02-14-2007 ARC Packet1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
February 14, 2007 — City Council Chambers
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3.
4.
5.
�
Q
Approval of the Minutes from the January 10, 2007 Airport Relations Commission
Meetings.
Unf nished and New Business:
a. Introduction of Ansis Viksnins
b. Discussion of Chad Leqve's letter to FAA
c. Discussion of 12R Reconstruction
d. Discussion of New Legislation
e. NOC Meeting Update (Uitan/Liz)
f. Updates for Introduction Book
Acknowled�e Receint of Various Renorts/Corresnondence:
a. N.O.I.S.E.
b. December 2006 ANOM Technicai Advisor's Report
c. December 2006 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor
Analysis
d. Airport Noise Report, January 12, 2006.
e. Airport Noise Report, January 19, 2007.
f. Airport Noise Report, January 26, 2007.
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
Uncomin� Meetin�s
City Council Meeting
NOC Meeting
MAC Meeting
8. Public Comments
9. Adiourn
2-20-07 - 7:30
3-21-07 - 1:30
2-20-07 - 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 malce
every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTX, NIINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COn�IlVIISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2007
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room at City Ha11,
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
The following Commissioners were present: Liz Petschel, Chair; Vern Edstrom, Robin
Ehxlich, Brian Li�uiihan, Dave Sloan, and Ellsworth Stein.
Also present were: Jim Danielson, City Administrator; Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the
City Administrator; and Mary Heintz, Recorder.
Not Present: Bill Dunn, Coznmissioner.
Chair Petschel opened the meeting and requested the addition of AR.0 Appointments to
the agenda.
Apuroval of Minutes
Chair Petschel requested amendments to the submitted meeting minutes:
• October 11, 2006 -- Change "operation" to "operations" in the first line of the first
paragraph under B. Runway 12L Departure Numbers.
• November 22, 2006 -- Change wording to "1) Ea�._a.t�/Mendota Heights corridor" in
the fourth line of the fifth paragraph on page two and add wording to "230-de ree
headin was not used" in the second line of the sixth paragraph on page seven.
A motion was made by Commissioner Edstrom, seconded by Commissioner Ellsworth, to
approve the October 11, 2006, and November 22, 2006, Airport Relations Comrnission
Meeting minutes as amended.
Unfnished and New Business
A. Legislative Workshop Update
The City Administrator reported that he and the Assistant to the City Administrator
attended a Legislative meeting in Minneapolis on Dece 18 which was well attended
by Legislators, including Minneapolis Mayor R.T. R ek, u overall was negative about
adding to MAC. He said Mayor Rybek had sugges ed•a�lalt ate plan, to totally revamp
MAC with a Twin Cities MAC focused solely on P Airport and outstate smaller
MACS throughout the State which would be focused on those areas.
Commission Meeting — Jarmary 10, 2007 -
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
He said the subject of adding to MAC had been brought before the Legislature before but
never progressed and that Minneapolis was pushing the bi11 again, which would help �
ARC. The Assistant to the City Administrator added that the plan would allow for
movernent e�ciency within the State. The subject was raised about the possibility of the
reliever airports taking on more responsibility for passengers and cargo.
Chair Petschel stated that there was a different Legislature in place now and the subject
with persistence would not die, also noting Senator James Metzen's previously-sta.ted
support. The Assistant to the City Administrator added that it was important to keep the
issue in the public eye and keep the conversation going.
The City Administrator reported that Representative Rick Hansen, at the end of the
December meeting, said he would initiate the legislation. He referenced the Airport 101
documentation that had been distributed at the meeting and said he would save the
master. Chair Petschel requested that the document be made available to nevc� ARC
rnembers and suggested that the Cornmissioners keep it in their files, as it was helpfui
information.
Commissioner Linnihan inquired about the next steps. The City Administrator responded
that it was in the Legislature's hands. The Assistant to the City Administrator suggested
that Chair Petschel send a friendly reminder to Legislators. The City Administrator
agreed to send Senator Metzen's and Representative Hansen's email addresses to the
Commissioners, for personal letters they may wish to write to them. Commissioner Sloan �
stated the importance of getting representation from outlying suburbs. �
B. Runway 17/35 Impacts Update Discussion
Chair Petschel gave an overview of the November 22 meeting and said Mr. Carl Rydeen
had confirmed that he was aware of the EIS violation but did not want to t�i planes
across 12R, which would make 12L busier and not meet Mendota Heights' promised
percentages. She said he also admitted that he'd had complete input, had signed off on
the documentation, and "could make it happen" if he wanted to.
Chair Petschel said that Mr. Rydeen's decision to not cross runways would bury Mendota
Heights. Commissioner Linnihan stated that there were other airports which crossed
runways and questioned whether Mr. Rydeen's reluctance was because it was just easier
not to. Commissioner Sloan added that was it also bureaucracy.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that large cues forced distribution of planes and the
process utilized now was to take off on the closest runways. Chair Petschel reiterated
Mayor Huber's concern that it would soon become the standard operating procedure and
rapid intervention would be needed.
(';
0
Commission Meeting — January 10, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
,`', Chair Petschel reported on Burnsville's procedures through NOC to get action on their
issues regarding 17/35. She said it had been recommended that a letter from NOC would
be taken much more seriously by MAC than a letter from the City to the Tower andlor the
FAA. Chair Petschel went on fiu�ther to say that Burnsviile had also contacted local and
national Legislators imme�%����� to inform them of the violation of the environmental
impact sta.tement and that had been non-responsive. She said Councilmember
Ultan Duggan planned to raise the issue at the next NOC meeting and Mendota Heights
had never been against carrying a fa.ir share of air noise. Chair Petschel recommended
that the focus of the City's complaint be the violation of the environmental impact
statement, rather than referring to the promised relief.
The City Administrator then cited specific information in the FAA Record of Decisions
of September 1998 documenting MAC's extensive input and signing off all the way
along.
• Page 4, FA.A Approvals —"This ROD provides final approval for the federal actions
necessary to support the construction and operation of a new carrier length runway,
designated Runway 17/35, as well as related facilities at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP).
Air Traffic. The proposed action will require that the FAA's Air Tra�c Division
-- ) expand the Class B airspace suxrounding MSP and establish new air traffic control
(,_ procedures, consistent with the information contained in the FEIS. Related Air
Tra�c actions may also involved redesign of the terminal radar appxoach conirol
(TRACOI� airspace surrounding MSP."
s Page 1 l, FAA's Role in the Dual Track Process —
"Throughout this extensive process, the FAA has monitored the methods and
procedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred alternative. The FAA assisted
in the analysis by providing guidance and advice in various technical committees.
"In addition to jointly preparing the Draft and Final EISs, the FAA has independently
reviewed and evaluated ali of the material presented in the scoping and environmental
documents, and critical portions of the material have been independently verified."
• Page 56, D. The interests of the cornmunity in or near which the project may be
located have been given fair consideration (49 USC 47106 (b) (2)) —
"This determination is supported by a long history of communication between the
MAC and the surrounding political jurisdictions, documented in the FEIS and the
beginning at the earliest project planning stages when the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process was mandated by the Minnesota Legislature.
�
Commission Meeting — January 10, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
"Through the course of preparing numerous planning and environmental studies,
providing for committee struciures and public hearings, and as a result of the State's �
legislative mandates, the participation process has remained open and available to �
interested parties. The MAC has executed agreements with surrounding communities
and special interests (historic, noise, refuse, surface transportation, etc.) in
consideration of concerns and commitments of �, i�rr�er�sted parties regarding the
proposed project. Further, the MAC is currently in the�process of adopting contracts
with affected communities regarding the planning and development of a north parallel
runway. The language in force or proposed in these contracts generally provides that
the communities will not oppose construction of the new north-south runway while
the MAC agrees to not advocate the construction of a north parallel nulway, nor
construct such a runway, for an extended time period (the actual or proposed contract
terms extend as far into the future as 2050).
"Consistent with FAA commitments made to the City of Minneapolis, MSP control
tower personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set forth
in the Dual Track Airport Pianning Process FEIS, Appendix A, page A3-17.
Therefore, tower personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 so that the runway is not used
for departures to the north and arrivals to the south; except under the following
limited circumstances, described on page A.3-17 of the FEIS (1) safety reasons; (2)
weather conditions; or (3) temporary runway closures due to snow removal, due to
construction, or due to other activities at the airport."
s Page A.3-17, Dual Track Final EIS —
"Runway use for the MSP Alternative.....Runway 12L, 7.4 percent of departures, 21.3
percent of arrivals."
Chair Petschel stated that the goal would be to coach Councilmember Duggan in advance
of the NOC meeting he will attend in late January. She expressed anger with the Corridor
Analysis numbers of nighttime flights over the City — 40% in August and 37% in
November — and said the issue needed to be raised. The Assistant to the City
Administrator noted that there had been an increase of 100 flights over the previous year.
Chair Petschel said she sensed urgency and the next steps would be to go to NOC and the
Legisiature, adding that the subject would likely be a high priority for the City Mayor and
Council, as thousands of residents in the City and surrounding areas south of 110 were
being affected. The Commissioners all agreed.
It was decided that Commissioners would communicate via email as to how the NOC
meeting goes. The City Administxator stated that he and Chair Petschel would meet with
Councilmember Duggan by the end of the week.
L�
Commission Meeting — January 10, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
' � Commissioner Linnihan suggested that a recommendation be made to the City Council
following the NOC meeting and it would be their decision to decide whether it was as
urgent as the Commission felt it was. The City Administrator added that he would bring
up the subject at the Council Workshop on February 9.
C. ARC Appointments
Chair Petschel announced Cornmissioner Edstrom's plan to resign from ARC and
appealed to Commissioners for potential candidates. Commissioner Edstrom suggested
that a Northwest Airlines pilot would be a good choice.
The City Administrator reported that the City had received names of nine applicants for
five openings and he would query all applicants about their interest in ARC. He
suggested in particular poug Hennes, vice president at St. Thomas, who Chair Petschel
was acquainted with and who, she said, would be a wonderful addition.
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
The Assistant to the City Administrator reported that John Roszak had spent four hours
the previous Saturday assisting him in going through and merging extensive files from
various administrators. He invited any interested Comzriissioners to assist them in the
next session, scheduled for January 13 at 9 a.m. in the lower level of City Hall.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked for insight in how to make sense of the
previously-distributed capital improvement budget. Chair Petschel said that
Commissioners would want to read the sections identifying hot topics at the Airport, to
see if those items would be in the budget and how money was being spent. She said the
other thing to keep an eye on would be the 20/20 plan and whether money had been
devoted for the big expansion at the Humphrey Terminal, which ARC had been trying to
fight.
Upcomin� Meetin�s
• City Council Meeting on January 16
e MAC Meeting on January 16
• NOC Meeting on Jan.uary 17
s MAC Quarterly Input Meeting on January 23
Adiourn
Commissioner Edstrom made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Linnihan, to adjourn
the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
( ) Mary Heintz
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
G�
�
,� 4 r ����� �������5�� �,�������� ����.�
1�inneapolis/5te Paul International Airpo�-t (MSP)
6040 — 28"' Avenue South — Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone(612)725-6455
January 25, 2Q07
Minneapolis Airport FAA ATCT
Attn: Mr. Carl Rydeen
Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower
6311 34th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: RUNWAY USE AT MSP WITH RUNWAY 171351N OPERATtON
Dear Mr. Rydeen,
As yau know, airport noise is a significant issue for the communities surrounding
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). As such, your continued attendance and
participation at Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meetings is appreciated. As you witnessed at
the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting, the communities around MSP have expressed significant
concern with the FAA's runway use practices during the first full twelve months of Runway 17/35
operations at MSP.
Since the opening of Runway 17/35 at MSP in October 2005, the Noise Oversight Committee
(NOC) has been reviewing the use statistics associated with the FAA's operational integration of
the runway. Prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, the Metropolitan Airparts Commission (MAC)
and the communities surrounding MSP anticipated impacts associated with the new runway
would be in accordance with the provisions published in the following documents:
• March 1998 Dual-Track Airport Planning Process Final Envirr�nmenta! Impact Statement
(FEIS}
• September 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) approving the March 1998 FEIS
s July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure Environmental Assessment (EA)
• August 2003 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision (ROD)
approving the July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA
• November 2004 MSP 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Update document
It is impo�tant to highlight the extensive planning process and the consultation and coordination
that went into the development of Runway 17J35 at MSP. This planning process adhered to FAA
guidance under the provisions of FAA Order 5050.4 and FAA Order 1050.1. It was thraugh this
process that the above-listed documents were developed.
In the months following the opening of Runway 17/35 the communities surrounding MSP began
to express concern regarding the actuai runway use figures as compared to the runway use
numbers published in the environmental documentation leading up to the runway opening. On
October 27, 2006 Runway 17/35 was operational for a fulf year. As such, a good data sample is
available to conduct an analysis of runway use with Runway 17/35 in operation at MSP.
( j
������ -�� The following provides background and analysis of the existing runway use trends at MSP in
relation to the planned runway use in the environmental documentation leading up to the
January 25, 2007
Mr. Rydeen
Page 2
opening of Runway 17/35 at MSP, and a request for the FAA's response to related questions
raised by the NOC.
Backqrvund
In 1989 the Minnesota State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act requiring
the MAC and the Metropolitan Council ta evaluate airport infrastructure needs in the Twin Cities.
Subsequently, in 1990 the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process began, which evaluated the
expansian of MSP at the present site, as well as an airport relocation option to meet future air
__ travel demands.
In 1996 the Minnesota State Legislature acted to end the planning process and directed the
expansion of MSP at its present site to meet future facility needs to the year 2010. Per federal
and state environmental laws, the MAC and the FAA finalized the environmental documentation
associated with the airport expansion in the form of an FEIS that was made available for review
and approval in May 1998.
In September 1998 the FAA issued a ROD approving the May 1998 FEIS, paving the way for
the airport expansian.
The development of the FEIS and the associated ROD included extensive operational
� evaluations overseen and driven by FAA Air Traffic Control represen#atives. The FAA conducted
' - independent airspace and airfield capacity studies for MSP as part of the planning process.'
This resulted in the development of various airport operational assumptions that were
incorporated into the environmental analysis conducted to assess the impact of the expansion
of MSP. This included planned runway use. Specifically, the May 1998 Dual track FEIS stated
the following on page I-6:
"Table A.3-7 (Runway Use for the MSP Alternative — Average Annual
Use) shows the percentage of annual operations that are expected to
occur in achieving operational goals for use af the new north-south
runway, as well as the other runways at MSP...FAA Air Tra�c will
esfablish the finat procedures consisfent with the conditions set forfh in
fhis FEIS for atl runwav ends and for airspace at MSP followinp the
Record of Decision." (emphasis added)
The following is Table A.3-7 out of the FEIS:
' FAA Recorci of Deasion, Minneapolis-Sk Paul intemational Airport Dual Track Airport Planning Pra�ess, Sep�emher 1998,
p.55.
. . .... .. . �. . ..�. t .
January 25, 2007
Mr. Rydeen
Page 3
7able A.3•7 - Runway Use for MSP Alternative - Average Annual Use
Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage of Arrivals
4
i2L
12R
17
22
30L
30R
35
Total
1.0 percent
7.4 percant
16.3 percent
36.6 percent
less than 0.05 perceni
15.4 percent
23.3 percent
iess than 0.05 percent
100.00 percent
Source: NNTB Analysis
less than 0.05 percent
21.3 percent
15.1 percent
less than 0.05 percent
less than 0.05 percent
21.7 percent
25.0 percent
16.9 percent
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 Tabie A.3-7 are operational goals based
on weather conditions (both wind and visibility), direction of flight, noise
impacts and operational efficiency; however, the actual use af the
runways could vary on a daily, weekiy or monthfy basis, but should
closelv approximate the percentage goals aver an averaqe vear."
(emphasis added)
Subsequently, page 4 of the September 1998 ROD provides a{ist of required actions a part of
the proposed action stating the following with regard to FAA Air T�affic Cont�ol:
"Air Traffic. The proposed action will require that the FAA's Air Tra�c
Division expand the Class B airspace surrounding MSP and establish
new air tra�c procedures, consisteni with the information cantained in fhe
FEIS. Related Air Traffic actions may also involve redesign of the terminal
radar approach control (TRACON) airspace surrvunding MSP."
(emphasis added)
In 1999 the MAC began construction of the 2010 airport expansion project. Simultaneously the
MAC began the process of updating the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) and Noise
Exposure Map (NEM). As committed to in the above-detailed Dua!-Track Planning process, the
MAC, along with the communities surrounding MSP, began analyzing variaus options for a
departure procedure off Runway 17 to reduce noise impacts in the City of Bloomington.
Fallowing the deterrnination 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 tra�c contral
procedure change not anticipated in the Dual-Track FEIS, which routinely routed air traffic over
noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet AGL, required an evaluation consistent with FAA
Order 1050.1.
The July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA (for the 2.5 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 cansistency between the Part 150 Update RUS evaluation
criteria and the criteria utilized as part of the EIS proeess, 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
modificatian, the modifications are not subject to further environmental
review."
Below is Table A-6 from page A-7 of the EA, which provides the approved updated runway use
percentages with Runway 17/35 in operation.
Tabie A-6
4
22
12�
12R
30L
30R
17
35
7otal
Revised RUS Forerast 2005 Average Annual Runway Use
0.1% 3.8%
0.5% 2.5%
21.7% 17.8%
14.6% 12.�°Jo
21.1% 24.2%
25.5°/a 26.0%
o. � �io o. � �io
16.6% 13.7°!0
100.0% 100.0°/
rounding
0.5%
d.7%
21.2%
14.3%
21.5%
25.5%
a.�°io
16.2%
may not equai 100% due to
d.2%
0.1 %
9.5%
15.9°�
14.8%
22.4%
37.1 °!o
0.1%
0.8%
12.5%
18.6%
13.2%
19.9%
34.6%
U.1 %
d.2°�
0.3%
9.9�0
16.2%
14.5%
22.1 °k
36.7%
0.1 %
Change from Unmitigated FEIS Forecast 2005 Annual Average Runway Use
22 0.0% 2.0%
12L -0.1 % 1.5%
12R -0.2% -1.7%
30L 0.1 % -7.9°/a
30R 1.0% 1.7%
17 0.0% Q.0%
35 -0.8% 0.6%
Source: HNTB analysis.
0.2% -Q.1% 0.8% 0.1%
0.1 % 1.3% 2.2% 1.4%
-0.3°/a 0.0% -2.0% -0.4%
-0-9% -0.3% -1 _3°/a -0.5%
1.d% -0.7% -0.G% -0.6%
D.0% -0.1% 0.7% -0.1%
-0.7% Q.0% 0.0°% O.Q%
The runway use percentages resulting from the 2007 farecast 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 information. Below is Table 7.26 from
� page 7-31 of the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update that pravides the 2007 forecast runway
use percentages with Runway 17/35 in operation.
January 25, 2007
Mr. Rydeen
Page 5
Table 7.2b
Revised RUS Torecast 2007 Annual Average Runway Use
Day Ni t Overait D Ni t Overall Da N! t Overall
4 0.0% 3.$°fo �.3% 0.2% 0,4% 0.2% 0.1% 2.l% 0.3°l0
22 0.5% 2.4% Q.6% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4%
12L 21.$% 17.2% 21.4% 8.9°!0 14.1% 9.3% 15.3% 15.6% 15.4%
12R 14.7% 12.4% 14.5% 15.9% 18.3% 16.1% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3%
30L 21.1% 25.1% 21.4% 15.0% 12.8% 14.8% 18.0% 19.0% 18.1°/n
30R 25.1% 26.4% 25.2% 22.7% 19.2% 22.4% 23.9% 22.8% 23.8%
17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.2% 34.6% 37.0% 18.6% I7.1% 18.5%
35 16.9% I2.?% 16.5°to 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 6.4% 8.3%
Total 10(3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% I00% L00% 100%
Note: Totals may not equa1100% due to rounding
Analvsis of Forecasted v. Actual Runwav Use Percentaqes
For purposes of analysis the following charts and tabies detail the actual runway use
percentages from December 2005 to November 2006 as compared to the runway use
percentages forecasted (for 2005) in the 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA. The EA is
the most recently approved FAA NEPA document related to the planned operation of IVISP with
Runway 17/35 operational.
ao.o%
35.0%
30.0°�
25.0°r6
20.0°�
15.0%
10.0%
5.0°.6
0.0%
�►ctual vs Forecast Runway Use System - Arrivals
December 2008 - November 2006
4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35
a2unway Arrivai Day Actual
❑Arrival Night Actual
January 25, 2007
Mr. Rydeen
Page 6
ao.o��
35.0%
30.0°%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0°%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0°r6
ao.o%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0°.�
15.0%
10.d%
5.0%0
0.0°k
Actual vs Forecast Runway Use System - Departures
December 2p05 - November 2006 Forecast
4 22 12l 12R 30L
Runway
30R 17 35
Departure Day Actual
C7 Departure Night Actual
Actual vs Forecast Runway Use System - Total
December 2005 - November 2006 Forecast
4 22 12L 12R 30L
Runway
30R 17 35
� Total Arrival Actuai
❑ Totai Departure Actual
January 25, 2q07
Mr. Rydeen
Page 7
July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA 2005 Forecast Runway Use
V. Actual Runway Use December 2005 to November 2006
Arrivai
Day Night
Runwa Forecast Actual DiBerence Foreaast Actual Difierenoe
4 0.1% 0.0°k -0.1°h 3.8°r6 0.0°� -3.8°k
22 0.5% 0.0°k -0.5% 2.5°� 0.0% -2.5��
12L 21.7°i6 22.3"/o d.6% 17.8°ih 14.8% -3.0%
12R 14.6% 29.7°�ti 7.1°k 12A% 23.4°fo 11.4%
30L 21.1% 19.7°�ti -1.4% 24.2°i6 37.2°i6 13.0°fo
30R 25.5% 23.0°.5 -2.5% 26.0°.5 23.9°!0 -2.1°.6
17 0.1°k 0.0% -0.1% 0.1�i6 0.0"k -0.1%
35 16.6°�b 13.3% -3.3% 13.7°ifi 0.7% -13.0°rU
Farecast
22 0.156 0.1 % 0.0% 0.8°k 0.0% -0.8°ifi
12L 9.5% 19.0°/6 9.5°i6 12.Sai6 20.3°.6 7.8°k
12R 15.9°l6 10.9°�6 -5.0% 15.6°6 22.9% 4.3°�fi
30L 14.8°% 25.8% 11.0°l0 13.2°k 28.8% 15.6°�6
30R 22.4% 28.1% 5.7% 19.9% 252°k 5.3%
97 37.1°!0 16.1°i6 -21.0% 34.6°r6 2.8% -31.8°r6
35 0.1�i6 d.0% -0.1°k 0.1% 0.0% -0.1°h
1 •�i'Yi�
Arrivai Depadura
Runway Forecast Actual Oifference Farecast Actual t7ifference
4 0.5�i6 d.0�i6 -0.5�k 0.2% 0.0°.t, -0.2%
22 0.7% 0.0°i5 -�.7°k 0.3% 0.1°k -0.2°%
12L 21.2°�i 21.B% 0.4% 9.9°r6 19.1°�ti 9.2%
12R 14.3°/�i 21.8% 7.5°i6 16.2°b, 12.1% -4.1%
30L 21.5% 21.4°r6 -0.1% 14.5°!0 26.2°r6 19.7°r6
30R 25.b°bi 23.1°i5 -2.4°k 22.1"/0 27.8% 5.7°�ii
17 0.1% 0.0°r6 -O.i�k 36.7% 1d.8°% -21.9°�
35 16.2% 12.�% -4.1% 0.1°.5 0.0% -0.1°k
Assuming that a difference of less than 5% between the forecast and actual numbers is within
an acceptabie range of variation, several trends emerge from the above figures. The foliowing
provides a summary of the findings.
Nighttime Runway Use Percentages: Nighttirne arrival operation runway use
percentages on the south parallei, Runway 12R and Runway 30L, are over forecast by
11.4% and 13.0%, respectively. It appears that the primary factor affecting the use
percentages on the south parallel is the fact that Runway 35 arrival 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 30�, 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: Arrival operations are trending weli with the
forecasted runway use percentages. The oniy notable difference is the arrival
percentage on Runway 12R where the actual percentage is greater than forecast by
7.5%. It appears that this is a resuit of focused use of Runway 12R to accommodate
arrival demand during southeast operational flows. In the case of departure operations,
Runways 12L, 30L 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 differently during
southeast and northwest operational configurations. Specifically, in a southeast
aperational con�guration 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 whiie arrival and departure operations are
occurring on Runways 30L 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 factar of the total number of overall 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. Fram December 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 totat operation numbers to the respective runway use percentages
detaiied previously.
July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA Forecast Average Daily Operations
V. Actual Averaged Daily Operations from December 2005 to November 2006
Total Arrival Difference (Actual
Runway Forecast Actual minus Forecasted)
4 3.9 0.0 -3.9
22 5.5 0.0 -5.5
12� 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 t�.8 O.Q -�.8
35 127.6 78.2 -49.4
Total 787.7 646.1 -141.6
7otal Departure Difference (Actual
Runway Forecast Actual minus Fore�astedl
4 1.6 0.0 -1.6
22 2.4 0.6 -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 3.8
17 289.1 94.7 -194.3
35 0.8 0.0 -0.8
Total 787.7 640.7 -747.0
2 FRA ATC personnel have indicated lhat this fs due to a desire to avoid departure sequenang in arrival flows on Runway
12R, and Runway 12R runway cxossing impacfs when ta�ding airaaR to Runway 17 for departure.
�
(" i
January 25, 200?
Mr. Rydeen
Page 9
As provided in the above table, regardless of the overall reduction in total operations frorn 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.
Repuest
In consideration of the background and analysis contained in this letter and the comments
presented at the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting, the NOC unanimously voted to forward the
following questions to the FAA for a written �esponse:
1. The City of Mendota Heights feels it was promised relief in terms of noise impact
reduction as a resuit of the opening of 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 continuing ta operate the airport in a manner
inconsistent with the runway use outlined in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and
the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD?
2. When can we anticipate runway use at MSP to become 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
airpprt in a manner consistent with the runway use outlined in the Dual-Track FEiS,
Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD?
4. Are Runways 30U12R and Runways 30R/12L operating at capacity and, if so, will any
additional capacity/operations growth be occurring almost exclusively an Runway 17/35?
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 tirne periods, and (3) Runway 17 is the number finra
priority for departure operatians behind use of Runway 12L and 12R in the RUS, how is
it that nighttime departure operations on 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 equitable noise distribution 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 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD?
7. If the FAA continues to operate inconsistent 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 associated runway use information within these documents are not
valid, when will action be taken by the FAA to initiate an Environrnental Assessment
and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?
We are forwarding the above seven questions on behalf of the N4C and look forward to your
response.
January 25, 2007
Mr. Rydeen
Page 10
As always, fhank you for your consideration and attention to air tra�c noise issues around MSP.
Sincerely,
� 4�/= / ,,%
•-�'-�%�"� � �� j � L-C'/1(�c:.� �� %� H�._ t.�%��y�-''"
Vern Wilcox Kathleen Nelson
NOC Co-Chair & N�C Co-Chair &
City Council Member — City of Bloomington Northwest Airlines
Regional L7irector — Airline Affairs
cc: MSP NOC
Mr. Nigel Finney — Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment
Mr. Tom Anderson — MAC General Counsel
Mr. Roy Fuhrmann — Directar of Environment
Mr. Chuck Prock — FAA Great Lakes Region Legai Counsel
Mr. Glen Orcutt — FAA Minneapolis ADO
Ms. Annette Davis — FAA Great Lakes Region Environmental Specialist
(' i
0
C
C
�
��
�
_
0
�
� ��
. �� ���� •
� �a�� ����;
�����
�,,; {�:r
�,"��` � ``�� ��� � $
� x�';� � �� `�� � ��� t
�r�"�� �. �'�z ` w'�' � ,���s. � '�; �
� �� �
�{�-,�.:� ��� .� „,E � ��'S^T�i ,y��.. � �
6��"��"� .F.:.:,��x�,.+��," ..
-. ,��y� S 3 e .� �`w,.i �
� �:�� � `� � *'r
` ��
♦ ����:m'•�-.��'-`'�"'��,x��'^'�`i
;�
�' �� ,>�� ♦
���xn�G,��,
��.��
••
.•
�
1
e � •
•
� ' � •
�
•
�
• � �
•
� � � •
� �
� • �
�
• � �
• �
•
� �
• �
U
C�
0
�
� � •
1
1
•
i•
• •
1 � �
�
� �
•
• �
• �
• � �
�
0
�
C
C.
�
��k
�
�-�
�
J
•
�
i
•
•
C
<
U
M d- M O O�n N O� O�O �
cn �O C� �O � N v'� l` N� d'
�\O �-+ 00 \O l`� O� 00 � N C`�
N M M � Cf1 M � � l� 00 r--i
�`O � O N M C� N d' O C�
`O �O f� N `O � � � m N �
v'� t� `O M N M�O d' O O o0
�
M M M M M M M M M M N
\O 01 M 00 O\ N O �+ M M O
u'� M CT oo �O N l`� N r-+ l`� o0
�O N O v� `O � r-+ d' O N d'
� N�-+ N C� � M O M t-+ v'�
l` c'n d' �--i O O N� oo CT o0
d' v� v� �n �n v� �n v"� d' d' d'
- `O � d' M N � O CT oo l� �O
O O O O O O O O� O� O� CT
O O O O O O O O� � O� CT
N N N N N N N����-+
i
\
t
0
�
C
�
•
�
�
•
•
�
�
•
1
�
•
1 '
/
� •
• �
� /
•
� /
�
� •
/
�
• � �
�
•
� �
�
•
• � • �
•
/
� �
• , �
� •
• • � •
�
� �
�
• �
� �
�
�
�
•
► �
1
•
•
•
� ,
1
� �
�
� �
• ,
•
�
� o •
•
•
• �
/ �
•
1
•
� �
/ �
� ~ 1
�
1
•
•
/
C
•
•
�
• �
•
1
�
1
�
• �
•
•
�
•` �
�
•
� •
�
• �
/
�
• �
. �
�
�
•
�
�
•
•
� M
/
� •
•
� �
/
•
• � �
� •
� �
• � �
�
� �
•
:.
�� •
� �
•
/
�
• • /
� �
C
c;
�
�
n
0
C
C
k b;��-��� " •
����� ,
���
.r . �, �
�������� •
��� � �
-�.
�������� � .
�� ���� �
�� �� �- � ;� � 1 1 �
�� �� �� � �
� � ��x��, _ •
�,� � ���;_ ��� .. � 1 1
�����
•
���`��� ���� ° � �, .
���f�� ��� � �' � �
� $"s��,���
�
{ �,-��� � � •
������� y` ' � �
?�a �. �,�c�,..,� � ��. • .
��� *���;
�;���� �� •
��.��, ,� ` , . �
�� �� ��� �
�
�������� . , �
������ K � �
����� ��`�� � F � � � - �
���. �� �_.
������� .
���- ��* �;� � � �
� ���*�;_ "� � � • • _
�� �
��� '"��� ._� � - � �
�f��� ��� x �
���� �� , , • • , �
,
�
,�
��?'��" �
�� � � � � �
����,��� � � •• � �
��
��"��'�,� • � • � �
�
. �. �
:.��� �"�.�� �
C
��°:
0
��
0
��
.� �
�
0
U
a
C
r"
C
�
�
�,
�;�:
� �����
�,��,
��
�
� �� z -: = .
- ,��
� �'� 473' .: � �
� � iiw `�
.. ... , � � �8�'�= j� ��, .. .._.
� � �,�,J'
� `�`
c a' � , ,;,
g. a �
ae.�• �. -
52�� . _.
� � �.a�6 -.
s S;
� � ... .. ��- 4
� �i _.......... $ .
`a' ' -.._ �'� 44 .
'i�i' .
_ �,
� . . �
� , � � �"��
r �
— -
� - _ ��
,- � -,.
-- _ . ' � �i
- :
� ., _ e
' � . . . .>... -� 5
� i ��'
�
ra!, � ` �4
++_ �: ,
..�b. .. -�,�y..... ._.._.' . . . . .�"."" �-,+.-"'
{.il . ....._..� ... ....... . . �
Y_�a' ..� ' .
�' � " _
1�
�}�-�-, �,Y
_ 1 �'1
� ���
._... . _...... _.. ... ., •t:
� � � rf
�:�" -'
�� ,
g:�
�
J�''
�QP
2 -1-~
,
�
�
O �"
o'� �
�
ti���
r1 O I S 5+��
�" �O
�
r
---4-� o
`� a
Q'
-� 2
��
� po�,.
METR�
�
•
•
•
�
/
1
1
•
•
�'
�
..
,
.... . ... ..... .._. .._. br^� ...... ......... ..... ........ ..... ..... ........ ....... ..... ....... ....... .. ......... ...... . . . . . . . . .. .
C�
('
:
.
•
�
�
e
��
�
N
( ?' _ ..f+o
w. �_��.
�
N �
� �
J o
v
Z N
�
Q) J
.7 m
� m
� �
�
� �
�U
U �,
11 m
� �
ffN �
�O
G �
•� �
�a
C �
Q ,c
m
� 7
� �
O
N
�
a�
�
a`.
O
0
N
iti
�
c
�
�
N
.-�
�
tTf
.0
U
0 0 0p 0 o E
N � N � N n
% N „Hr � H
.dtltl'J - (suoilil8$) ssoll�llp�d l8N
�
v
W �
N �
5
m
0
o �
N
r
a
e
v4i �
� y
e
�
� ��
a ��
� ��
"3�, e
�F
� n <
^ u�
' ��
Y „
�` °� r
n � b
� m 7
e�
`Ji m v
� � � �N � � . . . . . �. �
. N � � . � . � . .
a ` O 2 � . . � � � . . . .. . . . ..
O ;Q
N � �
y S
� � �
U � Q �C �
'�
� � W � � �. . . . . � �. . � .
li
N
� . _ � N N . . U G
U '� ,N 2' fG
dc�o�Q'tv oo��°R����cQE��dcc`d
�,a�Qo�Q1°a�d�w;�+rod'''V o��
U'�a UW��=�J�`�Z�-�t��~ro>
/)
U ~
J
�
i u�
� n c j,
N tt7 � �� cC
z=�4'a�
�
C�o~�Q
o z }'�
;;, c �
'a` �
i
F.
�J
_ �
z � �
� � �
„`—. � v
«
. z s.. e
o �, �
�' v
�
w � �
� � d
Wy
} � W
`o � +=
� �
y V � "�h �
'6„ W
0 � � � A
= f"' N �
G � U
O Q O
U O ' � f�G
W �
e
w o } � ;� �+
c
U � o � C7 �
� �U a � tA � o
C O = �. dS. ia �
� N v � � � u
j Q � ~ d � o
'� Q � S7. � w }-
.� Q (J ' y �: ?' 1�+1
C) Q. � � i•�� O a.
~ °� C
' � w
� � � +3�+ " � Z �if
.� t`6 � �t �, � . Z ..
� ` � ` � � � � �
�d � � �� b`�
W ;�
� � � �� _ a
. .�
��,, �s� m c g e
UJJ w � �,• � $
LtJ i0 t� a
O �
x
1
�
•
�
�
-�- -
� �
• �'
1
. •
1
1
� •
�
•
�
•
/ �r
•
�
•
.
.
•
�
�
• �
�
•
�
.
� ,
•.
.
.
•
•
•
!
.�
1
�
� �
-r
�
1
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O �'
t�C � N O O�0 t�0 d�' N
r e- r r tf} tfl E!} {f}
� � � �
(spuesnoy� ui)
rf-
ozoz
6lOZ
840Z
LGOZ
91.OZ
540Z
b40Z
E40Z
ZIOZ
I. GOZ
o�oa
sooz
aooa
LOOZ
900Z
A
�
O
O
�
O
s
d
�
C
d
i
�
V
�
co
�
0
Q.
0
L
a
I
�
..�
�
i
� �
.'
• �'
�
�
•
•
�
�
•
• ' �
�
•
�
� „•
• � �
�
�
• � �
�
f
1
�
�
�
�
! � �'
�
• �
� •
•
� �
/ �
/ /
•
O O O O O O O O O O �
� � � � � � � � � � �
�
�uawaue�du3 aad safiaey� au�oaid
OZOZ
6lOZ
8 l.OZ
LIOZ
9LOZ
SIOZ
b I.OZ
£LOZ
ZIOZ
LLOZ
OLOZ
600Z
800Z
LOOZ
900Z
tCt
N
O
Q.
O
i
d
A
LA
O
O
'C
O
t
�
�
a.+
Ci
�I
�
�
V
�
�
i
C
y � C
� = O
Z 'cc .v�i � �E
A
�
O
O
'�
O
�
�
d
�
A
�
�
O
t�
�
�
�
N
O
V
�
�
.�
�
V
�
�
�
�� � � � � � � �r
� � � � � � � �
� � � � � � i �
� � � � � � � �
•• •
�
�
�
C
�.
0
0
N
�
O
N
�
N
n
N
�
0
N
tff
O
N
ct
0
N
M
O
N
N
r
O
N
T
�
N
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
O
O
N
I I I I-1,—, , ����=� A�I- o
O O O O O O O O O O O N
O O O O O O O O O O VT
O O O O O O O O O O
O O�D f�D '�V N O O�D t�D VQ' N
VT E!1 d3 V� V} (/} � VT Hi K?
(spuesnoy� u�)
�
C
� .
� �.
�
�
�
1
•
1
�
�
�
• •
�
.
i�
.
.
.� .
�
�
• •
�
� �
�
•
�
• :,�
� •
•
•
•
�
� � �
•
�r •'
• �
� •
. • �;
� �
�
•
• �
• � �
�
� • �
�
�
,
�nd
l��
'il`d
��S
bdl
���
�n�
MaW
S`d'I
�ib0
XHd
O�W
'1NH
Wd LOOZ dSW
Xb'l
M�a
NdS
900Z dSW
Mla
W� LOOZ dSW
IM8
"1Hd
a�30
'IlS
Hdl
d�a
adl
dJ�
b'�S
lld
S08
N�a
O�S
��r
diw
�IM�
O O O O O �
Ln CO �f) O lf) �
� � � � �
�a6uassed paue�du3 �ad sa6aey� �aoda�d
•�
•
�
•
�
ir
�
Q �
��
� � N
N � �Q
�s=0�
'_ �+-, U
��o
�' � s�
�o�
.� �Q
� O �
� > �
� � �
��U
��
� ���
� � °� °�
� � .� �
o '��J
� � O�
�i��0
� �
� �o�
� °�
� �o�
O �' �
� �U �
Q � �O
� � �
— � �
Cl� N z— :E_► .+—�
�
�OCtA
O ����
�� X�
— � '� �
s- �'- O O
Q� <(��Z
�
o �
❑
•
•
�
.
❑
0
,
__ .
C
0
t=
W
O
O
J
LL
c
0
�— a
� c �
:c � -a
� ,c �
�
o��
c� �
•� �
Q° c
� Q c�
-a E -o
� c
�mii
'� L
G
.Q �
C � U
. � _
L
O � �
C
� c o
o ,o U
V
ccs � C
N � �
(.L
V U G�
t� L- � .
O
O � Q
� � �
G .V .
�
U � p
cts
N
c � .�
� � i
� � �
� O �
.Q Q �
� i
� � �
C � O
Q� m
U
L�L � �.
L
(n � L
'L = O
Q. t�
� �
� � �
�
C �
W � �
C � �
c� -� �
� � L
� � �
� o c
v
� � c
� � c�
U � �
�U
� vQ
cn '� �
U � �
a�
� o 0
�
��Q�
�U �
o yliU�.y
�
o�a" m��w
��ccuo
w � a� rn�. �
4
o �ro.�c� °3
GaC�o-U�a'"
w
'�
Un�
� w •�
�
� O �
��tiwW
� U y y
��os
s;diaoad
Y
� W "
^@ � a
a
� o � �
��� ��
�
C.� � �'n C rx
�UP� V••
Mw c �
O d y
C N O. •� 'y0 � 'O N
� � � C � C �
++ d O — O �' O �,
,'� c�o°°'a°° a
�� N i0 3 tp � N
C� V a`) y C� y U
O _ m c � c > 'L
Um � � � � Q (Jl
¢
� • •
�
� a �
U
'� � �w � �'
.� .a,o �v ,o �
f�UwW�wW'
� �i
N
�a � �
�1 'O [3. in
r+ .d„
V N
d �� C � a�+
A� �a[.��r
x c�C
a � o
Paw0.�
N
N
rUr y RS
� U y
'� '� v� °�' °"
�j C � � G
O C,^�' N��� �. G"
.�
N ir 4"� ;'� y • � �
p°'.¢w�O�Ow°�
s;uawas�nqsip
�
c
0
•y o
v d'
C
O
V
V O
s �
�,,, r
O N
C-
C�
�
,:
•
.
•
•
.
.'
.
•
�
•
.
.
•
•
�
�
• •
♦.
�
CCi �
. � o
� �
E � M
�
O
T
�
(� �� � � � �
�r � � C'7
� z o N \ � r
0
N � � m T �
C� v '- p
.i �
ai
�
�
L
d O
.r T
Oc
�
�
N
�
�
c�s
�
U
�
�U
tCi
lL
�
N
�
0
�
�
U
�
c
rya.>�
1..1..
0
�
Q
�
a�
�
�
U
C
�
r t.f) O M M CO 00 M C!
C'�r)� � � � O � d�'^ � r :
r �- tn d' CU �- OC1 C� M'
(O T T N T � '' .
� T vT.�.-��.
� "
t
0
� � "-.:.. �:
O � �
W C .
� � �
'. � ,..:���.�.
�
1 n' �.
W/� f^
O Yf� v ff1 ��-,
• W �� U Qi_'
.� �
N
� — �,,N � C� C � L
� �
.F O � ttS. � Ll.'
C � N � � � •V O
O .� N � � +-' � s-
� _ � � � � �
s- O
d Q � � � � � � �
d
0
c
co
« �
c
.�
�
o d
'td U �
d 5 N
o v�
a
,� o
O T
d
o °'
N �
`, N
d
a
� �� /
� W V 1 _ u :
V �1/ �1J �-:! �,^
Y !
L"/ W,^ � �'^ �
� Y J � �i�! �
� •
� � • - - • -
- � - • - • -
C`
� � � � � � �7
00 � N � � �
r r T
f� {�- �
•
-
••
•
•
�
•
•�
�
�
�
�
•
•
.
�
•
�
• �
� �
� • •
� �
• 1
, � 1
� �
� � �
�� ■
C
C
.�
r
•
rn
cs�
co
r
M
�-
0
�
N
'a
C
O
m
�
�
C
�
>
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
Q
�
�
a�
c
a�
�
��
N
m
�
�
�
�
�
O
m
d
�
C
�
>
�
�
C
O
:�:.
c�
�
�
O
�
�
a�
�
a�
C�
��
�
m
OC
C�
�
�
�
O
r
O
N
CC�
�
O
F-
•
.
.•
•
•.
��
� N �
�
�
.�
cvb� '��°
� � Z �
�
�
C
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�
O C'� Cfl �.i� (3� � N O O
T � M�� N T� O
C� 00 t,i� I` � C� d'
��- � C� N CU 00 Cfl M
� Cfl I` f� � d^ CU t,f� �
" N C4 N DO (� O C� °'
'- I� O M 00 Cfl T- I� �
M 00 d� �- N O O C� �
� 00 N C� C� M d� "
� C� d' N 00 M M�
� O N N � M �
'- N
� �
t ,.
C,
C
1
•
•
•
�
•
1 �
• •
�
• •
• �
• �
•
�
' �
■
.
•
•
,�
►
O O O O O '
tf,1 O �1'� O �t!
N N T T
� � �
0
0
N
�
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
�
0
0
N
•
•
•
•
�.
OD
�
�
r
•
�
�
V
�
O
i�..
`
tcS
�
V
Q
�
'�
O
�
O
O
'>
C
N
�
�
N
�
Q
�
• �
•
�
•
.
• �
•
y �
►
�
•
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
� �
•
•
•
1
0
T
�
N
�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
i�
O
O
N
�
O
O
N
�
�
�
N
d'
O
O
N
m
0
0
N
N
O
O
N
O O O O O O O O O
� � � � � � � � �
�
�
tCi
C>
N
L
�
�
\
�
�
�1-+
V
Q
N
'C7
O
�
0
0
.�N-
G
�
C
k y� a' . � � � t����� � � � �
� �,e'y%� r �, J� l.,c�� / ��� �-'
� � � ;,�� . I;:./f���. 7 %,• �..r� ��s �a� �r � — _
�1/ �� � f � „r , { � Il .� � �.f �'� ��
�/�`�. /c�4' i F�C, Ks�� � � = �
/�
�� � ��yr, � �/ " r�' '�j,� : lJ �J-
f � '� ' / ��tf+�' d r , - �"��' -� :, r` .-
� _ r, ,f� � ��F , �� � s����� `�iy� _- _ r�i
,;�, F' . �s ,��L r � ,c��' - t . .
i — -
i �,��' X �`. , ''�s_:
i, . �'.�/fl/i r i+� r,' �' ~
.�_��� � • ,''
.+il`.j `1.-. . +�
e7 ����,
�. % �.
a"� l -f�'-�c�' � � ' -
_ /���, . �• ,'I .
r" N
} � ��;:
.��
1= � h xf : �
lv�A �
}� �.�� s�� � r�°� 4 � S;
S '� - .e`ky Jf''}�� }' �
Y� �f � �s : ��.
� �x ,
M�`'�`.� ������ f .� c J � �•�� �
Ar i ,� `
t � r }��,
� ��� � z
� ' 7-�� �+
� �4A �� { � } c� o
�. (.,� ��.
� i �F,!'�.�, 3 � �k � - )y
1'�<�' �: " �3:�.��L,.y 7 -
!r� 6 _ �" �''�i t . _ t�� Ji
W
5'axi:t ,y. . . � -`+'d H
� '� � �� ��� �� Y� J � .�t„� � �
,t..' � Y'�' ^�'-
''Y. ' �,:.�r .'e�j�r � ' YK
�� �� «. <`trz�. f `
��J h a. . � : - . - �p � �,
O t Ytl • � �����
�,, � ;, `_ ,^� ��si .�- W �^ .
�, _ �. 1��'4. . fHl� � � ! �. f•��� �''� _ . �
ai ' "",r ' �'�Y{�� �,'-0 'i�'4 �
�'�r,'+�r _ • �- . �Y^*` r �; ` �� �, �=tW�i' �
� -� -� � �►� i V�
«a Y ''� ' " .,,. z��.Y,� "�.', '
.Y;" �� � �"'w. tj?�'-tf�: i4` �'�� i�i�
_' } ^�-'r� �.;�' w'��i�`�y �° � �r� � �
..: - y,qS•'--' `. a,�,,4� O
�a.�', _ +.,�. LY�G���t'�"�+� •
-£`�.�' _ �j1�YC'���3::SG...•t:' �
�- _ °;� ��� U
i*j = �
_�
__ . _ - � . �� y f' {"�f �, ... �'5�:. �3, / �
. 4 � ' � �
m
Iw��N ,� �
.y�� h �„Z� •
���_r
y ,�� �q �
- �� .. ..-,' , • „r ..y. -
n �r. �`4 �
�"3 , °'� � } �. ; l 3� ,� o � � � ��} �' �
� �' y� :F { T' .tl y� ( ..;1 $ ,�.y f .j:, S'�i�i �• ///'■���'///���
r � s ' f'+r +� J�.' t�' i''� � y.' 3 .y .�s.i. `"'ya. �
{ ,c, �
� � 1 2t�.' � # � a i
4 n r` 4 ti r'r� t ��, �-�.� 4�i. �� C �s �..'r
��'� .. , 1"{ -t�' ' � . � �` �� t� �� Rr n` ��.y ..
.� q � ;f;,,�, a � �. r -� �-; ��r -� �� �� � � � q � �� i
` • `�' . Y L G �:�..;_,tyS . � � I
i � ��-a !�'c. /`' ' '+ m':»-L ' "�x- r� r'�p2 .:
z .' r ..*, " $ � .r
,����- �,, e:ri � }.�; i�.� ��_ --�� �4 :'
... �
{ 4� .'.: . v {" t`. �Ja.. SS`-
p ��~
.t�a �� J.� „11� � f 4 V.{ •`�a'�. t yi� 31 ;`L`'-.
�
"�.
! 4- ,: d'F' ti u F �:
'� w. K_( 4� � L�y� 2�`v' `f E;
Y't te�'. t`�, n _ � i- .
f , , �
a
t?�. �;' �G . � � I
�- � -' ` �'
a' �' i��� � �'�t., ."�kn1 � �� �� -'� :;,,, . c-,'r'c � . v
t ' "` `
. y ,% I:. � '.��., .�,t�;�.v-- -� '.�3.� _
���
, .b. ,_ .. 1 .., • ..
_. .M�� . �"1ri��.r - ..w� :i" v.. '
' i.ii cl( . . • � �:�'� C ft �.
�,
^'�� .' /`� n9'{ ^�...."..
i + s
, :.c'. e'„`{tf�, � ,..;
:.:. �,:: ,...._*� :`. � i ,� �.
„�s� 4i�`_1. '
�
�
,�
�
�
�
�
�,
�^
,''. �
�.._,_ .� :
'' �
I (
�+
1
1
(
I
` ��
t i j
f4 � _ ,
��� 1 t�' �r .:� i
� r--F ~ (
„� � } '
,
� �,,
::, c Y ` �` t i .t ; i � ,
o-,� � '
� � �� ' I i
- � t: �
, . � ;,
� � � '` �.t � r
_
> , ,
. � , , r .
�
; � �, r -
.
; :
� �-- _ . :: .. r, � , , �:
,
C ' i } � :�
�. � ,
t. , �
� � -. _ � , ;
, � � � �
.� � : �
� -
�' �:` '
f � `� r, j '
— � '� :5 .
) _ r _
!" � _, — i : : F.
. � � �,
: ` ' i ,
? — ': ;..: � . . : r .
r — ` _
_ 7� � .(_.. .
- ^!
- � _ . f. �� � . . . .
' � I
;t �
' t ' ''
! (. I _
. � I t '.' . . .
�, �
_ � �
_ . I' . ; i: , . . . . �.
�. �. � .. . . . .
I
t ., �� � i .. . . . . . � .
_ �
_
, : i . _. � i i .. : .�.. ' � , . . . , .
' . . . �--: ..._.,..
' •. � � „-. ,. ,-� . .. �
y , :': �. ' �:.� � �. � �..:.;� , ' � . . . � �� � . _ .
. 1. , . . . ... ,��. � . ��� � .
� ' ...�i, . .: ..,- .,.. .. ._�. .. �,_. � �� � � . .� - ..
l i 7 �;� E �
�.._. " � '
� r i .;,.
` �
__,
. :: . � � ' . ; ..
( �
� _k.. � ( ; : . i.,. _ ,.: c. � '
V
Z
F-
tA
?t
W
--4q—._.... _.. _ __ ._.... .__ . ; t)--.c:; %it�
-".� 1 : `? � �^-
�
i'
''� ^J
� � % .�'
/ '_' ;: �
:: / c-
N '-�
� r
�, , ., -;
�` ' ,, f .,, r
i !. �
d.. ': `�, � '. ,
� +' 7
�
- �
�
�
� J
;,� ��f":
tt_- :
�`"'cY,l f ;
{-<��4:;:.,;-
i�
�
C
�,�. ...., .;.:`^,�',o:,"M"�,M,
—^r-- q- _._.. �, _ ..�__ _. _., '- . _ ..._ _. . - ... ... __._. _
,;
j 1 } '.1 .
S
f�'� : . : . "..
'� � � .. , ., :...,
I 1 i '. �? . �,.. . � � .
i� : . :. � ; . .. �: ... -: . .
�
4 � �
1 r t� t
ei
< <
i
f �
� `
_ � '� r � � �"" 1 '� � � �- !
� y
� (� � (^ l . � �� ( " � .� � { :
1 r �^ �r— �
} , af"�_ � . � C.. � ��� l i.. L .' � �. ! � '
r : �� � /
-�, � "� ( r �. � � � �
�,� , f 1' � , ,
,
, , <, �
. . : .
, � ,
�Ct' 1` r , i � "i -
4 C, � � a ,- , ,
, �--, ` t � ; � ' �
�` �� . << �,
, ,
� i r i��.
t i lS� �} �� (.` ' - r � t
�
1 t t�� ).. <<k�' ' ` j f 1 1r
' e�L� � � �� ��, � �
-;, ` — �
_
,. , -.
t . ; ,,
f J �
r =
r -
� -
.. ,-: . .. _ . .
2 i !: ` �::i : . < . � -
.,:, f 4 ; ,' - .
'; y . :' � r.` �.,: . ' �r . , . -
r,
t:
J .. -., : .� ..
:- '. ,, . ,.,..I ,q - . _ . .
,
y: ...:. :., '.;.. . �,:
. '.�. �:: :;,. . ..�: .'.:::
;.,. ,... .:. ,.... ,
' '
. ...: ..,. .., .._.. .�_� . . ...�. '_
.,�::;- . ..,;` .. ._:. �., _:�. . ..:-�--- .
..., ._:'. .. -.: �.. . ,.- � -
.... a. .;:. :�,.. ,.,r._. .,,.�• -
� ����5 �::;, .. .:,.., .:,�
, ': ..,�. .-..:. . .. .:�;.. .r.
t '
5 _'
� •: . 1�.. � .
� ....-:! � . .. . .
_ �';
1 ;� r
' � �..�,, , . . .
t :....;' - � � ... .
Si .'. � . . � _ - . .
i ��� �' �
� )
'c ' , - 7. ;;. �' � � . .
f.�_ ..':, � �. ' . ' .� , �. . . .�
,.�'. r r i .. ' � � ' � .`.,. ' � . . . , . � . � ' � ... . .. . '
t � �. . . ' . , . �.. .
t �,
.. } " � . . .. . ' . , ' ' . . , .
. . .p:�.l . . ... . . ... � � .
� . �i� I�. . . . . � . ' . . , ' ..
f �,�.i - —
+i x
t��� y�� .1 � 1 �t _.
A� � e'rF r"`i!
i L{ h'L L�' �^4 �3._
�-u'�=` �fi � r� i�� L � � .
!� �£?j~ ��` -E�, „ qk'�1t � , � � � - .
s�u�'���1 L i 1 ��� ,' . � _..
�.� � �� rt"� �� -�?[ ` � � _
�+" -+j�"�'��-, `�tr�se.a� �v� - i 3
c
_` m€�+4i}"��Cr-?t �z JI ; I < �, �
�r���4.i��'����.�i ���. �:� -
.���-�t����,�'_1��jEf4"� ) �-^� . �;�
jy. �� � 'i'id�'� i� l � '� t ( /.
��� ��5�� n,� y t, I � i' i� , � 1
!�'ir �� 3 ( j
��.-S Et�-�" C���tC a'�y Z `+.. ! �� ' i
4 �.r�� 1 �� �� � � �, �, , � a � � �
�S �. �,''� 9� ls��� 5 �< , a �
�
a��"�+�z' �����sr� L _.,..,f -�,��� : '' i � � (. � I
�rsT� '�n{"'ca .E �� f �j :.
� j5�''��'��-n r U�`�-� . f ti f` t 4. .�
�a„ q..`�, "'�,�f"'�'tl,�� ' � c � if � �
�h'�46 �.tttki hF�1J� � J ... I:��.
,�-7 .� Y! � .1t.�eL.a�'�� i , (-' i . r i \
�-,���'����-3''� � �� i � � � . �� � � ; r : I
���{�,�'�,�'��� � r '� ca �.. `,� , � � : `; �. ` � 1
���-3��a��,3 � �a7 f �a""^ , 1 �r �-' L.�v� � `( �: ' I ( ' �� j
��"�2`,�tn-i��' L��i'.,��� .�� �T� + � �
J �
C���.5 �'9 {�f�' J� �� . h ,� ! � 1 J
�'�'����e.��t�-y`' � `� ; � �, � � . �.
`�'�s�Ey r� z6`�`��,�.',x���� c � �
i t
.cg��� ��k�'��� t I y - y � �, ' �
�' �r•��i " "i�''+ t,'�,r r�Nn c� f � } �., i ( r
��„��4���J��,� : r r
�+y��'.� i{.�� Wy� �,�� i f } � � �
-t-�`� ��� � F�i'`�<'��°e� tit+ t � + �� � -
'r '� '�^�y t��94`,-�� � t
��a�-4�� �x. ? � la i �,i i � i
��a �z�'� ��,, s �� Y , � ,
��',�.'�,3"�*. -'� ��'��•-�.�,,��v++ E ' ��. f ( ; � � -
� i i
Si..��a(`�'�� �r��s-it �,,,�y'�4 � � � -, '� � ..
s-���� �'��� i' u � .
t�- �si�l��j,k�r x �Gi ..-,._,-1 � ��' �
W (
..y� -tF_�'i 4} yXry�P...��.��} �v�,�El 3 L�l Y, ; S
fF� �"J�T� �i.. ,� ` S ' `�� � I :�
-�--�r '�-�i.a 3�1e' � ' `�
��i' .�e `iF�� .3 �--� �� `j � � l !'
�, ji o-��r3?Lr.,�����
�+ t��-,�.��� �� i� f j �
�,���,�'� ���'�f ' T , �,,
� � � � �� ��, -.�- ,� � � C. ); �' ( � i
�'���a n � � `� G' i
� � `�. � _ �
�'r�����i�r� � �,r } t`� 1 � 4 } f � + � `
���-'��s"��� at i ' i :
�`'�� 5 ����`'�r?'�i'� ( \ j l" � �'.. ' f, }'i ' ,. i . t
1�3' � � `',� �'� �C �: t � � t
,� t � ` � � .I
,S-�,5.�.� �r�+t���sa t t5� � ,-'„F r � � � .
�. � 7� r ryv �s
������ ���M�� L � �
� -r-`���,,�a„�F ,o-����4z (' ' f
i bjb t- ;' 'w�Z i*..� .. �.
�'� �������ry��}�,�� � : 4J ' ,
T1"�Jt.Y����_c���^iG'�v�. 1 ��� � .J
�e'2 --•'�C�9�, yyiy �Ya3q�t5^.0 Y �C �; d '
S{�-��� �L � l�._. t � r .;
�� ���
l
``�"7 jYT zr'til���"- �p � �
��g>�,3 [ Lc ., � t
�;�"' ��,-r ��� �.fi �l � � �: :
f itw``�,.C� jT-v� l"�3�. �t q . �.. .
� =-"+ �-'fi'Er J�'r 4�
��t, � �''ai'� � � � �:
S � �f �
�e . f��jj.�'�ii'z�S�`Y,J � �
`'�.:�`�-] y�+�' _ *`���, f
L. � '+i"� 1 yi- r`4 C,}�J ����i l .
���t����/ �
Y'� A'. M-5 l-{
1j 4�T` �� � � }
..�av��'l.S!i-1 �,2i^a_,f,.i, ��il�
1 lrt!:i) � T � �
�..�,�.��_-� ���,�.��,� ' i
i�� �c'r.� �S't�,,,,`��.t ;. ,, � �: . .. .
,,,i �'� � rfi � f-4 s : ' ,
�+�.`�4� 'A���� {� ; � ( , . �
��� }�� ��� . 1 : �� � � . ..
"n�„� tr .x, �y i
� ,,�< k ,� � 1 .
` �"" ��s„ c�,��„l'
N f' 7 � i"�+5 I
� i L� � 4 T - _ � . .
``�...��''4. °"'� �t �:: {, . , .
�? � , . . . . . . . � . .
;y I
li 1.
� y :
„�i,nl� j 1
� ; _
� ,.
3f �-'� �i��.: . � . � - _
�, T'. : � . . . . . . .. . � � �
t T � l
�.....:., 1 . .-.:..,:_.�. . �. . . . . . - .
�
�:
��
1��� •.
[ZiI�I1r.��
� � �I�l��
����.
����:
0000LS y
c
0
00009� �
a�
Q
�
����55 �
C
C
Q
�����
0000�5
OOOOZS
, I
( � I - 00006�b
j { i I �
- 00008t�
o w co d- c� o 0o co �Y c� o 0o ct� �r c� a
c� N N N N N r— � � r- �—
y�uow �ead � �Ceo a6eaand ao� �e�aa aGeaan�y
�;; { Y u{ �F c i.'ii. �. ; - _ _ .. ... . . _ . .
s'j,�'�Z,,,�rl-c�a �i".� ��� ��1�'� i , . '.
'<'�'`�p`� �i�� � 'F4 F--�i�t�r � � � �
�.ik'lP i .: I
��N�� 2�F,� ���' r'�'���L�'-,n.,_ � 6 . :
i ��ti'( 2 .�ilE�� > t .re7� . /
'�'�-e"4.�n 3 r- 'R (
i�_ e',a�� k'i. Ij .. � .'\
�;�.x+F},di 3 �.����
'=�' �` � �`a��r � u �,
-�s... rp� ,, .� r�m-t ri r4 .
t
�� v� tb fir��� 3`1"ky'�+-F
;� _7i�k .�nT�-r� � �i' c� "�`TI 4 '. .
,�e,�,>+�''� �� ��-� ���-�.� � � �_.
,�Fa��!� '+..r��,,��rt-�-E r
� T� 5�� `�'-`�j hSt µr�i'�- a
b�� �y��� r i������ r�. � F-. � I
�
,.�,- hP T,.m„ 7i it��L°�y- t'�� ,
a� �� ��. ��3r �-�� � 1.
i`i �'P'� � �4T'� � t` ±'�y� !
��� ��,a-�� ��, ��'�1°i� � °,
, �.
�� ����r �a�r '�`��-��� � s ;
;�--�-'_ �� y ; ��-�L�k�' ' � F l
��y .3�� �'r'�-',����� P � t / .�. I '
� 1�-�-fik F� �'-�'.`'�'`-,�h`� ��' t '
��-� �„ ��.,Y� i��9� s � r 1�
� �`1'-" �-����`�" t4 '�- R'�r�'f 1 '/ � � � . .
� F il k� ,� F�'��' i`'c� � � S � '.:
�' r i � �+ 1- a������ � �,, t r �. � , � � � 4 �
�'�"y�.��f5'�i-�, c� c� A . r � r � , L�
�"��' + �+'�Nr{ j �. . ��� t �^I t
� n G �'n'T'e��� ��'`'1 � �4� j.' J� � � � i "' � r +
� �tii�� �� y� � y � s
. � �� �5yy��3�' a rh.r'43i r . � ; r ,a_,.,_ -. i � i
���3C '�-� L � � - . t �. i w J . .. f
,!^� P T'' �`i{;�� � �� { �- �� �
�A ��u :�d'��'u ��LY�� R .i �, � � � . ,,..� � R y .i �
�+",�" � t'i�7'i{1'+(:�� �� J � � �,. ��,.,-
- �[� 1
i�'��'��'i-�y����� � l �. _ i
'_..- �.n-lf �.�C-4. ��r.zi+T'/ S�� .� � �.�
�Q 1 � �E� yG�[ ..�fi� � ` � _ �
1
�i..''--� 'C t �..� `i�' � . � � � � � ' .
�� �Ir r is � t �t� , f
�, � i
� � <<,�,�� xa,��,� ` ' ' ' � - f �
;` i 'L-t' � � .
��ih� ��r ii t
� f ( �
� F'� ta��r'} �� k'i-''�3� �1� r - ' � ` r �, i ��� � �:��� r � {
�
�ti' ����� t.�Si„�!, h�'S � f _ f I
i�"'�,-'t a F.2� ���L�..� �5�:� i - t
�� � r� ��j��y�Y i � 1 '��i � - � t
� � L� �,�3` ��! � J I
i,F!�', I`_ ii�ia -1 i� � ..
t1Y Fa'`"�^`. I���u �u.,��. i� ,� My '.'. .._ I � I ".�: .
� �; ��� � �����' 1 ' ( �' � � �. I . .
j i I � .
yt�,--x^1��,T����� ' � �t ' 1,,. 1 ' '. . i
' 1� � � 'i( i J ^� �
Iv' � ���� ��.f"� � t 1 � j
�,�—� � � � � � �
��%y�tr'�i�'`z,3fy ,, � �
�i
e�'�,—�z� �� s"`-+'U � j � - t
3�k� ���i r
�� }LE.�K�-I. F�t•y�1�� .t `�' r:,` � . .
,y F�. 4 �, �� �1�; °� ; /G :�; -� �' I ' � .
� �';,��6,t�a �� , , � _
:�n �t �v� Yt
.�"�{'. e��'f9y"-�ri'�L"�iSt��ici�+ _�{ �{ - 1 . .
i i� � i'� � f `
� �.� x}� � ��x. z ; , . _ i.:
—��^�`�i'�, .f�, t�-��., �� � l:: 1 � �:. r
� F
u�.T I- F9 l�t'^� .a � �'� ( ' t
ssL-'�'Ljiv�{� IL2`l- ''I {�� " . �
�az � ',, N'� 'k'i'�-•. .i i t _ � l j
� � �� y`���r�,�,��iY .. �,� .: ,.: �;� ' .. _ . .
�r r� r'� 'y��'� jcYv j� Y i t', 1 ( ��I - �.
' �' �' �'r;:�rl�- �"�'f r �� l i �
�L nr-+� ,[. k�l � "�� , � ..
� ��',.��4 '� j � �4 i .
�4,��«_4;'� s�Ee'�s3 .� U "�r i� t ��� i',I I �� �
[ ti� }.''"t ,�'`�� i . � l . �� � . ,
`-a� fii ,-�'4 �.�. � 9 .', j�. i ��, . 'i � .
�; � . , n � � �' . ( 4 J - . . �
� �r � �^' 7.c;�h`� r ;: .4 ' ( �:: . . . . .
�t T i �i .
i � fC ��5�tf l..y� . � � .. .. - ' , .
� � �. �� "" � �J :'�` ( . � � , � . .
.�y 4..cay,'� +�4 . Y' ..a . . '. �.:. �� ^..- . ' . . . . . � . ,
r ���I-y r� .r� .:' f ' . ' .... . . .
', � `rv �, r" y . . .
,e,`_-�_."l'"'i,+�. �i u}� �. . . � � ..�. .. � . . � - .
�",� �r'r,t � � � ..' , . .
" - .„[-�i �� y � � . � .
i�r 3 il _. . . � - .
� �'",�n [t . . � . . . � � .
V. l '� {�'I.� . i.�. _ � , . . . , .
��h ` ` � ` . . . ' , . . .
[�.,yF,il ... . . .. ' . � . .
.�_ � 21'. t � ' .. _ . .. � . .
i
_. �
,:,� � .:�.,,- :.
'Is
-F
LI°
�
��-, '` i�, _�j z� . }-�: '�" r.n "c5�i` }�� ��'���
� �
'�.'i� . � w ��y���s��`� 7'S 7 � �S� �
� ' �� .�, 3 +.,,i t i � i .i .
: y'Y r> A�� � - y"l�:rz'r�i7� ,I�`-�x 3 �. . c�+ �i.
�, � ti _ � `t� �f � t �-� ' ��,'�
? G� � � a, �� 4> y.
n�r "` _ �e�l, �� ,�''r 1 '�_
�. � .k 't fi. �E 5
tGc � Lz��'-i:. r'� _
.%f'�` ��~ yti.�• +;.Y{ 4T'
jY � C. �.63 . u �
II �fi 4 b �t,�
� _�', 4 � '.r �.',Y +�•'c�.-�r,�
-
! �: �i3� ��"y:
�7 :`� { ` •k
F "F
� 1
�' }i� ft r j� � *3 -
. � y.�_ 'tk �
a,�y; i
�t
� 7� T _ ��� �
'`" . � �r� 'at = '�+.
� a ''.i{r �$ "�. "F�,�
` r . '- ..a, f � C c
. - � . `+ � ` i� Y J ����.�
�1 P: �� hi"'4 F I � y �..3 �. ^�a .++ �� _
i'_ai1.� �T �,�' • `'��r�y�-,�s �.�aFs�, s.r.fit-.� ��:
"�y+ � { :S� }�,.� 7 .. � � { � , . iY { �
� �' �d 1 x _♦ '}
r.t'rr „� '�t y��- •
f: � � �t't" ':'G-* �f
i r ;r "�S '� � -� '72�r'�
`,y L ,�+�t-� A � �E ✓- .X i��*}, .
� �' �Ti ,i n,N '� 7.F ,(, � :.�c'`,#' i
. - =u �- {Si7r'�v.� �'q�� ,--, F,+ 3:�. wt,,� .
�'_ '... j+4rU� ��-�L �-'' ��-a Z' .�.,^ i�� -
Y� s.�.. . r ,:�-'•e�., 7�~"••,y..
y�s-� �'r' t 7' _ se, i{'��'�a ���.,
�h � ' -
��� {• i e -Y3;���.t`��, .►-.` r�-
�,+..:5.�, - :, h =
. h� ^ �.�.r _ •
� � �� ;`s r���
,y-�' ' "3� � -
:t� i
�� ,.,`fTiv� ��+,-. - ' FY��'"... . _ -
�. ���� {
d�?.: �.' . .,_
� y' t .�: y� y.' � SLa.`.. :C�x �,.,•
yx � 4 . ~ 1 ;. .a . r��' Q. :. �^"
<,'"� .:v" ,.ti` a' ��=-:�s
.� � .s� ��,st�. �� =e�^rt= _���'
.�>-W,=' 4��'
t - � "F-'. _ o=+� "
. `��'. _ � �` � , -
� - �� '
v ^�V•
.f�
��'k��.� ��..
��Y- i +� �`'� � E �r ,,,�a�� ���� } ...', � T 1` � i . � ` .
� � � � •., ��._..-. �,' �.,.�.�.+. "_�� �` -^? ._._, � � . \ "5i"�+j !.f'� � � Y�: ��' �.:- .
y(� i�-� ,�C" �...:�u - ,1 . s.s�����- � .
�+�`_:i+�r� �,F��g �..:n�t'+; Y,�+E�4n.,Gy, T' ,�. ._..:.'F-�� , .
a,,....c�'!..,, i:;`!� .. � . . ..:'a:k.k:�i1 _ �,�_ "r._,�"'i. i_ _, J�:.."�-�^'�11ar`�E�i��i5ili�tc�T.���'^zr�'u�� _:�� . . � .. �
�
�
i
'
�
i' � � .-
r ."',, �
�':. i
,
;
l
- - ,
, ;.
I
r 1 �
i:'; � i , s �
, , , :.
>� � �`
�
� � ° t �
i i , '. t
•. ( �_ ' � -` �, i. .. . f . �'. , . . _
� �
rs A�
� : ,.' '.. �. � ':;
, � .a
��' ` ; �::
� �' ' �
� ,
� J _
1� �:
r �
� �:. ■ ■
� � ��
� ��` ��m��-..' ...
I. � , � , . .. .
i ���.r�� �� �. . . . .
. :�. � . . . . . . . .. - . � . . . ..
� ,� � ' + . . . � � �
'; Z, '�p
�.}` a
u _ �?,
; —
-
C,
�
r.�
�L,
7�
y4�
� �.
� �'' �;.. � '. : f+'X� �
<
�.`��,� �'>� i�ny'.�C:.,.�a��e"i:� 3; �'>." :; -t_+
� : ����
� .�
� - ;�����::.
k %� )
l . �'� � '-
;�.." tx� Y r�4r �.. . r ry' I. ' l� �' . '�
.�Q
=:� Z�•y,ti� -t �i''� p��� S,. .. h t
� �� -:�
�' • � � :S: 1� ,p tl �,• 5 L '' { l 4
... �� � �f ;� ��•. q,� � 4 � � �
� ' ' c � '
�� g �v .' a3' i r�. �._
t�. 'fs` ' � . � � fi
t\ �' ..i�t " +' "'� .y i
� -i� _ j � � � � .ih_ � '. �
�` y r�
t ' � ��' 7 {' s �. u`ti� _ �
�. - � }:t tr3 ,� r5 ..
� `+`$ fi.� } �� :�
'i t l � i
' . � dr�'a-'r�., f; ' '�f 'i� } s'�hy' � i' ^f . �
� � .. . � .. r-' ,��i�d�""c�ti.� � }��r . 't "f,
r.��rKQ y � 4 ,�' t� s i 3� � 5`
� � � � �
�r � � �'d' �� ' � . 'Yy i �i� : t � �± � �� �'_ ,..��',
r 'i' J ,-T l� .. F;. !l' t'
'*�y.'r w ,� .s. '�y�.r?. �. y+�'� t z � .
i"�e �_ �t''* �= x!_ h � r F .
�jf`�� A. _ . r. � � 1 X� t ,L" F : �r� -r �,.
'£1'' 1 :!� r ,� }-r a: t�, ..L� 1" . "�TM+. � ^.
� V
}y� . �g�:;�; : � � r.°,»i 1(i Y` -'�,IS;�'� .'+....
`Y� d�"�:� T_f � tl � 4a' `�t�4
�'.fiY�,.�fl,��, m�� ` F� ; �""" e�}-•.G"t ¢�� �t o.�
'a��
� i��' r - � �� �.ysti f �'
Y
�y� � � , �IIII . �
1� � ,f" S
'{as r- "'���Sr � � . �, F �"� r � �
�T`�'.-r��� ��� S'� >''": �� j '�'=iv�a
m-
�� ! _ -
.. j� , k� `. • .. 'i�p r , � ,�,.--*
` , c,
.� � . , . ,..�.. �� ���J.
'� S� � .l}_� ��K ` F�` �i+"-�� �`•
.
:.
. �:
.: � , �. �:«,.�m _ - A
-
_ . � . . . � ��,<_ �~��� � �..T.�'-'�`' "
1 i,,'.�"`''
-:--�i
1
' ,;, :::c ; , :: � .:, .i.:: .
i
4
- . ( � r . (
( ' .i. - % � ' ' . .
.:� �:. � , . . � � .
�
�
�
rz-
j�'.'.Li� �"..t�SJ���F
1
�i*u� �� i � �3,,y}�
.,;�t 1
�'sr_ `�
� l �
t
?-� � j � � . ;t
: s,. � �._.5�,, .. i
� 1s ��'" �
�-r.�� �, � �
= y`_ � ' �
-�41 t`
�
' X4 '� a
�, � �j i _
'' r a.
i,.ef ty +" .
� 1
^ �
r,�, ''�
��. r-x.E ' ;, �
;yi_,-+ir �.p._ �f .
s'
;'' f;
^ �`i v,. _ :I . . .
'- ', "r? -
,
,, -
_ ,
�, �
. ,
, , , ,
, ., ,.
; �, � ? �
� i
,� r� ,�
� , � �; f t �
� 1 r i; � f
J, '�
� — i
�,..'.
.!
�4 �' � ,� '� '�
...�.�. +. J � .�'
j. 't,,
� �} ' -
} l '
.
. , .... . .. : �
�.. . . �. � �.�.. '
tL ': . �: .:.,, .. : .':
_ , t
( +:
f 1
I��`•�"!i f.�i
' i -.i "� J 7, i � .
as ��t. j , ' 1 '
��., r _
�'"�`� :�) (1: �r
: r, _.:
_'� � � ' �
� �-r
r :- r 1 '
`:- I '
� ': � :
..NI.:�. I � }
..t j �"� � '� .
r 1�,. �
� �' � r I - ' .
� . F �;
- � r I�: �.
I
f i '1
�
1
. :
-
, ,.
. . '
:,t .._ .: �
t
. .. . � . . � . . . . � �
�
C`::
�
;:
���,� ���-, �, � ; -� � ; , ti , � , � .
h� -� �-���.�-r�.. ���-� L � , ,, ` , - -
� .�,. �� �� � -�-��,� r' _.�----, � t
��. � � �, �����-� � ' � �
�_�����'�r� Ft� �'�w ` n � ` �,t r i ° �J' \ y ��� .
rn��� �����7 ,
u�� � ,.�. k�tar�'� i i, �' , �
� � ������� � ' � r
�,� `�� �� �� -�s �� � a , �,� .� i l
�a����,��"�"'�-� �`� � • , �
�mtZ-� < 'n F.^ � � l
i 2��2',.� �-dx r i ..—a
..��.+�'3 � ��r"k'1' 4..�-.r � r;' ti �' i f I
� i {`�".�-�A`"•-F.��3ryr F� .ti,3 ', ( l � , .
1�i"' �r � i�..0 � z �
r'��..jx"'�t . k�u�-''.,,�ic • �
� �"�-.�l,�Fa�{1 �„ � 4r� '. � ,: .
��1 ��� ��� �. e ` �� � ` r {
3 .. . l � I ( I
-y'� � �s�--Y' �.},'�`'- � t J
� 4�y� ,�-•rk�i I� ,� I i. f A i - S,
'.�'_
s .� 'si�t;�a Eu �hV �' �`"�"�-, � �:{ ' __. I .�..- .
� 3'-�9' '` �
� �^+"�, �� �i�"�`�_�*�t_��,� 'L l ,
l `^:.' G -�—r.y'r'- r.r4,'T''�',� ' :� � '
�r � 3��� ����a��r�e ����E .'� i . r .,
��,�, F3d�qi r, �' ., . i
i k L� r �th"��n �i :1 � — t � � 7 r � ' �ry � t � .
.,��* b.N19�-�� r � s�i � t i :' `' � �
� � t -fs�'i ��'� � �r G-� � r�� � , `
s ���r�� r'��� ��,�t . �
1 .� r-,, �` �} ,.«�' �
�ES"., ��T.�`4�� � ��{.�,� r�, I ` � _ _ �'� �
w"'�7 � � � �{ 'aA`����� � � i " _ i
t
�€ � � u-+�"�jiri'i �-Y T ,� - : . - . .
k y
T u'� G--� �y�y, ,,��� �`s3,� r��, rt � .. � ��
4� �-S .yL.i2"3�� �� "' r Y '�-1 3—s� :; .., .; y ,. ., .
�� ��4'-C r;ryS i.�, €1 � � , � (' 1
� t
ty'.=fz ��.,� h4. � � sy� ,a, a? .' � , :.{ � ,. ` : �
x P � .aj � � .r,�. 1 _ r .
a�+'�—�K- 9���r1 �_'
.�� �,�.-?�'� �� t.�.�. ��� t ,.
j`��''}t'%��. �S 4.y�� ij'iP�jtJ .
i�---�` i`+i�1�.aF� � � � , . �
,�# ���T� i1} �.
� y p � � .�{,� ..` l l 1 �. � ��,
.� � ��a ��� �� �, r � i I .'.
y � f�x �p �ti j� � � � '
j�� � Y l�/�`'j7 �-��4 a � � 1 f � J .. . .
.� ��� 4'�,"'r4.�.'1 _ � 1 . - . .
� �? r
t_ i �y`,s,`{� } l�
r�' � 4��; �;✓ y E� t. j. � � . .
n
r y.� +t�L`� �..,a -�' �,�-t ai''"' a f ' - � �� � . . . �.
� 6' V �t3 �.':� �L� � _ �, , . . . . . .
*2..F}� �1 (�'� � �f �. I � .
J�^ 1` � { r —tf 3� .�� � � 1 . ' .
ii ti �1 �4 � t J . . . . . .
�s �,'� � �i �: ' . . .
�r �- � `�'%�j� f � �.I � . F ' _ - .. - . .. . . ' .
�'y� �.� ' '�� 5 � L :�� . . . .
�r T s` I r �" . . . . . � �.. �
�— + t� � �
�} -t,� � . � �� , , . . .�. ' . . . - � . . � .
, �
� r , ,
� �.�; �. � -�
��i .._at��..�\ .. �. .. .:. . . . . , . . .
F
� F�...�� , .. .�.._ .._ _ _ _ . ._ _ .. .. .
'�M -n�F-�1��7: .1'3 � ...�. '.. .� . ..
c y. Y �L�' e +
K,i� J�r � � c i
1�S�L��FT�f.� k i 1F t � .
c � � �"`d.� i i ,�
s.�,� �i-t " ���
t���J�t ,Fi' � ,� d�
�
��� �S�' }t Em�� � j i
,w-� �'tin .5�_, m�� ��� � t � ` ' -.
dTy��' ' 41�� � � 1
HS��L1'#f4���� }4:� � �'��j ,:�:� _
�� ���t ,��, y � i t 1 C ry �. ' ���.. 't '_ __ .� _ i
�qy �t
l� �.+(,�ey.s�,r���. �'t'%� , , :,� � f ` 'i
�g'+�"';�L+,"3`�-'i'�r� s�jf5 �51 1 � �.,,� � � �'J '� � � .
.�''—i� �r 't`�r�- � �rv1- I � .. � (� t �
'_,.ur�s'.'e�'�� ��'� Z q � � _ �, ' `t 1
1���r���,r��>a �ij �. -�� �
.�� �'�v� ��+�j �� i' {-�' r t � � � r�
�{��Y} i .✓.',3i��� � nb i: � _ � ., t_ _ { f �.
� '� $,
;9,F'c�^�� �{�� rty,��T � -r, .'. � .:�1 ,- ; ` ( I
Qk'�'iF-i?�,�'Z`� �" 1 t �' % � ��
y7'`a �.,`5..� f4 R'�, �,�r�� i ` �,.' i ,
r
� �',�-° ���—i?,� i-s �� � i ' i �1. �7 � } .. �
� �i . ii" � 1 ��� � ''�'l � `� `f i � �' ( t -
�� �-� � � ,� � 1 � 1
��a�hY��.�� � � i �...��� .��- (���G �L
�i �� �s.�,1 ��� _' � r
�� �`,,,��� '� �'�� t � � � � t:.� ; C �
i
s��t't�'S- � �Tr��'�� C t ) r` � � � _ � �
�,�� � e 2..�.��,r3e�',�r E� - u.�_ , ., � .' �
�r ifi�'r •-
�,� �t=�.; s—',t-f � � � �'� 1��. r i�_ � 4 I � �' � � ( ` .
1g��� �,,+,}-���+ � r�,- .�� � t r� �
�t "4`S.� �� Z-�' l 1l f t � _
����L��.��"v�i ��): C-':`� :� �= f I
'�'t �� -y" �-'' � � I
1 � �'r�j •Y�3 .� �. , � (�. .
�S �
�, `�'`�� 7 � 4� � � ; ' r: I )
r ,
-65 x'.�y �.i�L �t J yt ���YJ � _ L � : .
1
�' ,'�� � 3Y Ih �. .. .. 'i" �,,� .
i —
� f't Y1�'�: \ 4'"�. '
. uh �.C'� g �.., J . t
,2- }[Sr .� : (
� .f � �'F..��.-L "'"�.n.,.,1 ..-- I i 7 1 �, i : ��. .
�.2��'-Yr'i11 �n � �,.:} , � �
��fi .;F��`+ �� � � r � � � �� _
� t�' .Fi�Y�'{1� � u� i: �� �
�
�� fk'"�5 ,, 7 C L, i�`
4 jL f - 1 . j� �'. '" '
� }'y v4. "L'£ :�. . `. ,` '
rl �.� Y. ��t -' i ,!, ,�, ��t ! `' r �.�!
��� `�'C'.� j.�J�� t,. r f.; 1 _;. I� :' t
Mri � '3 � r . '! I ,.
r-��E�. 4� r�, l�i:� :� � .t i: .
�� �} l _i `�L ( � :. C
1'
1.
��q7��1,� � :-� t.\�' ; --
:r;;`=',� �`��;'� ` , i '�. �
-ti -,s.a ,� 1 � � i; - '� - r'.
o+ sr` s��rs����r S ( ,' ' : ' _' "
"F'z5�i�� SS''�f 5�a .' � '.,`' ., �
^-�r F� �, '�i�l ,c�+i�. � . . � . .
jSti�� ,�+n;-F�.�, ,- � "
� �rt-r.i�+"C�'�r L�� �`� �'� `
''Tc'�s �. �f-. q ` � �
-,�t" ��.* w . z. � i ;�. t. '� . . . � . . � .
i 1 '�: � � ' .. . .
��I�"1:F]�Y�r12F f �. � � . � . .. -
�[); 1 til` � .2 � . .
'4'4�1:!(1 '' �a "''h, �� . � . - �
w Il.' � ' � . .
srf i ..jl.a� T�,c.''�,�.: t _ . .
c''t� + :, r -' '' . �,- ;`, .:.'. . :; ':. : � i . . � .
a ��. ? . . � ' � � . .
� i'� ,'i.t� q .'� . .
I-1-�.�'d.t��s � , .. . .
� lsv- '�'�y u�� , .
�
�y ,� a . C .ri .. . . . .
h�`�' s
4� '.. . � _ � . .
�� 7 � y � � T , � �.: r � . ,. : ' _ . ���:. . . . . _ , .
'''�� ;��""' t- . i. �1. . .
� � . T ` ,� Y . ;t7 '. � �. ' . . � . . . .
'�'. t �' r � f1�f � � `� � � . . � � .
z r. � r�, � . . . � . �
c,'�� � —`c�� � i . ,. . .. .
'v t,� t L. ' .
n 1, r, r-,',4e �i.E3�" . . . . .
,� '� ,�x tesl. � . . � . _ .
�f�5ir` � ,� ;� s� ,� . .: ., :! � .. , � . _. �.. . .. � . . . . .
Y � F, L�� � x � . . � . . . . . . ,
3 �_T� 4�ti �C�� . � . . .
f i�l) � I' . . . � } . � . � � . . . � . .
i �� � j�
:. r 3 r::� . . . .... � . .
�
'_�" y .' _ . . .., . .. � . ., . . � . . . . .. . .
� � r7 �-� � . - . . ..� � . � .
..z."...;i.w.�._�::ua:�:;:c,e;:�:r- . . � . .
/J
\
i� �
• �, • �
� ',' � , �"
�
� �_ _ �. � �
�_ '�." _� ��
,
;
':. i 1 � . ' . � . . 1 1
Table of Contents for Decem.ber 2006
�
Complaint Summary 1
Noise Complaint Map 2
FA.A Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage '7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type � 9 (
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operafor's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Depariure Related Noise Events 17
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events , j g
Carrier Jet Depariure Related Noise Eveuts 19
MSP Top Ten Aircraft.Noise Events per RMT 20-32
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 (�
�..
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Complaints by City
December 2006
� Nole: Shaded Columns rcpresent MSP comptaiNs fiicd vio thc ]ntemct.
r� � Sum of % Total of ComptainLs may not cqual 100% due to rounding.
� �"As of May 2005, thc MSP Complaints by Ciry repon includcs muhiplc
��--- complaint descriprors per individual complaint.l'hereCorF �he numbcr of
� complaint dcscriprors may be morc than �hc numbcr of rcponed complaints.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 1-
MSP International Air�ort
Aviation Noise Com�laints for December 2006 .
Number of Complaints per Address
�. �... �.
1-6 7-19 20-36 37-66 67-106 107-175
-2-
,; .
176-392 393-652
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C
Available Hours for Runway Use
December 2006
Dailv Count
Air Carrier 787 790
Commuter 389 387
General Aviation 82 66
Military 7 6
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
-3-
All Operations
� . ' �'i• �' ' •' ��•
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 100% due to rounding.
- 4- Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report December 2006
Note: Sum of RUS °/ may not equai 100 % due to rounding.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 5-
December 2006 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
FAR Part 36 Take �
, r �
�� . . � �. �. t .0 .. 5 + .. ' . i i:h ....
.Type Off Noise Level A�rcraft bescr�ption ,; ry.,,, ,, Stage; Gount. ,, Perceni,�;
. . ... .. . . ... . �
8742 110 Boeing 747-200 3 8 0%
B741 109.4 Boeing 747-100 3 2 0%
DG10 103 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 244 0.8%
B744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 73 0.2%
DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Douglas DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 44 0.1 %
MD11 95.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 55 02%
6767 95.7 Boeing 767-300 3 4 0%
A330 95.6 Airbus industries A330 3 191 0.6%
B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 428 1.3%
B777 94.3 Boeing 777-200 3 2 0%
A300 94 Airbus Industries A300 3 179 0.6%
A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 44 0.1 %
B73Q 92.1 Boeing 737 Modified Stage 3 3 2 0%
MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 953 3%
B757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 3588 11.3%
DC9Q 91 McDonneil Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 4681 14.7%
8734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 22 0.1 %
A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 5183 16.3%
B735 87.7 Boeing 737-500 3 536 1.7%
B738 87.7 Boeing 737-800 3 1499 4.7%
8733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 719 2.3%
A318 87.5 Airbus Industries A318 3 53 0.2%
B737 87.5 Boeing 737-700 3 30 0.1 %
A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4284 13.4%
RJ85 84.9 Avro RJ85 3 5 0%
MD90 84.2 McDonneli Douglas MD90 3 60 0.2°!0
E145 83.7 Embraer ERJ-145 3 63$ 2%
E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ-170 3 341 1.1 %
B717 83 Boeing 717-200 3 920 2.9%
CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 6773 21.2%
E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ-135 3 332 1%
; ° ,.�otals �: ' � 3'� 8,9,3„ ' �
,, ; ,,...:. , , .:, ._.. ,...
� `
Note: Sum of fleet mix % may not equai 100 % due lo rounding.
C
Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet ail stage I11 criteria as outlined in Federal 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 EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level).
•EPN� 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 decibeis.
- 6- Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
• ' • �•' . • � � • • • �� .
�' . ' �'•• �' ' �' ��•
Note: Surn of RUS % may not equai 10D% due to rounding.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 7-
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report December 2006
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equa(100% due to rounding.
- $ - Report Generated: 01l10/2007 14:58
�
December 2006 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
Operations by Hour
;Hour d4" ,,,Coun#'
2230. ,.,._ ,.�.:__:...::5,6 .._
5
2300 592
2400 171
100 76
200 27
3Q0 47
400 80
500 403
American AAL
American AAL
Atlantic Southeast Airlines ASQ
America West A1NE
America West AWE
Continental Exp BTA
DHL DHL
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
FedEx FDX
Pinnacle FLG
Kitty Hawk KHA
Kitty Hawk KHA
Midwest Airlines MEP
Midwest Airlines MEP
Nor�hwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Nor�hwest NWA
Northwest NWA
Republic Airlines RPA
Sun Country SCX
Sun Country SCX
Airtran TRS
United UAL
United UAL
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
UPS UPS
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 94.4°/a of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
Report Gerierated: 01/10/2007 14:58
:_ :
�:�
�
, .
. �
�
. �
� ��
. �
: l�
� �
�
�
. �
.
:
:
�:�
, .
, �
. �
:
� �
� • t�
�
:
: :
:
:
:
� ��
. �
�
� :l�
�
I
December 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
850
800
?50
700
650
cn� 600
C
;z—,d,�, 550
�
rp; 500
�
Q 450
�-
y�,� 400
ct7
� 350
�
� 300
250
200
150
100
50
O
AAL AS4 f�WE BTA DHL FDX FLG KHA MEP t+IWA RPA SCX TRS IJRL UPS
Jti.i:e[Y:rtc
�Manu�factured,.Stag`e� 3 �Stage .3,,. L�Stage 2;: i �
. ... _.. ... . . ... .. 2 ..,. . .:. ........ . . .. .,
December 2006 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
Note: UPS DCBQ and 8727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
�
�
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — December 2�06
Dec 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4051 Carrier Jet Arrivais
Dec 1 thru 8, 2006 — 4033 Carrier Jet Departures
Dec 1 thru 8, 2006 — 289 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Dec 1 thru 8, 2006 —165 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
-11-
�
Airport Noise and Operations IVlonifioring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — December 2006
� ���
Dec 9 thru 16, 2006 — 4018 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Dec 9 thru 16, 2006 — 3993 Carrier Jet Departures
Dec 9 thru 16, 2006 - 280 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Dec 9 thru 16, 2006 — 159 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
- 12 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
( �
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — December 2006
Dec 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4212 Garrier Jet Arrivals
Dec 17 thru 24, 2006 — 4197 Carrier Jet Departures
Dec 17 thru 24, 2006 — 292 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Dec 17 thru 24, 2006 — 273 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 01/10l2007 14:58
-13-
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operation� = December 2006
� ��
Dec 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3686 Carrier Jet Arrivais
Dec 25 thru 31, 2006 — 3703 Carrier Jet Departures
C�
Dec 25 thru 31, 2006 — 265 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Dec 25 thru 31, 2006 — 238 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
- 14 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
0
( J
MSP International Airport
Remote Monitorina Tower (RMT� Site Locations
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
' �,: ;�s;7,y ..
� '; ;�; Remote Monitoring Tower
;�
�
Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events
December 2�06
� ,
� , - ' . t i � �'{ . k � � '� �. . �
' � � A J 4 ` � I . � ' � i� �' 1 '� V
• RMT � , 4 + " ' L ' � ; ' ' T�me � � T�me > ' , T�me � Time >
?F ��� �.: L... {.... _..C!�!::.�.�.� . .:�.: r ..'�,::.._. Address �; ' " ; . 65dR.'� :��;�80dB:_' " �;,90dB �,._� .aF'�OOdB;� ,:
........,. . .... .... . . .......... .... . . .. , ...� .. . .._ .
1 Minnsapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 19:02:50 00:02:44 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 17:20:11 00:17:34 00:00:00 OO:Od:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 24:09:13 01:29:57 00:00:22 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48ih St. 19:30:56 00:30:50 00:00:06 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 27:20:57 05:38:00 00:06:08 00:00:00
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 23:29:56 03:59:39 00:07:25 00:00:04
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 01:20:01 00:01:11 00:00:00 OO:Q0:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:40:43 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
9 St. Paui Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:01:13 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. OQ:02:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:49 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:18:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 31:47:55 00:02:05 00:00:00 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 01:40:07 00:00:50 00:00:00 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 28:56:22 01:24:42 00:00:10 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:01:51 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:23:55 00:00:12 00:00:00 Q0:00:00
19 Bioomington 16th Ave. & 84th Sf. 00:07:52 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:01:52 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:17:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 17:27:38 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendofa Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 05:34:59 00:03:56 00:00:00 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 29:51:11 00:02:45 00:00:00 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 02:12:44 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 03:18:04 00:00:33 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:35:54 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00;00
28 Richfield 6645 16ih Ave. S. 02:00:01 00:02:0$ 00:00:00 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:01:36 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 02:55:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:00:43 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:01:02 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsviile North River Hiils Park 00:01:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:02:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 05:00:02 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 06:49:30 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Wpodgate Ln. N. 00:03:10 00;00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:01:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:01:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
;, ,�, ?otal Time,;forArcivai Noise Events ,;= ; ;;272,34:13 13`38 48,; OQ 1d�'�1 UO OQ 04`
C�
- 16 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events
;��' ����, � December 2006 �
,
� � $
,' a , � i
! RMT ,„ z r Time > T�me > Ti e� T�me >
�, ID �.. �.r ,...,.�..G�.fX...�.:;�.. �`.._. ....::�.'.....� � .Address .....�.. ...�.. . .�.....:...65c1B :.. . .r80dB.... 90dB 1UOtlB
�.;.. �.. ., �_. ... .. . _.... � .. _...
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave, & 41 st St. 03:08:36 00:02:43 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 04:18:22 00:02:44 00:00:01 OO:OQ:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 09:57:23 00:13:48 00:00:55 OD:OQ:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 12:26:01 00:16:45 00:00:12 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 40:51:16 03:34:42 00:27:30 00:00:13
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 52:45:3Q 06:01:56 01:07:03 00:00:30
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 20:2125 00:53:17 00:01:24 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 13:19:26 00:27:46 00:00:32 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:04:53 OO:Ob:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:03:20 00:00:34 00:00:16 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & SchefFer Ave. 00:07:18 00:00:31 00:00:09 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:02:44 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 09:59:30 00:05:54 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 13:12:04 00:37:22 00:02:02 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 13:12:28 00:14:09 00:00:04 OO:OO:QO
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 14:05:34 01:07:07 00:05:33 00:00:�0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. OQ:57:00 00:04:39 OO:Q0:32 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 14:35:52 00:15:45 Oa:02:22 00:00:00
19 Bioomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 10:25:12 00:05:16 00:00:00 OD:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 01:2628 00:02:45 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 03:56:36 00:01:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail D3:28:39 00:02:16 00:00:01 00:00:00
23 Mendofa Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 21:46:49 01:25:05 00:06:45 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 08:28:36 00:09:09 OQ:00:14 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 07:09:15 00:01:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 07:13:28 00:09:52 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony Schoof 5757 Irving Ave. S. 09:06:54 00:11:30 00:00:27 00:00:00
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 29:21:07 00:33:32 00:00:10 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schoal 4315 31 st Ave. S. 09:42:36 00:06:13 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 21:40:40 01:57:39 0�:04:41 00:00:00
31 Bioomington 9501 12fh Ave. S. 01:53:44 00:01:34 00:00:06 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 01:04:06 00:00:47 OO:OO:Od 00:00:00
33 Burnsville Narth River Hills Park 04:21:04 00:02:01 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 01:50:23 00:01:02 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 05:38:28 00:04:51 OO:Q0:01 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 02:57:52 00:01:43 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 02:15:55 00:01:41 00:00:00 00:00:�0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 03:19:01 00:0323 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Gharles PI. 03:16:44 00:02:52 00:00:00 00:00:00
;;� � , ; Totai Time for Depar,ture Noise Eve:nts , ;� , 383 52 1;9 19 05 '18 02 09 00 00 00 43 .:
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - �7 -
Arrival Related Noise Events
�- - .- ��.
� �+ � L i', + ` , , Arnval � s� A r�va� Arrroal % AfPINa)
RMT�S �� 4 F , 7 ; , ; �' , � , , , 4b r
r , �, � , i Events � Events > FEuents > E�enfs >
, ,
_ , G
.;.:.'>>�. .. � _.� . ..�. `_.�.�:C!h! � . �.: _ �_..., �: � ..� ° . .:: .. , .�. ..}. Aticlress_ . `�. . . ... .' ..:.: `. . .. .... ._: 65dB`:. ' 80tlB ..;.: .'.a 90dB. .�� '_ . .'�OOdB . .:::
........ _� ... .
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 4254 31 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 3484 224 0 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 4256 997 9 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 3820 409 2 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4493 3225 121 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4023 3139 218 2
7 Richfield Wentwarth Ave. & 64fh St. 209 10 0 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 110 0 0 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 6 0 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 8 0 0 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 3 0 0 0
12 St. Paul Alion St. & Rockwood Ave. 3 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 59 0 0 0
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 6756 36 0 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 282 12 0 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 5357 955 4 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 8 0 0 0
18 Richfield 75fh St. & 17th Ave. 98 3 0 0
19 Bloomingion 16th Ave. & 84th St. 35 2 0 0
20 Richfieid 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 7 1 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 79 0 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 3950 17 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1173 34 0 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 6269 61 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 435 5 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 882 $ 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 119 1 0 0
28 Richfield � 6645 16th Ave. 5. 296 21 0 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 4 0 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 826 0 0 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 3 0 0 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pieasant Ave. S. 4 1 0 0
33 Burnsvilie North River Hiils Park 8 D 0 0
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 12 0 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet �n. 1240 1 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 1483 4 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate �n. N. 13 0 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 5 0 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 7 0 0 0
; ' ' Total Ar�ival Noise, Events �' S4079 9'�97 �
'+ ��• � . '�'� r ..,>,.. ,.. � ��
.
... , . .:: ,. ,,,,.< < . ..: � , ; 2�
354
- 18 - Report Gene�ated: 01/10/2007 14:58
(.
C
C_,
Departure Related Noise Events
December 2006
' , ; � � epa e Deparfure peparEure
� RMT � ` '� F � ' „ t° Event u Event � E�ents > E�ents >
.,: � � � , ,., � F. ... .... ,,,. , � �E � ,
re
>
ID , , �� � . r Address. , .. ::: ...._�... .. ..:;::65dB. r,,.,. ,...80dB...... ;. � 90dB.�.y .. 1DOdB ,
. .... y . ........ ...... .�:tX ._....... .: � .,:..... ,... .. .� .
. ....... < . . .. .....� ....
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 678 26 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 903 31 1 0
3 Minneapolis West Elrnwood St. & Belmont Ave. 1824 97 11 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2274 146 3 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6084 1186 281 5
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 8039 2270 533 16
7 Richfield WeniworEh Ave. & 64th St. 3182 382 14 0
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2295 221 9 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 19 0 0 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 11 2 2 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 26 2 2 0
12 St. Paul Aitan St. & Rockwood Ave. 10 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1845 85 0 Q
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 2096 271 19 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 2329 146 2 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 2036 389 52 0
97 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 150 23 8 0
18 Richfieid 75th St. & 17th Ave. 2399 182 19 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 1844 79 Q 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 245 21 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 808 21 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 580 17 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3328 523 83 0
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren �n. 1374 97 4 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 855 6 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1288 97 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1728 132 5 0
28 Richfieid 6645 16th Ave. S. 4338 331 4 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schaol 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1818 64 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 3176 642 72 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 383 17 1 0
32 Bioomington 10325 Pieasant Ave. 5. 204 6. 0 0
33 Burnsville North River Hiils Park 794 19 0 0
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 352 10 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1031 61 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 500 22 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 395 23 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 598 46 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 611 36 0 0
` Tatal�De arture No�se Evehts 62450 � 7729 1125 21
, , , , P :...,..,.. .
Report Generated: 01l10/2007 14:58 - 19 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
�:
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St.
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
-2� - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C
C
� '
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#4)
Park Ave. & 48th St.
(RMT Site#5)
12th Ave. & 58th St.
(RMT Site#6)
25th Ave. & 57th St.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 21 -
Top Ten Loudesfi Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
(RMT Site#8)
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
12/07/2006 23:09
12/13/2006 20:40
12/31 /2006 13:45
12/24/2006 13:27
12/09/2006 6:47
12/29/2006 6:48
12/24/2006 19:30
12/29/2006 6:47
12/03/2006 20:24
12/04/2006 13:51
-22-
GCI705
TCA1
N WA19
UAL731
BMJ72
BMJ70
NWA1759
BMJ66
NWA1175
Unknown
(RMT Site#9)
Saratoqa St. & Hartford Ave.
B72Q
Uknown
8744
B733
B E80
B E80
A320
BE80
DC9Q
S R22
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 23 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events �for MSP
December 2006
�
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast end of Mohican Court
(RMT Site#14)
1 st St. & McKee St.
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
C�
- 24 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 .14:58
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006 .
(RMT Sife#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
(RMT Site#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave.
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17th Ave
Report Generated: 01l10/2007 14:58 - 25 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP '
December 2006
�
(RMT Site#19)
16th Ave. & 84th St.
(RMT Site#20)
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
- 26 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
;-
�
C
( ���
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave.
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 27 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
12/20i2006 2236
12/31 /2006 19:57
12/30/2006 7:51
12/10/2006 16:01
12/31 /2006 19:59
12/22l2006 7:47
12/15/2006 13:22
12/18/2006 0:33
12/19/2006 20:15
12/10/2006 15:47
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park 1321 Ju
DHL304 672Q D
NWA929 DG9Q A
CCP416 B72Q D
NWA1054 DG9Q D
NWA19$ A320 A
NWA1702 A320 A
NWA19 B744 D
CCP9605 B72Q A
AAL1071 MD80 D
AAL874 MD80 D
{RMT Site#26)
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
12R
30L
12R
17
30�
30L.
22
30L
17
17
86.1
85.7
85.5
84.2
83.9
83.6
$3.5
82.2
81.8
81.5
(RMT Site#27)
� _,, ,. . . ���� . . . ...
- 28 - Reporf Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(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: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 29 -
�
Top Ten �oudest Aircrafit Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
�>
(RMT Site#31)
9501 12th Ave. S.
(RMT Site#32)
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
(RMT Site#33)
North River Hills Park
- 30 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C�
( ��
Top Ten �oudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Garnet �n.
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58 - 31 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
December 2006
(RMT Site#37)
4399 Woodgate Ln. N.
1 2/29/2006 1 1:13 AAL509
12/1 Q/2006 14:49 AAL2002
12/05/200610:19 NWA1286
12/281200614:22 AAL1925
12/12/2006 7:46 NWA138
12128/2006 8:40 AAL809
12/Q9/2006 9:53 NWA126
12/28/200611:20 AAL509
12/10/200614:06 AAL2089
12/28/2006 7:29 NWA138
(RMT Site#38)
3957 Turauoise Cir.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
84.3
84.1
83.5
83.4
83.1
83
83
83
83
82.9
-32-
December 2006 Remote Monitorinq Tower Top Ten Summary
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for December 2006 were comprised of 89.2%
departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft fype was the B72Q with 33.1 % of the highest Lmax
events.
December 2006 Technical 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 December 2006.
Repo�t Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
C�
C,
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
December 2006
Remate Monitoring Towers
" � Da�e � #1 ' #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 � #7 #8 ' #9 #10 . #11 #12 #'] 3 #14 #15"
�, �: , . .�,� :. .
. ., .. ,,,:� <: .._, .. _ <..- _,... n .� ,, :" ,., . .. ....�, � , _.<.., ...,. ,
12/01/2006 55.9 55.4 61.6 58.6 69.6 70.4 61.3 59.5 NA NA 27.5 39.5 55.2 64.7 56.7
12/02/2006 47.4 56.2 55.5 54.4 67.6 71.7 61.5 56.9 NA NA NA NA 41.4 60.6 43.4
12/03/2006 52.4 55.1 59 63.1 66.8 73.1 59.5 57.4 30.3 NA 32.5 NA 46.4 57.8 49.2
12/04/2006 50.6 53.1 56.3 57 65.6 70.7 62.3 56.8 30.6 35.3 372 NA 46.1 61.8 50.1
12/05/2006 57.5 57.8 64.8 61 71.1 70.7 60.2 64 NA 34.6 25.6 26.6 55.7 60.8 58
12/Q6/2006 48 51.9 56.9 58.2 68.7 71.1 65.8 62.5 37.3 NA NA 38 NA 61 40.5
12/07/2006 50 53.1 56.8 60.1 67.8 71.8 62.1 61.6 48.7 29.1 46.3 NA NA 59.3 50
12/08/2006 54.8 57.3 62.2 59.7 69 68.8 58.1 56.2 NA NA NA NA 57.8 63.5 58.5
12/09/2006 57.7 57.8 63.7 59.2 68.3 66.7 39.1 43 46.4 28.9 NA 42.3 57.1 65.5 58.7
12/10I2006 58.3 59 64.4 6Q.5 68.6 67.4 NA 38.3 NA NA NA NA 57.8 62.9 58.9
12/1112006 59.5 61.6 66.7 62.4 70.6 68.2 46.7 43.4 NA NA NA 29.6 59.6 64.7 61.2
12/12/2006 59.5 57.7 67.1 60 71.6 72.4 52.2 57.8 NA 26 NA NA 50.7 62.1 54
12/13/2006 53 54.8 58.6 62.1 69.6 74.9 62.1 65.3 34.5 41.1 31.6 39.3 46.1 63.6 52
12114/2006 56.6 56.5 61.5 61.8 71.6 74.6 63.8 65.$ NA 27.1 41.6 NA 41.4 64.7 47.1
12/15/2006 57.2 59.7 65.1 61.3 71.2 702 63 55.8 NA NA 36.1 3�.6 58.8 64.8 60.5
12/16/2006 57.4 57.5 64.6 61.6 69.7 72.4 57 54.1 NA NA 33.5 NA 55.5 62.5 57.1
12/17/2006 53 51.7 59.4 57 70 72.3 62.8 58.8 37 NA 28.7 NA 36.9 62.7 48.1
12/18/2006 48.9 53.7 59.2 58.3 66.8 72.2 61.3 59.3 38.8 37.8 35 26.5 41.7 60.4 46.4
12/19/2006 57.7 58.5 64.9 60 69.3 69.3 52.9 60.8 NA 37.7 NA NA 57.1 66.9 61.2
12/20/2006 53.5 54.1 61.5 59.1 7Q.9 70.9 60.7 58.7 NA NA NA NA 46.7 64.8 51.7
12/21/20Q6 61.9 63.1 68.9 63.6 72.2 69.5 56.6 44.5 NA NA NA NA 58 68 60.1
12122/2006 55 57.3 62.8 62 72.8 76.5 66.1 62.9 26.6 NA 24.1 NA 40.7 64.4 46.6
12/23/2006 53.4 52.9 61.7 57.9 70.2 71.7 63.3 56.5 40.4 35.7 NA 40.1 56.7 65.6 59.$
12/24/2006 56.9 58.4 64.3 61 68.4 71.3 57.1 55 37.7 39.8 39.9 24.9 57.8 63.4 62.$
12/2512006 53.1 54.6 58.2 60.5 69.4 72.5 64.4 58.7 40.2 52.7 53.7 28.9 NA 59.7 35.8
12/26/2006 53.6 54.8 58.5 59.4 68.6 72.4 59.2 60.5 NA NA 43 NA 34.1 60.7 50.7
12/27/2006 59 60.2 66.3 62.2 70.5 69 46.8 50.9 NA NA 322 NA 60.4 66.4 62.2
12/28/2006 63.4 62.8 70.4 63.6 74.2 69.5 53.7 43.6 44.6 47.6 47.3 NA 60.7 66.5 62.5
12/29/2006 62.2 62.8 70.1 632 73.7 69.3 43 30.1 45.7 44.5 NA 48 60.7 66.6 62.7
12/30/2006 62.9 63.6 69.4 63.9 73.6 69.8 50.4 49.8 39.3 NA 38.5 39.7 592 63.1 61.6
12/31 /2006 59.2 56 66.9 60.6 72.6 73.8 63.9 58.7 37.1 55.5 49.4 NA 51.8 66.6 54.8
,:. :.:. , ,:- > ; ,
;MVIo pN,L 57:7 58 4 64 7;;' 60 9 70 5, 71 7 60 8 59 3 39 ; 43 4 j'. 42 36 1, 55:7 64 ,1 58
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
-33-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
December 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers �,
��' Date i #16 '#S17' #18 #19 #20 #z� #22 ;�#23 #24 �#25 #26� #27 #28 #29`�
..a����.._N_. F...ti.x ..:... .:....::�.'.. .�.i„c,�.<,_...��.. „.:....,�.';.�';�>;".�,.:i':':c.r,!. n.,.��..,,.:��.,.�.>.., � . �
�.i. � i 4 ,�.1 ..riv..� l..
.a����..x.. :u rv� ��.� �.� vm�ux�... x.r �. .�.�x ivr... ..._..
12/01l2006 66.5 31.2 47.3 40.9 34.1 532 60.1 65 62.3 54.2 58.8 57.9 56.9 53.2
12/02/2006 65.8 36.7 NA NA 35.7 46.8 57.$ 50.9 59.9 41.2 53.1 55.9 55.8 53.5
12/03/2006 62.5 36.1 46.9 44 39.8 33.4 55.7 58.9 56.9 25.7 48.7 56.6 54.2 53.7
12/04/2006 64.9 47.4 56 51.2 48.7 42 55.1 60.3 60.3 42.2 5q.9 54.3 58.1 56.1
12/Q5/2006 65.9 57.7 60 57.3 61.2 52.4 56.4 63.5 58.7 52.6 55.8 44.1 61.$ 57.7
12106/2006 67:4 43.5 57.5 49.8 48.9 42.5 59.2 46.7 61 26.1 482 55.3 62.8 57
12/07/2006 65.6 44 50.2 45.4 47.8 42.8 55.6 57.3 59.3 44.1 46.6 5$.4 59.6 58.1
12J08/2006 64.5 51.2 58.5 53.3 45.7 55.4 57 67 61.7 49.6 59.3 51.8 55.8 53.$
12/09/2006 65.7 31.4 56.1 50.5 31.3 52.1 56.5 66.1 61.2 54.9 56.8 34.4 53.3 NA
12/10/2006 62.5 51.2 59.3 54.5 40.6 54.5 57.7 66.1 60.4 54.9 61.5 NA 58.8 NA
12/11 /2006 65.8 26.9 59.2 57.4 NA 55.9 57.4 68 62 55 61.7 39.2 62.2 NA
12/'( 2/2006 65.9 49.6 62 58.8 52.8 44.6 56.2 62.2 59.9 48.1 58 42.4 58.4 54.2
12I13/20Q6 67.7 55.9 59.3 56.1 55.4 40.1 61 57.6 62.9 55.1 55.7 57.7 60.4 59.3
12/14/2006 68.5 54.5 58.4 54.6 54.1 43 62.3 54.6 64.5 52.7 55.3 54.6 62.3 fi1.9
12/15/2006 67.7 27.9 59.6 57 34.8 53.5 61 67.1 63.2 51.9 59.7 58.5 60.8 52.1
12/16/2006 65.7 50 58.9 50.8 48.1 51.4 56.3 63 60.2 50.2 58.3 53.5 53.9 54.3
12/17I2006 65 37.2 57.6 53.1 47.1 402 56.7 53.2 60.2 46.6 50.3 57.7 58.4 57.4
12J18/2006 66.3 52.4 59.4 54.9 49.5 44.8 57.2 53.6 59.7 53.4 50.1 55.4 57.7 56.6
12/19/20Q6 67.6 51 58.7 54.3 46.4 54.6 60.4 67.7 64.4 53.4 60.4 50.2 56.1 54.9
12/20l2006 68.5 39.4 57.6 53.1 48.2 45.1 59.4 62.8 62.7 58.7 54.1 58.8 58.7 53.4
12/21/2006 71 NA 51 48.2 31.8 54 56.5 65.3 64.2 58.8 58.4 47.1 61.5 NA
12/2212006 68.2 51.1 54.7 45.5 44.6 48.1 61.2 58 64.4 44.7 55.4 60.7 63.8 58.4
12/2312006 69.2 50.7 57.5 49.9 51.8 49.9 60.7 66.7 64.1 52.4 55.5 56.2 58 52.5
12/24/2006 64.8 50.8 57.1 54.1 45.5 50 57.5 66.7 60.6 49.9 58.9 45.6 55.9 54.3
12/25/2006 64.4 39 55.6 53.9 45.5 36.5 56.5 44.7 59.6 36.8 45.8 56.6 59.5 54.1
12/26/2006 64.8 53.8 62 60.1 55.3 42.8 57.2 53.4 59.9 48 50.5 54.2 59.9 55.8
12/27/2006 69.8 51.4 60.6 57.1 47.6 58.7 59.9 67.4 63.1 58.6 63.1 45.3 62.3 43.6
12/2812006 68.2 48 59.5 60.4 45.3 57.9 55.9 68.8 62.6 56.2 63 47.3 63.8 34.8
12/29/2006 70 NA 57.7 55 NA 55.9 57.2 67.4 61 58.8 62.3 41.2 61.3 NA
12/30/2006 66.6 35.8 57.5 53 40.3 52.3 56.7 65.6 60.5 55.7 56.2 45.9 62.2 40.6
12/31/2006 70.3 28.9 46.9 NA 48.9 45.2 58.5 62 62.9 53.7 55.2 55.9 65.5 55
Mo DNL 67 2 49 8 57 9 54 6 50 5 52 58 4: 64 3: 61 8 5� 7 37 9 54 9 6d�4: � 55 :
. ::,:.< . . ..::. ., ,, . . . ::.... . . :. : . .._:::: .�:
�
- 34 - Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
� �
December 2006
Remote Monitoring Towers
, Date � #30 #31 #32 #33' #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 '
,. ,:, , � �. .:.., . ,,.,;_ <.,r...:.,
12I01 /2006 51.8 26 40.1 29.8 41.8 51.8 53.3 41.5 NA 25.6
12/0212006 41.5 NA NA 29.9 NA 42.8 42.4 NA NA NA
12/03/2006 55.9 41.8 38.5 38.8 38.1 49.7 51.1 NA NA NA
12/04/2006 62.6 46.1 41.8 49.5 51.7 53.5 54 39.5 29.7 38.3
12/05/2006 61.8 54.2 55.2 53.1 50.8 55.4 51.4 51.6 52.4 53
12/06/2006 61.9 45.1 40.8 NA 55.1 51.3 53.9 NA NA NA
12/07/2006 56.7 43.9 43.1 35.4 28 53.3 52.7 41 40.2 NA
12/08/2006 61.5 43.4 48.9 49.8 47.5 52.4 51.1 44.3 48.3 5Q.2
12109/2006 59.1 31.8 28.9 49.6 45.7 46.7 40.9 46.4 48.6 51.1
12/10/2006 61.8 38 35.2 51.3 44.5 49.2 40.5 49.8 52.8 53.5
12/11/2006 64.8 5Q.3 32.1 52.4 47.4 50 41 51.8 54.3 52.9
12/12/2006 69.5 51 46.6 58.1 56.7 60.3 55.1 48.4 50.3 44
12/13/2006 64.6 54.3 53.9 52.2 47.7 57.9 55.2 48.5 47.1 27.5
12/14/2006 65.5 54.9 52.2 55 49.5 55.9 53.8 49.7 47.1 51.4
12/15/2006 65.7 52.4 49.1 53.8 41.9 51.7 51.2 48.3 50 53.4
12I16/2006 57.6 33.8 33.3 44.4 39.5 52.3 53.7 40.4 45.9 44.1
12/17I2006 61.8 42.5 NA 45 35.3 55.4 57 38.6 32.5 NA
12/18/2006 65.1 47.1 40.8 56.2 55.2 58.6 58.7 42.6 38.7 44.2
12/19/2006 64.5 46.8 45.6 53.6 47.8 54 52.5 39.4 43 48.1
1212012006 64.9 54.9 56.8 44.9 43.7 56.8 56.1 36.6 NA 31
12/21/2006 57 37 NA 39 26.2 37.8 33.6 44.2 41.1 40.8
12/22/2006 NA NA 31.1 NA NA NA 42.3 30.2 NA 26.8
12/23/2006 53.7 39.6 42.7 39.7 47.7 53.8 53.1 NA 41.4 44.1
12/24/2006 63.9 45.7 44.5 54.8 45.4 53.2 51.6 43.$ 47 48.6
12/25/2006 64.3 51 492 49.2 49.7 502 54.5 36.2 38 25.7
12/26/2006 68.8 53 48.3 54.8 57.4 61.2 60.4 38.7 30.7 NA
12/27/2006 65.3 45.7 42.3 54.4 44.3 51.4 44.2 50.8 53.6 55.2
12/28/2006 65.4 50.6 48 51.5 47 52.6 47.5 53.5 55.2 52.$
12/29/2006 64 41.8 37.8 49.2 38.8 49.7 40 51.9 54.6 51.6
12J30/2006 61.2 47.9 41.9 48.7 36.4 46.1 41.7 48.2 50.5 47.3
12/31I2006 NA NA NA NA 31.3 NA 35 36.9 36.7 32.4
�Ma DNL 63.4 48 9 47 8: 51 3 49 4 54 2 53' 1 46 8 48 5 48 5„
Report Generated: 01/10/2007 14:58
-35-
' 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission __
4190 Carrier .�ets I�eparted Ru�ways 12]C, and 12]E2 in I)ecember 2006 �'
3919 (93.5%) of those Ope�ations Remained in the Co�ridor
4190 Tota112L & 12R Carrier Departure
Operations
3919 (93.5%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor
12/01/2006 00:00:00 - 01/01/2007 00:00:00
3919 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1991 (50.8%), Righi =1928 (49.2%)
___. _____
� 6000
d
m
v 5000
�
0
� 4000
d
W 3000
�
0
a- 2000
�C
� 1000
0
�
a 0
..................:.....................................:..................
: �� : � �
. C? ,-. C� • 0 p�.: C�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•" . . �r . .l� Q.�.Y . �..._ . . �; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .�a.�_ . . . .� � . �.t� t<{� ��-� r.. ..�
..........
-2 -1 0 1 2
Deviation From Cenier of Gate (Miles)
� Arrival �� Departure 0 O erflig � ` _
�.....:,._.� ,�,�„_ �.,:<�.� .,,.,..�„� �-� ,
, ,. , ...�, ;, . . :,. _ _. ,.. . ... , , ,y .
v ht
�, � � .
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
96 (2.3%) Y2unway 12L and 12�2 Carrier Jet I�eparture Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor �oundary During December 2006
Page 2
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Corridor
12/01/2006 00:00:00 — 01 /01/2007 00:00:00
96 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 4(4.2%), Right = 92 (95.8%)
� 6000 , . .
� . . .
�, . . .
V5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : : :
o � �
i4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
W 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . : :�:r�;�1�''{ �,� . . . . . . . . .
^� , ✓ " f. �„�4
a ��.( y� 1
0 • { �. r� �%`) (J.�L�''rZI;�>``x���.,-`,'�''�+j
O' 2��� ................ . ...............��i't,.:J. ty`,y:i.)v;7''f`i t-. ..........
Q . n .
�i : J�) i�.;
y1000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
o : : '
� . . .
'Q 0
—2
(Runway End)
-I- Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) iCorridor End)
�� Departure ❑ Overfiight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
175 (4.2%) I�unway 12L and 1212 Carrier Jet I)eparture Operations were
South of the Corrido� (South of 30I, I,ocalizer) I)uring December 2006
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor
12/01/2006 00:00:00 — 01/01/2007 00:00:00
175 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left =105 (60.0%), Right = 70 (40.0%)
w. 600"
m
d
v 500
_
0
m 400
>
a�
� 300
°- 200
Q
� 100
O
.Q
Q
� ..................:...................:..................:..................
� ..................:...................:...................'..................
D�.....�. � ......:...................:....................................
t�C • � : ; �..
i:� o'� � ,• ..
� :��. � � ti, -` , .. �G ��. c,�. . ,� . a� . ; .�. . . . . . . . � . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,i15, Ls-� : '
. .. C
�1_ ,
(.: .�`'�j"1 �.,� r,y.' � s }.'��`�`� ,...
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ,:.. . . . . . . . .r . . . . ' y� �. .`� . . . . . . . . . . ,..
: ` Y � ��"�`' . G �
, . . J . �j.J (� �'�,.
1:!
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) peviation From Center of Gate {Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin
-�- Arr�val �� Departure ❑ Overflight
- - � r�.�������
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
�
Page 3
IvIetropolitan Airports Commission
6(0.1%)12unway 12L and 12i2 Carrier Jet I�eparture Operations were 5°
South of the Corridor (5° South of 30_C, I.ocalizer) During December 2006
Page 4
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor
12/01/2006 00:00:00 — 0101/2007 00:00:00
6 Tracks Crossed Gate: �eft = 4(66.7%), Right = 2(33.3%)
.w 6000 . . .
� . . .
d • • :
v5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : : :
o • • �
c4000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
> : : :
d .
� 3000 ........_ .........:...................:..................:..................
:: : : :
o :;�, . . .
°- 2000 ..............'..,,.:...................•..................,..................
a : ��: :
y1000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
o : : C� ! i
� . . .
¢ n
—Z
(Corridor End)
�- Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Point)
�=' Departure O Overflight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12Y, and 12R T)eparture Destinations for �ecember 2006
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis
t
�5
t( �
\
Page 5
PRESIDENT
Susan Lienesch
Councilmember
Centerviile, OH
VICE-PRESIDENT
Skip Lowry
Councilmember
S[. John, MO
SECOND
VICE-PRESIDENT
Mary Rose Evans
commissioner
Parkway Village, KY
SECRETARY
George Nichols
Met. Washington
Council of Godts
TREASURER
Dennis Patten
Commissioner
Brook Park, OI-L
LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE
co-�n��
���� �SandraColvin-Roy
Councilmember
<_ Minneapolis.MN
Connd Bowers
Mayor
Bridgeton, MO
CONFERENCE
WMMITTEE
cn�r
Dave Carbone
Senior Planner
San Mateo Cnty, CA
EXECUTNE
DIItECTOR
Denois McGrann
Washingron, DC
S . �,.o... . 1 �N
v t. ��+'.y { 'jT�.,
�♦ _ L .� f dn� t c�
�,� : \ i�y ��'1� � ;� . �� . .
i� •F 'J i
�
� . � � . �� � ` ;�' �` � '` �'
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUNA-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
"A»ierica's Co��2munity Voice on Aviation Noise Issues" • An �liate of the National League of Cities
NOISE PARTICIPATES IN NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) was created by Congress in 2006
in the "Vision100 — Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act." The Act aims to transform
the nation's air transportation systern through an integrated, multi-agency program. One
specific purpose of NGATS is to connect the govemmental and private sector to focus on
development and implementation of a new transportation system. NGATS operates through
the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which consists of eight different product
teams. These teams establish benchnnarks for success and a structure by which the nation
can implement changes that need to be made to advance the aviation industry. NOISE is a
member of the policy panel for the Environmental Integrated Product Team (EIPT). EIl'T
specializes in environmental issues with both private and public sector experts to achieve that
strategy's mission and objectives.
CLEAN ENGINES, WINGS THAT FOLD: BOEING DREAMS OF FUTURISTIC JETS
According to a May 5 report in the Seattle-Tirnes newspaper, Boeing has created small task
groups to re-imagine the airplane in futurisiic configurations. The product development
teams have produced designs that sport wings, tails and engines in unexpected shapes and
places. The research aims for 1ow-cost and environmental-friendly planes that will be
quieter, use less fuel and have fewer pollutants in the upper atmosphere. The low-cost team
is studying the beneiits of long, thin wings and new engine types while the environmental-
friendly team ("Green Team") has produced widely differing structures.
The newspaper reports that it is too early to know if the models will actually become reality,
but Boeing is reportedly more concerned with finding out which of the potential technologies
make sense to develop in the future. The teams are expected to recommend features from
their designs that could be used on replacements for the 737 single-aisle jet as soon as 2012.
Director of the two design teams and vice president of product development at Boeing, Dan
Mooney, aims to have an ongoing investment in the longer term as well as investment in the
short terzn. He said he wants Boeing to be ready for whatever the future holds.
�AYJET TO LAUNCH �E'LYING TAXIS TO SMALL CITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST
DayJet Corporation imagines customers will be interested in replacing cars with planes on
short trips frorn 100-300 miles. The company plans to launch passenger service in late 2006
between states in the Southeast including Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Day7et's air taxi business model will use "microjets" to allow jet service to many regional
and local airports. The company has ordered 239 Eclipse 500 twin-engine jets from Eclipse
Aviation in Albuguerque, New Mexico, retailing for $1.4 million each. Since each jet only
has a maximum take-off weight of 5,920 pounds, they are exempt fronn the Stage 3 noise
requirement, which affects commercial jets weighing over 75,000 pounds at take-off.
DayJet's research shows that almost 40 million of the Southeast region's 52 million yearly
business trips of between 100 and 700 miles are by road. Therefore, the company will focus
NOISE � 415 Second Street, NE • Suite 210 • Washington, DC 20002 •(202) 544-9844
Fax (202) 544-9850 • Email contactQaviation-noise.org • Web www.aviation-noise.org
PRESIDENT
Susan Lienesch
Councilmem6er
" Centerville, OH
VICE-PRESIDENT
Skip Lowry
Councilmember
St� John, MO
SECOND
VICE-PRESIDENT
Mary Rose Evans
Commissioner
Pazkway Village, ICY
SECRETARY
George Nchols
Met. Washington
Council of Gov'ts
TREASURER
Dennis Patten
Comroissioner
Brook Park, OH.
LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE
co-�n��
Sandra Colvin-Roy
Councilmember
Minneapolis, MN
Conrad Bowers
Mayor
Bridgeton, MO
CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE
Chair
Dave Carbone
Senior Planner
San Mazeo Cnty, CA
EXECUTNE
DIItECTOR
Dennis McGrann
Washington, DC
'. f�„ �,,r,� ? � ;� r
�' � �,.,�)�"� � , ` �j,; �. �
,i� a� �Y"'v' F '- � Z
� �,. �,
� �s"'i`. .l .3 �' s� .
f �. . . . , � yYF�: � r � ; .F �'
, �: � �; °�
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
"Anaerica's Co�nrnuniry Voice on Aviation Noise Issues" • An �liate of the National League of Cities
on flights of between 200 and 400 miles, where automobiles are its biggest competitor. The
company plans to set flight times and destinations according to customers' schedules and
expects to charge between $1 and $3 per mile for short trips. Some industry analysts are
warning against businesses getting too caught up in the small jet service saying it will be
very di�cult to make a profit. Despite the warnings, the FAA estimates that 5,000 very-light
jets will be flying by 2017.
CONGRESS MOVING TO REPEAL OF LOVE FIELD / WRIGHT AMENDMENT
The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would repeal the Wright Amendment —
enacted in 1980 to limit Southwest Airlines' flights out of its headquarters at Dallas Love
Field to short-haul flights to a majority of southern states. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
(R-TX) recently proposed legislation (S. 3661) to enact a negotiated agreement between
Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, the cities of Dallas-Fort Worth and the DFW
International Airport.
The Wright Annendment prevents Southwest from conducting flight operations from Love
Field for flights of over 1,500 miles. The provision was enacted in 1980 to resolve a dispute
between Southwest and the cities of Dallas-Fort Worth over aviation noise issues. Asea
residents and communities are dissatisfied with the proposed legislation because it will likely
increase the frequency of flights at the airport.
S. 3661 was passed by the Senate Comznerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on
July 19 and may soon be debated on the Senate floor. Sources indicate that the bill znay be
attached by amendment to the FY2007 Transportation Appropriations bill (H.R. 5576)
expected to pass after the November elections. This move would force the provision to be
considered during Conference Committee negotiations later this year to reconcile the House
and Senate versions of the bill. However, some Members have pledged to fight Senator
Hutchinson's plan to tack the provision as an amendment to the appropriations bill.
NOISE • 415 Second Street, NB • Suite 210 � Washington, DC 20002 �(202) 544-9844
Fax (202) 544-9850 • Emai1 contact�aviation-noise.org • Web www.aviation-noise.org
'` �i' r,► � �,,w.� �:...
� ,�;� ; � � ., ,, �
� � v+ s:: � s` � t i r �� � r :
t ,. »�- ,,. ,G�,., =i
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 19, Number 1
Las Yegas McCarran Int'l
CIT'� CHA.I.,LENGES IEAA I)ECISION TO TURN
PLAN�S OVER DENSELY POPULATEI� A1tEAS
The Las Vegas City Council voted unanimously on 7an. 3 to challenge in federal
court the Federal Aviation Administration's decision to institute a"right turn"
depariure path at McCarran International Airport that will send, on average, 127
planes a day on a 180 degree turn over densely populated areas in the northwest-
ern part of the city and over parts of downtown Las Vegas.
The City Council voted to provide up to $375,000 to the Costa Mesa, CA, law
firm Chevalier, Allen and Lichman to represent the city in the challenge and
$57,000 to an Arizona aviation consulting firm, Williams Aviation Consulting,
which has expertise in air tra�c issues.
Barbara Lichman told ANR she expects to file a petition seeking review of the
FAA's order approving the right tum in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit the week of 7an. 8. The Ninth Circuit, she said, is likely to ask the parties in
the lawsuit to enter into mediation, which would provide an opportunity to
discuss the matter with the FAA.
Grounds for the challenge could include noise impact for those under the new
flight path, safety issues arising from potential airspace conflicts with Nellis Air
(Continued on p. 2)
Research
PARTIVER LAND USE, LFN PROJECT REPORTS
DUE IN 2007, `NOISEQgT]ES'I'' TO BE LAUNC�-IEI)
In the first six months of 2007, the research consortium PARTNER plans to issue
reports on projects looking at land use planning around airports and factors that
influence how people respond to low-frequency aircraft noise, and also plans to
launch a new website called `NoiseQuest' that will provide educational materials
on noise to both airports and communities.
PARTNER (the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions
Reduction) is a cooperative research organization sponsored by the Federal
Aviation Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
Transport Canada that brings together government, academic, and aviation
industry researchers to conduct studies in the areas of aircraft noise and emis-
sions that will be used as the basis for future policy development.
Some 18 PARTNER projects are currently underway and described at the
organization's website (http://www.pariner.aero). The noise projects address low-
frequency noise; noise measurement, metrics, and health effects; the Continuous
Descent Arrival; land use management and airport controls; sonic boom mitiga-
tion; and the development o£NoiseQuest.
PARTNER participants are in the process of project planning for fiscal 2007 and
are considering 20 new projects, some entirely new and some building on current
work, said Prof. Ian Waitz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
1
January 12 , 2007
In This �ssue...
McCarran Int'l ... The City of
Las Vegas gives the go-ahead for
a law irrm to file suit inthe U.S.
Court ofAppeals fortheNinth
CircuitchallengingFA.A.'s ap-
proval ofanew "rightturn"
departureprocedurethatwill send
as many as 200 planes per day
over densely populated areas of
the city - p. 1
.Researclz ... In the first six
rnonths of 2007, PARTNER
plans to issue reports on studies
on land use around airports and
launchanewwebsitethaiwill act
as an educational forum for both
airports and communities -p. l
Coryzmunity Response ...
TRB is seeking a contractor for a
$400,000 project io develop a
guidebook andtoolkitto assist
airports in dealing with communi-
ties on noise issues - p. 3
News Briefs ... AIP noise and
ennissions set-asidewiliremainat
$297.6 million in fiscal 2007 ...
First Public Real Estate Educa-
tional Symposium will address
airport noise perimeters ... FAA
approves noise maps forPortland
(OR) International and Craig
Municipal; approves Part 150
program for NW Arkansas - p. 3
(Continued on p. 2) � J
January 12, 2007 2
Force Base and general aviation North Las Vegas Airport,
both located to the north of McCarran, and air quality
issues that could arise from aircraft idling at McCanan
waiting to get clearance from Nellis to take off.
But Mark Perryman, president of the airport consulting
fum Landrum & Brown, which prepared the Environmental
Assessment for the new deparhue path, said that the right
turn departure procedure has been structured so that no
approval from Nellis is needed for planes departing
McCarrati. Nellis is not an issue, he told ANR.. FAA
designed the airspace to avoid the military base.
Several issues are at play at Las Vegas that have made the
new right turn procedure controversiai. The Las Vegas area
is located in very restricted airspace because of large
swaths of military airspace around it, which restricts flight
path options for commercial aircraft. Both the City ofLas
Vegas and McCarran International are growing rapidly.
McCarran was ranked the ninth busiest airport in the world
for passenger traffic in 2005 and Las Vegas is one of the
fastest growing cities in the country.
To make matters more di�cult for the city, it does not own
or operate McCarran even though the airport is located just
five miles south of the city's central business district, so it
has no control of airport operations. The airport is owned
and operated by Clark County, Nevada.
And residents of the Las Vegas area are experiencing all
the problems that come with rapid growth of a meixopolitan
area, including more air tra�c and the loss of low density
residential areas that can be used as noise abatement flight
paths. Soon, Perryman said, McCarran will be surrounded
on all sides by high density development.
South of Airport Is Lower Density
Currently, pianes that take off to the west from McCarran
turn left (south) and fly over areas with lower population
densities. The new flight path, set to go into effect in
March, will direct a third of those planes (up to 200 per day)
to make a 180 degree turn on depariure, first going north
and then east, that will take them over densely populated
areas of Las Vegas.
FAA contends that the right turn procedure will reduce
delays on departure at McCarran and will allow the airlines
to save fuel.
Since the FAA announced the proposed "right turn" flight
path in late 2005, it has been staunchly opposed be resi-
dents under the new flight path who argue that it would be
safer to turn planes making high-power, low altitude turns
over areas with fewer people rather than over the most
densely populated part of Southern Nevada.
They also expressed concern about decreases in property
values, noting that tens of thousands of families purchased
homes under the new flight path with no warning or
disclosure that they would be overflown by thousands of
jets a year. Many families moved into the new flight path
area after FAA decided in 2001 to stop using a similar right
turn procedure as the predominant departure path for
aircraft heading to destinations north or the airport.
The FAA reduced the use of that procedure in 2001
because it had not provided the increases in tra�c e�ciency
the agency had expected.
Clark County, NV, proprietor ofMcCanan, has taken no
o�cial position on the right turn departure path but the Clark
County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury told the Las Vegas
City Council in a December 2005 letter that eliminating the
earlier right turn procedure cut McCarran's capacity by 5.8
percent and led to increased fuel consumption and delays
that will continue as air traffic increases at the airport.
Landrum & Brown prepared an Environmental Assessment
of the proposed right turn departure procedure and con-
cluded there would be no significant noise impact. In
addition, the firm modeled DNL noise levels and numbers of
aircraft operations that couid be expected at 19 grid points
under the new flight path. Most of those grid points would
be subject to noise levels under 50 DNL, Perryman said.
PARTNER, from p. 1
Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, who serves as
directorofPARTNER.
Around March 1, he will announce what projects will be
funded in fscal 2007.
Land Use Management : A final report on PARTNER's
project on Land Use Management and Airport Controls is
due out this spring. The research is examining the dynamics
of how communities encroach on airport areas and how these
encroachments fuel noise concerns and complaints. The goal
of the project is to identify factors that drive residential
encroachment.
The study considered land use issues at three airports: Ft.
Lauderdale-Hollywood International, Orland-Sanford
International, and Denver International.
Further research is underway looking at land use issues
around three other airports: Cleveland Hopkins International,
San Jose International, and Manassas (VA) Airport. No date
has been set yet for release of a report on those airports. The
report will examine the state, county, and local land use laws
and guide(ines controlling land use development around
those airports.
The project is being conducted by Purdue University and
FloridaIntemational University.
Low-Frequency Noise: By June, a final report is due out on
PART'NER's low-frequency noise study, although follow-on
work will continue to be done in this area. The goal of this
study is to enhance metrics currently used in the FAA's
Integrated Noise Model and to identify alternative algorithms
that predict the impact of low-frequency noise and the
annoyance it causes.
The study is considering a broad range of issues: the
spectrum and level of low-frequency noise; how it is propa-
gated; its impact on homes in the form of noise, vibration,
and rattle; subjective perception and annoyance; and the
ability of inetrics to predict both the physical and perceived
impact of low-frequency noise.
The study is being conducted by The Pennsylvania State
Airport Noise Report
C�_.
January 12, 2007
University, Purdue, and the University of Central Florida.
NoiseQuest: Within the ne�ct six months, PARTNER plans
to launch a new website called "NoiseQuest' that will
provide an educational forum for airports and communities
on noise issues. NoiseQuest is intended to supplement
current airport outreach efforts and to provide a resource for
airports too srnall to have established community outreach
programs. "NoiseQuest will help to bridge the gap between
airports and their communities," PAR TNER explains. The
site may include ways to contact authorities to assist with
noise-related issues and will include an array of educational
materials suitable for a range of users.
The project is being conducted by The Pennsylvania State
University, Florida International University, and Purdue.
Resem•ch
RFP ISSUEI� FOR GUTAANCE
ON COMMUNITX R:�SPONSE
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) is seeking a
contractor for a$400,000 project to develop a guidebook to
assist airport o�cials in dealing with communities on aircraft
noise issues and a toolkit airports can use to assess the
progress and success of their noise mitigation efforts.
The project is part of the Airport Cooperative Research
Program (ACRP), approved by Congress in 2003 and
managed by TR13.
TRB issued a Request for Proposals seeking a contractor
for the 18-month project (ACRP 02-05, Guidebook on
Community Responses to Aircraft Noise) on Dec. 22, 2006.
The RFP- is available at the TRB website (http:www.trb.org/
TRBNet/Proj ectDispi ay.asp?Proj ectID=134).
Firms interested in conducting the project have until Feb.
14 to submit their proposals. The project team must include
individuals with recent practical experience developing
aircraft noise mitigation programs and approved Federal
Aviation Administration Part 150 AirportNoise Compatibil-
ity Programs.
Our current understanding of the factors that influence
community responses to aircraft noise is inadequate, the
RFP notes. "Moreover, an airport's grasp of these factors is
important to its ability to manage local aircra$ noise issues
within the community. When aircra$ noise causes commu-
nity opposition to airport operations or planned develop-
ment, airports have often attempted to overcome the project-
specific opposition rather than manage community expecta-
tions for the long term. Without effective, long-term manage-
ment of community expectations for aircraft noise, airports
face a significant constraint to meeting future airport-
capacity needs."
"It is increasingly important for airport decision makers to
understand the aircraft noise issue and to take advantage of
successful practices at other airports to manage comm�nity
aircraft noise expectation. Airports also need new tech-
niques or assessment methods to communicate more
3
effectively and thereby manage community expectations."
"... As demand for more air travel forces more metropolitan
regions to expand existing airports or seek sites for new
secondary airports or even to relocate existing airports from
consirained sites, community attitudes toward new and
expanded airports will become an even more important
element of airport system planning. Although various
factors influence community attitudes about airport opera-
tions, aircraft noise is the dominant issue at many airports.
Research is needed to provide airports with tools to manage
these noise issues."
Contents ofGuidebookand Toolkit
The guidebook prepared for the project must include a
glossary of terms and definitions, frequently asked ques-
tions, a discussion of the history of aircraft noise and aircraft
noise issues, a description of the current state of practice for
mitigating noise issues, selected airport case studies on
aircraft noise, guidance on likely community response to
aircraft noise, and an assessment of traditional and innova-
tive airport efforts to manage community expectations.
The guidebook should cross-reference practices that are in
the toolkit and discuss issues such as sleep disturbance,
thrust reverser noise, helicopter noise, low-frequency noise
(vibration), and other noise issues.
The toolkit must provide samples and examples of elements �
from the most successful noise mitigation programs. It also
must include two forms: one that airports without noise
mitigation programs can use to assess their need for one and
to establish a baseline for future efforts; and one that
airports with noise mitigation programs can use to periodi-
cally assess their progress.
The toolkit also should include a listing of current best .
practices with implementation procedures; an explanation of
strategies and methodologies for each practice; and an „
evaluation of supplemental metrics that support each
practice and their relationship to potential effects, including
annoyance, sleep disturbance, speech interference, and
disruptions to learning environments.
Practices cited in the toolkit should include noise abate-
ment measures, pilot education programs, how to setup and
conduct a public meeting, a summary of aviation industry
association programs related to aircraft noise, educational.
resources, and checklists and flowcharts.
The project is expected to begin on June 1. The TRB
project manager is Machael Salamone (msalamone@nas.edu;
tel: (202) 334-1268).
In Brief�
A.IP Noise Set-Aside
Because the outgoing 109�' Congress did not pass fiscal
2007 appropriations bills for rnost federal agencies and it is
already well into the fiscal year, the incoming 110''' Congress
has decided to fund federal agencies in fiscal 2007 at the
same level of funding they received for fisca12006.
Airport Noise Report
Januarv 19, 2007
sought, until a later date which has not yet been selected.
MAC staff is working with Northwest to make sure that
there is agreement on what the language in the amended
proposal means and to get the airline's approval on what
the commission is seeking, Hogan said.
He said that MAC attorneys are in discussions on possible
settlements of two lawsuits filed in Hennepin County
District Court over the extent of the MSP sound insulation
program but nothing substantive has come from those tallcs.
sion to expire before acting on the expanded sound insula-
tion program, which has strong local political support.
The MAC's insistence that Northwest commit to keeping
its hub and headquarters in the Twin Cities followed reports
that the airline was talking with Delta Air Lines about a
possible merger. Both airlines are currently operating under
bankruptcy protection.
Airspace, from p. 5
6
In Apnl 2005, the crties ofMmneapolis, Richfield, and Chairman Costello is still in the process of putting the
Eagan, MN, asked Hennepin County District Court to order subcommittee's hearings schedule together. Gillies did not
the MAC to follow through on what they regard as a specify whether a hearing on airspace would focus on the
promise the airport authority made to fully sound insulate FA.A's plans for the NY/NJ/PHL, region or address the
homes in the 60-65 DNL contour ofMSP International. airspace issue more broadly.
What Was Promised? Costello was elected to serve as chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastruc-
At issue in the case, and a similar class action case filed ture Committee by his coIleagues on the committee on Jan.
later by homeowners near MSP, is exactly what was 17. He served as Ranking Democratic Member of the Sub-
promised to residents around the airport in the process the committee in the last Congress and represents a district in
Minnesota Legislature used to determine that expanding the southwestern Illinois.
airport at its current site was preferable in terms of ineeting "I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead the Subcom-
long-term aviation needs to developing a replacement mittee as we work to reauthorize the Federal Aviation
airport at a greenfield site. Administration this year and address other important
The MAC contends that it did promise to provide some issues," said Costelio. He said he looked forward to working
relief from noise impact to homeowners in the 60-65 DNL with Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the new chairman of the
contour but never promised to provide the full insulation full Transportation Committee, "on ensuring the safety of the
package, which runs on average $45,000 per home. `� `^traveling public and maintaining a robust transportation
The cities contend in their lawsuit that the MAC gradually irifrastructure."
retreated from its original commitment to provide full sound "While funding and programmatic issues at the FAA will
insulation in the 60-65 DNL coritour, eventually backing receive a great deal of attention, other issues that likely will
away from a promise in a 1999 Airline Lease Agreement to be addressed include aviatian safety, the state of the airline
spend $150 million on the program, and finally offering only industry, and the changing nature of airspace operations,"
air conditioning to homes�that did not have it and requiririg Costello said. -
homeowners to split that cost on a sliding scale that went as Currently in his eleventh term in the House, Costello
high as 50 percent, which would `cost homeowners a Eotal of replaces Rep. formerAviation Subcommittee Chairman John
$55 million. � Mica (R-FL), who is now an Ex O�cio Member ofthe
Subcommittee and also has an interest in the FAA's airspace
NW Opposes Expansion of Insulation redesign pians.
Northwest Airlines has been strongiy opposed to the Last fali, while still chairman ofthe Aviation Subcommittee,
expansion of the MSP sound insulation program but has Mica held field hearings in Fai�eld County, CT, and Dela-
lost legal efforts to derail the lawsuits. ware County, PA on FAA.'s proposal to redesign the
The airline is thought to have been instrumental in getting airspace inthe NY/NJ/PHL region.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) to add language to the current Officials of both counties, which would get increased noise
legislation authorizing the programs of the Federai Aviation impact under FAA's preferred airspace revision plan,
Administration that barred the use of Airport Improvement accused the FAA of failing to adequately notify them of
Program grant funding for noise mitigation efforts beyond public hearings on the draft environmental impact statement
an airport's 65 DNL noise contour. on the airspace redesign project and of providing misleading
That legislation bars the MA.0 from funding its sound noise information.
insulation program in the 60-65 DNL contour with AIP Armed with consultants' studies critical of the FAA's Draft
grants but the measure will expire at the end of fisca12007 EIS, they are preparing to take FAA to court over the
(Aug. 31, 2007), and FAA is not expected to seek an environmental document. Other parties are expected to also
extension of the funding prohibition in the new legislation challenge the FAA's plans.
due to be send to Congress soon. The hearings were held at the request of the two congress-
The expanded sound insulation program for MSP is part of inen representing those counties: Rep. Christopher Shays (R-
an updated Part 150 program for the airport currently under CT), who was reeiected in last November, and Rep. Curt
FAA review. The agency may be waiting for Lott's provi- Weldon (R-PA), who was not.
Shays has pledged to support his constituents' efforts to
Airport Noise Report
C'
_')
January 19, 2007
have the airspace plan revised.
In reiated news, the FAA had planned to announce its
decision on what airspace redesign alternative it has
selected for the NY/NJ/PHL. project by January. But the
agency says it will not make that announcement until March
due to the high number of comments it has received on the
proposal.
7
website (http://thomas.loc.gov). In the middle column, under
the heading "Legislation in Current Congress," search for
Bi1lNumberH.R 204.
Letter to FAA on Teterboro
In related news, Rep. Rothman as well as the two New
Jersey senators — Robert Menendez (D) and Frank
Lautenberg (D) — wrote FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
.Legislcation on Jan. 8 requesting that FAA make changes to the Instru-
mentLanding System (ILS) approach forRunway 19 at
ROTIEIMAN REINTRODUC}�i�S Teterboro Airport.
�QQS � A,��OR'j' $U$$LE' BILL "We continue to share the concerns expressed by a
number of our constituents and also the Port Authority of
On Jan. 4, NJ Rep. Steve Rothman (D) reintroduced New York and New Jersey (PANYN� regarding the flight
legislation that would require the Environmental Protection path approved for 1LS-19 at Teterboro Airport. The flight
Agency to conduct a feasibility study of applying "airport path brings air tra�c very close to several high-rise apart-
bubbles" as a way to identify, assess, and reduce the ment and office buildings, as well as the Hackensack
adverse environmental impacts of airport ground and flight University Medical Center. Residents and visitors to these
operations and to improve the overall quality of the environ- building and the medical center continue to express great
ment. alarm at the close proximity of many of these aircraft as they
He first introduced the legislation in July 2005 but it made approach the airport."
no headway in the ihen Republican-controlled Congress. It The lawmakers told Blakey that the original intention of the
is not clear if the bill has a greater chance of serious consid- ILS was to assist aircraft arriving at Teterboro in bad
eration in the new Congress controlled by the Democrats. weather. However, they said, pilots are increasingly using
The measure, II.R. 204, the "Right to Know About Airport the procedure in all weather conditions. Further, they said,
Pollution Act," was referred to the House Committee on- :: �, _: :_:. ._there are appro�mately.30,000.more operations per year at
Ene�-gy and Commerce and the Committee on Transportahori, . Teterboro than the FAA originally projected when it
and Infrastructure. It has no co-sponsors at this point. developed the IL.S.
Rothman explained that a study of air pollution problems in �- They asked the FAA adrninistrator to work with the
California led to the creation of the airport bubble. concept, PANYNJ to study the feasibility of amending the ILS to steer
which is an approach that treats an airport and the area planes away form the medical center and nearby residential
within a specific radius around it "as a single source of . buildings.
pollution that emits a range of pollutants, including air,
noise, water, and solid waste, and seeks by implementation Legislatio�2 �
of specific programs or regulations, to reduce the pollution �_- `- � -� � � � - � - ' "
from each source within the bubble and thereby reduce the �HEALTHY PLACES' ACT
overall pollution in that area." COV�+ RS NOIS�+ INCT2�+ [�S]ES
�.. .. , . n� .. r � --- -"_-- ..t.. rt'� n ...1.,..:..:..�.,t.,,- *.,
_,.."--'-_" - ---- ��----- � .
study the feasibility of applying the airport bubble concept
and to conduct a separate study of air pollutant emission
standards established by EPA for airplane engines to
d'etermine if it is feasible and desirable to strengthen them.
The bill would require EPA to establish and consult with a
working group on the airport bubble feasibility study. That
working group would be comprised of representatives of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Departments ofDefense
and Transportation, air quality districts, environmental
research groups, state Audubon Societies, the Sierra Club,
the Nature Conservancy, state port authorities, an airport
manager, commanding officers of military air bases, bus
lines, taxis, local law enforcement, the Air Transport Asso-
ciation, the Airports Council International —North America,
environmental specialists from airport authorities, and an
aviation union representing ground crews.
The feasibility study would have to be submitted to
Congress within three years of passage of the legislation.
ThA+A..t r,ftha hill ic ��,a;tahlP nn the T.ihrarv of Con�ress
On Jan. 10, Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA) introduced the Healthy
Places Act of2007, H.R. 398, which would require federal
agencies to provide funding and support for local govern-
ments to prepare health impact assessments of land use,
housing, and transportation policy and plans, including
increases in transportation noise.
The measure would establish a grant program through
which state and local governments could apply for funding
and technical assistance from the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to prepare health impact assessments.
These assessments could be done on a broad range of
impacts that could have adverse effects, including "existing
air quality, ground or surface water quality or quantity, or
tra�c or noise levels."
"Our environment and our health are inextricably linked,
particularly among low-income urban populations. By
paying greater attention to the built environment — including
homes, schools, parks, transportation and community design
— we can reduce instances of chronic diseases such as
Airport Noise Report
January 19, 2007
. � ,� , � . ,
. � �,• ��� .,�
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiartnid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, O�ce of Environment and Energy
Federa] Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Charles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Gatzke, Dilion & Ballance
Cazlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockweil LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
$teven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
MaryL. Vigilante
President, 5ynergy Consultants
Seattle
8
diabetes and asthma," Rep. Solis said.
During the last Congress, her bill was endorsed by more than 80 national
organizations, including the American Public Health Association, National
Association of County and City Officials, Trust for America's Health, and the
American Planning Association.
A companion bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate next week by
Sen. Bazack Obama (D-IL,).
Solis chairs the House Hispanic Caucus' Health Task Force and has spear-
headed summits across the country on racial and ethnic health disparities. In
2000, she became the first woman to receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in
Courage Award for her groundbreaking work on environmental justice.
In B�ief ..-�
PiedmontProposed Part 150 Study Approved
On Jan. 17, the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority approved a proposed Part
150 Airport Noise Mitigation Program for Triad International, which is the site
of a new FedEx cargo hub that is expected ta open in 2009 and handle as many
as 60 takeoffs and landings per night.
The proposed program, which now must be approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration, was issued for public comment last November (18 ANR 174).
Topics Sought for ACR.P 2008 Program
, .. . ,.: _.
Tlie Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which is managed by the
Transportation Research Boai�d, is soliciting problem statements identifying` `�
research needs for the ACRP fiscal 2008 research program.
The ACRP is an applied, contract research program that aims to develop near- (
term solutions to issues facing airport proprietors, including aircraft noise �
impact. '
A list of current ACRP research project is available at www.trb.org/CRP/
ACRP/ACRPProjects.asp. The deadline for submitting research problem
statements is April 15. The ACRP Oversight Committee will select the research
problem statements for the fiscal Z008_program:. Problem statement$ can be
submitted via e-mail to acrp@nas.edu. For further information, contact Christo-
pherJenks, ACRP Manager at tel; (202) 334-3089 or cjenks@nas.edu.
LAX Soundproofing ContractAward
On Jan. 8, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners awarded a
$1,296,460 million contractto Professional Building Contractors, Inc., ofEl
Segundo, CA, for modifications on 57 dwelling units comprised of five single-
family residences, one nine-unit apartment building, and 43 condominium units
located in the City of Los Angeles within the 65 CNEL contour ofLos Angeles
International Airport.
AIRPORT NDISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times ayear at 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 intemal 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.
9
�G . . . �' C ! :y.- . � �> �,.,,k r c:7 , .,(� ;:s
,o-,r
� ti�; c-,�.cG. ; S a ;.� r.� _f I.� . 3 I. , r�� � �:.
� �
.�?. 34z �!' ,., (-,, w�'s � =+.n � �zfi "�. �, �qc t` a��
:,:::'r-.,
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 19, Number3 Jannary 26, 2007
Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l
Cf��LTRTR'T' SAY5 I��AC NNgiiTS']C PROVI�E
FULL SOUND INSITLA'TIOl�t TO 60 COI�TTOiTTR.
In a major legal victory for the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, and Eagan, MN, a
state court judge on Jan. 25 granted summary judgment in favor of their claim that
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), proprietor of Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, made an enforceable commitrnent to provide a full sound
insulation package for homes in the airport's 60-64 DNL contour.
Judge Stephen Aldrich of Hennepin County District Court also rejected summary
judgment motions brought by the MAC and Northwest Airlines to dismiss the
other main count in the suit, which concerns whether the MAC has an obligation
to provide the sound insularion as a result of its impairment of quietude under the
Minnesota Environrnental Rights Act (MER.A).
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Feb. 12 on the quietude issue.
Northwest intervened in the litigation in support of the MAC because it commit-
ted in an airline lease agreement to provide up to $70 million to sound insulate
homes in the 60-64 DNL contour of MSP. It is unlikely that the carrier's bankrupt
status will relieve it of that obligation.
(Continued on p. 10)
Metrics
EA�AN SAYS CONTOiTRS S�IOULD S�IOW
EI+'FECTS CDF NOISE, loTpT NOISE LEVlELS
In an award-winning paper presented Jan. 22 at the annual meeting of the
Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC, Mary Ellen Eagan, president
of the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., proposed an
idea so innovative and simple that it has the potential to bring about a sea-change
in how airport noise issues are discussed with communities and policy makers and
in courtrooms.
Rather than drawing contour lines around airports to depict noise levels ex-
pressed in various metrics — which confuses the public — Eagan propvsed that
contour lines be used to graphically rapresent the extent of the most common
effects of aircraft noise (annoyance, sleep disruption, speech interference, learnang,
and rattie), which people intuitively understand.
So, instead of contour lines depicting increasing noise levels, such as 60 DNL, 65
DNL, 70 DNL, they would depict increasing noise effects, such as:
• 10 percent of the population highly annoyed, 20 percent highly annoyed,
30 percent highly annoyed, etc; or
• 50 speeeh disruptions, 100 speech disruptions, 150 speech disruptions;
200 speech disruptions, etc.; or
• 20 percent chance of awakening, 30 percent chance; 40 percent chance,
etc.
(Continued on p. 10)
�12 T%ZLS ��'Sd�E. . .
Minneapolis-St. Paullrzt'l
... State court judge says that the
proprietor ofMSP Int'1 cannot
abandon its commitmentto
provide a full sound insulation
packageto homes in the airport's
60-64 DNL noise contour; court
will not approve "massive, public
bait and switch" - p. 9
Metrics ... In an award-
winning paper presented atthe
TR.S meeting, anotedacoustical
consultantsayscontoursshould
be used to show the extent ofthe
effects ofairportnoise, notnoise
levels - p. 9
Sound.fnsuCation ... Village
ofArlingtonHeights, II,, isthe
first eommunity near O'Hare to
use model ONCC sound insula-
tion ordinance as the basis for its
own ordinance - p.11
Conferences ... The fmal
program forthe 22nd annual
University ofCalifornia Sympo-
sium onAviationNoiseand Air
Qualitypromisesmany interest-
ing sessions - p.11
News Briefs ... FA.A an-
nounces that it is in the process of
reviewing proposed Part 150
noise campatibi lity programs for
Shreveport Regional and Flagstaff
Pulliam airports-p.12
January 26, 2007 10
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak called Judge Aldrich's
ruling "a long-deserved vindication:'
"After years of protests and thousands of hours of
meetings, we finally have vindication for what we have been
saying all along: that the MAC made commihnents to a
community to protect them from airport noise poilution and
they must follow through on those commitrnents. I will not
let thern off the hook and, it seems, the court won't either."
At issue in the case is the e}ctent of sound insulation that
the MAC had agreed to pmvide to homes in the 60-64 DNL
contour of MSP International as a condition of the state
Legislature agreeing to expand the airport and add a new
runway at its current in-town site rather than rnoving it to a
greenfield site.
Judge Aldrich ruted solidly in favor of the cities' position
the MAC had committed to providing its full sound
insulation package to homes in the 60-64 DNL contour. That
commitment was referenced in multiple documents filed
between 1996 and 2001, during the public approval process
for construction of the new runway, and could not now be
disregarded, the judge ruled.
After making its initial committee to the full sound
insulation package, the MAC voted to reduce the package
so that homes in the 60-64 DNL contour received only air
conditioners and homeowners had to pay part of the cost.
But the judge would not allow that. "This court cannot
allow the MAC to receive the benefits of a long fought over
pubiic bargain and then abandon its repeated commitments
upon which so many people have relied," the order said.
"To rule otherwise would approve a massive public `bait
and switch' on the homeowners and the affected cities."
MAC Disappointed
Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the MAC, said the
commission was very disappointed with the court's action.
The MAC feels it has fulfilled all its obligations regarding
sound insulation, he said. The MAC does not fee! that it
makes sense to spend $45,000 per home to provide the full
sound insulation package to homes four miles from the
airport that it spends on homes a few thousand feet from the
airport.
Hogan said that the judge's ruling did not answer the
question of what the MAC has to do now or what noise
maps must be used in determining the extent of the 60-64
DNL contour. Maps have been done in various years.
Those questions may be answered in a Jan. 26 pre-trial
hearing on the part of the case that will go forward on the
issue of whether the MAC has impaired quietude under
MF.Rf1.
Hogan questioned if the case needed to proceed to triai on
the quietude issue because the judge has already ruled that
the MAC must provide the insulation sought by the cities.
But John Putnam of Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, which
represents Minneapolis in the case, said the question of
whether the MAC has impaired quietude under MERA is a
separate basis for relief for the cities and allows a fuil record
to be developed if the MAC or Northwest Airlines appeals
this ruling or a later one in the trial.
Putnam told ANR just prior to deadline that the MAC had
just filed motions asking the court not to proceed with the
trial.
Judge Aldrich said in his order that the claims represented
in this case are complex and invoive issues of first impression
for the Minnesota courts. "Whatever the Court does almost
certainly will be appealed by whichever party is most
disappointed and perhaps by all three."
The case is City of Minneapolis et al v. Metropolitan
Airports Commission andNorthwestAirlines, Inc. (No. 27-
CV-05-5474).
Metrics, from p. 9
"It's genius in its simplicity," one member of the audience
declared after listening to Eagan present her paper, which
was the 28"' winner of the annual Harter Rupert Awazd for
Best Paper on Transportation Noise, presented by TRB
Committee ADC40 on Transportation-RelatedNoise &
Vibration.
Eagan's`paper was well-received at the TRB meeting and at
the meeting of the Environment Committee of the Airports
Council International —North America, where it was first
presented last April.
Burr Stewart, strategic planning manager for the Port of
Seattle, is a strong supporter of Eagan's new approach. "The
industry has always needed ways to make the scientific
findings about aircraft noise more understandable to the
public and to courts. My hat is ofFto Mary Ellen for taking
the time to think this through and try some objective
approaches to mapping noise effects," he told ANR.
Eagan also will discuss her new approach to communicat-
ing with the public on aircraft noise issues at the upcoming
University of California at Davis Symposium on Aviation
Noise and Air Quality, which will be held March 4-7 in San
Francisca
The Federal Aviation Administration requires that environ-
mentat documents address noise irnpact around airports
using the noise metric Day Night Average Sound Level
(DNL), which Eagan described as "a complex metric that
requires a reasonably advanced understanding of both
mathematics and physics: ' DhtL "is difficuit to explain to lay
audiences and has proven to be an obstacle to constructive
discussion of aircraft noise issues," she said.
Increasingly, supplemental noise rnetrics are being used to
communicate noise impact to the public based on the
assumption that they are better understood by the commu-
nity.
Focus on Relationships to Effects
But Eagan urged participants to focus not on the supple-
mental rnetrics themselves but an the well-documented close
relationships vari�us suppiemental noise metrics have to
certain noise effects, which she discusses in detail in her
paper.
Airport Noise Report
January 26, 2007 11
For instance, DNL relates closely to the percentage of the
population "Highly Annoyed" by noise; Percent of Awaken-
ings relates to sleep disruption; N75 (the number of events
above 75 dBA) relates to speech interference; Leq(8) (an 8-
hour equivalent noise level) relates to learning, and Lmax(c)
(C-weighted maximum noise level) relates to rattle. All these
metrics are easily a�ailable in the FAA's Integrated Noise
Modei.
Eagan also suggested that simple depiction of noise
effects may allow for more meaningful dialog on cr9teria for
supplemental metrics.
Her paper includes maps with contour lines drawn to
depict degrees of annoyance, sleep disruption, speech
interFerence, effects on learning, and rattle. It also includes a
map with all these contours depicted in various colors.
One of Eagan's majar conclusions is evident in this final
map: the FAA bases environmental decisions on the land
use compatibility criteria of DNL 65 dB; however depictions
of noise effects illusfrate that their extent goes well beyond
that point. While DNL 65 may be FAA's "line in the sand"
on airport noise impact, Eagan said, it certainly does not tell
a complete story.
Her paper, "Using Supplemental Metrics to Cornmunicate
Aircraft Noise Effects," is available on the HMMI-I Web site:
www.hn�mh.com.
5ound Insulation
� • ' ' � � ' ;�,
�, � � �, � ,� . , �, � � ,
Last month, Arlington Heights, IL, located near O'Hare
International Airport, became the first community in Illinois
to use a model sound insulation ordinance developed by the
O'HareNoise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) as the
basis for developing a comprehensive set of noise mitigation
standards for new home construction.
ONCC announced Jan. 17 that it is launching a campaign to
encourage other communities around O'Hare to adopt similar
building codes designed to make homes and commercial
locations quieter. ONCC said it is concerned that the tear-
c(own trend in older communities near O'Hare and new
construction projects are resulting in an increasing number
of homes located in areas impacted by various sources of
noise.
Arlington Heights Mayor Arlene Mulder said that her
village's new building codes address noise not only from
aircraft but also that produced by trains, highways, trucks,
lawnmowers, and other sources. "Noise can significantly
affect the quality of life inside our homes, where everyone
deserves to enjoy some peace and quiet," Mulder said.
Besides, she added, "there are significant energy cost
savings and environmental benefits derived in adopting
these standards."
The mayor stressed that the new sound insulation building
codes are an effort to get builders to use green technology.
Whatever changes in design need to be made to insulate
homes against noise also will insulate them against the loss
of heating or cooling, she explained. So, while compliance
with the sound insulation building codes might cost a little
more up front, that cost will be recouped in energy savings.
Members of the ONCC's Model Sound Insulation Ad Hoc
Committee drafted much of the language in the model
ordinance. The Arlington Heights sound insulation code
was developed by Nicholas Gadzekpo, director of the
village's Buiiding Department, in consultation with Mayor
Muider and the Village Board.
Both documents are available on the ONCC Web site:
www.oharenoise.org.
Federal Aviation Administration guidelines preclude new
homes and home additions from eligibility for inclusion in
the O'Hare Residential Sound Insulation Program. Whilethe
ONCC has begun oversight of a new phase of the program,
the homes eligible for sound insulatian have been desig-
nated by the FAA.
ONCC said it "is especially interested in making sure that
communities around O'Hare are addressing noise issues in
advance of the changing aircraft departure and landing
patterns that will result from the O'Hare Modernization
Program. There is concern that cornmunities could be
permitting new construction without proper sound insula-
tion in areas that cuirently have little impact from aircraft
noise but could see increased noise in the future."
The ONCC and the Chicago Deparlment ofAviation offer a
36-page homeowner's handbook in PDF format for anyone
who would like to better sound insulate their homes. It is
available on the ONCC Web site.
ONCC is funded by the City of Chicago, proprietor of
O'Hare, and is comprised of communities near O'Hare with
noise impact. The commission, formed in 1996, seeks to bring
together parties that are most able to reduce aircraft noise
with representatives of communities impacted by aircraft
noise in an effort to address the problem.
Conferences
22'`t1D AYR, NOISE SYMP�S�JM
]PROMYSEs To �iE INTEiIEs`I'IlVG
Details of the environmental provisions of eagerly-
anticipated legislation to reauthorize the programs of the
Federal Aviation Administration are among the topics to be
discussed at the upcoming 22°d Annual Universiiy of
California Symposium on Aviation Noise andAir Quality,
which will be held on March 4-7 in San Francisco.
Other notable sessions at the symposium will address
heatth risk assessments, the use of supplementai metrics,
engine development for next generation aircraft, FAA's land
use grant funding, real estate disclosures of noise irnpacts,
the Boston noise study, tailored oceanic arrivals, FAA's
new tools for assessing aviation environmental impact,
evaluating noise mitigation programs, replacing old residen-
tial sound ansulation, and regulatory changes regarding
emissions.
Airport Noise Report
January 26, 2007 12
. ' �,! 1 � ' .
�;1 �_'_ :�:I:)
JohnJ. Corbett,Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
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.
Cratzke, Dillon & Baltance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockweil 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
Seatkle
The conference is broadening its international appeal. A delegation from the
Civil Aviation Management Institute of the People's Republic of China wili
attend this years' symposiurn, which will include sessions on airport noise
sanctions in France, work in Asian countries, and an update on the work of
the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP), which will have just concluded a triennial
meeting in Montreai.
In addition to existing pre-symposium workshops on noise and air quality,
this year, three new pre-symposium sessions will be added. They wi11 cover a
new aviation sustainability initiative launched by airports, training needs for
the next generation of aviation environmental specialists, and forming a
community roundtable.
As a testament to the growing importance of the symposium, San Francisco
Mayor Gavin Newsome plans to attend the opening morning session to
welcome participants to his city.
Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways, who has recently
pushed the aviation industry to cut emission levels, has been invited to give
the keynote address at the symposium. If Branson does not speak, a leading
executiveofhis airlinewill.
The conference will be held at the Stanford Court Hotel on San Francisco's
famous Nob Hill. Special discounted hotel rates are available until Feb.10.
To register for the symposium on-line, go to http://conferences.ucdavis.edu/
breakingbarriers.
In Brzef ... �
Shreveport, FlagstaffPart 150s Under Review
On Jan.. 22, the Federai Aviation Administration announced that noise
exposure maps submitted by the Shreveport (LA) Airport Authority for
Shreveport Regionai Airport meet federal requirements.
The agency also announced that it is reviewing a proposed Part 150 airport
noise compatibility program for the airport and that the review will be com-
pleted by July 11.
For further information, contact Tim Tandy in FAA's Fort Worth, TX,
office; tel: (817) 222-5635.
On Jan. 24, the FAA announced that it is reviewing a proposed Part 150
program submitted for FlagstaffPuliiam Airport in FlagstafF, AZ, and that its
review will be cornpleted by July 11.
Associated noise exposure maps for the airport were determined by FAA to
meet federal requirements in Apri12006.
For further information, contact Michelle Simmons, an environmental
protection specialist in FAA's Los Angeles Airports District Office; tel: (310)
725-3614.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne FI. Kohut, Publisher
Published44 times ayearat 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703 ) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-maii: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.
�
CITY OF MEiVDOTA HEIGHTS
February 2, 2007
�
ARC Commissioners
Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary
SUBJECT: Updates for Introduction Packet
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 December 2007 - Technical Advisors Report
#14 December 2007 - Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report
Section
l.
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 Aciion
Airport Noise Report, January 26, 2007
NOC Bylaws
P&E Comrriittee Regular Monthly Meeting Minutes
MA.0 Approved 2007 Capital Improvement Program
What's New at the MAC Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
ANOMS Monthly Reports
December 2006 Technical Advisor's Report
December 2006 Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor Report
Frequently Asked Questions
Contract Pertaining to Lirnits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway
Crossing in the Corridor
Minneapolis Tower Operational Order
Runway Use
Nighttime Voluntary Noise Agreements
Maps
ARC DVD
�
' � .►t
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
'►►il�iTi7
Airport Relations Commission
Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary
February 2, 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 Gate
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
C�
�
;
�" )
)
( ;
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 Decernber — 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 Sepfiember — 95
2006 October - 114
2006 November - 11$
2006 December - 96
Tracks Crossed Gate
«
«
,.
«
«
�,
«
«
«
«
�,
«
,�
«
«
«
«
«
«
«
«
,�
«
City of Mendota Heights
MAC Representation — Talking Points
KEY MESSAGE:
The City of Mendota Heights shares a similar number of flights from
MSP (including arrivals and depart�ures) as the City of Minneapolis.
Further, we have a front row seat to the economic vitality and
transportation needs of this critical Minnesota resource. We do not,
however, have a voice on the MAC that is accountable to our
community.
Our community, along wlth those in the closest pro�mity to the airport
have worked together to address a glaring need in the structure of MA.0
— accountability.
House File 359 proposes 4 new seats to the MAC, to include the Mayors
(or their appointees) of Mendota Heights, Bloo�xiington, Eagan and
Richfield. These representatives would be accountable to both the
airport and to the communities immediately impacted by the vitality of
the airport.
The City of Mendota Heights has supported the Dual Track process, and
is willing to take a fair share of flight and transportation activity that
comes with a successful airport. Recent developments (Court ruling on
sound insulation, I7ua1 Track FEIS inconsistencies, etc.) have illustrated
the inadequacy of the MA.C's oversight of this resource.
The City of Mendota Heights feels that HF359 brings a measure of
accountability to the MAC. Our community has and will continue to
bear our share of the costs associated with MSP. We are seeking
representation which is more than in name only. We appreciate your
consideration in this issue.
City of Mendota Heights
MAC Representation — Talking Points
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS:
What's so significant about this change?
o Not just a representative to a community in name only — Mayors/Appointees
are directly accountable to the community they represent.
The Cities mentioned a�e all within the 6SDNL — is this about noise?
• Yes - noise is a real concern for each of these communities.
• We have a vested interest in the vitality of the airport — business interests
and citizens who work in ai�port related fields.
19 members could make the MAC unwieldy
• MAC is well staffed — adding members who come to the table well p�epared
and awa�e of the Yeal impact of MAC decisions should not be an impediment
to the process.
Have you worked with your current MAC �epresentative?
• We have initiated conversation with our MAC �epresentative, but haven't
seen how or even if ou� concerns have been carried forward.
�.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Miunesota
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTTNG PROFOSED LANGUAGE FOR A BTLL
PERTATN]�tG TO CITY REPRESENTA.TION ON THE METROPOLITAN
A.�RPORT COMMISSION
WIiEREAS, the City of Mendota. Heights is significantly impacted� by muliiple
facets of Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport operations, and
WH�REAS, the current MAC representation appointed by the governor has no clear
accountability to the communities they serve, and
WI�REAS, representa.tives appointed by those communiiies most significantly
impacted by the MSP airport would not only look out for the interests of all communities, but
also those most directly afFected, and _
VVX�]EREAS, the Cities' Noise Oversight Committee made up of representation from
Bloomingion, Richfield, Eagan and Mendota Heights has developed proposed language to
( �� � �) accomplish that change.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mendota Heights City Council
supports proposed legislation that would add four seats to the MA.0 to represent the cities of
Bloomingion, Eagan, Mendota Heights and Richfield, appointed by and accountable to the �
cities that fib.ey represent.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights This 21S` day of November, 2Q06.
ATTEST:
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
--�—,, ,.�':-�� ,
- ,, ....__ : .. .,
�:.:.
BY -`� �`� �1 �,����.� �...�---... �X�. �%Zz� � �/�.`=�";"`�'` �'� /G��'--�
Kathleen M. Swausou�, City Clerk Sanc�r� �reb5�-�ach,�ting Mayor
C
�.