08-06-2007 ARC Packetl.
2.
3.
4.
��
�
l'7
CIT'Y OF MCNDOTA �IEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COlVIlVI][SSION AGENDA
August 6, 2007 — Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from the July 1 l, 2007 Airport Relations Commission
Meetings.
Un�nished and New Business:
a. Discuss July NOC meeting (Liz/L71tan)
b. Discuss MAC Legislative Hearing
b. 6:30 - Attend MAC Runway Construction Open House
Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Renorts/Corresnondence:
a. June 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
b. June 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
c. June 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
d. Airport Noise Report, July 6, 2007.
e. Airport Noise Report, July 13, 2007.
f. Airport Noise Report, July 20, 2007.
g. Airport Noise Report, July 27, 2007
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
Uncomin� Meetings
City Council Meeting
NOC Meeting
MAC Meeting
8. Public Comments
9. Adiourn
8-7-07 - 7:30
9-19-07 - 1:30
8-20-07 - 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 make
every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA I3EIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT I�ELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
July 11, 2007
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Coxnmission was held on
Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room at City Hall,
1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
The following Com�missioners were present: Liz Petschel, Chair; Ellsworth Stein, Vice
Chair; Bill Dunn, Robin Ehrlich, Brian Liru�ihan, and Dave Sloan, Commissioners.
Also present were: Sandra Krebsbach, Councilmember; Jim Danielson, City
Administrator, and Mary Heintz, Recorder.
Not Present: Sally Lorberbaum, Commissioner, and Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City
Administrator
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Conunissioner Sloan, to
approve the June 13, 2007, Airport Relations Coxrunission Meeting minutes. The
! ) minutes were approved as submitted.
Unfinished and New Business
Adopt Plan of Action Commissioners
requested three revisions: 1) Revise Issue 4, item 2, to "Attend regular NOC meetings and
identify issues of interests or concern," 2) All of Issue 5 be transferred to page four, .
instead of being separated, and 3) Issue 11 be changed to "Work with NOC to detennine
if noise monitors are at the best locations and as technology needs to be updated."
A motion was made by Commissioner Ehrlich, seconded by and Commissioner Lirmihan,
to approve the Plan to Action as amended.
B. Discuss Meeting with Legislators
Chair Petschel said that, after the last Cities meeting, there was consensus to draft a letter
and see if Representative Hanson would sign it and send to the Committee chair, noting
that MA C will lobby legislatures in July.
Commission Meeting—July 11, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
She said Merland Otto liked the letter, which identified all the ways the City is affected,
and suggested the group of cities (Mendota Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley, Richfield, �
Burnsville) unite to help facilitate it in any way possible. �
Chair Petschel said one message that needs to be included is better legislative oversight of
MAC, so there will be rewording of the letter and it will then be mailed to the other cities
for approval, sent to the Committee chair, and hearing dates determined, likely to be in
August or September. She said cities need to be united, with mayors and councils being
on board, and the Legislature's getting a handle on MAC will be important. Chair
Petschel commented on the significant positive change in stance from St. Paul's MAC
representative in criticizing MAC. The City Administrator said the result may be that
MAC will be reconfigured. Chair Petschel said a change may be in how appointrnents are
made.
Chair Petschel stated that she would send a copy of the letter to Commissioners once she
had received it.
C. Discuss MAC Letter to Eagan
Chair Petschel asked for any feedback regarding MAC's response to Eagan's letter of
complaint regarding Runway 17/35. She said the letter would be the topic at the next
NOC rneeting, as well as Mr. Levque's presentation on low frequency noise and an
update on corridor excursions.
���
Councilrnember Krebsbach said she would be at the meeting but asked Chair Petschel to
sit at that meeting's table. She noted Diane Miller reported that the impetus for the
complaint letter had come from Eagan's AR.0 but that the main reason is that they aren't
used to the noise. Chair Petschel also noted that Eagan has never experienced fanning
before.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that MAC's response couldn't have been better.
D. Discuss August Meeting
The City Administrator's report stated that MAC is holding a Community Open House in
the City Councii Chambers to share infonnation on their summer's reconstruction
operations on August 6 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. ARC had previously discussed
rescheduling their August meeting to coincide with that meeting, and the City
Administrator is seeking Council approval for the new date and time at their July 17
meeting.
Comunissioner Linnihan said he wouldn't be able to attend an August 6 meeting. The
City Administrator reported that the meeting would be taped, and Councilmeinber
[�.t�eb����3c1� expressed her desire that ARC have four taped meetings a year, that shows a
different commission working on behalf of the City. Chair Petschel said four would be
�
2
Conunission Meeting — July 1 I, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
too many, that only a meeting with a set agenda and nothing provocative would be
suitable.
It was Commission consensus that a good meeting to have televised would be when
Mr. Rydeen and Mr. Levque are in attendance, to discuss corridor excursion and
procedures, trends at the tower, etc. Commissioner Ehrlich strongly suggested that the
August ARC meeting be televised, and the City Administrator responded that he would
find out and inform the Commissioners. Chair Petschel suggested that the
Commissioners be menially prepared to listen to the public and complaints at the
meeting, as it had been well publicized and may produce a good turnout.
It was the decision of the Commission to meet 6:00-6:20 p.m., before the Open House, on
August 6 to approve minutes, receive a quick update on legislative issues, and the main
agenda, item. The City Administrator will provide AR.0 nametags, ARC brochures, and
Plan of Action brochures to hand out at the Open House.
Commissioners were invited to join Chair Petschel at 7:30 p.m. on July 17 for the City
Council meeting.
E. Updates for Introduction Book
No information included in the packet.
Acknowled�e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence
A. May 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
B. May 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
C. Airport Noise Report, June 22, 2007
D. Airport Noise Report, June 29, 2007
Chair Petschel commented that distributed technical reports are a month off but said she
ran the June numbers and they were about the same as May's, with daytime deparCures
and night-time operations being the most important. She said the new report now being
submitted by Mr. Levque is more accurate than the previous version.
Commissioner Linnihan commented thai he has seen departures overhead in unusual
areas, and Chair Petschel said she wondered if recent windy days weren't affecting how
planes were being sent off the runway, also noting that new controllers inight be using
different configurations.
Discussion ensued about Eagan's increased complaints due to the more equitable use of
Runway 17.
Chair Petschel noted that 12L and 12R were utilized inore at night and she was seeing a
discrepancy in trend between Mendota Heights and Eagan. The City Administrator was
asked to highlight significant numbers from the reports and have them in hand at the
upcoming NOC meeting, if needed. Commissioner Ehrlich said the increase was likely
3
Commission Meeting — July 1 l, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
due to regional jets being closer to gates, and Chair Petschel responded that it wasn't an
excuse for inequitable distribution.
Commissioner Linnihan observed that taxi times have been worse than in the recent past. ��
Counci�member Krebsbach said facts are important and will speak for themselves and
said a suminary sheet would be helpful for backup. Chair Petschel stated care must be
taken to be somewhat sensitive to Eagan.
Chair Petschel also brought to Commission attention the article on the $65 million MAC
settlement proposed to end class action over insulation that was published in the June 22,
2007, Airport Noise Report.
Reminders were noted about the proposed .ARC meeting date change from August 8 to
August 6, which goes before the Council on July 17 for approval, and the ARC meeting
date change from Sepiember 12 to September 1 L
Counci.lmember Krebsbach asked Chair Petschel to point out what significant items
should be watched for in the monthly reports. Chair Petschel responded that it is the
corridor analysis, gates on flight headings, and that problems occur when planes go
outside the gate north of the 90-degree heading. She said excursions on the corridor are a
combination of regional jets being more agile and there being new air traffic controllers
and she noted that Mr. Rydeen will ,give his report at the NOC meeting as to what he's
going to do to resolve the issue. Chair Petschel said it is almosY all human error that is
fixable and ARC needs to lean on the issue — planes need to be in the corridor.
�,
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
Chair Petschel suggested that City staffs charting of month-to-month excursions be
discontinued, in light of Mr. Levque's more detailed reports on the subject. Following
discussion, it was Commission consensus that staff continue to chart monthly, however,
in the form of an Excel spreadsheet showing 12-month rolling average trends.
Commissioner Dunn requested that the report be sent electronically, rather than paper
version, to the Commission.
Upcomin� Meetin�s
+ City Council Meeting — July 17, 2007 — 7:30 p.m.
• NOC Meeting — July 18, 2007 —1:30 p.m.
s MAC Meeting — July 16, 2007 —1:00 p.m.
Adi ourn
Commissioner Sloan inade a motion, seconded by Colnmissioner Dunn, to adjourn the
ineeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Heintz
n
�
�
Commission Meeting — July 1 l, 2007
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
TimeSaveY Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Jim Danielson
From: Jake Sediacek
Sent: Tuesd�y, July 31, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Jim Danietson; Liz Petschel
Subject: FW: Legislative hearing—September 19
Page 1 of 2
;:._ _
.__ ;
..: _..___ ; �
;.
Here's a note from Eagan — Diane pases us a good question about capacity — Eagan is bound to have a large
turnaut for this type of event...
Jake Sedlacek
City of Mendota Heights
�nrww.mendota=heights.com
659.452. 9 850
From: Dianne Miller [mailto:DMiller@cityofeagan.com]
5ent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:08 PM
To: Jake 5edlacek; Pam Dmytrenko; VFWILCOX@aol.com; Otta, Merland J; jkbergman@frontiernet.net;
tom.hansen@ci. burnsville.mn. us
Cc: cgrawe@ci.apple-valley.mn.us
�ubject: FW: Legislative hearing--September 19
Nello Everyone,
If you have nat already heard, the Nouse Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Cammittee has scheduled a
public hearing in Eagan on September 19, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Oaks Banquef Room at the Community Cenier.
` ) The purpose of the hearing is to take testimany from residents abaut the governance of the MAC and to hear
" overall concerns residents have about airport issues and/or noise. 7his public hearing is being advertised in just
abaut every city surrounding MSP, based on what our Representative tald me, so 1 think it is very likely thaf the
400 person capacity in the Community Center banquet room could be reached. I did speak to Rep. Masin
yesterday and tald her that she and fhe other representatives really should give some thought to what happens if
the raom reaches capacity.
Jake, 1'm not sure what Rep. Hansen's role hes been thus far in setting up this hearing, but we may need to
speak to him about scheduling at least one other hearing in a different community. That decision is up to the local
Government Committee Chair, but 1 am cancerned about the potential numbers we could be talking about at this
meeting. 1 am looking inta having the meeting televised andlor setting up an overflow room, but I'm not yet sure
abaut the technical capabilifiies of an overffaw room. Thoughts?
Nere is the link to the announcement. Please feel free to share the announcement with anyone I have may have
missed an this e-mail.
h.ttp://vwvw,house.leg.state..mn. us/hinfo/scheduleday.asp?sday=9/19/2007
I'm very pleased to see the hearing was scheduled, and thank you to anyone who had a rale in getting it set up!
Have a great day!
Dianne Miller
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
j Eagan, MN 55122
651 /675-5014
8/1/2007
House Meeting and Cominittee Schedule by Day- Minnesota House of Representatives Page 1 of 1
��.:.F ,��. �'S} �''� �'a*` eT.�.�f�➢,°`��^'� ; t��. , �' .'� , w.� 'r"'r�-; ��5(�i`'ir �»�'—' K�'��1�' ' kti . .
�4 �, � � � � � � � � F F a �� ��� � �,,�� Legislature Home � Links to the World ( Help ( A
�
�t' � � �..� ' f � '�"�� ti��
�' ;�" x' �� Y�� � � tfl .,z �..� � T ti��,._ -���� �y��.��''�.. Search Legislature:
- .�
9' �y .!�-%l."+� 6 . _ 5� �`i` ,..�.i� •. -e' :.i�i1:. � E, ws�r'��'��. T7,x4 k��`���"'.4v �y�
House Senate Jaini Departanents and Cammissions Today is Wednesday, Augu:
St�tutes, Lav,rs, and Rules
Abo�f Comrnitfees
�I�ou�t Gornrnittee
Sched�.rles
Bill Search and SE�ia�s Sci�edules Publications
House Session and Comrnittee Schedule
for Wednesday, September 19, 2007
----------- --------- -------- Note: For an up to date recorded message giving committee meeting times
and agendas call, (651) 296-9283. For general information about the
Legislation Minnesota House of Representatives please call (651) 296-2146 or 1-800-
Get Bill � 657-3550 (voice) and (651) 296-9896 (TTY).
(e.g. hf1) N/EDNESDAY
House Members , September 19, 2007
Memb�r Ic�foros�aiion 7:00 PM
House Leadership Joint Committee: Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs and
Vilho represents you? Transportation Working Group
Caucuses Room: Eagan Community Center, 1501 Central Parkway, Eagan, MN
Chairs: Rep. Debra Hilstrom, Rep. Frank Hornstein
House Committees Agenda: Public hearing on Metropolitan Airports Commission governance
Committee issues and the effects of the airport on the surrounding neighborhoods -
iiiiOE'fi[a%6c"�6"k including but not limited to airport noise
Audio & Video
Legis{at@�e ielevisian
tii/atci� Live !/ideo
Vieiea l�rchives
6�ea�irag F2oom �l�a�io
Com�rsittee Pacicasfs
House Rules
�ermanenf Ru(es
Joint Rules
Session Sta�isti�s
aW . �,.-.�,�. � . . �2�����-�.�.��-.,�,•.:�,�
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislatian
to your House Member or State Senator.
Click to send questions and comments regarding this site.
For general information please call (651) 296-2146 or (800) 657-3550 toll free
- (voice);
or the Minnesota Relay service at 711 or (800) 627-3529 (TTY).
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/scheduleday.asp?sday=9/19/2007 8/1/2007
�.
�
,, Committee Members - Minnesota House of Representatives
House Sena�e
Sfiatui�s, Laws, and Rutes
Abotat Commif�e�s
Page 1 of 2
Legisiature Home � Links to the Worid � Help ( A
Search Legislature:
Joint DeparEmenls and Cornmissions Today is Wednesday, Augus
Bill Search and 8tatus Sehedufes PubliCations
Local Government and IVietropolitan Affairs
A6�oug Commifkee Commiftee Nlembership
sc�ec�u[es 2007 - 2008
Legislation
i�
Get B�ill ���
(e.g. hf1)
House Members
f�iember I�fQrmaiion
Hous� Leadership
Vifha rep�resen#s you?
Ca€�cuses
House Committees
Ccatnm€�tee
�61�f3Pf'F1r3�60i1
Audio & Video
,.-- - Ler�@siat@ve TeEevisian
� 1llta�ch �ive i/icEeo
Video �rchives
hlearing F�oom Auc9io
Gca�nmit�ee Pocicasis
House Rules
P�rr�sanenf �vu(es
Joirtt t�ules
S�s�ion S�a�isfics
Meets: Mondays at 4:00 p.m. and Wednesdays at 12:30 p.m. in the
Basement Hearing Room of the State Office Building.
Chair: Debra Hilstrom (DFL)
Vice Chair: Ken Tschumper
(DFL)
i�ead-GOP: Morrie Lanninq (R)
Michael Beard (R)
Mark Buesgens (R)
Augustine "Wiilie" Dominguez
(DFL)
Alice Hausman (DFL)
Mary Liz Holberq (R)
Larrv Howes (R)
Lyle t�oenen (DFL)
Ann Lenczewski (DFL)
Paul Marquart (DFL)
Mark t�lson (R)
Bev Scalze (DFL)
Loren Solbera (DFL)
Phone Number E-maii Address
(651) are�
code
296-3709 rep.de6ra.hilstrom(cr�house.mn
296-9278 rep.ken.tschumper@house.mn
296-5515 rep.morrie.lanninq@house.mn
296-8872 rep_mike.beardCa�house.mn
296-5185 rep.mark.buesgens house.mn
296-8659 rep•auqustine.dominguez house.mn
296-3824 reo.alice.hausmanCcr�house.mn
296-6926 re�.marvliz.holberg@house.mn
296-2451 r�.larrv.howesCa�house.mn
296-4346 r�.lyle.koenen(c�house.mn
296-4218 r�.ann.lenczewski�„7a house.mn
296-6829 rea•oaul.marquart house.mn
296-4237 rea.mark.olsonCc�house.mn
296-7153 reP,bevscalze@house.mn
296-2365 reo.loren.solberg�a�house.mn
Committee Staff
Committee Administrator: Peter Strohmeier (651 } 296-5069
Committee Legislative Assistant: Erin Huppert (651) 296-2585
(A) Alternates
....-���-�.-�-n4., ..�,�,:�,.,,��-,,� ������_....�.-�.,,����=���.�,�,,,�,�� _�..�,�
Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislatipn
to your Hause Member esr State Senator.
Click to send questions and comments regarding this site.
http:/Iwww.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?cornm=13000 8/1/2007
l�
�
www.macnoise.com - Metropolitan Airports Commission - Noise Prograrns - Resources - Calend... Page 1 of 1
������������a�
Resources
�
Calendar of Meetings and Events
Calendar
7uly 2007
Runway Construction Open House
July 30, 2007 6:30 pm
Nokomis Recreation Center
t3ciober 2007
lanuary 20D8
Aprit 2008
August 2�Q7
Runway Construction Open House
August 1, 2007 6:30 pm
Runway Construction Open House
August 6, 2007 6:30 pm
Mendota Heic�hts Citv Hali
nway Construction Open Nouse
�st�, 2007 6:30 pm �
Flovember 2007
Noise Oversight Committee
November 14, 2007 1:30 pm
MAC Offices
February 2008
May 2008
September 2007
Noise Oversight Committee
September 19, 2007 1:30 pm
MAC Offices
December 20U7
March 2D08
7une 20Q8
. _.. -- _. ..... _. .._.. __... .._ . . _.... . _____ . _.
�� SP International Airport � Metropolitan Airports Commiss�on � RelieverAirports � Partner Services � Airport Police � Airport Noise ( Empioyment
(' ._ -' Opportunities ( BusinessOpportunities
Oc 2005 Metropolitan Airports Commission
http://www.macnoise.com/calendar 7/31 /2007
www.macnoise.com - Metropolitan Air�orts Commission - Noise Programs - Runway Reconstru
I��:��������.���
- Runway Reconstruction
,
Runway 12R/30L - South Paraliel Runway Center Segment Reconstruction Project
Page 1 of 1
The center segment (3 100 feet) of Runway 12R/30L ("south parallel runway") at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) is in need of reconstruction. This portion of the runway currently requires continuous monitoring and frequent repairs due to
usage and age. The runway was initially constructed in 1950 and extended to its current length (10,000 ft.) in 1961. In 1998 and
1999 the east and west one-third of the runway was reconstructed.
Reconstruction of both paraliel runways (north and south) has been included in the Metropolitan Airports Cornmission's (MAC)
Capital Improvement Plan since the early 1990s. Reconstruction of the north paraliei runway (12L/30R) is tentatively scheduled for
the summer of 2008.
In order to reconstruct this portion of the runway it must be shut down, rnaking it unusable for about two months. The runway
closure is scheduled to begin August 13th and weather permitting it should reopen by mid-October.
You can find more information in this section by clicking on the foliowing links...
�?' Noise Impacts
� Construction Information
. �� �
_�, .'"a►�� �'
,�.� `���•.
� :�:;�>'•� �, ..
��
�;.,. .� � � ;�
..� 5..,�-y � �. : t � ��;.�.. k f � +< t � 1 .� , �'z fi '�
��:..t „ s . . 1 t
�
r� ( y r X.
y '?�'t`.��..,.i�..�Sff 1':�+3.i� i..f�..:.i�' .:, '"re�:''�..F
�a . b... .� . � �� � 1 . ... . i ... . i �^ } ,r �{ :,.:.�
� �Fw-�s.,,?>.r��. ,t s� � F . , �� ° �.�ry��
MSP International Airport � Metropolitan Airports Commission � Reliever Airports ( Partner Services � Airport Police � Airport Noise � Empioyment
Opportunities ( Business Opportunities
(cp 2005 Metropolitan Airports Commission
http://www.macnoise.com/construction 7/31 /2007
www.macnoise.com - Metropolitan Airports Commission - Noise Programs - Runway Reconstru... Page 1 of 1
���'���"��������
Runway Reconstruction
,
Construction Information
Runway 12R/30L - South Parailel Runway Center Segment Reconstruction Project
When completed, the entire runway will consist of a base of at least three feet granular material with 12 inches of crushed
aggregate on top of that and another 20 inches of concrete on top of that. The new pavement wili provide at least 50+ years of
service, with the first 15 to 20 of those years essentially maintenance free. The estimated total cost of the project is $17.5 million
funded primarily through Passenger Facility Charges (PFC).
��������'
s �. .•�,i � t' '. r ,`., n
:oi. �y, �
e {�yn`�"`}��AF�'� �'�7lry/ryJ�xY�Vs�} •
' • 1�a7�Lf 'Y.1-L%1.X1.lY,i:� �...
. . .Y, w. . �I� r•�.tw:k:� . a.. . �
���sot�D��
(
" : � ' '�_~_ � �;
�
� .t.'•�;i.�M ,��C'n •`��r,.. 'n`»
�� � � .
�'�i °4, ��}T �.i�,.��t1�v`��'`�+:i •
� ' 7 .Y �
� . .. H n� . ...{^,.4 ..• � .� ' � .� �.
� � �°��� ���`�'�
r
� � �� � �,
'+.�..� S .�� ,:Ar
1 � .
{ti F� M 4, 'p u • `�'
'��� ���C `.i
`. C`
K�iV�yf.1 ��y��,-7Ax1.7.i�VIV.�:
'�: t , `� �.SL4111�'V�Jti.�. . �
�� ,�� • � ��l�,+F��.CS.F:f.iL
���� . . ..
'�x'y �?��' .
i�
"�', Vy' ';1' r: .
• �. . p'�� � �r t �^
'. �.,... t .. . ... ... r .... •.. ^ � . Y....'...
� Y�4•�LM�%��� WY��S�1F�L�
�S REQt�IRED
MSP International Airport ( Metropolitan Airports Commission � Reliever Airports � Partner Services ( Airport Police � Airport Noise � Employment
Opportunities � Business Opportunities
cp 2005 Metropolitan Airports Commission
http://www.macnoise.com/construction info �/31/2007
,�ort User Chair:
Community Chair:
MSP �laise Oversigh� Comr�i�tee
Membership Roster
6.26.07
Kathlsen Nelson - Norfhwest Airlines
Vem Wiicox - City of Bloomington
� �• .� t ? r - .-� i ,;y � .� { y �, . i ,k 7i � �. h r ' i �1'� r .. � ,.
User Represen4ation � _ � � Representatiue ` ; t � �x t, ,, ,; � �;Alternate � ����r �� J s , ,,,� � ; ', # ,_3Alternate � f , ,Lm. 3 , , , , A , ,. :�
.a.�, ,rt V._AJs At. .ax�.s< .�i„ ,,,ir.,,
SCHEDULED AIRLINE
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
CARG� CARRIER
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
, ,t�TER OPERATOR
� rerm: 6,26.07 - 6.25.09)
CHIEF PILOT
(Term: 6.26,07 - 6.25.09)
MBAA
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6,25.09)
Kathleen Neison
Regional Director - Airline Affairs
Northwest Airlines
Dept A1135
2700 Lone Oak Pkwy
Eagan MN 55121-1534
W: 612.726.0998
F; 612.727.6041
E: kathieen.nelson@nwa.com
Peter Levermore
Airport Properties Manager
United Parcel Service
Airport Properties 3A
1400 N Hurstbourne Pkwy
Lauisville KY 40223
W: 502,329.3994
F: 502.329.3995
E: jlevermore@ups.com
Karen Erazo
Manager, Legal Affairs
MN Airlines, LLC dba Sun Country Airlines
1300 Mendota Heights Rd
Mendota Heights MN 55120
W: 651.681.3950
F:651,681.39Q1
E: karen.erazo@suncountry.com
Tim Seutell
Northwest Airlines
Dept D7510
5105 Northwest Dr
St Paul MN 55111
W: 612.726.6064
E: tim.beutell@nwa.com
Tim Valento
MBAA
6985 34th Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55450
W: 651.296.1498
F: 612.727.2132
E: tim.valento@dot.state.mn.us
Mery Loeffelholz
Northwest Aidines Inc
Dept A1135
270Q �one Oak Pkwy
Eagan MN 55121-1534
W; 612.726.2304
F: 612.727.6041
E: mary.loeffelholz@nwa.com
Linda Macey
Manager, Airport Affairs/Airline Support
ABX Air
945 Hunter Dr
Wilmingtnn OH 45177
W: 937.382.5591 x3224
E: linda. macey@abxair.com
Rick Toscano
Northwest Airiines
Dept D7510
5105 Northwest Dr
St Paul MN 55111
W: 612.726.6064
E: rick.toscano@nwa.com
RobertJohnson
94508 Chateau Ln
Bumsville MN 55306
H: 952.435.6671
E: fejrpj@earthiink.net
Gary Peterson
Northwest Airlines
Dept a7510
5105 Norfhwest Dr
St Paul MN 55111
W: 612.726.6054
E: gary.peterson@nwa.com
C�
�
C
t
At-Large Representative
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
City of Bioamington
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6.25,09)
Ciry ofi Eagan
(Term: 6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
City of Mendota Heights
- �6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
I
City of Minneapolis
(Tenn: 6.26.07 - 6.25,09)
City of Richfield
(Term: 6.26.07 - 625.09)
Brad Osborn
�irector of Facilities & Airport Affairs
Mesaba Airlines
1000 Blue Gentian Rd
Eagan MN 55121
W: 651.367.5215
E: brad.osborn@mesaba.com
Vern Wilcox
City Council Member
890011 th Ave S
Bloomington MN 55420
W: 952.854.1425
F: 952.854.7526
E: vfwilcox@aol.com
Cyndee Fields
City Council Member
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd
Eagan MN 55122
H: 651.686.0351
E: cfields@ciiyofeagan.com
Ultan Duggan
Cify Council Member
2331 Copperfield Dr
Mendota Heights MN 55120
H: 651.452.5179
C: 651.470.6268
E: tosduggan@hotmail.com
Elizabeth Glidden
City Council Member
City of Minneapolis
Rm 307
350 S 5th St
Minneapolis MN 55415
W; 612.673,2208
F: 612.673.3940
E: elizabeth.glidden@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Bili Kilian
City Council Member
662017th Ave
Richfield MN 55423
H: 612.869.0802
E: bill@kilian@us
John Spanjers
President & CEO
Mesaba Airlines
1000 Blue Gentian Rd
Eagan MN 55121
W: 651.367,5215
E: john,spanjers@mesaba.com
Steve Peterson
City Council Member
11036 Glen Wiiding Ln
Blaomington MN 55431
H: 952.884.3262
C: 612.386.3986
speterson@ci.bioomington.mn.us
Dianne Miller
Assistant City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd
Eagan MN 55122
W: 651.675.5014
E: dmiller@ciryofeagan.com
Sandra Krebsbach
Ciry Council Member
1230 Culligan Ln
Mendota Heights MN 55118
H: 651.454.5696
E: sandrakrebsbach@hotmail.com
Merland Otto
City Pianner, Airport Development
City of Minneapolis
Rm 210
350 S 5th St
Minneapolis MN 55415
W: 612.673.2576
F: 612.673.2728
E: merland.otto@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Pam Dmytrenko
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave
Richfield MN 55423
W: 612.861.9708
E: pdmytrenko@cityofrichfield.org
John Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Rd
Eagan MN 55122
W: 651.675.5653
F: 651,675.5694
E; jhohenstein@cityofeagan.com
Elizabeth Petschel
ARC Member
645 Quail Ridge Cir
Mendota Heights MN 55120
H: 651.454.3256
E: esiriusp@comcast.net
..,.W�-..�z?�x�..'°��'tf?t�..:.4.;. � � . .�.''r..r..,:��,a,.,,_.�:a�?.,�xi .. ,.�4 .
; � .;. .s .. 3t .-,.,� G ,� . i. . .. �, . . , ``. i?.'? � d „--�r?�'� j �' y z��.' r .,.Y.�rx.a i� ...ya . _ x ..?�: �� �� emF�,k�y' S�{ � r.i a� f �y..�a .�i'"`{. 6u . " tR�'� � � � J i G a �.. Y
, t Large;Represenfiatiue ,�„ � Prtrnary,Representatiue ,�� �„ ��#,�,t rv,. wAlternate Represetntative ,�, mr s,��,���,,,�. , , � ;�, �, 4 ; T �, . A:. ;; �.�F; , r;
- .,�.�-M�, � r : .� . � -
(Term; 6.26.07 - 6.25.09)
John Bergman
City Council Member
14691 Guthrie Ave
Apple Valley MN 55124
N: 952.891.2508
E: jkbergman@frontiemet.net
Wil Eginton
10 High Rd
Inver Grove Heights MN 55077
H: 651.552.1010
E: cweginfon@yahoo.com
.,'a y.a ,. YP ..._.0 ��- '. f�� ,�.�.�..� � �, S " F � s f � � ✓ x i, ::f r. -, k,-y � , .j s . 1 S,r .utr� t. � . {' sc l � . ...
�i At L<arge City Contacts ° � ' Represer►tative� � �t �, .�Alte,rnate� �'� ' S � y x -� ` r -� `p w� "�s "
�eF.x'-� ^`i.�. �sll� i�1�v .Ln .N...,if i.4..�YG .f. ..1�... �4..}.._ �.Fr ...3..0 _k_�.�.WES_ Y.. ..:f`��d... �1., nnT. ..-F+� �
APPLE VAL.LEY John Bergman
City Council Member
14691 Guthrie Ave
Apple Valley MN 55124
H: 952.891.2508
E: jkbergman@frontiemet.net
BURNSVILLE Thomas Hansen
Deputy City Manager
City of Bumsville
100 Civic Center Pkwy
Burnsvilie MN 55337-3817
W: 952.895.4400
E; tom.hansen@ci,bumsville.mn.us
IN"�R GROVE HEIGHTS
�
f �
ST LQUIS PARK
Wil Eginton
10 High Rd
Inver Grove Heights MN 55077
H: 651.552.1010
E: cweginton@yahoo.com
Brian Noffman
Director of Inspections
City of St Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St Louis Park MN 55416-2290
W: 952.924.2584
E: bhoffman@stiauispark.org
ST PAUL John Marshaii
Office of City Council
City of 5t Paui
Ste 310-C City Hall
15 W Kellogg Bivd
St Paul MN 55102-1615
W: 651.266.8630
E: john.marshail@ci.stpaui.mn.us
SUNFISH LAKE
1 ��
Ann 6arkelew-0'Hagan
35 Windy Hill Rd
Sunfish l.ake MN 55077
H: 651.451.9142
E: jim-ann@comcast.net
I�'Yt ��x,j .s.'��xu.h�.t .,.. ,�;. �.. _�`., ��..�...., ,. ,. ?k' .,. ve....� 3�.�..:..P.�. �,s.�-�r. .,�.�...ilV�l, AdV,�r'JOr$��:.�.-. .,,�i�.r;z.�t.�,.,..!�,.,f�:.�:� .,,c,ni.��.{�'t4�,�t-n.,� k�� � �.� �S.tX�,..v.... � Y �
�l, Y (i J )1 J ��1 �
�."k�.�n. -
,Air Transport Association Paul McGraw, Director Tom Browne
Air Transport Association Air Transport Association
1301 Pennsylvania Ave NW 1301 Pennsyivania Ave NW
Washington DC 200041707 Washington DC 20004-1707
202.626.4000 202.626.4100
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Administra6on
MAC Staff
Metropolitan Councii
Minnesota Air National Guard
US Air Force Reserve
Carl Rydeen, Assistant Tower Manager
FAA-MSP Control Tower
6311 34th Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55450
612.713.4000
Inspector Ronald Glaub
FAA - NWA CMO
Suite 500
2901 Metro Dr
Bloomington MN 55425-1559
952.814.4323
Chad Leqve
MAC Aviation Noise Programs Manager
6040 28th Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55450
W: 612.725.6326
F: 612.725.6310
E: cleqve@macnoise.�om
Chauncey Case
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Center
230 E 5t St
St Paul MN 55101
W: 651.602,1724
F: 651,602.1739
E; chauncey.cese@metc.state.mn.us
Major Roy J Sketka
109 Tactical Airlift Squad
MSP intemational Airport
St Paul MtV 55111
612.725.5679
Captain David J Gerken
Assistant Operations O�cer
96 TAS/DOV
Minneapolis-St Paul IAP
Minneapolis MN 55450
6�2.725.5561
Glenn Orcutt
FAA - District Qffice
Rm 1 d2
6020 28th Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55450
612.713.4350
Christene Sirois
Environment Department
6040 28th Ave S
Minneapolis MN 55450
W; 612.725.6455
F: 612.725,6310
E: csirois@mspmac.org
Major Wailace W Farris
934 OGJCC
760 Military Hwy
Minneapolis MN 55450
612.725.5557
Table of Contents for June 2007 �
C
Complaint Summary 1
Noise Complaint Map 2
FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6
MSF All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 (
\
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
Carrier Jet Anival Related Noise Events 18
Carrier Jet Dep,arture Related Noise Events 19
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33-35 �
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Complaints by City
June 2007
Nme: Shadcd Columns rcprcsent MSP compinims filcd via the Intcrnct.
Sum of % Tmal of Complaints may not eqva! 100% due to rounding.
j i 'As of Mny 2005, ihe MSP Complain�s by Ciry repon includes multipie
� campiaim descriptors per individual complaint. Thcrcforc, the numbcr of
�-- � mmplaint dcscripiors may bc morc than ihe numbcr of reponed complaints.
Report Generated: 07/10l2007 09:18 - 1-
MSP International Airport
Aviation Noise Com�laints for June 2007
Number of Complaints per Address
� �` �
1-4 5-13 14-28 29-54 55-119 120-351
352-505 506-730
- 2- Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C
C
Available Hours for Runway Use
June 2007
(Source: FAA Runway Use �ogs)
FAA Averaae Dailv Count
Air Carrier 845 785
Commuter 391 433
General Aviation 102 53
Militarv 8 9
Report Generafed: 07/10/2007 09:18
-3-
All Operations
Runway Use Report June 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 10D% due to rounding.
- 4- Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
�
��.
' }'
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report June 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 100 % due to rounding.
Report Generated: 07/10/2�07 09:18 - 5-
June 2007 MSP Carrier Jet Fleefi Composition
5' FAR Part 36 Take'
Type: , _Off No�se Levei ,;:, , i4ircraft Description _; ° Stage '� Count, , _ Percent :
. ....
8742 110 Boeing 747-200 3 4 0%
8741 109.4 Boeing 747-1Q0 3 2 0%
DC10 103 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 183 0.6%
B744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 70 0.2%
DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Douglas DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 66 0.2%
MD11 95.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 2 0%
8767 95.7 Boeing 767-300 3 10 0%
A334 95.6 ' Airbus Industries A330 3 323 1%
B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 315 1%
A300 94 Airbus Industries A300 3 153 0.5%
A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 32 0.1%
B73Q 92.1 Boeing 737 Modified Sfage 3 3 2 0%
MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 917 2.9%
B757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 3483 11.2%
DG9Q 91 McDonnell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 4701 15.1%
8734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 10 . 0%
8739 88.4 Boeing 737-900 3 1 0%
A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 4828 15.5%
B738 $7.7 Boeing 737-800 3 954 3.1 %
6735 87.7 Boeing 737-500 3 421 1.4%
A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4398 14.1%
8737 87.5 Boeing 737-700 3 30$ 1%
8733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 590 1.9%
MD90 84.2 McDonnell Douglas MD90 3 2 0%
E145 83.7 Embraer ERJ-145 3 550 1.8%
E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ-170 3 256 0.8%
B717 83 Boeing 717-200 3 547 1.8%
CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 7631 24.5%
E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ-135 3 384 1.2%
J328 76.5 Fairchild Dornier 328 3 2 0%
� ` , Tqfals ;: ';; ; 31945':
. ,. . ;, ,:; , �
Note: Sum of fleet mix % may not equai i00 % due to rounding.
C
C
Note: Stage lll represent aircraft modified to meet all stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation �.
(FAR) Part 36. This inciudes 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).
•EPNL is the Ievel of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone-corrected perceived noise level
of an aircraft flyover measured in A-weighted decibels.
- 6- Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report June 2007
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rounding.
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 7-
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
• . i. , � �• � � � � , ,
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
- 8- Report Generated: 07/10l2007 09:18
�
C
June 2007 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
�perations by Hour
� Hour ,;;, '�'Count'.
,2230 ---_.�...:,..._
32
2300 .........477
24Q0 196
100 54
200 19
300 37
400 76
500 537
American
American
America West
America 1Nest
America West
�ntinental Expre:
DHL
FedEx
FedEx
Fed Ex
Pinnacle
Kitty Hawk
Kitty Hawk
Mid.west Airlines
Midwest Airlines
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
�epublic Airlines
Sun Country
Skywest Airlines
Airtran
Airtran
United
United
United
UPS
UPS
UPS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
. .
.
�:�
. .
. �
:
�
: t�
� ��
. �
� �
�
. �
.
:
:
�:�
� .
. �
. �
:
e •�
�
: :
�
:
:
. .
:
:
� ��
. ,
.
:
� : t�
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 94.4% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 9-
1000
900
SOO
� 700
K:J
:.�:+
� 600
O:
ta
"�"' S00
Q
i
�
�7
� 400
�
Z
300
200
100
O
� ARL AWE BTA DHL FDX FLG KHA MEP NUTA RPft SCX SKW TRS UAL UPS
�4[c[Ync
�Manufa`ctured ��Stage 3` Stage, 3.;'�Stage 2,;� �
...,.' ...:.. . .... .. ... ... . . ... . . ...... _; . .. . ,. , �. . .
June 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
June 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
Note: UPS DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines.
- �� - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C,
�.
�
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — June 2007
Jun 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4095 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4079 Carrier Jet Departures
Jun 1 thru 8, 2007 — 313 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 1 thru 8, 2007 — 215 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 07110/2007 09:18
-11-
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — June 2007
Jun 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4200 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4183 Carrier Jet Departures
Jun 9 thru 16, 2007 — 307 Nighftime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jun 9 thru 16, 2007 — 219 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
- 12 - Report Generated: 07/10l2007 09:18
��
C
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — June 2007
Jun 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4176 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4173 Carrier Jet Departures
Jun 17 thru 24, 2007 — 324 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jun 17 thru 24, 2007 — 212 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
Report Generated: 07/10/20D7 09:18
-13-
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations — June 2�07
Jun 25 thru 30, 2007 — 3114 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 25 thru 30, 2007 — 3125 Carrier Jet Departures
Jun 25 thru 3d, 2007 — 261 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jun 25 thru 30, 2007 —177 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
- 14 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
�
C
C
f�
MSP International Airport
Remote I�lonifioring Tower (RMT) Site Locatians
1 Sa
� �� ��- +��� Remote Monifioring Tower
, �:: - ,-,:;� .
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
-15-
Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events
June 2007
=RMT ," F ` � ' ' � 4 '„ >_ ; > >�
,,,,
�
Time T�me T�me Time �
:�:.��s ...::.. .....:..G!�!...: ,...._...� . ......: ., i..::..' Address. .::... .. ,::... .�. ..:..65dB.::.. ... �80dB 90tlB 1OOdB =
.. . ...�..: . . ., ...�.. .... . .. .: .. . ..... �
1 Minneapolis Xences Ave. & 41 st St. 26:07:01 00:06:58 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 25:27:15 00:10:37 00:00:15 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 29:54:48 01:42:27 00:00:38 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 26:42:39 00:41:24 00:00:23 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 30:23:32 07:03:26 00:05:49 00:00:00
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 30:07:55 05:42:29 00:11:30 00:00:09
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:40:56 00:00:33 00:00:00 00:00:00
8 � Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:15:35 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00;00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & HartFord Ave. 00:51:51 00:05:13 00:00:02 00:00:00
10 St. Paul ifasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:51:47 00:11:24 00:00:20 OO:OO:QO
11 St. Paul Finn Sf. & Scheffer Ave. 00:04:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:01:49 00:00:00 oa:ao:oo 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:05:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 16:45:17 00:00:54 00:00:01 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:28:55 00:00:24 00:00:00 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 12:16:42 00:46:52 00:00:19 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84ih St. & 4fh Ave. 00:00:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75fh St. & 17th Ave. 00:24:05 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
19 Bloomingtorl 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:10:31 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:00:37 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:22:48 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 08:58:10 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 02:07:49 Od:00:50 00:00:00 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren �n. 15:07:49 00:01:43 00:00:00 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 00:18:48 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 00:59:33 00:00:12 00:00:00 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:05:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
28 Richfieid 6645 16th Ave. S. 01:43:46 00:01:42 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:00:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 04:.12:44 00:00:36 00:00:00 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:01:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsviile North River Hiils Park 00:02:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 00:04:38 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 05:45:20 00:00:23 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 08:55:23 00:00:43 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:03:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:01:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00
,; � ' Tatal; Time for Arrival iJo�se Events ` 250 33 21 16 39 54 ' OQ '19 77 0.0 OQ 09
-� 6- Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
�
�.
l )
Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events
June 2007
: ;� , , �
., �
,:; � '
� RMT � � � T�me �' � Time > 'f�me � Time �
,.. ,
- �
��.... .... . I.. ; �:_CitY ......: . .. .. .::. .�.....:. . ,. �. t..a�' Address... :._ . � . .. .....' , . . . _�. :,65dB . .. . $OdB ... .:.. 90dB <_ � .. 100tlB ,
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 03:35:53 00:02:� 1 00:00:00 00:00:00
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 04:08:12 00:01:58 00:00:03 00:00:00
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 09:16:44 00:13:19 00:00:21 00:00:00
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 11:14:14 00:26:57 00:01:33 00:00:00
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 28:26:32 03:46:34 00:44:22 00:00:14
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 33:15:14 04:46:32 00:47:13 00:00:22
7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 15:18:26 00:45:2Q 00:01:29 00:00:00
8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 09:23:18 00:24:23 00:01:00 00:00:00
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:14:08 00:00:32 OQ:00:02 00:00:00
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:10:15 00:02:48 00:01:11 00:00:00
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:12:19 00:02:25 00:00:35 00:00:00
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:08:23 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 09:12:56 00:01:50 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00
14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 12:06:09 00;51:41 00:01:15 00:00:00
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 12:57:30 00:14:36 00:00:11 00:00:00
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 12:00:08 02:00:49 00:13:54 00:00:00
17 Bloomington 84th Sf. & 4th Ave. 00:40:43 00:0425 0�:00:38 00:00:00
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 14:46:45 00:15:41 00:03:21 00:00:01
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th Sf. 10:43:42 00:07:43 00:00:19 00:00:00
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:41:52 00:01:22 00:00:01 00:00:00
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 04:06:50 Od:00:35 00:00:00 00:00:00
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 03:39:02 00:01:11 00:00:00 00:00:00
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 21:18:15 01:17:04 00:08:31 00:00:00
24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren �n. 07:25:02 00:11:15 00:00:04 00:00:00
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 10:51:22 00:00:57 OO:a0:00 00:00:00
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05:02:49 00:02:04 00:00:07 00:00:00
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 07:32:49 00:13:43 00:00:12 00:00:00
2$ Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 25:43:40 00:18:09 00:00:11 00:00:00
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schoo14315 31st Ave. S. 05:05:57 00:03:13 00:00:00 00:00:00
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 29:41:18 01:56:08 00:04:51 00:00:00
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. 5. 02:13:44 00:02:57 00:00:07 00:00:00
32 Bloomington 10325 Pisasant Ave. S. 00:59:43 00:00:12 00:00:00 00:00:00
33 Burnsvilie North River Hills Park 02:59:29 00:00:45 00:00:00 00:00:00
34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 00:47:05 00:00:21 00:00:00 00:00:00
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet �n. 03:59:39 00:02:43 00:00:00 00:00:00
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 01:21:28 00:00:27 00:00:00 00:00:00
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 03:17:35 00:01:39 00:00:00 00:00:00
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 06:00:48 00:06:31 00:00:01 00:00:00
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pi. 09:47:59 00:12:25 00:00:00 00:00:00
�,; „ Total Time for':Departure No�se Everits `: ?' 340 27 57; '18 43 39 02 11 32 00:OQ 37 ::
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 17 -
Arrival Related Noise Events
June 2007
� ; , �, ' ' '�,Ar al Arrival� � Arrival Arnval
RMT � �� � : , , � ' E' s> e s� s> > �
,,.; � � ven Ev nts ,
�
t nt EvenY Eve
_ ��;�� , ,:: - - .. �..C!.tY,. . . . ' �.. _. . a,.:: . .. �. �.. ..� .. . , Address'. . ._.' : . ... : :: ..`.. .. :_.65dB.. ::� .� .80dB .� .. �. .� 90dB � ...,�:100dB ... :
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st S#. 6222 61 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 5523 176 5 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 5811 1378 10 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 5849 644 5 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th Si. 6116 4556 122 0
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 6166 4940 369 4
7 Richfield Weniworth Ave. & 64th St. 141 12 0 0
8 Minneapolis �ongfellaw Ave. & 43rd St. 40 1 0 0
9 5t. Paui Saratoga St. & Harlford Ave. 147 5$ 1 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 148 118 7 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & SchefFer Ave. 20 0 0 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 6 0 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Gourt 15 0 0 0
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 3607 23 1 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & �exington Ave. 85 6 0 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas �ane 2553 547 5 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 2 0 0 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 80 $ 0 0
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 43 7 0 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 4 0 0 0
21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 83 1� 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2046 8 0 0
23 Mendota Neights End of Kenndon Ave. 523 13 0 0
24 Eagan Chapei Ln. & Wren Ln. 3127 30 0 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 82 1 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 274 4 0 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 29 0 0 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 332 27 0 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. Schaol 4315 31 st Ave. S. 2 0 0 0
30 Bloomingion 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1042 5 1 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 7 0 0 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pieasant Ave. S. 2 0 0 0
33 Burnsvilie North River Hills Park 14 0 0 0
34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 23 0 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet �n. 1362 8 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 1722 9 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 13 0 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 4 0 0 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 1 0 0 0
, . ; .y„ ,. ,Total Arr��al Notse Events ,; , .. � ' S3266 12641 : ; 526: 4 ;
,
. . ,.. . ;: ,� ......: . :
C
- 18 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
( I
i ;,
Departure Rela�ed Noise Events
June 2007
, � Departure Departure Deparfure DeparEure ;
RMT x' , `� � s > s � Events > Events > ,;'
Event Event
; � � � , � ° 80cIB � 90dB � � 900dB � :
... ,�� .. , ' . .. ':. .. .. ..C:!tY� . . .. ...:. . . ... .. ....... . �: .. ...
Address . .. . �:: ... ... . _�. , ..65dB �
..... . ........ .. .... ..... .... .......� .........
1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 670 27 0 0
2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 813 31 1 0
3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 1630 114 5 0
4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 1983 205 25 0
5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4285 1187 421 4
6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5216 1883 371 13
7 Richfield Weniworth Ave. & 64th 5t. 2275 327 19 0
8 Minneapolis Longfeilow Ave. & 43rd St. 1595 1$7 14 0
9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 45 3 1 0
10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 31 11 10 0
11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 31 12 6 0
12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 26 1 0 0
13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1858 40 0 0
14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 1883 442 1$ 0
15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 2314 131 6 0
16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 1785 614 182 0
17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 110 21 7 0
18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 2868 148 31 1
19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th 5t. 2051 70 5 0
20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 129 9 2 0
21 Inve� Grove Heighis Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 860 9 0 0
22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 563 27 0 0
23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3518 465 121 0
24 Eagan Chapei Ln. & Wren Ln. 1140 168 2 0
25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 1385 12 0 0
26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1024 24 2 0
27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1378 140 3 0
28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 4046 333 3 0
29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 954 37 0 0
30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 4866 747 76 0
31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 468 23 2 0
32 Bloomington 10325 Pieasant Ave. S. 203 4 0 0
33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 583 13 0 0
34 Burnsville Red C?ak Park 167 4 0 0
35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 715 44 0 0
36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 247 4 0 0
37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 571 32 0 0
38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 1074 76 1 0
39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 1850 147 0 0
'� ; Total;Departure No�se Events ; ,: ;' 57210 7772 ; 1334' 18
Report Generated: 07l10/2007 09:18 -'i 9-
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41st St., Minneapolis
(RMT Sife#2)
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis
- 2p - Repo�t Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C
{ j
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#4)
Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis
06/16/2007 10:29
06/27/2007 7:47
06/29/2007 8:08
06/28/2007 7:00
06/01/2007 14:02
06/28/2007 18:05
06/05/2007 17:41
06128/20Q7 '18:07
06105/2007 8:10
06/05/2007 10:32
06/06/2007 17:44
06/07/2007 10:05
06/28/2007 10:41
06/28/2007 13:35
06/03/2007 13:36
06/10/2007 20:00
06/27/2007 23:28
06/27/2007 23:39
06/2712007 7:17
06/26/2007 17:12
CCP412
CCP412
CCP404
N WA458
NWA407
N WA1463
CC1706
NWA1426
NWA170
N WA221
NVVA748
NWA1732
NWA1050
N WA355
CC 1705
N WA764
CC1706
NWA1156
Reporf Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
(RMT Site#5)
12th Ave. & 58th St., Minneapolis .
S
30L
30L
30L
30L
12R
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
105.5
102.5
102
101
99.3
98.9
98.5
98.4
98.4
98.4
103.4
1032
102.7
102.3
101.9
101.7
101.6
101
100.5
100.3
-21-
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#7)
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St., Richfield
06/08/2007 17:38
06/07/2007 22:48
06/28/2007 22:48
06/28/2007 23:34
06/27/2007 20:48
06/04/2007 22:47
06/20/2007 23:18
06/26/2007 20:49
06/05/2007 15:45
06/04/2007 20:51
(RMT Site#8)
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis
CCP650
DHL197
DHL197
GC1705
DHL304
B72Q
B72Q
B72Q
B72Q
D
D
D
DHL197 B72Q D
CCI705 B72Q D
DHL304 B72Q D
NWA1084 DC9Q D
DHL304 B72Q D
(F�MT Site#9)
Saratoga St. & Harlford Ave., St. Paul
30L
30R
3QL
30L
30L
30L
30R
30L
30R
30L
97
94.8
93.9
93.6
92.9
92.9
92.1
91.7
91.5
91.4
- 22 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C
('
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#10)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul
(RMT Site#11)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul
(RMT Site#12)
Alfion St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 23 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#13)
Southeast end of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights
(RMT Site#14)
1 st St. & McKee St:, Eagan
06/17/2007 21:53
06/21 /2007 13:35
06/18/2007 9:21
06/25I2007 9:43
06/09/2007 21:51
06/02/2007 11:24
06/22I2007 21:18
06/21/2007 10:26
06/30/2007 16:15
06/11 /2007 16:27
(RMT Site#15)
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights
N WA867
NWA1068
N WA617
N WA617
NWA143
N WA869
NVVA929
N WA748
N WA604
N WA604
� • �►
� •e
� •�
s •�
� •�
� •�
� •e
� •�
� • t�
� •�
12L
12L
12L
12�
12L
12L
12L
12R
12L
12L
�
•� :
.�
.�
.�
.�
:• :
:�
:•
::
- 24 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C,
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#16)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan
(RMT Site#17)
84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington
(RMT Site#18)
75th St. & 17th Ave., Richfield
Report Generated: 07/1012007 09:18 - 25 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#19)
16th Ave. & 84th St., Bioomington
(RMT Site#20)
75th St. & 3rd Ave., Richfield
06/10/2007 7:06
06l06/2007 15:09
06/09/2007 16:11
06101 /2007 11:37
06/05/2007 19:19
06/21 /2007 17:56
06/17/2007 10:07
06/07/20Q7 5:20
06J09/2007 15:54
06/30/2007 11:29
(RMT Site#21)
Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove Heights
CCP400
N WA790
CC P650
KHA750
NWA867
N WA407
N WA617
DHL1648
NWA3
NWA1697
: �
� • t�
: e
C R
� •�
� • t�
� •e
: �
; ..
� •�
12R
12L
12R
12R
30R
12R
12L
12R
22.
12L
:: .
::
:� :
�
�
:� �
:�
:�
:�
:�
- 26 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C
f � �)
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heights
06/01 /2007 8:09
06/09/2007 9:33
06/1312007 7:47
06/06/2007 8:02
06/27/2007 10:28
06/14/2007 7:08
06/19J2007 4:17
06/18/2007 20:Q9
06/18/2007 12:18
06/09/2007 7:17
CCP404
CCP412
CCP412
CCP412
NWA939
CCP400
DH�704
NWA1612
N WA1157
DAL1706
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:1&
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln., Eagan
�
: �
: �
: t�
. �
: e
: e
� •�
� • t�
�:�
92.3
90.3
892
88.5
88
87.4
87.3
87.1
87.1
86.7
-27-
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for IV�SP
June 2007
(RMT Site#25)
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan
(RMT Site#26)
„-,,,,, � , � , � , . ,-. , . . , .
06/16/2007 10:29
06l05/2007 11:58
06/08/2007 13:34
06/16/2007 11:49
06l27/2007 19:04
06/05/2007 22:06
06/04/2007 7:01
06/2812007 18:53
06/26/2007 18:21
06/28/2007 19:41
(RMT Site#27)
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis
CCP412
N WA452
NWA452
N WA452
NWA446
FDX1106
AAL1380
NWA407
NWA458
NWA876
: �
� • t�
� •�
� •�
� •�
�
�:�
� • t�
� • t�
� • t►
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
30L
- 28 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16th Ave. S., Richfield
06/08/2007 17:17
06/18/2007 16:05
06l08/2007 9:32
06/Q8/2007 17:21
Q6/26/20Q7 14:59
06/08/2007 21:52
06119/2007 6:49
06/18/2007 18:35
06/20I2007 9:38
06119/2007 7:27
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S., Minneapolis
AA�1093 MD80 D
NWA865N QC9Q D
Unknown GLF3 D
KFS29 LJ25 D
NWA865 DC9Q D
NWA764 DC9Q D
BMJ72 BE80 D
AAL354 MD80 D
AAL1125 MD80 D
NWA866 DC9Q D
(RMT Site#30)
8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomington
ss.2
87.5
87.1
56.1
85.6
85.5
84.2
84.1
84
84
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 29 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#31)
9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington
. (RMT Site#32)
10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomington
(RMT Site#33)
North River Hills Park, Burnsville
- 30 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
C
C
i i
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park, Burnsville
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Garnet Ln., Eagan
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond, Apple Valley
Report Generated: 07/10l2007 09:18 - 3"� -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
June 2007
(RMl` Site#37)
4399 Woodaate Ln. N.. Eaaan
06/17(2007 11:46
06/13/2007 11:43
06/26/2007 7:00
06102l2007 11:57
06/1012007 8:05
06102/2007 12:06
06121 /2007 16:46
06/02/2007 9:46
06/14/2007 7:05
06/ 11 /2007 12:50
06122/2007 2232
06/24/2007 17:01
06111/2007 9:03
06/29/2007 22:39
06/0512007 22:44
06/26/2007 9:17
06/14/2007 11:17
06(29/2007 16:38
NWA1455
NWA1455
AAL1380
N WA452
AAL204Q
AAL366
Unknown
AAL1125
AAL1380
N WA1280
DHL197
AAL1093
TRS874
DH�197
DHL197
AAL429
AAL2006
(RMT Site#38)
3957 Turquoise Cir., Eagan
(RMT Site#39)
3477 St. Charles PI., Eagan
�
::
: •
: �
: :
�
�
;. .
:� :
:.
C,
June 2007 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summatv
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for June 2007 were comprised of 84.1 % departure
operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 31 % of the highest Lmax events. �
June 2007 Technical Advisor Report Notes
Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the
month of June 2007.
- 32 - Repo�t Generated: 07/10l2007 09:18
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
June 2007
Remoie Monitoring Towers
' Date � #1 #2 � #3,'' ,#4,, ;#5 „ #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12� #93' #14 #15
:::..� . . . :.. .. .:...:: .. ....: ...:. .::..... .. ..... .. . .,.; .. :,,::,. . �:. , �
06/Q1i2007 60.7 63 67.3 63.8 72 69.7 48.7 41.8 49.5 54.5 43.9 NA 55.6 62 58.7
06/a2/2007 58.4 59.8 64.5 63.1 7Q.6 73.8 58.6 57.6 47.1 58.4 51.6 44.5 53.9 59.4 58.3
06/03/2007 51.8 53.9 59.3 62.9 72.9 73 64.1 59.4 33.3 262 30.3 NA 28.1 60 NA
06/04/2007 53.2 52.6 60.7 65.3 73.3 72.5 65.3 64 NA 52.6 51.6 32.8 27.9 61 41.7
06/05/2007 56 56.2 62 63.8 73.3 74 62 62.5 29.2 40.1 30.4 NA 26.3 61.2 49.7
06/06/2007 62.8 63.7 67.7 64.6 71.2 70.6 50.1 44 49 37.7 32.5 43.8 58.7 62.9 62.2
06/07/2Q07 62 60.9 67.9 64.8 74.7 74 64 66.3 61.4 64.1 40.9 NA 55.2 63.8 57.8
06/08/2007 53.8 54.5 59.5 59.3 71.1 72 63.1 62.3 34 NA NA 35.2 25.1 63.3 27.9
06/09/2007 55.5 58.7 62.7 60.4 66.8 70.3 48.1 54.2 35.8 32.9 26.5 NA 55.7 61.8 58.4
06/10/2007 57.9 60.4 65.8 61.3 69.7 67.6 43.3 30.3 NA 27.4 NA NA 54.4 61 56.2
06/11 /2Q07 59.3 60.7 66.6 62.6 70.5 68.6 36.4 NA NA 29.7 27.7 NA 56.6 61.9 6a
06/12/2007 60.4 61.1 67.6 62.5 71.1 68.1 44.7 40 48.2 NA NA 46.4 56.1 62.7 58.2
06/13/2007 60.4 60.6 68.2 62 71.9 68 40.2 34.4 462 28 33.9 43.6 59.2 62.8 60.3
06/14/2007 59.2 59.9 66.4 62.3 70.9 70.1 44.5 42.2 35.2 34.3 29.2 32.7 56.1 62 58.7
06/15/2007 59.3 63 67.3 64.4 70.8 73 50.9 54.8 41.5 39.6 28.9 39.9 55 63.7 56.8
06/16/2007 56.7 62.3 58.8 64.6 70.5 72.8 61.9 59.2 46.8 57 54.6 NA 50.7 61.2 53.7
06/17/2007 56.8 61 64.2 62.9 68.7 69.4 42.9 NA 42 44.9 30.1 NA 55.2 63.4 58.5
Ofi/18l2007 58.8 60.3 63.6 63.2 73.9 72.4 67.4 58.1 312 31.2 NA 27.8 46.1 62.9 53.4
06/19/2007 58 58 60.3 62.4 72.2 73.9 65.6 60 36.3 NA 36.3 NA 37.1 64 45.7
06/20/2007 58.1 57.7 62.1 62.4 72.5 75 64 65.1 NA NA NA 28.6 43.4 62.7 50.5
06/21/2Q07 61.2 62 68.1 63.4 71.9 69.1 50.8 48.1 51.7 51.2 51.8 43.1 58 63.8 62.8
06/22/2007 60.8 63.7 662 64.7 70.8 702 43.1 33 NA NA NA NA 58.9 63 61.4
06/23/2007 58 61.5 65.8 62.2 69.9 68.4 40.7 30.5 36.8 53 49.6 NA 55.4 60 57.5
06124/2007 58.2 60.7 64.8 61.9 69.1 68.1 35 32.5 NA NA 31.6 NA 55.5 62.4 57.2
06/25/2007 62.1 61.6 66.4 62.5 70.2 68.7 40 41.4 NA NA NA 33.8 56.5 61.5 61
06/26/2007 59.9 58 66.9 64.4 73.2 73.1 64.4 57.4 40.2 56.7 50.5 56.6 51.5 60.6 54
06/27/2007 55.5 56.9 61.9 65.2 73.2 76.6 68.4 63.8 36.3 31.7 38.7 NA 41.4 602 46.4
06/28/2007 55.4 55.7 63.4 64.1 75.2 73.4 63.8 66.7 NA 53.9 52 32.2 40.6 62.3 31.7
06/29I2007 57.1 58.2 642 61.5 72.2 70.3 56.5 58.4 45.8 51.3 51.5 39.6 53.3 64.6 56
06/30/2007 58.5 60.6 64.5 61.6 68.3 68.1 37.2 NA 40.6 NA 47 NA 54.6 62.1 60.2
Mo DNL 58 9 6Q 4 65 3 63 2 71 8 71 9 61'2 59 5 48 3;52 6 4.6 5 43 2 54`5 62 3: 57 7�
; r:.-�
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
-33-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
June 2007
Remote Monitoring Towers �
'Date � � #16 #17, #184s '#19 #20 #21 ,#22 #23 #24 #25 a#26 #27' #28 #29
_.�_:: .. .�> .:.: ........ .. .... . ...: .. .. . .,.< .
.. . ...:.. .... _., : , ... .:: . .�..._ .:. .._, .,,; �,. -
,...,.� __,...., , .. ., , ,.,..:.
06/01/2007 67.8 NA 62.1 59.3 NA 51.4 55.5 64 59.9 55.2 53.3 49.9 63.3 27.8
06/02/2007 64.3 NA 56.5 54 NA 51.4 52.3 64.1 56.5 52.9 54.8 50 59.6 51.6
06/03/2007 65.7 52.2 50.9 48.2 56.9 36.4 57.3 42.9 6Q 31 41.2 59.5 63.6 52
06/04/2007 65.7 36:5 46.8 44.8 46.9 49.7 56.6 50.4 60.3 40.6 39.2 58.5 63.4 57.3
06/05l2007 66.3 50.8 58.3 54.5 42.1 48.4 58.8 53 61.5 40.7 47.3 61.1 61 56.9
06/06/2007 63.6 52.8 62.8 59.2 39.5 55.8 55.4 67.7 60.1 53.5 58.5 67.9 64.8 29.4
d6/07/2007 66.5 52.4 62.9 59.8 532 52.8 58.5 62.6 61 54 53 58.5 65.4 57.5
06/08/2007 67.8 50.5 56.9 49.7 52.2 46.1 60.1 49.2 62.5 41.9 47 57.8 60.2 57.7
06/09/20Q7 65.4 44.4 60 57.3 41.4 51.3 56.3 65.5 59.1 53.4 54.1 41.8 53.9 40.6
06/10/2007 64.2 50.9 59.8 56.2 37.6 54.5 51.6 62:7 55.9 53.9 57.1 41.4 59.7 26.8
06/11/2007 65 51 60.4 56.2 38.8 55.5 55.2 66.4 57.6 56.1 57.5 NA 61.7 50.6
06/1212007 65.6 34.8 60.6 56.7 NA 53.4 55 63.9 59 57.4 56.4 34.9 62.1 35.7
06/13/2007 65.5 47.1 60.3 55.6 36.7 55.9 57 66.9 59.8 53.7 57.9 34.3 60.6 28.4
06/14/2007 66.2 51.1 61 55.3 38.6 54 56.6 65.8 59.4 57 53.3 40.9 61.6 NA
06/15/2007 67.1 45.6 57 54.8 49.2 48.6 56 63.7 60.6 52.9 59.2 45.8 56.8 40.9
06/16/2007 64.1 37.3 47.1 47 33.7 53.5 57.3 62 59.7 46.9 54.1 59.1 57.3 48.9
06/17I2007 65.4 NA 58.9 55.4 NA 54.4 54.3 67.4 59.7 55.1 56.9 NA 60.1 26.3
06/1812007 66.2 48.8 57.7 52.5 50.6 48 55.6 59.9 60.3 55.5 54'2 58.1 60.9 56.2
06/19/2007 67.9 49 56 51.3 52.7 44.4 60 52.5 64 40.2 49.4 58.9 62.2 59.1
06/20/2007 65.2 51.5 56.1 47.8 47.1 47.5 57.9 57.8 62 47.9 54.3 59.4 59.3 58.3
06121 /2007 67.1 29.2 59.7 57.9 30.4 56.9 53.7 68.3 60.6 57 57.9 42.3 62.8 50.1
06/22/2007 64.7 46.2 59.7 57.5 NA 52.4 53.6 69.2 59.2 52.3 54.9 35.5 60.1 NA
06/23/2007 65.3 53.6 60 55.3 39.7 50.3 53.9 65.7 56.8 51 52.2 40 57 NA
06/24/2007 65.5 47.1 59.1 54 NA 52.8 52.6 66.5 58.2 55.1 58 33.4 57.2 30.1
06/25(2007 64.7 NA 60.5 58.6 27.4 54.2 53 67.1 572 55.5 56 30.5 61.2 28
06/26/2007 64.2 48.3 59.4 51.5 49.4 48.9 54.7 6Q.7 57.9 55 50.5 54.1 60.1 54.5
06/27/2007 62.6 48.1 55.5 45.9 45.8 44.5 56.1 51.9 55.5 40.3 47.3 59.3 61.6 59.3
06128/2007 67.4 NA 51.1 50.1 42.6 43.5 57.7 42.1 NA 52.3 47.4 62.3 62 55.2
06/29/2007 68.2 39.6 57 54.6 47.3 55.4 59 65.2 62.2 55 55.7 57.3 58.9 52
06/30/2007 64.8 44.6 60.6 57.1 29.3 51.6 52.3 66 57.8 52.9 55.5 NA 58 NA
„Mo"DNL 65 9;4$ 4�9 1 55 5 47 3 52 4 56 4 64 4 59 9 53' S 55' 57 6:' 61 2 53 2;
�...,. .. ,. .. „. : .. . , ,
- 34 - Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
June 2007
Remote Monitoring Towers
Date #30 #31 �#32! #33 ;#34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39
. ,,. , .._. ..., , . . ... .� ....,.
06/01 /2007 68.5 49.3 45.4 51.1 43.4 56.5 42.1 55.7 56.9 56.7
06/02/2007 64.8 49.4 42.4 47.8 42.9 52.5 49.6 52.5 53.8 55.2
06103/2007 61 44.1 NA 41.1 44.9 51.9 55.1 NA NA NA
06/04/2007 52.2 34.1 33.2 NA 27.9 54.1 56.7 NA NA NA
06/05/2007 66.6 40.8 46.5 53.6 55.5 57.7 58.5 47.4 55.8 NA
06/06/2007 66.4 57 53.2 47.4 38.3 50.8 42 47.3 52.9 57.9
06J07/2007 60.8 52.9 47.2 50.2 43.5 50.8 45.8 47.3 48.1 56.5
06108/2007 59.6 48.8 49.9 49.4 53.7 55.7 56.7 33.7 32.5 NA
06/09/2007 65.7 51.6 48.1 49.7 45.8 54.5 51 53.9 55.6 57.3
06/10/2007 66.2 46.7 34.5 51.3 41.5 52.3 4Q.5 52.7 56.5 59
06/11 /2007 66.4 53 46.9 49.1 45.4 49.9 41 48.2 55.5 60.6
06/12/2007 64.8 51.6 40.2 48.6 38.1 48.7 44.4 49 52 60.6
06/13/2007 65.6 52,9 48.8 47.7 42.7 52.9 40.7 54.6 55.6 58.2
06/14/2007 65.8 49 50.4 51.6 40.7 49.9 46.6 53.2 55.4 61.5
06/15/2007 63.3 51 45.3 50 44.3 51 47.7 51.1 53.1 56.4
06/16/2007 57.9 44.1 41.4 41.1 26 50.1 53.3 39.9 36.4 41.1
06/17/2007 63.8 47 33 48.4 27.8 48.5 43.2 50 54.5 58.2
06/18/2007 60.8 40.6 51.7 48.7 36.1 55.2 55.9 46.1 48.2 54.3
06/19/2007 62.4 47.6 52.6 45.3 47.3 59.2 60.1 38.7 NA NA
06/20/2007 57.7 44.5 45.3 48.4 46.7 53.4 53.1 40.8 38.8 42.9
06/21/20Q7 67.5 48.6 40.1 50.5 47.1 49.4 50.4 49.4 54.8 57.6
06/22/2007 66.5 53.2 46.3 44.5 37.3 49.5 42.8 49.2 59.3 54.6
06/23l2007 63.9 44.3 39.5 50 43.5 47.4 43 52 54.1 56.1
06/24/2007 64 51.3 41.3 51.9 38.5 47.1 40.2 50.6 55.4 58.4
06/25/2007 66.8 47.7 43.5 51.5 37.7 51 46.8 51.1 54.4 59.5
06l26/2007 60.7 44.5 47.1 45.2 37.5 53 54.6 49.7 51.3 57.1
06/27/2007 55.8 28.2 49.4 41.3 43.2 56 59.4 37.4 39.3 NA
06/28/2007 63.1 43.5 45.6 54.2 49.9 53.9 56.6 41.4 NA NA
06/29/2007 67.4 46 46.6 49.6 42.3 55.9 54.1 54.2 57.9 51.8
06/30/2007 65.5 51.7 39.1 48.4 40.4 49.4 45.1 50.2 51.8 56.2
;, ,.
i Mo DNL 64 6 49 8; 47 �49 4 46 53 4 53 3 50 2 53 6 56 3:
,�,..:..� ,. � ..::. .. �.. . .. ::. . ,. .:,.: �
Report Generated: 07/10/2007 09:18 - 35 -
�
C
�
,. � : �IIIy
_.,. • ,,:,_., _.�.,,: :
_ �
,. �;' � ; � ,
Metropolitan Airports Coimnission
4094 Carrier �eis Departed I�unways 12L and 12R in �une 2007 �
3881 (94.8%) of those Operations Remained in the �o�rridor
4094 Toial 12L Si 12Y2 Carrier lDepariure
Operations
3��1(94.�%) 7Cotal 121L & 12Y2 Carrie�
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor
06/01/2007 00:00:00 - 07/01/2007 00:00:00
3881 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 2126 (54.8%), Right = 1755(45.2%)
.� 6000
d
a�
� 5000
c
0
� 4000
� 3000
�
Q' 2���
Q
j �0�0
O
.Q
Q 0
r............................................................................i
:� o . :
. . ,- . . . . �,�;�. . � �
.
.................:.(� .t�. t.i. r . ....��{�.. .................
�;, � . �� � : ��`�:
- - . . . . . . . . r�'% r � ;'�.�,}�� � �,�i''�'`�''v� = . . . . . . . . . . . .
'��.�a �' x %>sf`��� �' ��;'������ 4, � .
�� ��4.`�+�``��--t � �:�vt'r+ "1u��4�c�S�'a�,y'�c tb 4 uy �, n � 'N ;z'� . . . . . . . . . . .
�i,'�'hJf{-"�a^'vt�r,+1,'j t, �SU� �k�.������e�{� � .�s.d�,�h ��..Sn�
. . . . . . . . . . ! , � ��,.� -�i f 1 isC"�� i i�4�a�`vrtt -��" t���y � � ��v h,i' lt �'7ei' y�`a�i.�'t�u�,i`�'�'r�'. .
S �; � ,�3
. . . . . . . . . . . . ��.'''. . �. �. �. .h. . r{�rT���" f .��� ���7 �`�`A�+. 7�%TL . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(.7' ��� ,L v� ��� �y�,u1��
. .' ' J . �.�
-2 -1 0
1
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles)
-!- Arrival t�> peparture ❑ OverFlight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Comdor Analysis
Page 1
�
Metropolitan Airports Coirunission
107 (2.6%) YZunway 12I, and 121�. Carrier Jet Departu�e Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor �oundary �uring June 200'7
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Corridor
06/01/2007 00:00:00 — 07/01/2007 00:00:00
107 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 22 (20.6%), Right = 85 (79.4%)
.� 6000 .
� �
� . . .
� 5000 ..................:...................:..................:..................
c : . :
o • • •
. . ,., .
a4000 ................ ............... ..........�_�.... .....�.J .........
> ' ' � r-;
d . : . .
w3000 .................:...................:.................:_ �.,��............
o : � ; � , : � �'r�'��.. -.,
. l `/,' ' ^ LLtrf,�,�41����
�i. ...._ .......'.��. i�Z. �� :.. i �i`.7�^x....... ...
�. 2000 . ........... .... . ...�✓. � �ir' ��:::Y'J '•_t�i � ;�� ( L✓�.
d . . . . . . . . . G. . . . . : . �''�,T�`.�� ��. �.� . . . . . . .?. . . r� C� (:i `> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01000• : 'J : :
.a . . .
Q n
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Runway End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) iCorridor End)
�:�.�.�,���� �;���-� �.:� .�,.,� ��,�.���x �;a�:,� �
y. 1
... . .. � , . .
.t' �'.:_;. _....::::.:,_ . .,. .�.�:: .,.. iJ ... _.. .::.. .......:.:� �..�,� .?��,.. ..., .:�;. .......,:'�` � . �
, -{- Arrival ��� Departure O Overflight��
Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Coirunission
106 (2.6%) Runway 12I� and 1212 Carrier Jet I)eparture Operations were
South of the Corridor (South of 30L I�ocalizer) During June 2007
Mi�neapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor
06/01/2007 00:00:00 — 07/01/2007 00:00:00
106 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 85 (80.2%), Right = 21 (19.8%)
w. 6000
d
d
v 5000
c
0
a 4000
d
W 3000
�
Q 2000
Q
o ���0
.Q
Q �
F..................:...................:.....................................
r............................................................................
..t� ............:...................:..................:...................
�O ' : :
�,y, . C�� . ��C'; : ,.,� . � .. . . . .. . . : . . .. . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .
...... �, .�. . .. . .:.
:� `� `�'�����(,-�'�,ry, � ��,.� � ` `' :
�',, . . . . .J . t�. . ('�,L�, . . .:�1 ,t„': . : .xJ' . .{".C{ j,�ir lC,✓,('��rl. t.( j . . .��1 . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. t� `'C`�i {:) `= �:�: `�'�e5' �,G� .
: : `-' {�+ :
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin
-I- Arrival �' Departure ❑ Overflight
�„��.����.• ���Q��«�.���.�- .��•�-�-,.��,:�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Page 3
�
�
�
Metropolitan Airports Commission
19 (0.5%) Runway 12L and 12I2 Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5°
South of the Corridor (5° South of 30I, Localizer) During .�une 2007
Minneapolis—St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 5deg
06/01/2007 00:00:00 — 07/01 /2007 00:00:00
19 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 17 (89.5%), Right = 2(10.5%j
w. 6000
d
d
V 5000
c
0
i 4000
>
d
W 3000
�
0
Q' 2�00
Q
0 1000
.�
a 0
F..................:...................:..................:..................�
�J ..................:...................:..................:.................
. .(��. .; . . . . . . . . �. . . . :,. . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . .r:j. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . , ... .
� �7 C) t~ , i;J �
, '
.................:...t� .........4-L'. �;.r1...............:.................
—2
(Corridor End)
-'- Arrival
—1 0 1 2
Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin
'=' Departure ❑ Overflight
Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Comdor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12I, and 12R Departure Destinatio�s for June 2007
�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Deparlure Comdor Analysis Page 5
C
i ;
• /1 _ • 1 i1
,•. • •• . - . �-�, - • /� � .
IVlinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
;��
������
�� ��
� ��
�
�
� ��
*This report is for informational purposes only
and cannot be used for enforcement purposes.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
4094 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in June 2007
3864 (94.4%) of those Operations Remained in the Corridor
4094 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure
Operations
3864 (94.4%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 07/10/2007 11:59 Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
127 (3.1 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor Boundary During June 2007
COf Those, 16(�)Returned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park
Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 07/10/2007 11:59
Metropolitan Airports Commission
103 (2.5%) Runway 12� and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
South of the Corridor (South of 30� Localizer) During June 2007
Of Those, 0( —)Returned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 07/10I2007 11:59 Page 3
�.
C
Metropolitan Airports Commission
19 (0.5%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure 4perations were 5°
South of the Corridor (5° South of 30L Localizer) During June 2007
Page 4 Monthly EaganlMendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 07/10/2007 11:59
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12L/12R Departure Destinations for June 2007
�A�rport City � ' Headmg #Ops Percent of ,
; � (d.e, g. ), ...,;:: , _.. ...:. Total Ops�,
_� .,. ,,. , �... ,., ,. .
., : : „. , � . . .. ... .
__ ,
SEA SEATTLE 278° 130 3.2%
DTW DETROIT 105° 97 2.4%
FAR FARGO 312° 72 1.$%
YYZ TORONT(J 95° 71 1.7%
YWG WINNIPEG 330° 63 1.5%
ANC ANCHORAGE 292° 61 1.5%
LAX LOS ANGELES 238° 5$ 1.4%
PDX PORTLAND 272° 58 1.4%
MEM MEMPHIS 162° 54 1.3%
BOS B�STON 97° 54 1.3°/a
AMS AMSTERDAM 83° 52 1.3%
BIS BISMARCK 291° 49 1.2%
SFO SAN FRANCISCO 251 ° 49 1.2%
ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 48 1.2%
GRB GREEN BAY 90° 46 1.1 %
C
" �,
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 07/10/2007 11:59 Page 5
82
�s � � �� � : -
� . i r't)�. � r 1� ,
f y r' 4 s y''., f 1 �.�k:..v
3 �k� Ty I U� ,1' r , 3 .,,1-� .` • � l .� ��- , �, �i � �
�
.
�' �S ^ r
....n5. � a� ' 'e,,:-. ;s. , 1 ,�, ,s
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volumel9,Nnmber2l July 6, 2007
Research
,i � ��� , . ; �
�.. .� ii;. ,. ,.� ..
The governing board of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) will
meet in Washington, DC, on Ju1y z2-23 to select the research projects that will be
included in the prograrn's fiscal 2008 program, which will be funded at a level of
$7.3 million.
The ACRP was authorized by Congress in 2003 as part of the Vision 100 —
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act to carry out applied research on a broad
range of problems that are shared by airport operating agencies but not being
adequately addressed: The Transportation Research Board (TRB) manages the
program forthe Federal Aviation Administration.
By mid-August, the ACRP governing board will announce which research ideas
it has selected for the 2008 program and will solicit for participants to serve on
oversight committees that will be established to guide each project. These panels
refine the scope of work for each project and issue requests for proposals seeking
firms to conduct the studies.
Some 139 research problem statements were submitted for consideration in the
frscal 2008 ACRP program but only about 24 of those projects are expected to be
selected for funding, Christopher Jenks, manager of the program, told ANR.
Nine Noise Projects Proposed
Nine of the project ideas submitted for the 2008 ACRP program address airport
noise issues but it is unclear at this point if any of these projects will be selected
by the ACRP governing board for funding. However, the rasearch problem
statements for these noise projects are worth reading because they serve as
concise primers on various aspects of airport noise mitigation that need to be
addressed.
The noise research problem statement with the broadest support by aviatian
industry trade groups calls for a work plan to be developed to combine rail,
highway tra�c, and aircraft noise and emissions models into one multi-mode
model that could be used for all tcansportation hubs.
Other research proposals seek to enhance modeling of aircraft taxiway noise; to
evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures undertaken as part of airport
expansion projects; to develop a catalog of inethods to better explain the effects of
aircraft noise to citizens and poticy makers; to document the tie between school
sound insulation and improved test scores; to develop a method airports can use
to predict the number of paople that will be awakened from nighttime aircraft
noise; to develop guidance on how best to use data from airport noise monitoring
systems to achieve better community outreach results; to develop a tool to allow
airports to batter use and assess supplemental noise metrics; and to determine
whether flight tracking technology can be used at general aviation airports for
noise monitoring and landing fee collection.
Excerpts from the research problem statements for the nine noise projects begin
on the following page.
IiZ TIZiS ISSuee..
Research ... This special issue
ofAirpartNoise Report includes
excerpts from nine research
proposals addressing airport noise
issues thathave been submitted to
the Transportation Research
Board in hopes of being funded in
the fisca12008 Airport Coopera-
tiveResearchProgram, which
TRB manages forthe FAA.
The research problem state-
ments submittedto TRB are only
ideas forprojects and, ifselected
for funding, will be further refined
by proj ect oversight corrunittees
beforerequestsforproposalswill ',
be issued seeking contractors to
conductthe studies.
The ACR.P research program is
unique inthat itfocuses onapplied
research needs identifiedbythe
aviationcornmunity and funds
' projectsthatwillbeofparticular
valueto those onthe front lines of
airportnoiseproblems: airport
noisepersonnel, noiseconsultants,
land use planners, and federal,
state, and local o�cials dealing
with airport noise issues.
Excerpts from the nine research
problem statements addressing
naise concerns submitted for
funding inthe 2008 ACRP
research program begin on p. 83.
���n� 83
Developing a Comprehensive WorkPlan for a
Multi-Modal Nofse and Emissions Model
Howard Aylesworth, director, Civil Aviation Environment,
Aerospace Industries Association, and Kenneth Polcak,
Office of Environment Design, Maryland State Highway
Administration, developed the work statement for this one-
year, $200,000 project (ACRP ProblemNo. 08-02-22).
The work statement was the product of discussions among
stakeholders from the Environmental Protection Agency, the
FA.A, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Aerospace Industries Associa-
tion, the Air Transport Association, the Airports Council
International — North American, and various stat� highway
agencies and airport authorities.
The problem statement was submitted jointly by FAA,
ATA, FHA, ACI-NA, and Durisol Inc.
Problem Statement: Pubiic and private sector trahsporta-
tion-related environmental analyses are currentiy conducted
in independent modal "stovepipes." The social, environmen-
tal and business effects of aircraft, highway, and rail noise,
emissions, congestion, and delay are evaluated and miti-
gated as separate entities. The reality is, however, communi-
ti�s, airports, and individual transportation modes do not
exist in stovepipes.
Transportation hubs are essential to commerce and
community activity. Schools, hospitals, residences, and
businesses exist within the vicinity of airports. Highways
and passenger and freight railroad lines lead into and around
airports, and rarely does one transportation source dominate
the environmental impact in and around the airport. Yet, the
standard course of action is to qualify airport expansion
projects and noise and emissions mitigation decisions using
single-modal impact analyses which consume public sector
monies and private sector capitai. $7.2 billion in Federal
[funding] was spent in fiscal 1982 to 2004 on noise-mitiga-
tion projects at airports, $3.4 billion was spent on highway
noise barriers from 1970 to 2004, and $12.6 billion was spent
for congestion mitigation and on air qualiTy improvement
programs from 1998 to 2003. The current practice for road
congestion mitigation is highway expansion, HOV lanes and,
recently, congestion pricing. For aviation, this is on the
NextGen agenda, and railroads face similar problems.
This stovepipe approach can lead to an inappropriate
expenditure of airport, Pederal, state and local dollars, and
lead to mitigation efforts that do not achieve desired gaals.
For example, noise barriers are often constructed to mitigate
highway noise for residences which have previously
undergone insulation programs to mitigate aircraft noise; a
potentially expensive and inefficient solution to a multi-
modal problem. There are many applications which couid be
znore easily and thoroughly evaluated if such a model
existed. If a transit-raii line is built next to an existing
highway, will it increase or decrease the noise and emissions
impact, and what is the least expensive way to mitigate the
environmental impacts? If cargo is transported by rail rather
than interstate truck, what are the environmental impacts and
benefits?
A multi-modal transportation noise and emissions model
would help to properly inform airport and public policy
makers that ara ch�rged with making such decisions. The
proposed tool would allow for the assessment of the noise
and air quality impacts from each transportation source and
the population impacts, assess the total costs and impacts,
and assist in the design of mitigation strategies. 'This would
enable more judicious use of Federal, state, and local funds.
In addition to public sector entities, this capability will be
made available to airports, airport consultants, and others to
conduct environmental assessments for regulatory, business
and communiiy purposes.
Objective: Produce a comprehensive document outlining a
Work Plan to (1) incorporate rail-based modes of transporta-
tion into the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM), and (2)
merge the enhanced TNM with the FAA's Aviation Environ-
mental Design Tool (AEDT).
Research Proposed: The initial step in the development of
malti-modal iransportation noise and emissions computer
model is the development of a comprehensive Work Plan
which would lay out the scope of such an ef�'ort. This Work
Plan would detail a phased developtnent effort which would
be implemented over multiple years. Phase I would consist of
the incorporation of the rail-based modes into TNM (en-
hanced TNM). Phase II, which would comprise the bulk of
the proposed work under #his research problem statement,
would consist of the integration of the enhanced T'NM with
the AEDT. It is likely, though not requirad, that these phases
would occur somewhat in parallel.
Urgency and PayoffPotential: Transportationofficials are
increasingty aware that noise and air quality issues cannot
be effectively mitigated by considering the worid on a modal
basis, or within noise and emissions stove-pipes. A multi-
modal transportation noise and emissions modal is required
to deal with the complex issues that occur around most
transportation hubs. A comprehensive Work Plan is the first,
and perhaps most important, step in the process of develop-
ing an effective model. This tool has the potential to realize
billions of dollars in savings by allowing transportation
authorities to evaluate potential trade-offs between transport
options and allocate Federal monies for the most effective
mitigation measures. A single tool may also realize signifi-
cant cost savings for local planning agencies, given that
modeling inputs will only need to be accumulated once for
all modes. Significant efficiencies may also be realized where
overlapping capabilities eacist This is particularly important
for policy responses that require public and private sector
research and development efforts, where the technology
options, timing and energy mix may vary amongst the
various transportation modes.
Airport Noise Report
C�
�� . � �nn�
84
Enhanced Modeling ofAircraft Taxiway Noise
Jake A. Plante, national resource expert for noise and air
quality at FAA, and Lourdes Maurice, chief scientist in the
FAA's O�ce of Environment and Energy, submitted the
work statement for this one-year, $100,000 project (ACRP
Problem No. 08-02-28).
The problem statement was jointly developed by the
FA.A's Office of Environment and Energy and the Office of
Airports.
Problem Statement: The continuing reduction of noise
levels related to aircraft flight operations means that
previousty ignored noise from aircraft ground operations,
such as taxiing, now has more of an effect on nearby
connmunities. Taxiing and idling in runway queues, espe-
cially during peak hour operations or at night, can signifi-
cantly contribute to noise contours and Day-Night Average
Sound Levels (DNL). This is particularly true when taxiways
are very close to the airport property lines and near neigh-
borhoods or other noise-sensitive locations.
The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is the agency's
required tooi for environmental zmpact statements, environ-
mental assessments, and Part 150 and Part 161 studies.
Currently, noise modeling of ta�ciway operations is not an
availabie feature of the INM. INM users who need to assess
the contribution of noise from aircraft ground operations,
must develop some type of workaround approach within the
model or externally. Developing this new capability would be
a natural extension of other currently planned enhancements
of INM, such as better modeling of start of the take-off roll,
and multi-modal analysis, and it would enable the FAA and
users to cover all modes of operations in the vicinity of an
airport. Also, it would pave the way for joint modeling of
noise and emissions considering that taxiway local air
quality modeling is already a routine analysis today.
Devetoping an aircraft ground operations capability will
allow airport staff, airport planners, and consultants to
incorporate ta�ciway noise modeling when needed. This will
increase the fidelity of noise modeling results thereby
improving chances that significant noise impacts and
incompatible land-uses are properly identified and appropri-
ate mitigation strategies can be addressed. The early
available capability enhancement in the model will also
enable the joint assessrnent of both noise and air quality,
resulting in more balanced and comprehensive decisions in
airport planning. Failure to properly consider taxiway noise
with quantifiable metrics, such as DNL, can lead to misinfor-
mation on the efFects of a proposed action. This could result
in proposed airport layout improvements bringing taxiing
aireraft etoser to noise sensitive receptors. In addition, the
failure of planning documents to account for taxiway noise
coutd lead to mistrust;between the cornmunity and the
airport.
Objective: The purpose of this research is to develop a
program for better noise modeling and airport planning. The
study shall (1) review current practices and status in taxiway
planning and noise modeling; (2) identify and assess
different enhancement options; and (3) prepare a systern
design and functional specifications document for direct use
by the INM and AEDT development teams.
Research Proposed: The proposed quick study will review
the development aiternatives for addressing taxiway noise. It
will identify feasibte options to enhance INM capability. The
quick study should evaluate both advantages and disadvan-
tages of those options in terms of modei acctuacy, appiica-
bility, compatibility, usability, and development cost, with
consideration of the fact that the TNM will soon be inte-
grated into AEDT-Local and it must be compatible with the
infrastructure that already exists for modeling taxiway
emissions. This quick study should recommend the best
approach and provide system development documentation
for immediate soflware application.
Urgency and Potential Payoff: The FAA Airports Office
believes that taxiway noise modeling is urgentiy needed and
therefore merits funding at the earliest opportunity. This
enhancement is needed at present to solve existing airport
problems and would be a timely addition to the current
design and development of the new Aviation Environmental
Design Tool (AEDT). This study will provide a system
design and functional specifications that can be completed
to make the development "window" for AEDT.
Airport Noi5e Report
Jut; 6�2007 85
Assessing Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures for Major Airport
ImprovementProjects
Bryon H. Rakoff, branch manager of Planning and Program-
ming in the Airport's Division of FAA's New England
Region Office, submitted the problem statement for this 21-
month, $40Q,000 project(ACRPProblemNo. 08-02-04).
Research Problem Statement: The environmental studies
associated with airport improvement projects are frequently
complex, time-consuming, expensive, and controversial. In
many cases, the general public does not regard these studies
as credible. Local residents — particularly those directly
impacted by a proposed project — feel that the studies are
inaccurate or simply wrong, and that they minimize the "real"
impacts of the project. They are particularly suspicious of
proposed mitigation measures, and claim that such rneasures
are ineffective.
These public concerns raise valid questions: when a
project is completed, what are the actual impacts? Are
people and wildlife affected more or less than was originally
estimated? Did the mitigation measures work? Unfortunately,
environmental studies traditionally do not allow for such
evaluations (although some mitigation measures do include
modest monitoring work such as for replacement wetIands).
A study of the actual environmental impacts of a project
several years (or longer) after it is completed could be
invaluable in several ways. First, such a study can help
determine which mitigation measures are effective and which
are not. Second, it could provide agencies with concrete,
real-world examples of actual impacts for projects; this
information could be a powerFul tool to address community
concerns. In other words, a"real impacts" analysis could
build credibility with the public. Finaily, by providing airport
sponsors with better knowledge of what works, this study
could reduce construction (i.e. mitigation measure} costs, or
at least better focus these dollars.
Objective: The objectives ofthis research will be to
identify the actual, long-term environmentai impacts of a
selected set of airport development projects, and to evaluate
the effectiveness of mitigation measures associated with
those projects. Information obtained will vary based on the
projects selected. The types of data collected could inciude;
• Water and Wetlands: The actual effect of the
project on locai water and wetland resources, using standard
industry metrics;
• Noise: The actual noise levels experienced by local
residents, using Day-Night Average (DNL) noise metrics or
other accepted industry measures;
� Wiidlife: The effect ofthe project on locai wildlife
(both water and land animais);
• Light Emissions: The impact of light emissions on
local residents (ifthe project selected included installation of
a beacon, landing system, or similar airport lighting enhance-
ment).
The nurnber of impact categories and development projects
will be limited due to the research dollars available; therefore
it is criticat that the projects under review be carefully
identified.
Research Proposed: The proposer will develop the final
scope of work for this research. The following work tasks are
offered as a conceptual frarnework for the study. Altemative
work tasks and approach methodologies are welcorne.
Task 1: Identify Projects for Review: In this task, the
researcher must determine the projects best suited for study,
given the limited time and budget available. Given the
number and range of airport projects nationwide, this might
be the most challenging task to complete.
Task 2: Pre-construction Conditions: Once the sites have
been identified, previously completed studies and analyses
will be gathered to determine (a) site conditions prior to the
project; (b) anticipated impacts predicted by these studies;
{c) proposed mitigation measures and their anticipated
benefits: and (d) local concerns and public reaction to the
proposed project.
Task 3: Past-construction Conditions: In this task, each
project site is studied to determine the actuai environmental
impacts of the work. Elements of this analysis could include:
� Noise measurements (including measurements at
sites used in the earlier environmentai studies);
• Wetland field assessments;
• Wildlifeinventory;
• Water quality analysis.
This fieldwork must be carefully planned, to make the best
use of limited time and budget. Any previously completed,
relevant studies should be obtained and used to the greatest
extent possible.
Task 4: Survey Questionnaires: The researcher will
complete a series of surveys to determine liow the public
perceives the project and its impacts. The survey will target
groups such as the airport sponsor and users, members of
citizen groups opposed to the project, and the public at
Iarge. (This task could be completed as part of the previous
tasks or as a separate work element).
Task 5: Comparative Analysis: Results ofthe fieldwork and
surveys are compared with tha expected impacts and
proposed mitigation measures for each project site. This
analysis should assess the accuracy of the initial studies (i.e.
anticipated impact vs. actuai impact). In addition, the public
concerns and issues generated during the study shall be
compared to the actual impacts (measures and perceived).
The researcher will assess the overail effectiveness of the
mitigation measures. In short, the researcher will determine if
the project impacts were more or less than anticipated, and if
the mitigation measures worked. The cost-effectiveness of
mitigation measures should be assessed.
Airport Noise Report
�
86
Task 6: Documentation and Future Research: A final report
will be prepared summarizing the study results. Areas of
additional or future research will be identified. Budget
permitting, the researcher might consider presenting these
findings to the airport spansors at the project sites.
Urgency and PayoffPotential: This research could provide
agencies and airports with a powerful tool for addressing
public concerns about environmental impacts. This in turn
coutd reduce the project delays that are frequently the result
of public controversy. In short, this research could stream-
line the environmental process — a major federal goal. The
net gain in time wouid translate to substantial savings in
dollars, in terms of both reduced project costs and more
effective project mitigation. If this study is found to be
effective, future research in this area couid yield additional
benefits.
Airport Noise Report
Julv 6, 2007
Explaining Aircraft Noise and Its Effects to
Citizens and Policy Makers
Nicholas P. Miller, senior vice president, Harris Miller
Miller & Hanson Inc., developed the probiem statement for
this 24-month, $500,000 proj ect (ACRP ProblemNo. 08-02-
08).
The project was endorsed by o�cials ofNaples Airport
Authority, the O'HareNoise Compatibility Commission, the
Sacramento County Airport System, Tampa International
Airport, and Westchester County, NY.
Probiem Statement: Analysis ofaircraft noise normally
depends on DNL (or CNEL) as the primary descriptor.
Though there is general agreement that this descriptor is
appropriate for land-use compatibility planning, for deter-
mining "significant impact" and fianding limits for noise
mitigation and abatement, DNL is a paor descriptor of what
the noise is like for those who will experience it, especially in
the case of prospective changes in noise from new runways
or procedures. Additionally, the approach used in many
noise analyses implies that noise effects end at the 65 dB
DNL contour.
The inability of DNL, especially 65 dB DNL, to communi-
cate aither the actual experience, or the effects the noise has
on people's lives can leave both decision-makers and the
public unprepared for what changes are in store if, for
example, a cunway is lengthened or new flight corridors are
implemented. Such surprises have left the public doubting
the validity of the aircraft noise analysis process, and
airports and consultanis struggiing to find better ways to
describe the noise and the effects of proposed changes. As
a resuit, communities lack faith in the analyses, and presen-
tation of analysis results is disorganized and inconsistent
from study to study, from airport to airport.
Objective: What is needed is a fully vetted catalog of
methods for describing what aircraft noise is like or will be
like at any location in the community (whether inside or
outside the 65 dB DNL contour) with emphasis on methods
that are widely understood by communities and decision-
makers. For example, these methods need to include
descriptions of how the aircraft will sound, the number of
times aircraft will overfly a neighborhood, and the types of
effects that can be expected. With such a catalog, decision-
makers will better understand how communities are or will
be affected, and communities will not only better under-
stand the effects of changes, but will begin to have greater
trust in the aircraft noise analysis process. Ultimately, the
catalog would provide each airport and each jurisdiction
with the ability to describe aircraft noise in a way uniquely
tailored to each jurisdiction's needs.
87
Research Proposed: Working with the ACRP panel, an
expansive list of presenta.tion methods will be developed
based largely on existing metrics but may include innovative
alternatives. Fossibilities include number of times speech
communication will be interrupted linked with number of
seconds/minutes of disruption, locations and number of
times house vibration/rattle will occur during the day or
night, number of people awakened during a night of opera-
tions, effects on learning in schools. T'hese methods will then
be rigorously defined in terms of how they are calculated,
using available studies and computation methods (e.g., the
Integrated Noise Modei). An approach is then to be de-
signed for presentation of the results of these methods to
focus groups for evaluation.
Under this research proposal, severai focus groups will be
established around the country, and would include citizens
living near airports, local, state and Federal decision-makers
involved in airport and land use planning, and possibly ather
aviation stakeholders (airlines, pilots). Each group would be
presented with all the various methods of describing aircraft
noise devaloped in the study, and discussions would be
guided to elic3t their reactions. Which of the methods make
sense to them? Which would best represent what they
experience living around the airport? Discussions would also
encourage suggestions for alternative ways that participants
believe would better describe the living conditions around an
airport. Concepts such as annoyance, interference, and trust
wouid be explored.
Urgency and Payoff Potential: Expansion projects at
several major airports have been stalled or derailed because
of community resistance. Airspace changes have become
controversial because of unanticipated community resis-
tance, which is extremely well organized. There is an urgent
need for clear, well thought-out and better methods for
describing aircraft noise that will be understandable and that
will build public trust in the airport and airspace design
process. And the much needed future expansion of the air
transport system will rely heavily on communication and
trust between the communities and the aviation industry. The
continued reliance on DNL combined with individual
planner's ideas of what noise metrics might communicate is
often of little help.
Airport Noise Report
C�
July 6, 2007 88
Benefit of School Sound Insulation:
Improvement in Standardized Test Scores
Mary Ellen Eagan, president of Harris Miller Miller &
Hanson Inc., submitted the problem statement for this 18-
month, $450,000 project(ACRPProblemNo.08-02-11).
The project was endorsed by Alan Zusman, chairman of
FICAN; Roger Johnson; deputy executive director of Las
Angeles World Airports; and Mary Vigilanfe, president,
Synergy Consultants.
Problem St�tement: In FY 2006 alone, rnore than $48
million dollars was granted under the FAA's Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) to sound-insulate schools
around U.S. airports. One benefit of improved teaching
environments, brought by those funds, is improvement in
standardized test scores. Such scores are increasingly more
important in recent years, since they heip determine student
class cTedit, student grade advancement, student gradua-
tions, school funding, and official school accreditation. How
is aircraft noise reduction within classrooms related to
standardize test-score improvement, after controlling for
demographics? Moreover, does this relationship vary by age
group (high, middle, and elementary school), student groap,
and/or test type (verbal and math/science)? The Federal
Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) has
recently compJeted a pilot study of these questions, using
publicly avaitable standardized test-score data, aircraft-traffic
input, and school-construction details.
Objective: The objective of this project is to prepare a
concise executive summary, backed by a detailed technical
report, including appendices, that ties the irnprovement in
standardized test scores to the AIP-funded school sound
insulation. The results will include recommended methods
for monetizing this improvement in standardized test scores.
Research Proposed: This ACRP project would expand and
improve upon the prior FICAN study as follows. First, it
would refine the FICAN-study method for obtaining,
cleaning and organizing publicly standardized test-score
data. Second, it would remove that study's self-imposed
resiraints against airport contact, thereby obtaining better
noise prediction modeling input and school-construction
data for computing aircraft sound levels within classrooms.
Third, it would distinguish between teaching in substantial
school buildings and teaching in modular/relocatable
elassrooms. Pourth, it would confine all analyses to sound-
insulted schools. Fifth, it wouId inetude graphical investiga-
tions, residual analyses, and sensitivity analyses to shed
light on the analysis results. And sixth, it would greatly
expand the number of airports and sehools in the analysis
database, to allow greater certainty in generalizing to the
entire country. In addition, this ACRP project would
monetize the effects of reducing aircraft noise on learning, so
that these noise-related benefits can be combined and
compared sensibly with other benefits of the FAA's Airport
ImprovementProgram.
Urgency and Payoff Potential: The FAA spends millions of
dollars every year to provide sound insulation of schools,
and airports are under continued pressure to expand sound
insulation programs beyond their current boundaries
(typically DNL 65 contours). Yet no research on the effec-
tiveness of sound insulation has been conducted to
quantify the benefits of these investments in terms of
improved standardized test scores and learning autcomes.
This research would allow decision-makers to better
understand the impact of aviation noise on learning, and to
more effectively decide how bestto spend ]imited mitigation
funds.
Airport Noise Iteport
Jul;� 6, 200'7 89
Sleep Disturbance Produced by Night Time
Aircraft Operafions
Nicholas P. Miller, senior vice president, Harris Miller
Miller & Hanson Inc., and Grant S. Anderson, principal
scientist of the firm, submitted the problem statement for this
24-month, $500,000 project(ACRPProblemNo.08-02-12).
The project was endorsed by Alan Zusman, chairman of
FICAN; l�oger Johnson, deputy executive director of Los
Angeles World Airports; and Mary Vigilante, president,
Synergy Consultants.
Problem Statement: As night time air cargo operations
become more common, and as limited airport capacity forces
more passenger operations into the night time, airport
planners need a reliable measure of the effects of these
operations on sleep. The common metric used by airport
planners of A-Weighted Day Night Average Sound Level
(DNL) does not adequately address sleep disturbance.
Many researchers have studied the effects of aircraft noise
on sleep. Since the early 1990's these studies have been
conducted in people's homes, simultaneously recording
awakenings and aircraft sound levels in the sleeping rooms.
These studies generally provided two results. First, they alI
produced relationships that tell what percent of individuals
awoke to different leveis of aircraft sound. Second, none
have found any correlation between a cumulative metric of
night time aircraft noise and awakenings, including no
correlation of awakenings with DNL. Neither result directly
helps assess the effects on the total population of a full
night of aircraft operations.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
(FICAN) has recently sponsored initial analyses of sleep
study results. These analyses have demonstrated that an
alternative approach, using raw sieep study data, can
provide a means for computing both the number of peaple
and the percent of the population likely to be awakened by a
full night of aircraft operations. These results account not
oniy for the total number of night time operations, but also
for the time of night these operations occur, and for the
difFerence in people's sensitivities to awakening. Proper
expansion of this method can provide an easy-to-use
addition to standard noise modeling practice that wiil
compute the total sleep disturbance effects of night time
operations.
Objective: Using the results of the FICAN supported
analyses, new easily-understood measures of sleep distur-
bance are to be developed and incorporated into a module
for the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, the INM. This post-
processor will use the "detailed grid" output of the INM,
together with census data, to produce maps showing
numbers of people awakened and contours of percent of the
population awakened. Supporting tables may also be
generated. Our goal would be to develop an analysis
protocol applicable for all airports that could predict the
number of people awakened around an airport from an entire
night's activities, based on the predicted awakenings for
each event, sumrned over the night. In addition, research
should provide guidance concerning the situations when
this type of analysis is wamanted.
Using these results, planners and the public will be abie to
quickly assess the effects of changes in nighttime opera-
tions. The results will show where both increases and
decreases in sleep disturbance occur, and provide a direct
means to compare alternatives and to assess mitigation
measures.
Research Proposed: The results of the FICAN analyses
will be tested for generalization to any airport and popula-
tion. The FICAN results were derived from sleep studies at
four airports and the statistical reliability of these results for
any airport need to be determined. Once this reliability is
quantified, computation algorithms for directly using INM
output will be developed. Next, soflware will be designed to
exercise these algorithms and provide at each census biock
the number of people and the percent of the population
awakened. A user interface and graphic and tabular output
will also be designed. Finally, the software wi�l be coded,
tested, and verified. The final program will be documented
and provided to the ACRP panel and to the Ft�A for review.
Urgency aud PayoffPotential: Expansion proj ects at
several major airports have stalled or derailed because of
community concerns about sleep disturbance. However,
airporfs cannot easily quantify the awakenings that are likely
to result from night time operations. Current guidance using
the 1997 FICAN awakening curve does not address a full
night of operations, time of operations, or individual
sensitivities to awakening. The proposed project addresses
all three issues, will be a simpla addition to the cunent noise
modeling process, and will provide the results in easily
understood maps and tables.
Airport Noise Report
,�t�� � �nn� 90
Guidelines for Use and Presentation of Airport
Noise Monitoring Data
Jawad Rachami, director of Business Development for
Wyle Laboratories Aviation Services, and Dr. Ben Sharp,
general manager of the firm, submitted the problem statement
for this 12-month, $250,000 project (ACRP Problern No. 08-
02-1'�.
Problem Statement: Airports have increasingly invested in
the acquisition of noise monitoring systems in support of
their noise management strategies and community outreach
programs. Several airports have also recently increased their
investment in this technology by updating their legacy
systems to integrate advanaed flight tracking and reporting
applications. These systems are now capable of: (a) produc-
ing real-time flighttrajectory information, (b) tabulating
community complaint data, (c) processing measured sound
data and correlating it to aircraft overflight information, as
well as (d) producing various statistical representations of
the processed data. It is also the case that airports, whether
they employ a permanent noise monitoring system or not,
have increasingly integrated temporary community noise
monitoring into their ongoing noise compatibility programs.
These programs rely on portable equipment and mobile
teams, producing measured community sound exposure data
over short periods of time.
The value af the large investments that airports rnake in the
acquisitiom and subsequent maintenance of those advanced
noise rnonitoring systems depends on how well data from
those systems are used to manage and respond to commu-
nity concerns over aircraft operations and noise exposure.
Airports, hence, continue to search for better ways to
present noise monitoring data in their periodic noise reports.
What currently exists are technical guidelines of how to
operate and reconcile data from noise monitoring systems
(Aerospace Recommended Practice ARF'-4721) and not how
�to best use and present data from increasingly complex noise
monitoring systems to achieve desirable community
outreach outcomes.
Objective: The overatl objective of this research proposal
is to develop guidance for the use of noise monitoring data
to support airports in addressing coznmunity complaints and
in presenting information on noise program compliance and
abatement to the community and their representatives. The
proposed research program will also develop a toolkit
containing appropriate templates integrating different
distribution methods including Web-centric reporting.
The proposed project is NOT to evaluate different noise
monitoring systems BUT rather to develop guidance on how
best to use data frorn those systems in order to achieve
better community outreach results.
Research Proposed: The proposed research project will
seek to.develop best practice guidelines for (a) community
complaint management procedures, (b) preparation of turn-
key airport noise reports, and (c) presentation and distribu-
tion of noise monitoring data (permanent and portable). The
best practice guidelines will be developed based on airport
case studies with varying degrees of applicability in terms of
scope of usage and type of noise monitoring system
employed.
The research project will collect periodic noise reports,
complaint management procedures, and other relevant
communication and reporting materiai from airports and
assess their relative effectiveness through perfornnance
metrics such as surveyed community feedback and potential
correlations between historical complaint data and implemen-
tation of reporting practices. The project will then cross-
analyze data inputs and through a deliberative process (i.e.
working group) produce best practice guidance on the types
of data that the community seeks and on methods for their
effective presentation and distribution.
The project will also develop a toolkit that will allow
airports to create turn-key noise reports and consult
procedures on community complaint management. The
toolkit would be developed to produce guidance for
hardcopy (printed material and display material) as well as
electronic materials (including web content) that airports use
in outreach activities.
Urgency and Payoff Potential: The value of this project
resides in its ability to offer airports a product that would
enhance their Return on Investment (ROI) following the
acquisition and/or upgrade of their noise monitoring
systems. Airports place significant investments in acquiring
and maintaining these systems because airports seek
technology that will allow them to pursue sustainable noise
management strategies. The proposed research program will
allow airport noise abatement staff to have at their disposal
effective guidance on how to best use data from their noise
monitoring systerns to manage cornmunity complaints and
produce responsive information in support of community
outreach meetings and programs.
As such, given the objectives of ACRP to compile and
disseminate pertinent information, guidebooks and best
practices as widely and efficiently as possible throughout
the airport community, the urgency of this project is high
and the payoff period begins immediately upon development
of the proposed guidelines and toolkit.
Airport Noise Report
dul; 6r�9A'i 91
Development of a User-Friendly Supplemental
Noise Assessment Tool for Airports
Thomas Connor, senior staff aviation manager at Wyle
Laboratories, and Dr. Ben Sharp, general manager ofthe firm,
submitted the problem statetnent for this 18-month, $350,000
proj ect (ACRP Problem No. 08-OZ-18).
Problem Statement: BeforeFa112007, theFederal Inter-
agency Committee on AircraftNoise (FICAN) will revisitthe
application of supplemental noise metrics to airport noise
assessments. The catalyst for this activity is the Guide to
Using Supplemental Noise Metrics being prepared for the
Department of the Navy. The motivations for the develop-
ment of this guide are: (1) to produce more detailed noise
exposure information upon which better informed decisions
can be made, and; (2) to improve cornmunication with the
pubiic about noise exposure from military activities. Better
communication with all stalceholders and the general public
is clearly a benefit to all; and the use of more detailed noise
exposure information developed with metrics that supple-
ment Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) analysis will
improve decisions that have noise impacts.
The Federal government adopted DNL because it is the
best single noise metric that can be uniforrnly applied to
predict long-term noise exposure in communities around
airports, and for which there is an established relationship
between projected noise and surveyed community reaction
to aircraft noise. While federal agencies have accepted DNL
as the best metric for land use compatibility, redueing noise
exposure to a single average value does not communicate to
the public an adequate understanding of noise exposure.
Simply looking at the location of their home on a DNL
contour map, does not provide a concerned citizen answers
as to how many times airpianes fly over, what time of day,
what type of airplanes, or how these flights may interfere
with domestic activities, such as sleep and watching
television. Therefore, there is a need for better communica-
tion of noise exposure in terms that are more easily under-
stood. This can be achieved by performing supplemental
analysis using noise metrics in addition to DNL.
The revisit by FICAN is likely to lead tb a reevaluation of
the guidance on the use of supplemental metrics produced
by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) in
1992. The effort to develop the Navy guide identified airport
case studies that illustrate the growing use of supplemental
metrics to better communicate noise exposure to the public
and better inform the decision makers. This will be useful to
FICAN along with the findings of recent sociai survey
research in The Netherlands and Germany on the effects of
aircraft noise. The FICAN deliberations will also look into
some of the innovative concepts for assessing aireraft noise
effects that have been discussed at various aviation forums.
The logical outcomes of the FICAN reevaluation are new
technical recommendations on the application of supplemen-
tal metrics and effects to airport noise analyses; superseding
thetechnicalreportofFICON 1992.
Objective: Develop a tool to turn INM — and subsequently
AEDT — oatput into objective and subjective measures of
aircraft noise to supplement the standard noise data
produced by the model in anticipation of new FICAN
guidance on supplemental nnetrics. The intent is to buiid a
product that is not expert-driven but operated by airport
staff.
Objective metrics include Number of Events (NA}, which
has proven to be very effective in public information forums.
Another new objective metric concept is the "blended
contour." The general intent is to overlay the DNL contours,
NA contours for a defined ciassroom speech effect thresh-
old, and NA contours for a defined sleep disturbance
threshold simply into one graphic to help the planning and
zoning officials decide what combined levels are most
appropriate for their local circurnstances.
For environmental assessment required by NEPA, the
proposed tool will provide subjective metrics based on the
increase in aircraft noise. Such measures could include the
increase in the proportion of the community highly annoyed
(%HA), increase in incidences of speech interruption, and
increase in awakenings (%Awakenings). The methodology
wouid give appropriate statistical weight and consideration
to the uncertainties in the relationships between cause and
effect (%HA vs. DNL, %Awakenings vs. SEL, etc.) that are
not addressed when using "average" relationships.
Research Proposed: Design and build a tool foliowing the
principles of a decision support system (DDS) and using
general accepted soflware engineering practices. DSS is
generally defined as an interactive, fleatible, and adaptable
computer-based information system, especially developed
for supporting the solution of a non-structured management
problem for improved decision making. Functional require-
ments will be defined through interaction with FICAN as it
deliberates new guidance for the use of suppiemental noise
metrics.
The design of the system architecture will address the
interactions among the database (TNM/AEDT output),
objective metrics modules, the effects translations algo-
rithzr�s (subjective metric modules) and the user interface
leading to a highly modularized system. Modularization is
important toprovide flexibility to construct the tool from the
appropriate combination of database, objective metrics, and
subjective metrics modules to comply with the technical
recommendations to be produced by FICAN.
Severai of the objective metrics modules will be adapta-
tions of utilities that have been developed for specific airport
projects. Uther modules, including all of the subjective
metrics modules, will be built from scratch. It is important
that the subjective modules ineiude the statistical parameters
to define the underlying uncertainty of the relationship
between cause and effect. Guidance from scientific research-
ers in the field will be sought.
Airport Noise Report
��
�TuiT�T�nn7 92
The user interface will be designed for airport user
flexibility and ease-of-use along with providing control over
critical parameters. Control of the receiver environment
(neighborhoods) includes choosing whether the windows
are opened or ciosed in homes and schools. The interface
will provide step-by-step instructions for the selection of
noise level and nurnber of events thresholds to evaluate
changes in awakenings and speech interruptions. Similar
instructions will be available to construct blended contours
for local land use planning purposes.
Urgency and Payoff Period: The proposal is an anticipa-
tory requirement making a judgment on when FICAhT will act
and how tong it would take to produce recommendations.
The research period of 18 months is based on both the
complexity of the effort and an attempt to synchronize with
FICAN's expected schedule based on some of its past
activities. The payoff is to have a practical tool already
tested and ready for the airport community when FICAN
publishes its new recommendations on supplemental noise
mefrics.
Airport Noise Report
dui; 6, 2A0'7
93
Technotogy Demonstration for Noise
Monitoring and Landing Fee Recovery
George H. Davidson, chief operating officer, Advance
Navigation and Positioning Corp., and Thomas E. Zoeller,
vice president, regulatary affairs, American Association of
Airport Executives, submitted the problem statement for this
12-month, $500,000 project (ACRPProblemNo. 08-02-2�.
The problem statement was developed based on a broad
survey of general aviation airports.
Problem Statement: Many non-towered airports have
Iimited capabilities to provide flighttracking capabilities,
whiph can be used by these airports to track flights for noise
compatibility as well as to track airport arrivals for the
recovery of appropriate airport fees.
Objective: Determine extent of lost landing fees and flight
tracking of noise corridors for non-towered airports and
determine if cost effective technology for terminal surveil-
lance provides su�cient earned value to install systems.
Research Proposed: (a) Conduct surveys of selected non-
towered airports with significant GA traffic count and noise
corridors to determine current process for landing fee
recovery and enforcement of noise standards. Conduct the
demonstration at Truckee Tahoe Airport, which has offered
to provide support, and whose Board will consider cost
sharing; (b) Install the Terminal Surveillance technology and
software to monitor and record aireraft within the Truckee
Tahoe terminal area; (c) Publish a research report that
estimates landing fee recovery if a surveillance system were
installed as well as an assessment of flight tracking of noise
corridors with process recommendations and an earned value
assessment.
Urgency and Potential Payoff: As the aviation industry
prepares for the predicted growth in ganeral aviation
activities, predominantly with the anticipated activity of very
light jets, airports need to position themselves to take
advantage of low-cost technological solutions that can
provide tools for the airports to manage increased air traffic
and associated issues with the surrounding communities.
While these aircraft are individually quiet, the expected
growth in operations poses potential issues for airport
operators with the surrounding communities about the
perception of noise issues. For non-towered airports, there is
no availability to individually monitor air traffic into and out
of the airport. There are som� new technologies that can be
positioned within the airport boundaries, which are relatively
inexpensive that can be used by airports ta monitor air traffic
into their airport. Technologies, such as the transponder
landing systern, which can pravide an insttument approach
into non-ILS facilities can be modified to provide flight
tracking information for an airport. This project wouid
access the available transponder tracking technologies that
would provide a vatuable resource to airports to signifi-
cantly improve enforcement and improve airport community
relations. Such resources might be able to reduce the
amount of time an airport rnanager would have to devote to
obtaining information from the FAA, and provide instanta-
neously, information about flights operating at the airport.
An additional benefit of such technology, and part of this
research, is to see whether such technology could create an
automated system for the collection and recovery of airport
landing fees, creating an aviation equivalent of an EZ-pass
for general aviation aircraft.
Airport Noise Report
94
r`� � X� �4.�� ('��r �j,� r,�y T.:•' c....�`'s', t?;? '' �n �.°� ....� �Y ' , `��,�
�. Y�
�'���` S �, � r 3 % �
'Gd nr � e � tt
r:�S_ �.ri,� ��� a ,�+ ",�' „l r t t� .r,�r
at;4+ �aW:
A weekly update on litigation, regulations,. and technological developments
Volumel9,Namber22 July 13, 2007
Research
FIC.AN PILOT STUDY CONFIRlYIS I.INK
BETWEElV NOISE, SC�OOL TEST SCORES
A link does exist between the reduction of aircraft noise in classrooms and
improvements in the academic performance of students in public schools, the
Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) concluded after
reviewing the findings of a pilot study it funded in the United States to confirm
similar findings of studies done in Europe.
FICAN's study of 35 public schools (three high schools, 13 middle schools, and
19 elementary schools) near three unidentified airports in Texas and Tllinois found:
• A"substantial association" between noise reduction and decreased
failure (worst-score) rates for high-schooT students; and
• A"significant association" between noise reduction and increased
average test scores for all student groups.
"We've certainly identified a cause and effect," said FICAN Chairman Alan
Zusman, who serves as speciai assistant on military noise cornpatibility programs
on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations.
"We've confirmed that the issue exists: noise is reducing test scores," he said.
FICAN can make that general conclusion based on the results of its pilot study
(Continued on p. 95)
Supersonic Aircraft
� . . . �� � , � �
1 � :!� � �1 ' �'.
The structural response of modern housing to both normal and low-ampiitude
sonic booms will be determined in experiments conducted from July 11-20 by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Dryden Flight Research Center
at Edwards Air Force Base in California.
The primary goal of the test is to quantify the difference, if any, between a 2006
test using an older Edwards base house slated for demolition due to age, and a
much newer base house that is representative of modern construction methods
andmaterials.
NASA noted that "recent advances in sonic boom mitigation, such as the
successful demonstration of the propagation of a shaped sonic boom to the
ground in the F-5 Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstrator and Quiet Spike projects,
have contributed to a renewed interest in supersonic cruise flight over land. Sonic
boom reduction technology may make overland supersonic cruise a reality in the
future, so NASA, along with indushy partners; continues efForts to reduce the
impaot of sonic booms: '
In 2003, Northrop Grumman and the Department of Defense's Defense Advance
Projec#s Research Agency (DARPA) conducted several sonic boom test flights
(Continued on p. 95')
IiZ T,�ilS �SSI�e'...
Research ... School sound
insulation programs wil l get a big
boostfromthe findings ofa
FICANpilot study that shows
thatfailinghighschool students, in
particular, are helped by reduc-
tions ofaircraftnoise inthe
ciassroom. But, the study findings
cannotbe generali�edto all
schools in the countYy - p. 94
Sonic Boo�rz ... NASA is
conducting flighttests atare-
search center in Californiato
study how sonic booms (both
normal and low-amplitude) affect
a modern house - p. 94
Legislation ... Rep. Maxine
Waters (D-CA) introduces abill
to prevntrelocation ofnorthern
runway at LAX - p. 96
News Briefs ... ACRP issues
RFP seeking contraciors for study
' to find'vnnovative ways ta address
aviation capacity issues inmega-
regions on east and west coasts :..
HMIVIE� promates Gene Reindel
to vice president ... ICBEN
conference set forJuly 2008 in
eastern Connecticut ... Confer-
ence set for this October on
European noise research strate-
gies ... FAA approves Partl 50
programs for Shreveport, Laredo
airports - p. 96
Julv 13, 2007
but additional research that examines more than the 35
schools in this study for longer periods of time is needed to
make more detailed conclusions that could apply broadly,
he stressed.
The FICAN pilot study includes a boxed statarnent noting:
"The airports and schools in this study are not guaranteed
to be representative. For that reason, results of this study
should not be used nationally without subsequent studies
of many additional airports and schools. In addition, this
study's analysis is not yet fully reviewed."
FICAN does not have the funding for follow-on research it
recomnnends but is hoping that such work will be funded
through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
managed by the Transportation Research Board. TRB is in
the process of selecting the research projects that will be
included in its 2008 ACRP prograrn.
The acousticai consulting firm Harris Miiler Miller &
Hanson Inc., which conducted th� FICAN pilot study, has
submitted a proposal for funding under the ACRP program
to conduct follow-on research that would expand and
improve upon its initial study for FICAN (19 ANR 88).
FICAN has been interested in the link between aircraft
noise exposure and school performance since recent studies
done in Europe found that aircraft noise can interfere with
learning in several ways: reading, motivation, language and
speech acquisition, and memory. The strongest findings
have iieen in the area of resding with more than 20 studies
showing that exposure to aircraft noise negatively affects
reading ability.
The European research found decreases in students'
abiliTy to learn to read when outdoor-noise was at a level of
LAeq 65 dB or greater and also found that aircraft noise may
have a greater effect on classroom learning than equivalent
levels of road or rail noise.
FICAN decided in 2000, after holding a public forum on the
issue, to sponsor the pilot study done by HMMH. It was
designed to investigate the relationship between (1) a
reduction in indoor classroom noise levels, either through
school sound insulation or airport closure, and (2) student
academic performance, as measured by existing data on
scores on state-standardized tests.
FindingsPuton Website
On July 13, FICAN placed on its website (www.fican.org)
the results of the pilot study (Findings of the FICAN Pilot
Siudy on the Relationship Between Aircraft Noise Reduc-
tion and Changes in Standardized Test Scores).
Four key findings were presented:
• Failure rate: all high-school students, both test
types (verbal and matWscience). "This study found
substantial association between noise reduction and
decrease in failure rate of high-school students. This
improvement in test scores is essentially the same for all
student/test subgroups. That substantial association was
detected `most efficiently' when noise exposure was
quantified as the percent time that the classroom LA
9� 5
exceeded 40 dB. When that noise exposure decreased by S
percentage points, the associated improvement was a
substantial 20-percentage-point decrease in failure rate (with
99 percent certainty). This result was confirmed, though not
as strongly, with tha exposure called `any amount of change'.
In addition, it was confirmed for [non-learning-disabled]
students with the exposure called `number of events disrupt-
ing speech' reduoed by 20. In fact, for this subgroup, all tests
show improvement in failure rate, and none show increased
failure— further confirmation that improvement for failing
high-school students is real"
• Failurerate:allelementaryandmiddte-school
students, both test types. "This study found no substantial
association between noise reduction and decrease in failure
rate for elementary and middle-school students. All statisti-
cally significant tests show improvements (reduction in
failure rate) but they are very small in magnitude: '
� Average test score (all subgroups}. "T'his study
also found significant association between noise reduction
and average test scores, for all student/test subgroups.
Measured by the percent time LA was greater than 40 dB, all
subgroups showed modest average-score improvement —
between 7 and 9 percentage points, when this noise exposure
decreased by 5 percentage points. In addition, when mea-
sured by the number of events with LAmax greater than 40
dB, middle and elementary school stud�nts showed modest
average-score improvement — between 4 and 5 percentage
points, when the number of such events decreased by 20.
However, for high-school students, reduction in the number
of such events was associated with poorer a�erage scores —
tietween 19 and 19 percentage points.
• Top-score rate (all subgroups). "This study found
moderate association between noise reduction and change in
top-score rates, mainly for [learning disabled] students on
verbal tests. For those, a 5-point decrease in `percent time LA
was greater than 40 dB' was associated with reduction in the
top-score rate by 5 percentage points."
In interpreting the resuits of the pilot study, FICAN said,
"Student failure may be due to impaired learning in the
classroom, perhaps caused iri part by noise stress. To the
extent that noise stress contributes to student failure, then
failing students are the ones most likely to benefit from noise
reduction. In contrast, top-score students are less likely to
benefit. Such a rationale is consistent with the results of this
study.
Further StudyRecommended
Based on the findings of the pilot study, FICAN recom-
mended "that additional studies be conducted that expand
the scope of this work in several ways: incorporating a larger
number of airports and schools; following individual
students from year to year; determining which tests were
Airport Noise Report
i ,
July 13, 20Q7 96
actually given in `teaching' classrooms and which were
given elsewhere; obtaining airport data directly from
airports; and incorporating actual outdoor-to-indoor
measurements at each school."
Sonic Boom, from p. 94
that demonstrated that changing the shape of the nose of a
plane could make sonic booms quieter.
NASA also has supported an effort by Gulfstream Aero-
space Industries to test the use of a telescoping pole that
can be extended from the nose of a plane to reduce the
intensity of sonic booms.
Gulfstream and others are in the process of developing a
supersonia business jet aircraft but there wiil be no market
for them unless the Federal Aviation Administration drops
its ban on supersonic flights over land. The agency cur-
rentiy is considering dropping the ban and will consider the
NASA test data in making its decision.
Dreyden Tests
The current experiment being done at NASA Dreyden is
called the House Structural Response to Sonic Booms Test.
It consists ofNASA F-18 research aircraft flying at speeds
to produce sonie booms over the house, which is equipped
with instruments that can measure both pressure and
vibration. The F-18s will fly unique profiles to focus their
sonic boams away from surrounding communities.
Four low booms and two normal intensity boom missions
wiil be conducted on test days with up to six sonic booms
on each mission. Booms may occur six minutes apart and no
more than two missions will be flown on one day.
Normal sonic booms have one to two pounds per square
foot of air pressure. Low-amplitude booms are much quieter
and have only one-tenth pound per square foot of pressure.
Engineers from NASA's Langley Research Center in
Hampton, VA, are participating in the test and will provide
and oparate more than 100 sensors inside and outside the
house, including a microphone 250 feet fram the house.
NASA Dryden personnel will mount microphones on a 35-
foot tower in a field adjacent to the house, with additional
microphones on the ground up to 35 feet from the tower. A
Baom Amplitude and Direction Sensor (BADS} and a ground
weather station also wili be operated by Dryden personnel.
An Air Force Test Pilot School L-23 Blanik sailpiane
outfitted with NASA Dryden microphones will also fly
during the experiments in order to gather airborne sQnic
boom data. The sailplane records sonic booms before they
enter the more turbulent air that exists a few thousand feet
above the ground because turbulence can greatly influence
sonic boom data.
Legislatron
i i . � - � '.' , � � .
� � . �, � . � .
Rep: Maxine Waters (D-CA) iniroduced legisiation June 26
that would prevent the northernmost runway at Los Angeles
International Airport from being relocated farther to the
north, where it would have greater impact on her constitu-
ents in the communities to the north and east of the airport.
The LAX Community Safety Act (H.R. 2872) has no co-
sponsors and most likely little chance of being passed by
Congress.
"Relocating LAX's northernmost runway farther to the
north would increase noise, air pollution, and other environ-
mental impacts on residents, schools and churches, and
businesses in the communities to the north and east of
LAX," Waters said.
Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the proprietor of
LAX, recently proposed rnoving the northern runway (24R)
at least 340 feet to minimize aircraft runway incursions and to
allow larger aircraft, such as the new Airbus A380 and
Boein$ 777-800, to more easily use the runway.
But Waters contended that relocating the runway would
not have a significant impact on reducing runway incur-
sions.
In ]3rief ... -�
ACRP Project on Capacity on East, West Coasts
On July 7, the Transportation Research Board issued a
Request for Proposals seeking firms to conduct a one-year,
$300,000 study on "Innovative Approaches to Addressing
Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-Regions" under
its Airport Cooperative Research Program.
The objective of the project is to develop "integrated
strategic actions to enhance decision making to address the
constrained aviation system capacity and growing travel
demandinthehigh-density,multi jurisdictional,multimodal,
coastal meg-regions along the east and west coasts."
These high-density areas "invite an entirely new approach
to planning and decision making that goes beyond the
existing practice for transportation planning and program-
ming that is usually accomplished within single travel modes
and political jurisdictions or regions," the RFP notes.
One task of the project is to identify qualitatively and, to
the extent possible quantitatively, the social, economic,
environmental, and energy consequences of not addressing
the aviation capacity shartfalls.
Proposals in response to the RFP (ACRP 03-10) must be
submitted by 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 28.
Further information can be obtained from Robert E. David,
the TRB staff inembers responsible for the project; tel: 202-
334-1371; e-mail: bdavid@nas.edu.
Airport Noise Report
13, 2007
�� 'D � 1 I P � �i���i �
. ��,I �,' I.M•�''.i
John J. Corbett,Esq.
Spieget & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, C6aries M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Cratzke, Ditlon & Bailance
Carlsbad, CA
97
IIlVIlVII3 Fromotes Reindel to VP
The acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMIE�
announced 7une 30 that it has promoted Eugene (Gene) Reindel to the
position ofvice president. Mr. Reindel manages the firm's Sacramento, CA,
office and has extensive background in aviation noise.
He currently manages several airport noise monitoring system projects and
heads the firm's sound insulation practice. Prior to joining HMMH, he worked
in the indust�-ial noise control section and later in the noise engineering lab at
the Boeing Aircraft Company.
"Gene's dedication to the company and our clients and his desire to
produce the hi$hest quality work product made him an easy choice for the
promotion, said Mary Etlen Eagan, president of the HIvIIvII3.
ICBEN Conference Set for 2008
The 9'� International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN)
will be held July 21-25, 2008, in Mashantucket, CT {near Mystic, CT).
Peter J. ICirsch, Esq. Held once every five years, ICBEN provides an assembly point for noise
Kaplan, IGirsch & Kockwell LLP researchers, government agencies, and concerned businesses and industries
Denver to discuss the latest research on noise as a pubic health problem.
Some 500-600 participants are expected for the 2008 conference, which wilt
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. address hearing damage, speech interference, the effect of noise on learning
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguet, CA and on work, effects on sleep, community response, interaction between
noise and other noxious agents, development of standards and regulations,
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq. and the effects of noise on animals. Further information can be obtained by
McDermott, Will & Emery e-mailingtoICBEN2008@sbeglobal.ne�
Chicago
MaryL. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
European Noise Conference
A conference on research and strategies for less noise is Europe will be held
Oct. l-2, 2007, in Brussels.
The goal of the CALM Conference is to increase public awareness of
environmental noise research. The conference will include sessions on
environmental noise in Europe, research agendas of the European Technol-
ogy PlatForms, EU source-related noise policy, perception-related research,
noise reduction technologies, and national noise reduction acfivities.
Registration can be done via the Internet at www.calm-network.com. The
deadline for registering is Sept. 21.
FAA Approves Shreveport, �.aredo Part 150 Programs
The FAA announced July 13 that it has approved Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Programs for Laredo (Texas) International Airport and Shreve-
port (Louisiana) Regional Airport.
ANR will include details of the approvals in next week's issue.
AIRPORT NOISE REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times ayearat439?8 UrbancrestCt., 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.
C
99
�i f . .¢ f .i � f ' �
,U�� � -� s� 't � "a,.. ��.. 2�: ��i' ' . y, �n Y�� � � � ,�'r i:,r
�,�� �,,f� �: �- � � y;�y- r�. `F c�rl�" �� a 1`�'��" `�;�r �'�_,, ,�" {
�_ .,}u M'i ,r mn. � .�s �� '?.,.w" n.t, � �.�c+� �'a..� �`a.on� ti� �'..�i, .f. �'y;a�+� � �F �,.r ��;�m!°
�z..1� 'yY „
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volumel9,Number23 July 20, 2007
Legislation
p� � ,� . . . ,� •
� r, � . '� r. ' ,, .
The authority to establish aircraft emission standards could be moved from the
Environmental Protection Agency to the Federal Aviation Administration as a
result of a provision in legislation to reauthorize the programs of the FAA under
consideration in the House.
The bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2881), includes Section 510
which would direct the FAA administrator to arrange for the National Academy of
Public Administration, or another qualified independent body, "to review, in
consultation with the FAA and the EPA, whether it is desirable to locate the
regulatory responsibiliTy for the establishment of engine noise and emission
standards for civil aircraft within one of the agencies: '
Jim Berard, director of communications for the House Transportation and
Infrastruciure Committee, said that "outside interests" (who he declined to name)
had lobbied for the bill to include a provision that would actually transfer author-
ity for promulgating aircraft emission standards from the EPA to the FAA.
However, he said that that Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), who sponsored the bill
and chairs the Transportation Committee, did not want to go that far and would
only support a study of such a change.
(Continued on p. 100)
��
r�. t�. � �; �,� �
� � , , 1 � �, �
The Federal Aviation Administration has issued for comment by aviation trade
groups and the consulting community draft guidance it has developed on the
acquisition, rnanagement, and disposal of land acquired for noise mitigation
purposes under the agency's Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
Comments on the draft document are due by the end of July and the agency
plans to issue a final document no later than the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30) as
a program guidance letter that will be placed on the agency's website.
The draft guidance document includes six sections on obligations associated
with the acquisition of noise land, management of noise land, disposal of noise
land, use of disposal proceeds, FAA oversight of noise land, and FAA compli-
ance and progress reporting.
The draft document also includes a flow chart to assist airports in determining
whether a parcel of land is needed for noise compatibility and attachments, such
as a sample noise land inventory.
"Land acquired under airport noise compatibility programs using Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funds is unique," FAA explains in the introduction to
the draft document. "When this land, known as noise land, is acquired with AIP
(Continued on p. 100)
�12 T�tS ��'SIIG'. . .
Emissions ... A provision in
the House FAA. reauthorization
bill could setthe stage fortaking
authority forpromulgating aircraf�
emissions standards away from
the EPA and giving itto FAA. It
calls for a studyto determine ifit
is desirableto placeregulatory
authority for aircraft noise and
emissions in one agency - p. 99
Land Disposal ... FAA is
circulating for indus�y comment
draft guidance on the disposal of
landacquired fornoisemitigation
with AIP funds - p. 99
C/azcago O'Hare ... 770 more
homes are added to the airport's
residential sound insulation
program to address noise impact
ofmodernization project - p.100
Part 1SO Program ... FAA
approves most ofthe elements in
', proposed updates to the noise
compatibilityprograms forLared�
Internationaland Shreveport
Regional airports - p.1 O 1
Airspace Redesign... After
reviewing long-soughtFA.A data,
Westchester County says thatthe
agency's proposed redesign of
the airspace in theNY/NJ/
Philadelphi a metropolitan areas
will havemore ofan impactthan
originally thought - p.101
Jalv 20, 2007
Moving authority to promulgate aircraft emission stan-
dards to the FAA would certainly please that agency and
the airlines who both argue that aircraft noise and emissions
must be considered together because, unfortunately,
measures to reduce noise can increase emissions and vice
versa. FAA already is combining noise and emissions in
new environmental models it is developing.
The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to establish aircraft and
aircraft engine emissions standards for any air pollutant that
could reasonably endanger public health and welfare. The
act makes the Department of Transportation responsible for
enforcing standards established by the EPA. FA.A already
has the authority to promulgate aircraft noise standards.
Scope of review
H.R. 2881 defines the scope of the review that would have
to be conducted on whether it would be desirable to locate
the regulatory responsibility for aircraft noise and emission
standards in the EPA or FAA. It would have to consider
seven factors:
* The interrelationships between aircraft engine noise and
emissions;
* The need for aircraft engine noise and emissions to be
evaluated and addressed in an integrated and comprehen-
sive manner;
* The scientific expertise of the FAA and the EPA to
evaluate aircraft engine emissions and noise impacts on the
environment;
� Expertise to interface environmental performance with
ensuring the highest safe and reliable engine performance of
aircraft in flight;
* Consistency of the regulatory responsibility with other
missions of the FAA and the EPA;
* Past effectiveness of the FAA and the EPA in carrying
out the aviation environmental responsibilities assigned to
the agency; and
'k The internationai responsibility to represent the United
States with respect to both engine noise and emissions
standards for civil aircraft.
Within six months of enactment of the legislation, the
FAA administrator would have to submit a report to
Congress on the results of the review. The report must
include recommendations developed as a result of the
review and, if a transfer of regulatory responsibilities is
recommended, a description of the steps and timeline for
implementation ofthe transfer.
FAA, from p. 99
grant funds, it is subject to Grant Assurance 31, Written
Assurances on Acquiring Land. The purpose of the
assurance ... is to assure that the federal share of noise land
costs is used for multiple projects. When noise land is sold
or leased for compatible purposes, the proceeds must then
be used to acquire other noise land or to build eligible
airport projects."
100
The purpose of the guideline, FAA said, is to provide
airports and FA.A personnel with the information needed to
meet the grant requirement.
The FAA is issuing the guidance in response to a 2005
audit report by the FAA's Inspector General that was critical
af the agency's management of the disposition of land
acquired for noise compatibility purposes with AIP funds (19
ANR.50).
The audit found no deliberate attempts by airports to
circumvent grant obligations but said that airports had no
clear understanding of their obligations regarded disposal of
unneeded noise land.
Chicago O'Hare Int'C
i ,�' � • „ i • ''
� � � . �
Sound insulation will be provided to an additiona1770
homes in communities near O'Hare International Airport that
will receive increased noise impact from the massive $6.6
billion expansion ofthe airport, the O'Hare Noise Compatibil-
ity Commission (ONCC) announced July 2.
The addition of those 770 homes brings the total number of
homes eligible for sound insulation in the O'Hare Residential
Sound Insulation Program to approximately 5,000. That is in
addition to the 6,179 homes that have already been insuiated
near the airport since 1995.
The homes eligible for future sound insulation fall within
the 65 dB DNL contour of projected 2013 noise exposure
maps that reflect the reconfiguration of the airport's runway
system. The Federal Aviation Administration wants the
residential sound insulation program to be completed before
the O'Hare Modernization Program is done.
The O'Hare Modernization program involves the construc-
tion of four new runways, the extension of two runways, and
the closing of three runways to reconfigure the runway
layout into a modern parallel runway system. The new
runway system also will change the shape of the airport's 65
dB DNL contour.
"The Commission is taking an aggressive approach to
insulating O'Hare area residents from aircraft noise that could
occur after these new runways are operatianal," said the
ONCC's Residential Sound Insulation Committee ChairFrank
Damato, who also serves as Cook County Coordinator of
County and Intergovernmental Affairs. "We can be very
proud of what the sound insulation program has already
achieved, and we want to build on that record of progress of
mitigating aircraft noise impacts," he said.
The O'Hare Residential Sound Insulation Program is now
focused on the future, the Commission said, and relies on a
noise contour based on the new runway layout detailed in
the 0'Hare Modernization Program.
For fisca12007, the ONCC will fund the O'Hare Residential
Sound Insulatiori Program at a level of $21.6 million ($18
million in FAA Airport ImprovementProgram (AIP) grants
and $3.6 milGon in Passenger Facility Charges).
Airport Noise Report
l ".
�
�
C.
July 20, 2007
During 2006, sound insulation was completed on 611 homes
at an average cosYper home of $30,000. Homeowners must
choose one of three sound insulation packages: (1) replacing
e�cisting windows with acoustical windows in all finished
living spaces and thermally glazed windows in basernents,
bathrooms, utility rooms, haliways, and all unfinished rooms;
and replacing the prime door in the home with a solid core
wood door and a storm door; (2) installing central air
conditioning in homes with a hot water heating system,
including ductwork and painted drywall; and (3) installing a
central air conditioning system is homes with an existing
forced air heating system on an existing furnace or a new
furnace, if needed.
Part 150 Program
.il . ��.� c� ,�, �
, �' �� ' ►11 � I' J 'i'
On July 13, the Federal Aviation Administration an-
nounced its overall approval of updates to the Part 150
AirportNoise Compatibility Programs forLaredo (TX)
International Airport and Shreveport (LA) Regional Airport.
The Laredo update of its original 1994 Part 150 program
contains seven proposed actions for noise mitigation off the
airport. The FAA granted outright approval for five of these
measures, disapproved one measure, and approved another
measure only in part.
Measures approved include fee simpie acquisition of
property, sound insulation (of approximately 785 homes and
158 apartment units), or purchase of avigation easements in
separate geographic locations around the airport; working
with the Texas Real Estate Commission to gain approval of a
modification to the Seller's Disclosure form to require
depiction of the property location within the boundaries of
the airport's Noise Exposure Map; and updating the noise
exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility program if signifi-
cant increases or decreases in noise exposure occur.
The FAA did not approve a proposal to offer fee simple
acquisition, or the purchase of an avigation easement, from
owners of vacant land in the airport's "squared off ' 65 DNL
contour. "Vacant land is considered a compatible land use
and the City of Laredo has adequate controls in place to
prevent non-compatible land use development," the FAA
explained.
The agency also disapproved, in part, a proposal to replace
the noise contours in the city's noise overlay zone ordi-
nance with worst-case scenario contours developed by the
city. Replacement of the contours included in the City
Ordinance with the contours shown in the 2010 Future
ConditionNoise Exposure Map with Program Implementa-
tion was approved in concept by the FAA but disapproved
for purposes of the Part 150 program.
For further information on the Laredo Part 150 program,
contact Paul E. Blackford in the FAA's Fort Worth, TX,
office; tel. (81?) 222-5607.
101
ShreveportProgram
The FAA granted outright approval to four of the six
proposed noise mitigation actions in the update to the
Shreveport Part 150 program; disapproved one element; and
approved another element only in part.
Approved measures were soundproofng or sales assis-
tance for non-compatible properties located north and south
of the airport; fee simple acquisition of 22 non-compatible
properties; and hiring a consultant to conduct and oversee
the continued implementation of land use management
rneasures of the 1992 Part 150 program which form the basis
of the current update.
FAA said it did not approve a proposal to designate a
nose heading for all aircraft undergoing engine run-up
exercises at the Continental Airlines maintenance facility
"since the analysis neither identifies significant noise
impacts associated with engine run-ups nor indicates that
proposed action would appreciably affect the Yearly Day/
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 and greater noise
contours."
FAA approved only in part a proposal to acquire non-
compatible properties and vacant lots east of the airport
pending further documentation justifying that some of these
properties were being acquired to improve their marketability
or to prevent imminent non-compatible development.
For further information on the Shreveport Part 150 program,
contact Tim Tandy in FAA's Fort Worth, TX, office; te1:
(81'n222-5644.
Airspace
�+ w �� �1�`�L� ����+���
l�tOISE IMPACB' Ol�T Ci��T�TTY
The noise impact of airspace changes over Westchester
County, NY, is even worse than anticipated, County
Executive Andy Spano concluded after recently reviewing
in-depth noise data provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
The agency's proposal to extensively revise the airspace in
theNew York/New Jersey/Philadelphia areas (including
Westchester County) would negatively affect hundreds of
thousands of Westchester County residents, Spano told the
agency.
"The analysis of `voluminous and belatedly received data'
provided by the FAA makes it clear that there would be
noise impacts on many Westchester communities" and other
communities also would see their noise levels change, Spano
said.
This conclusion is drawn from the County's analysis of a
Noise Mitigation Report supplied by the FAA. Spano
submitted a full detailed report on the proposed airspace
redesign to the FAA the week of July 16. It was prepared by
the acoustical consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson
Inc. (IINIIvII-I).
Airport Noise Report
zo,2oo�
��I� ' J1 ; �. .
•1 �• :�•'l
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burieson
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.
Gatzke, Dillon & Ballance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Wiq & Emery
Chicago
MaryL. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
102
"The FAA would like us to believe that its proposal for handling air traffic
would have little if any affect on the communities involved but, as we can
clearly see from the data, that is simply not true," Spano told the agency.
"This new flight plan would have unacceptable impacts on Westchester. We
have taken many steps over the past eight years to mitigate aircra$ noise and
this proposal would only take us backward."
Under the new air routes, he said, "despite FAA's calculations, people who
never worried about aircraft noise will find it's become an issue."
In a press release, Spano said, "The FAA says its alternative way of
handling air traffic around New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia would help
the industry handle the growing number of flights while reducing air delays
and making air iravel more reliable. The FAA's so-called `mitigated preferred
alternative' for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area
Airspace Redesign — one of a number of proposals studied — would combine
high-altitude and low-altitude airspace to create more efficient arrival and
departure routes, it has said. The FAA claims the proposal would save an
estimated 12 million minutes ofdelay annually forthe four major metropolitan
airports: Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, andPhiladetphia."
Westchester County already has submitted comments opposing the FAA's
proposed airspace redesign on two separate occasions, most recently in May.
However, Spano said, "those reports were incomplete because the detailed
data needed to fully understand and comment upon the noise impacts was
only provided by the FAA two days before the early May deadiine."
"We can't design airspace," the County executive told the FAA, adding,
"but be could have worked to find a better solution." The FAA, he said,
"needs to use more sophisticated techniques and take more time to consider
the impacts."
A June 22, 2007, HMMEI memorandum summarizes the firm's review ofthe
additional draft environmental impact statement-related documentation,
including the FAA's belatedly received detailed data. According to the
memorandum, the FAA's most recent proposal (which includes noise
mitigation) reduces noise exposure on some areas of the County compared to
the previous "unmitigated preferred alternative." However, there is still
increased noise in other areas of the County.
The County told FAA that HMMT-I's recent analysis justifies a request that
the agency provide further documentation and conduct additional analysis of
the proposed airspace redesign.
Spano, who has consistently objected to the redesign, has asked the FAA
to release all the information regarding noise impacts and wants the agency to
prepare a supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement that addresses
and clarifies all relevant issues — something the FAA has said it will not do.
He also has asked that his request that the public comment period on the
DEIS be extended should be included in the record and said that FAA should
hold a public meeting in light of the new data provided to the County.
FAA plans to publish the Final EIS on the airspace redesign this summer.
AIRPORT NOISE .REPORT
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 times a year 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 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.
103
�` '.' �
k :.. , i• y..� ;,, , .. �.. �r r
i � ' k, `�.'ew x .i� ..
; , i�... f.,,� . �,.�.•`` ..... " � -a....:� �*, � � . z �r� ��. N{ �...
°f .ci�
A weekly update on litigatian, regulations, and tec6notogical developments
Volume 19, Num6er24 Juty 27, 2007
Airspace
HOUSE I2�.TE�TS MCiVE 'T4 BLOC�
FAA MITD-ATLANTIC ATRS]PACE REm►ESIGN
T'he U.S. House ofRepresentatives on July 24 overwhelmingly rejected an
arnendment to a transportation funding bill that wouid have blocked the Federal
Aviation Administration from making a massive redesign of the airspace over a
five-state area in the Mid-Atlantic region centered in the New YorklNew Jersey/
Philadelphiametropolitan area.
On a vote of 65-360, the House effectively approved the airspace redesign which
FAA says is needed to reduce delays and inefficiencies at four major airports:
Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, and Philadelphia.
In March, the Bush administration announced its preferred alternative for the
airspace redesign, which involves combining high and low-altitude airspace to
create more e�cient arrival and depariure routes. The plan is expected to reduce
delays at airports in the Northeast by 12 minutes. However, the preferred alterna-
tive also had the most impact of the four airspace redesign optiQns considered.
The FAA airspace redesign plan has become increasingly con#roversial as
officials of communities in areas that would get increased noise impact began to
realiza it would mean changes in the quality of life in their communities.
Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen and Scott Garrett, NJ Republicans, and Rep.
(Continued on p. 104)
P�`ilton Head Islund Airport
.�:� � ► � ;� ; .� i�
! ! '• � '' .
Leaders of Beaufort County, SC, e�cpress optimism that a Juty 19 meeting with
federai and state aviation officials will result in improved flight procedures at
Hilton Head Island Airport and a better relationship with airport neighbors.
The meeting at the Federal Aviation Administration's Southern Region head-
quarters in Atlanta was arranged by the South Carolina Aeronautics Commission
and was intended to diffuse tension between the County, which is the proprietor
of the airport, and the town of Hilton Head Island, in whose jurisdiction the airport
is located. Town officials also attended the meeting with FAA.
Fearing that the County wili seek to extend the airport's runway to accommodate
large commercial jets, and seeking a way to have some control over the future of
the airport, Hilton Head Island Mayor Tom Peeples proposed in March that the
Town Couneil consider changing wning ordinances to limit the length of the
runway to its current length of 4,300 feet.
County officials strongly opposed such action. In June the mayor dropped the
zoning change idea and offered an alternate proposal under which both the
county and town would have to agree to any major changes at the airport before
they could occur.
(Continued on p. 104)
In Thas Issue...
Airspace ... By an overwhelm-
ing margin, the House reject� an
amendmenttothe fisca12008
DOT appropriations billthat
wouldhaveblockedFAA from
implementingamassivereclesign
ofthe airspace inthemid-Atlantic
region to reduce delay and
congestion. SutRep. Chris Shays
vows to fighi on - p.103
�lilton Head Island ... FAA
�outhernregionofficialsworking
with state, county, town officials
to improve compliancewith flight
paths, dif�'use tension overpos-
sible airport expansion -p.103
F7agstaff Pulliam ... FAA
approves mast ofairport's Part
150 noise compatib ility program
butrejects inclusionofoutdaied
noise maps in calculatirtg hybrid
noise contours - p.105
Part 150 Program ... Atlanta
asks FAA to stop reviewing
program amendments until it
subrnits more comprehensive
update; FAA approves noise
maps for McCarran - p.105
News Briefs ... Loudoun
County, vA., rejects housingnear
Leesburg Executive Airport ...
Noise-Quest in beta-review ...
contract awarded for LAX
soundproofmg program - p.106
Juiv 27, 2007
104 `�
Christopher Shays (R-CT), sponsored the amendment to the
Department of Transportation fisca12008 appropriations bill
but it was staunchly opposed by senior lawmakers in both
parties. The amendment would have barred the FAA from
spending any of its $11.2 billion budget on the redesign.
O�cials ofFairfield County, CT, Delaware County, PA,
and Westchester County, NY, have said they are consider-
ing challenging the FA A's final environmental impact
statement on the airspace revision, which is expected to be
issued later this summer.
Rep. Shays vowed to continue fighting the FAA. "This is
kind of the first shot across the bow. The FAA knows that
we're not going to be accepting this without a tremendous
fight "
On the same day Shay's amendment was aefeated, FAA
Administrator Marion C. Blakey said that she hopes to'have
the airspace redesign in place by the end of the summer and
that it woulci cut delays on the East Coast by 20 percent.
"When you know that within the next 18 months you can
drop delays by about 20 percent, that's big," she told
editors of The Washington Times. "And this is just with
changing the airspace — it is not high technology or very
expensive new runways:'
Blakey said that airspace redesign plan has taken a decade
to develop because of the comptex issues that arose in
drafting a plan that would affect the fewest number of
rasidential areas. The FAA has held 120 meetings with
community groups regarding the proposed airspace
redesign, she said. "Anytime you move an aircraft over
someone's house, that person squawks. To be fair, you
have to have a Iot of literal engineering work. Airspace is
real estate like anything else," she said, according to The
Times.
But officials af the counties and towns that will get
increased from the airspace redesign have asserted that
they were not adequately informed about its noise impact.
Haltort Head, from p. 103
The mayor proposed that the county and town sign an
agreement that "no airport facility shall be expanded or
enlarged, nor any new airport facility constructed or
acquired at, on, or adjacent to the Hilton Head Island
Airport without the mutual agreement of the Town Council
and County Council:' The proposed agreement would be in
effect for two years and would be automatica(ty renewed if
neither party objected.
County officials said they could support such an agree-
ment because it avoids the problem of trying to change
zoning laws if the runway needs to be extended.
The county has no plans at this point to extend the runway
at the airport, which is located in the center of the island, a
resort and retirement community. However, the county said
that it might be faced with a situation in the future where it
could have to extend the runway to ariract nsw commercial
airline service ifit loses its current carriers, US Airways
Express and I)elta Connections, which operate smaller
aircraft that can be accommodated on the 4,300 foot runway.
The runway extension issue is so sensitive in the commu-
nity that the county supervisor has threatened to fire any
employee who says that a decision has been made to extend
the runway.
County and town officials met with the FAA to determine if
ways could be found to improve observance of the noise
abaternent procedures at the airport and to reduce ampact on
neighboring communities.
No Mandatory Flight Paths
Airport Director Paul Andres said FAA would not agree to
any mandatory flight path enforcement but said the agency
would consider having the flight paths published in aeronau-
tical charts in order to get better compliance and would work
with local air traffic officials to determine if planes could be
vectored in a way to reduce their noise impact.
The county said in a press release that Daug Murphy,
regional administrator of FAA's 5outhern Region, and other
senior FAA managers discussed "potential adjustments to
both approach and departure procedures consistent with
established noise abatemerlt guidelines."
Mayor Peeples said he appreciated the willingness of the
FAA and the state "in generously ofFering their valuable time
and expertise in helping us work through these issues to
address the mixtual concerns of th� county and the town. �ur
citizens and visitors deserve the best "
Meanwhile, a new group formed this spring, called Citizens
to Protect Hilton Head Island Airport, out of concern that no
one is seeking to extend the airport's runway and that
residents may seek to close the airport.
The group's znission is to maintain commercial service at
the airport. Delta and US Air operate 50-seat planes that can
land on the runway but cannot fly with fuli loads due to
weight restrictions.
�iscflosure Sought
In related action, on July 23, the County Council approved
a request urging the Town of �Iilton Head Island to require
those who purchase homes in the airport hazard overlay
disirict, which encompasses the 60 DNL contour, to sign a
disclosure agreement making them aware that they will be
living under a flight path and subject to aircraft noise.
The count already requires similar noise disclosure .
agreements for homes near Marine Corps Air Station
Beaufort and Lady's IsIand Airport.
However, it is unclear whether the town witl require such
disclosure be made. Some residents and members of the
Town Council have expressed concern that the disclosure
requirement would hurt property values.
Mayor Peeples said he will ask the town's Aviation
Advisory Board to address the disclosure requirement first
and the town manager said that no Town Council members
have asked to place the issue on its agenda.
The town eurrently requires that properties located in the
airport overlay district be defined on official planning maps.
Airport Noise Report
�
�,
�
z�,aoo�
Part` 1SO Pro,graFn
.II . i , � . �, �I � �
�' �. �r • � ►����.
On July 24, the Federal Aviation Administration an-
nounced that if had given its overall approvat to the Part 150
AirportNoise Compatibility Program for Flagstaff(AZ)
Pulliam Airport but could not approve severai land use
measures based, in part, on outdated noise maps.
FAA said that, for purposes of the Part 150 program, it
could not approve the proposed use of "hybrid" (cornbined)
noise contours that were based on current noise maps on file
with the agency as well as outdated 1991 noise rnaps that the
city has used as the basis of its airport noise overlay zane
and that were inciuded in the airport's rnaster plan.
Dave Fitz, of the consulting firm Coffman & Associates,
which prepared the Part 150 study for Pulliam, expiained that
the City of Flagstaff does not want to abandon the 1991
noise overlay zone even though noise contours around the
airport are shrinking. The airport is considering adding a new
ntnway which wili push contours out in certain areas in the
�uture. The city wants the area of compatibility around the
airport to remain stable and intends to stick with the area of
compatibility defined in 1991, he said.
Fitz said that FAA made it elear in its Record ofApproval
of the Pulliam Part 150 program that it supports the city's
desire to retain its current azea of compatible use around the
airport but could not approve the hybrid noise contours
proposed for purposes of the Part 150 program.
Maps Must Be On File
Victoria Catlett, an environmental specialist in FAA's
Airports O�ce, agreed. The FAA has no probiem with the
use of hybrid noise contours that are based on noise maps
that are "on file" with the agency, she said. $ut, she stressed
that FAA cannot approve hybrid contours that are based on
outdated noise maps.
In the Pulliam case, the FA.A approved the portions of the
hybrid contours based on current noise maps but disap-
proved portions based on the 1991 maps. The land use
n�easures only partially-approved by FAA include:
� Giving consideration to re-designated undeveloped
parcels within the hybrid 60 DNL contour to a compatible
land use designation sueh as commercial, industrial, or open
space;
• Giving consideration to incorporating hybrid 60 and
65 DNL noise contours into the general plan in lieu of the
currentiy reference noise contours prepared in the Flagstaff
Land Use and Transportation Plan; and
• The City of Flagstaff and Coconino County should
rezone undeveloped parcels within the hybrid 60 DNL noise
eontour to a compatible zoning designation; the city and
couniy maintain compatibility —zones area within the 60 DNL
contour;
The FAA did not approve one other proposed element of
the Pulliam Part 150 program: to change an aeronautical chart
105
to depict the location of the Watnut Canyon National
Monument.
The PAA approved the following program elements:
runway departure procedures for piston aircraft weighing
less than 12,SQ0 Ibs; discontinue midfield and intersection
takeoffs; promote use of industry standard thrust cut-back
procedures; promote use of Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association Noise Awareness Steps by light singie and
twin-engine aircraft; consider having city revise its current
project review guidelines to incorporate noise-related
criteria; have city and county reconsider revising existing
Airport Overlay District to refleci the results of the noise
analysis conducted as part of the Part I50 study; and have
city and county consider amending their respective building
codes to incorporate prescriptive noise standards.
The FA.A's Rewrd of Approval on the Puiliam Part 150
program will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/
airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/airport noise/
part 150/states/.
Part I50 Program
ATLANTA REVIEW QN HOLD;
]LAS VEGAS MA.PS APPROV�ID
At the request of the City of Atlanta, the Federal Aviation
Administration announced on July 24 that it is terminating
its review of the proposed Part 150 airpori noise compatibil-
ity program update subrnitted for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport.
Seott Seritt, manager of FAA's Atlanta Airports District
Office, explained that the update to the airport's Part 150
progam that had been submitted to the FAA for review
included only a few amendments to the current program.
Those amendments have been overshadowed by a more
comprehensive Part 150 program update that the City of
Atlanta has nearly completed and which addresses the
impact of the new 5"' runway at the airport, which expands
noise contours in certain areas.
FAA and the city decided that it was better to look at the
whole program update at one time rather than piecemeal,
Seritt said. FAA expects to receive the more comprehensive
update soon and then wiil have six months to review it.
For further information, contact Seritt at tei: 404-305-7151.
McCarran Maps Approved
The FAA also announced on July 24 that noise exposure
maps submitted by the Clark County, NV, Deparfinent of
Aviation for Las Vegas McCarran International Airport meet
federal requirements.
The maps contain current and forecast information, such as
land uses within the airport's 60, 65, 70, and75 dB DNL noise
contours, as well as estimates of the population within those
contours for 2004 and 2011.
For more information, contaet Joseph Rodriquez in FAA's
SanFrancisco DistrictOffice;te1:650-876-2778,ext.6l0.
Airport Noise Report
27,2007 _ 106 .
. � ! � ' � � .
. (���� � � I�i I � � ��� �
JohnJ. Carbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, O�ce of Environtnent and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
John C. Freytag, P.E.
Director, Chazles M. Salter Associates
San Francisco
Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq.
Cratzke, Dillon & Baltance
Carlsbad, CA
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vinceat E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Mestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA .
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synerg}r Consultants
Seattle
�n Brief- .�
Leesburg Deveiopment Rejected
On July 17, the Loudoun County, VA, Board of Supervisors nearly unani-
mously rejected an application to build a new mixed use development,
including housing, on SSO acres near Leesburg Executive Airport, 35 miles
west of Washington, DC.
The majority of supervisors agreed that it was best not to approve new
housing near the airport, located only a few miles west of Dulles International
Airport.
Noise-(�uestLaunch in September
By the end of September, the research consortium PART'NER is expected 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 airQorts too small to have established community
outreach programs. The site may include ways to contact authorities to assist
with noise-related issues and wiil inciude an array of educational materials
suitable for a range of users.
The NoiseQuest beta-site is currently under review by the Fecierai Aviation
Administration and PARTNER members and associates.
NoiseQuest is being developed by The Pennsylvania State University,
Florida International University, and Purdue University.
PART'NER (the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions
Reduction) is a cooperative research organization sponsored by the FAA, 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 aircra$ noise and emissions that will be used
as the basis for future policy development.
I�A.X Soundproofing Contracts
On July 16, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners announced
that it has awarded a contract to Professional Building Contractors, Inc. of EI
Segundo, CA, for a portion of the LAX Residential Soundproofing Program.
The $1,038,180 contraet covers sound insulation modifications on 51
dwelling units comprising single-family and multi-family residences in the City
of Los Angeles within the 65 dB CNEL contour of Los Angeles International
Airport.
To date, 5,808 dwelling units have been either completed, are under con-
struction, or are approved for sound insulation. The remaining 2,392 units are
either in the design phase, awaiting commencement of design, or the owners
have not responded, or have declined ta participate in the program..
AIRPi�RT NOISE REPC�RT
�Anne H. Kohut, Pubiisher
Published 44 times ayear at43978 UrbanerestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 724-4528.
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.