority was seeking to purchase the land before a developer put 15,000 new homes near Jacksonvilie International Airport, he toid the subcom- mittee. We needed to buy that land to protect the airport's future, whether we got a PFC or not, he said. Airspace, from p. 38 on "citizens' safety, heath, education, and property values," Sestak said in a press release. Blakey's decision to meet with members of Congress on the airspace redesign project follows FAA's March 23 an- nouncement that its preferred alternative for the project is the one most opposed by communities in the project area because it will have the most noise impact. That announcement sparked a series of sharp rebukes by local officials and congressmen. NJ Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D) and Robert Menendez (D) asserted in a letter to Blakey that the FA.A's preferred alternative for the airspace redesign will force scores of New Jerseyans "to have their lives interrupted and further burdened with the nuisance of ha�ing more noise from aircraft flying over their homes and businesses." Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), said he opposed the FAA's preferred alternative because it would increase noise over Fairfield County, CT. "Until the FAA can develop a noise- mitigation strategy that actually mitigates noise in our region, I will continue to oppose this alternative." In a warning to FAA, Shays said, "Even if the FAA makes its fina] decision to implement this alternative, Congress still must decide whether to fund these plans. I would actively oppose any future funding to implement an airspace redesign that adversely impacts Fairfield County: ' The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said, "While the FAA chose the best of the four options for airspace redesign in the region, it did not take full advanta.ge of this rare opporiunity to significantly reduce delays for travelers and mitigate noise. The Port Authority is purchas- ing an entire airport to help address air traffic issues, and we Airport Noise Report i. � � � ; �' — � March 30, 2007 would like to have seen the FAA be just as aggressive. For example, we recommended using routes over the Hudson River and Long Island Sound that would have further reduced delays and noise impacts, but that was dismissed." The New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NJCAAN) vowed to fight the redesign and earlier said it would litigate over it as did Westchester County, NY. The Integrated Airspace Alternative selected by the FAA as its preferred alternative in an environmental impact study on the project is a new concept in airspace design that promises to reduce congestion and delay but involves adding new flight paths and fanning aircraft on departure, which will increase noise impact on many communities in the study area. The FAA plans within the next few weeks to issue a noise mitigation strategy document detailing the steps it would take to mitigate the noise impact of its preferred aiternative. However, the agency has been criticized for not considering noise irnpact at the outset of the airspace project instead of dealing with it at the end when fewer noise mitigation options are possible. Minneapolis-S� Paullnt'l JUDGE REFTJSES TO IDISMISS MSP CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Thousands of homeowners engaged in a class action lawsuit over the e�ctent of the residential sound insulation program atMinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will get their day in court in light of a state court judge's decision to allow the case to proceed to triai on May 7. Hennepin County (MN) District Judge Stephen Aldrich on March 28 denied a motion filed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), proprietor ofthe airport, for a surnmary judgment dismissing the case. The homeowners alleged in their lawsuit that the MAC had agreed, as a condition of expanding MSP International at its current location rather than moving the airport to a greenfield site, to expand its sound insulation program to include homes in the airport's 60-64 DNL noise contour and to provide the full sound insulation package that hornes in the 65 DNL and higher contours have received. The homeowners contend in their lawsuit that there was both an implied and express contract with the MAC to expand its residential sound insulation program to cover their homes and to provide the full insulation package. In his order, Judge Aldrich said it would be left up to a jury at the May 7 trial to determine whether an implied or express contract regarding the extension of the MAC's sound insulation program. But he held that normal contract rules do apply between government entities, such as airport propri- etors, and private parties. The MAC said it was disappointed with the judge's decision and was ready to prove in court that it had fulfilled its obligations to homeowners regarding the extent of sound insulation. The MAC wants to provide only air conditioning 40 to homes in the 60-64 DNL contour and to require homeowners to pay part of that cost. Homeowners were thrilled with the judge's ruling and accused the MAC of changing its rnind about extending its residential sound insulation program after the airport was expanded. On Jan. 25, Judge Aldrich held in a related lawsuit over the extent of the MSP sound insulation, filed by the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, and Eagan, that the MAC had made an enforceable commitment to extend it full sound insulation package to homeowners in the 60-64 DNL contour of MSP International (19, ANR 17). But his ruling addressed only part of that case. On March 21, the judge listened to final arguments regarding a final question he had not ruled on earlier: whether the MAC has an obligation to provide the sound insulation as a result of its impairment of quietude under the Minnesota Environmen- tal Rights Act (MERA). John Putnam of the Denver firm Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell argued that a violation of MERA is "any conduct that materially adversely" affects quietude, including "severe and recurrent aircraft noise events." Thaddeus Lightfoot, the MAC's attorney, asserted that that the cities have no clairn under MERA because noise levels around the airport have been dropping in recent years. Following that final argument, Judge Aldrich urged the cities and the MAC to reach a negotiated settlement on the matter rather than seeking a ruling from him. "It's the silliest thing in the world" to ask a judge to run an airport, Aldrich said, adding that a worse scenario would be for the state Legislature to step into the matter. In Srief ... No Disclosure at Martin County The Martin County Noise Advisory Committee voted unanimously March 22 not to require homeowners to disclose to prospective buyers of their homes that they live near general aviation Witham Field, the focus of consider- able noise complaints and some noise litigation. Airport noise consultant Lisa Waters had argued that requiring disclosure could help the county defend itself in noise lawsuits or could discourage such suits. But some committee members said they did want to take away residents' right to sue the airport. Martin County Comrnissioners will have the final vote on whether to require disclosure. American Accelerates Orders for 737s American Airlines said it plans to accelerate deliveries of 47 new Boeing 737-800 aircraft so that it can begin replacing 300 MD-80s. American wil l receive the first three 73 7-800s in early 2009, which is seven years ahead of schedule. The remaining new planes are expected to be delivered in the 2009-2012 timeframe, insteadof2013-2016. Airport Noise Report March 30, 2007 41 ANl2 EDITOI�:IA]L "�ile the MD-80 remains an excellent aircraft that serves us and our A� VISOR,Y B�A� customers well, the new 737s will be a great addition to our fleet that will lower our operationa] costs, boost the fuel efFiciency of our fleet and also bolster our efforts to lower emissions and noise levels," said AMR Corp. Chairman John J. Corbett, Esq. and CEO Gerard Arpey. American estimates that the 737 consumes 25 percent Spiegel & McDiarmid less fuel per available seat mile than an MD-80. Washington, DC Carl E. Burleson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Charles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Cmtzke, Dillon & Ballance Cazlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Laguna Niguel, CA Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consuitants Seattle Retraining Ordered forNoise AbatementPath The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered air traffic controllers to receive quarterly refresher training courses on procedures to keep aircraft over the Potomac River noise abatement corridor used for arrivais and departures at Washington Reagan National Airport. The FAA order follows complaints by residents of McLean, VA, a wealthy suburb near the flight path of Reagan Nationai, which got the ear of Rep. Frank Wolf(R-VA). FAA told Wolf that tower managers at the airport and officials of the Mefropolitan Washington Airports Authority met with chief pilots of the airlines serving National last week to discuss the importance of following the river corridor flight path. The McLean Citizens Association had conducting noise monitoring indicating that noise over the community had steadily increased since the terrorist attached of 9/11, when federai buildings on the north side of the Potomac River were put in a no fly zone. Two Retire from PANYIVJ The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is losing two noise experts to retirement: Frank S. Woodruff, senior airport engineer in the Aircraft Noise Unit; and Rudy Steinthal, noise abatement manager for Teterboro Airport. After 15 years of service as an environmental scientist to the Port Authority in the Engineering Department and later in the Aviation Department, Woo- druffwill retire on March 31. Steinthal left the Port Authority on March 26 after over 50 years of employ- ment in the civil aviation indushy. He plans to do consulting in his retirement and can be reached at rfsteinthal@verizon.net and rudlucy@juno.ocm. Marcelo Morelli will serve as the interim noise abatement manager at Teterboro. He can be reached atmmorelli@teb.com; tel: (201) 393-4084. IO�ulder �l[ono��ed at Noise Symposium Mayor Arlene J. Mulder of Arlington Heights, IL, chair ofthe O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission, was selected by participants at the University of California Aviation Noise and Air Quality Symposium to receive the 2007 Gillfillan Award which recognized her contributions in addressing aircraft noise and emissions impacts. The symposium was held March 4-7 in San Francisco. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne H. Kohut, Publisher Published 44 times ayear at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, V a. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FA�: (703) 729-4528. e-mail:editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price$850. 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. �,