The URL can be used to link to this page

07-11-2007 ARC Packetl. 2. 3. 4. G� � � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA July 1l, 2007 — Large Conference Room Cail to Order - 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of the Minutes from the June 13, 2007 Airport Relations Commission Meetings. Unfinished and New Business: a. Adopt Plan of Action b. Discuss Meeting with Legislators c. Discuss MAC Letter to Eagan d. Discuss August Meeting e. Updates for Introduction Book Acknowled�e Receint of Various Reports/Corresnondence: a. May 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report b. May 2007 ANOM Eag�u�IMendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis c. Airport Noise Report, June 22, 2007. d. A.irport Noise Report, June 29, 2007. Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns Upcomin� Meetin�s City Council Meeting NOC Meeting MAC Meeting 8. Public Comments 9. Adiourn 7-17-07 - 7:30 7-18-07 - 1:30 7-16-07 - 1:00 Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will malce every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Piease contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,1VdINNESUTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 The regular ineeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The following Commissioners were present: . Liz Petschel, Chair; Ellsworth Stein, Vice Chair; Bill Dunn, Robin Ehrlich, Brian Linnihan, Sally Lorberbaum, and Dave Sloan, Cornmissioners. Also present were: Sandra Krebsbach, Councilmember; Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator; and Mary Heintz, Recorder. Not Present: Jim Danielson, City Administratar Approval of Minutes A motion was inade by Commissioner Ehrlich, seconded by Comrnissioner Dunn, to _ approve the May 9, 2007, Airport Relations Commission Meeting those minutes as �) submitted. The minutes were approved, with Coinmissioner Lorberbaum abstaining. A_genda Chair Petschel recommended that the agenda be alnended to include a possible revision to the date of the September meeting and a correction to the pamphlet. Unfinished and New Business A. Update on May Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Meeting (out of corridor violations) Chair Petschel stated that there were a substantial nuinber of excursions north of the corridor in the corridor analysis and she is arixious to see if there is a trend. She then reported that she had attended the NOC meeting on May 16 and lack of corridor compliance was on the agenda, requested by Chad Levque, since it is the worst count since records have been kept. Chair Petschel said Carl Rydeen had no ready, response as to the cause. He is suspicious it is the regional jets. The heavier jets tend to stay in the corridor almost by default because they are not as agile. Chad Leqve said the method of reporting corridor excursions is not as precise as it could be and will work on a new method of reporting this. For the next five months or so, the old and new methods of � reporting will be sent together for coznparison and to give tizne to get used to the new ��-%� system. � � Commission Meeting — June 13, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission She stated that aircraft engine efficiency declines with humidity and comments made at the meeting were very validating for ARC, i:e., group picking up ihat the numbers were not right and have Mr. Rydeen confirm. Chair Petschel reported that Mr. Rydeen will do �. a complete analysis and report back to the next NOC Meeting as to what the problem is and how to rectify it. Commissioner Sloan asked whether the goal should be zero nationally, and Chair Petschel responded that it is less than 1%, allowing for wind. Councilmember Krebsbach said, based on that, planes are out of the corridor 80% of the time. Chair Petschel responded that NOC reinforced that the planes are bound by the corridor and have a 90-degree track, just south of 110. Councilmember Krebsbach said she took issue with defining 110, in that it should be limited to the Industrial Park. Commissioner Dunn commented that airlines should be accountable when they are out of the corridor. Commission Linnihan said he was surprised if the airline data showed a pattern, as it will be the type of aircraft involved. Cornmissioner Dunn responded by saying, in that case, a memo to someone would be needed to tell them to pay attention. Commissioner Ehrlich said it is a matter of education, making sure pilots know this is where to go. Commissioner Lorberbaum distributed a graph looking at cross tracks for feedback. Vice Chair Stein cornmented that certain airlines fly certain planes. Chair Petschel comrnented � that there should be no turning until Delaware, as an earlier turn affects 300-400 homes, a significant part of the population. Commissioner Linnihan asked how it might be possible to get Mr. Rydeen to become more proactive. Chair Petschel responded by saying that things liave to be called to his attention, noting that it would be a good question to bring up when Mr. Rydeen attends the next ARC Meeting and ask him about his own quality assurance. Commissioner Sloan asked what the FAA guidelines and policies were, and Chair Petschel responded that she didn't know but said they like to see less than 1%. Commissioner Linnihan added that it is a guideline, not a ham.iner, and there are no ramifications if 100% is reached. Commissioner Sloan said there might be some federal policies to follow and notification of noncompliance made be needed it no changes are made. Chair Petschel added that it is a combination of the Tower and airlines. Chair Petschel reported that Minneapolis-St. Paul will not be a test candidate for the continuous descent approach, though the Tower and airlines will do a test and see how it works. She said Farmington would be the community most affected. Commissioner Linnihan stressed the importance for separation of planes during fhe test. Chair Petschel agreed and said it would likely be done at night, - , � ,i 2 Commission Meeting — June 13, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Chair Petschel said some pilots raised the issue that taxiing to use 17 was making waiting -� lines longer and Northwest is concemed about burning fuel, but it has been found that waiting times are actually going down. She reported about low frequency noise in Richfield along 17/35 where residents in that area report that their houses vibrate but FAA has no standard way to measure low frequency noise. Chair Petschel said the Centers for Excellence studies did a low frequency noise project and the results won't be available until publication, but it's believed there are rnore engine run-ups there. The Assistant to the Administrator stated that the perception is that it is caused by the hangers for Sun Country and Champion thrusting back at the neighborhood but Mr. Rydeen has found the noise being due to multiple take-offs rather than when planes are moving in and out of the maintenance hangers. Cornmissioner Linnihan asked if the homes could be insulated for low frequency noise, and Chair Petschel responded another option would be to put in big box buildings along the edge, such as Home Depot and Target stores. She said it is up to the City now, as the Airport has purchased what they want to buy. Chair Petschel reported that a pilot at the NOC meeting brought up airport needs and wants to have a friendly discussion regarding pilots putting their wheels down early to create a drag, which is very noisy, and request that air carriers agree not to put wheels down until a certain amount of miles. She said it was interesting that a pilot was bringing this subject forward. ( ) Chair Petschel then reported that a school teacher from Burnsville had commented in the , public comrnent section of the NOC meeting, expressing displeasure with the flight pa inove froin 190 to 210 degrees stating that the change was just for people with money and clout and others were left in the dust. She was outraged, and she wasn't going to stand for that. Discussion ensued about St. Paul's seat on MAC, which originated with an agreement in the 1940's because of World Chamberlain. B. Topic of Septeinber Meeting Chair Petschel stated that the scheduled September 12 ARC Meeting will affect the attendance of Commissioners Ehrlich and Lorberbaum, due to their observance of Rosh Hashanah. The Assistant to the City Administrator suggested a date change to September 11 and stated that he would bring that item to the Council as a formal request and inform Chair Petschel of their decision. 3 Commission Meeting — June 13, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission ,. C. Brochure Discussion Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that there were varied fonts in the pamphlet and �� suggested that they be consistent throughout. She also suggested that hyphenations be eliminated, allowing complete words to be listed on lines instead. Commissioner Lorberbaum said details within the pamphlet make the group look more professional. It was Commission consensus to utilize the remaining pamphlets as is and make the cosmetic changes for future dissemination. Suggestions were made to handout at the August open house, place in the City Highlights. Commissioner Ehrlich suggesied printing ARC information in the column of Highlights. The Assistant .to the City Administrator stated that he would check into supplying enough pamphlets with the Highlights at the open house, so no separate mailing would be necessary. Chair Petschel asked that he check into the cost of mailing the pamphlet with the Highlights. D. Review Updated Plan of ActionlPamphlet The Comrnissioners discussed the distributed version of the Plan of Action and suggested additional changes. It was group consensus to remove beg,inning verbs from the High Priority Issues section and make the following revisions: High Priority Issues ��- 1. Legislative oversight of MA.0 2. Environmental impact for Runway 17/35 3. Mendota Heights Air Corridor 4. MSP Noise Oversight Cominittee (NOC) 5. Land Use in the 60 dnl and above 6. Nighttime aircraft operations 7. Hush kitted to Manufactured Stage III and Stage N aircraft 8. Non-simultaneous departure procedures 9. Relationship with FAA representatives and legislative leaders 10. Oversight of 2020 Plan 1 l. Anoms locations 12. Continuous descent approach Issue #1: s Add "as necessary" to When under Action Step 2. Issue #2: • Eliminate Action Step 3. Issue #3: • Add Action Step 2— Communicate with FAA with excess over 1% noncompliance C� � Commission Meeting — June 13, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission Issue #4: o Action Step 2— Add verb "Attend" to beginning of staternent. � • Add "as necessary" to When under Action Step 3. Issue #5: o Consolidate Action Steps 1-3 into one and add "advise" under When. Issue #6: o Add "A.RC" to Who and "continuous" to When under Action Step 3. Issue #7: • Revise wording to "Encourage phase out of hush kitted aircraft" and "ARC�NOC" under Who under Action Step 1. s Eliminate Action Step 3. Issue #8: o Add "Nleet............" and add "ARC/staff' to Who and "annually" to When under Action Step 2. Issue #9: e Remove names af Metzen and Hanson from Action Step 1. • Add ". . . . . .. . .." as Action Step 2. • Remove name of Carl Rydeen from Action Step 3. • Revise wording to "Invite City appointed MAC Commissioner to an ARC Meeting" under Action Step 4. Issue #1l: • Revise to "Work with NJOC to determine if noise monitors are at the best locations, if best locations are maintained property, and technology updated" under Action Step l. Issue #12: • Revise to "Monitor CDA effects to Mendota Heights." • Add Step Action 1 to read "Continue to monitor if best locations are maintained property and technology updated." Councilmember Krebsbach recommended keeping language tight about the corridor in City rnaterials, that it should be confined to the business park. Chair Petschel responded that the AR.0 would have no credibility if they did this. Commissioner Sloan commented that ARC is asking the FAA to follow policies and procedures. Commissioner. Ehrlich added that ARC can'f change rules arbitrarily. � Commission Meeting — June 13, 2007 Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission It was group consensus that the Assistant to the City Adlninistrator will revise the descriptions as directed. It was group consensus that the Action Steps remain numbered, for ease of reference. Councilmember Krebsbach left the meeting at 8:12 p.m. so � Commissioners could finish their revisions, though requesting verbiage for anything that would strengthen the corridor and Mendota Heights' representation. C. Updates for Introduction Book No action required. Acknowled�e Receiut of Various Reports/Correspondence A. April 2007 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report B. April 2007 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights DeparC�u-e Corridor Analysis C. Airport Noise Report, May 11, 2007 D. Airport Noise Report, May 18, 2007 E. Airport Noise Report, May 25, 2007 F. Airport Noise Report, June l, 2007 Chair Petschel stated that Eagan complaints are up because 17 is being used more but doesn't think NOC will change anything to accommodate those residents, in the hopes that they will become mort used to it. Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns None. TJpcomin� Meetin�s � City Council Meeting — June 19, 2007 — 7:30 p.m.. • NOC Meeting — July 18, 2007 —1:30 p.m. • MAC Meeting — June 18, 2007 —1:00 p.rn. • NOC Cities Meeting — June 20, 2007 —1:00 p.m. (Richfield) Public Comments None. Ad'ourn Commissioner Linnihan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dunn, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Heintz TimeSaver Off Site Secr-etarial, bzc. � C - � CITY OF f�IEIVDOTA HEIGHTS MEIUtO July 2, 2007 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, City Administra r �...., SUBJECT: Eagan 17/35 Letter DISCUSSION: Attached is a letter from the City of Eagan to the MAC complaining aboufi Runway 17/35 use, and MACs response. For your information/discussion. <.�"� `� �:�� _ � ,. � � � �>5 �� l y ��"'W `+ �� i � Mike Maguire Mavoa June 20, 2Q07 Metropolrtan Auports Commission Paui Bakken p��; Chair Lanners and MAC Commissioners Peggy Carlson 604�--28`�' Avenue South Cyndee Fieids Minneapolis, MN 55450 Meg Tilley COUNCIL MEMBERS FAA MSP .Air Traffic Control Tawer Attn: Carl Rydeen, Assistant Manager of Operations Thomas Hedges 6311 34th Avenu� South CITY ADMINISTRATOR �pls, MN 55450 MUNICIPAI CENTER 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 551 22-1 81 0 Dear MAC Commissioners and Mr. Rydeen: Since March af 200'7, the residezits of the City of Eagan have been receiving an iuordinate amount of airport noise—both from inCreased operatians using Runway 17/3S and departures operafions deviating from the EagaulMendota Heights Carridor. Based an volumes of complaints, the MAC is certainly awaze of how unhappy our residents are with the inereased noise. ( 651.675.5000 phone The Council recaguizes that airplane noise is a fact of life when your cammunity is 651.675.5012 fax loeated adjacent to one of the busiesi airports in the �ountry, and we certainly respect and 65i.454.8535 iDD are thanl�ful for the posifive economic impact MSP has on our community. However, vvhat is not acceptable is the level at which the new runway is being used when capacity needs simply do not justify the increased use. MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 Coachman Point Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5300 phone 651.675.5360fax 651.454.8535 TDD www.cltyofeagan.com THE I.ONE OAK THEE The sym6oi of strength and growih in our communiry. Eagan continues to be tald by the MAC and FAA that Runway X?/35 is now in full operation and being used at the levels consistent wiih what was pxojected in the 1998 Final Environment impaet Statement (FEIS) �rior to the opening of Runway 17/35.The reality, however, is that the FEIS could not have predicted 9/11 or the bankruptcy of Northwesfi .Airlines, both of which resulted in significantly less operations than were forecasted in fhe FEIS. Moreover, Eagan's residents were continuously told prior to the opening of the ne�uv runway that 17/35 was needed for added capacity at MSP-2S% added capacity to be exact. Interestingly, the Cifiy just received a copy of the Janua�y 19, 2007 Supplemental Expert Report from the MAC showing that actual 2006 operations at MSP have continued ta decline since 2002, which clearly demonstrates that the added 25% capacity simply is not needed, yet, runway 1'7/35 continues ta be used for the highest percentage of departures than any of the other runways. To now tell Eagan residents that operatians are consistent with the FEIS, which were coinmunicated in neighborhood meetings befoxe the nxnway opened, is disinganuous at best when there is not a need for the greater runway use; rather, it is a choice being made by the MAC and �.E�.E�. June 20, 2007 Correspondence: City of Eagan _ , Page 2 � In reviewing bcsth the April and May 2007 Technical Advisory Reports, Runway 17/35 has been used for more departures than tlle south para11e1 runways (12L an.d 12R} combined, resulting in planes ouer predominanfly residential areas, as opposed to the Eaganll4'�endota Heiglxts Cozridor. The MAC itself stated in the January 1'9, 2007 supplemental report that: "Due to the dense residential land uses to the narthwest, and the predominant industrial/cammercrad land uses to the southeast, facusing arrzval and departut•e operations ta the southeast has long been the preferred configuratio�a from cz noise reductian perspective ". Furthermore, the repart goes on to say ihat with the opportunity to route westerly headed aircraft over the unpopulated river valley, F�unway 17 is "the second preferred runway (after 12Land 12R) for naise reduetion purposes". While Eagan supports the westbound river valley procedure despite it not benefiting oux commux�ity, we are increasingly fiusirated to see departiu'e operatians concentrated on 17, rather than rnore equitably using all ivn�ays, including the south parallals over the Corridor. Lookang at recent statistics in the MAC reports, it clearly shows that Runway 17 is being used as tl�e preferred runway for departures, despite the noise impact it has on thousands ofresidenis. Recognizing that the City is in active litigation with the MA.0 over the noise mitigaiion program, T will not make any accusations as to the timing of the sudden greater use of Runway 17/35 tlais spring, other than to say many residents are extremely angered by the FAA.'s increased usage of Runway 17/3S, which according to recent carrespondence from the attorneys representing the MA.C, has naw resulted in a rednciion in the nurnber of homes in the 2006 actual 60-64 noise contours. It would certainly appear that #he MAC and FAA are making a concerted effort to place a greater �oise burden over the entire Eagan community through the use of 17/35 in an effort to reduce ihe number of homes ul the contours and consequently homeowners who were previously promised noise mitigaiion. Lasti�, in addition to increased use of 17/35, the City continues to witness la�k of compliance within the Eagan/Mendota Heights Carridor. The MAC and FAA are well aware of how hard the City has warked over the years to maintain the integrity af the Corridor as a cornmercial and industrial gateway in an effort to keep planes out of residential areas. 4ver the past several months, compliance within the Corridor has been in the low SO`h percentiles, which is unacceptable. As an aside, complianc� was well into the 90`h �ercentile in previous years, and that was priar to the sudden increase in use of 17/35. With less than halfthe number of departu�'es off of 12L and 12R compared to just � a�ew months ago, one would expect even greater Corridor compliance. Mr. Carl Rydeen of the FAA. did spealc to the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) at their last meeting regarding the lack of cornpliance and he assured ihe group that he would spealc to the Turie 20y 2007 Correspondence: City of Eagan Page 3 �- contrallers aboui the issue. The City trusts that will be the case and ihat compliance will irnprove in the coming months. The quality of life for rriany residents in Eagan has been severely unpacted since the opening of Runway 17/3S. The City aiEagan values MSP and wants to be a"good neighbor"; however, that relationship goes both ways, and we expect thai the MAC and FAA will readdress how Runway 17/3S is cuxxently being used when capacity dpes not call for such a drarnatic increase and we alsa expect the FAA to communicate with the MSP controllers to improve compIiance in the Corridor. We will loak forward to a resporise from the MAC and the FAA, and we thank you for your attentian to this mafier. If you have any questions f�r the City, please feel free to contact City Administrator Hedges at 651/675-5007. Sincerely, Y � �Y- �� Mike Maguire Mayor cc: Governor Tim Pawlenty Repr�sentative Sandra Masin (38A) Representative Lyr�n Wardlow {38B) Representative Riek Hansen (39A) Senator Jim Carlson (38) Senator James Metzen (39) Eagan Airport Relations Commission MSP Noise Qversight Committee � � �� c �' r� �' � ,� � � . . �''p+ � Sq�N t A a? t �� s x 9t � fi N . O y v „t a � �''4 t G� ~AlRPO'�ty JUI18 22, Za}% Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue Sauth • Minneapolis> MN S5Q5Q-2799 Phone(612)726-8100 City of Eagan Attn: Honora.ble Mayor Mr�ce Maguire 383Q Pilot Knob Road Eagan, M13 5512�-1810 Dear Honorat�le Mayor Maguire, I am writing in response to the City of Eagan's June 24, 20071etter regarding Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridar aornplian�e trends and recent runway use anci at MiimeapolislSt. Paul International Airport (MSP). With respect io corridoz cor�liance, at the request of the MSP Noise Qversi�ht Comrnittee (NOC) the Fedexal Aviation Administration (FAA) is reviewin$ the issue �d will present its findings at the I�C3C rneeting on Ju1y 18, 2U07. Carridor complaanee �n May 2007 was appioximately 91 percent. With respect to runway use, as discussed rnore fully belaw the N'OC recently urged the FAA to use Runway 17/35 in a inanner consistent with the environmental review documents for the Dual Tracl� Aiiport Planning Proc�ss and FAA's Record of I3ecision {RC3D) fat the Uual Track process. FAA xesponded by stating that the average annusl use of Runway 17/35 would approximate percentages in the environmental review ciocurnents and the ROD. The runway use issue arose as a resutt of a concern initially raised by the City af Menciota Heights. The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee {ARC) invifed Mr. Chad Leqve, MAC 14lanager of Noise Progra�ns, and Mr. Carl Rydeen, FAA Assistant Tower Manager at MSP, to its Novernber 20, 2006 meeting. At tha# meeting, the Menc�ota Heights ARC expressed st�ang dissatisfaction with operarions on Runway 17I35. In particular, ARC observed that FAA was not using Runway 17/35 as much as envisionec� in the environmental review documents and FAA's R(}D for the Dual Track process. In addition to the Mendota Heights ARC, many Minneapolis and Eagan residents e�ressed the same concern to MAC and FAA. In xesponse to these concerns, NaC addressed the issue of Runway 17135 use at its 7anuary 17, 200� nneeting. NOC, by a cmanimous vote, resolved to send a letter eneouraging FAA ta use Runway 17/35 as much as envisioned in the environmental review documents and FAA's RUD for the Dual Track process. The City of Eagan, through its NOC represeniative Diane Miller, voted in favor of this action. MAC sta#iprovided technical suppart in preparing the letter, which NC?C sent to FAA on January 25, 2007. {Attaehment 1). On Apri19, 2d07, FAA responded to the NOC letter. (Attachment 2). �AA explained that the air traffic control tower at MSP "chose to be conservative" in Using Runway 17/35 after the runway opened, thereby allowing "all tawer personnel to become familiaz with the uniqueness of each [Rtmway 17135 use] configuration and ensure a safe operation while gaining familiarity in these new configuration� "�AA concluded that as air tra.ffic control tower gerso�nel gair� "familiarity with all runway use conf'igurafions, and as operations increase i# will result in percentages o#� nu�way us� that are reasonable and appro�ci.mate those given" in the environmen#al review docum�ents and FAA's ROD for the Dua.l Track prooess. Earlier ihis week, Mendota Heights-- The Metrapolitan Airpurts Cpmrn�6sion is an affumative activn employer. wwvranspairport.com RelieverAirpvrts: AtRT.�A1C$• ANOKA COUN1'Y/BLAISJFs• CRYSP/�L' FLYING CLOETD. [.Al� EC.MO. SAiNT PAUL DOWNTOWN the city that initially raised concerns regarding Run�,ay 1�/35 use—informed MAC that the city � had reviewed the F.A.A. response and was "extremely pleased with the cuxrent runway use percentages at MSP and asks that no actions be taken to retum to a use pattern that was never projected." (Attachment 3). The City of Eagan°s suggestion that FAA.'s response is somehow related to the noise litigation that the city has pending a,gainst MAC is utterly without merit. As discussed above, it was the NOC—not MAC—that voted unanimously in January to encourage FAA to use Runway 17/35 as envisioned in the environmental review dacuments and FAA's ROD for the Dual Track process. At that time, the City of Fagan assisted in formulating and fully supported NOC's position. Finally, the City of Eagan suggests that the environmental review documents and FA.A's ROD for the Lhaal Track pracess made Runwag 17/35 use contingent upon certain levels o�' operations at MSP. This is simply incarre.et. The environmental review documents and PAA's ROD explained that the puxpase of the MSP expansion--inoluding the oonstru.ction of Runway 17/35--was to reduce delays and ensure efFicient aviatian services. Nothing in the environmental review documants or FAA's ROLl made a ty�,enty_five percent inerease in ap�rations at MSP a prerequisite ta Runway 17/35 use, as the city asserts. In closing, MAC coneurs with the positian of NQC and FAA that runway use at M3P should be Gonsistent with the assumptions outlined in the envin�nm,ental review documents and FAA's RQI? for the I3ua1 Track process. Sinceraly, � c�i�f'7iT�'.T�'GC„�t'"-•.,.,_.--"� ck La ers Chair Metrapolif�n AirpoYts Com.m�ission cc: Gavemor Tim Pawlenty Representative Sandra Masin (38A) Representative Lynn Wardlow {3�B) Representative Rick Hansen (39A) Senator Jim Carlson (38� Senatar Jauzes Metzen {39) Eagan Airport Relaticros Commission MSP lrlaise Uversight Cornmittee Attachments C Attachmen� 1 ��, � r� T�t�� .��-��' ��I�I��'�'�� T�� Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airp�r� (MSP') 6040 — 28"' Avenue South — Minneapolis, MN 55450-2'794 Phone(612)T25-6455 January 25, 2007 Minneapalis Airpart FAA ATCT Attn: Mr. Carl Ryde�n Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 RE: RUNWAY USE AT iVISP WITH RUNWAY 1?/351Id OPERATtON Dear Mr. Rydeen, As you know, airport noise is a significant issue for the communities surrounding Minneapolis/St. Paui International Airporf (MSP). As such, yo�r continued attendance and participatian at Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meetings is appreciated. As you'witnessed at the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting, the communities around MSP have expressed significant concern with the FAA's n.mway use practices during the first fuli iwelve months of Runway 17J35 operaiions at MSP. Since the opening ofi Runway 17/35 at MSP in October 2005, the Noise Qversight Committee (NOC) has been reviewing the use statistics associated with the FAA's operational integration of the runway: Prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAG) and the cornmunities surrounding MSP anticipated impacts associated with the new runway would be in accardance with the provisians published in the following docurnents � lli9arch 1998 Dual-Track Airport Planning Process Final Environment�i Imp�ct Statement (FEIS) m September 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) approving the March 1998 FEIS � July 20Q3 Runway 17 Departure Proce�dure Environmentai Assessment (EA) � August 2003 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record af Decisian (ROD) approving the July 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA • November 2004 MSP 14 C.F.R. Part 150 Update document It is important to highlight the extensive planning process and the consultation and coordination thafi went inta the development of Runway � 7/35 at MSP. This planning process adhered to FAA guidance under the ptovisions af FAA 4rder 5050.4 and FAA Qrder 1050.1. It was through this process that the abave-listed documents were develaped. In the months following the opening of Runway 17/35 the communitieS surrounding MSP began to express concern regarding the actual runway use figures as campared to the runway use numbers published in the environmental documentation leading up to the runway opening. On October 27. 2Q06 Runway 17/35 was operational for a fulf year. As such, a goad data sample is available ta conduct an analysis of runway use with Runway 17/35 in aperation at MSP. The follawing provides backgraund and analysis of the existing runway use trends at MSP in relation to the planned runway use in the environmental documentation leading up to _the January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen page 2 opening of Runway 17/35 at MSP, and a request for the FAA's response to related questions raised by the NOC. Backcoround in 1989 the Minnesota State �egislature passed the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act requiring the iViAC and the Metropolitan Councii to evaluate airport infrastructu�e needs in the Twin Cities. Subsequentiy, in 1990 the Duai-Track Airport Planning Process began, which evaluated the expansion of MSP at the present site, as weli as an airport relocation option to meet future air travel demands. in 1996 the Minnesota State Legisiature acted to end the planning process and directe� the expansion af MSP a# its present site ta meet future facility needs to the year 2010. Per federal and state environmental iaws, the MAC and the FAA finalized the environmental dacumentation associated with the airpoct expansion in the form of an FEIS that was made available for review and approval in May 1998. In September 1998 the FAA issued a ROD approving the May 1998 FEIS, paving the way for the airport expansion. � The development of the �EIS and the associated ROD included extensive operational evaluations overseen and driven by FAA Air Traffic Control representatives. The FAA conducted independent airspace and airfield capacity studies for MSP as part of the planning process.' (, This resulted in the development of variaus airport operatianal assumptions that were incorporated into the environmental analysis conducted to assess the impact of the expansion nf MSP. This included planned runway use. Specificelly, the May 1998 Dual track FEIS stated the following pn page 1-6: "Table A.3-7 (Runway Use for .the MSP Alternative — Average Annual Use) shows the percentage of annual operations that are expected ta occur in achieving operational goals for use of the new north-south runway, as well as the other runways at MSP...FAA Air Traffic will Record of Decision." (emphasis added) The follawing is Table A.3-7 out of the FEIS: C � FAA Record of Oeasion, Mnneapolis-St Paul intemational Airport Dual TracEc Airpat Planning Prooess, September 1998, p.55. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 3 Table A.3-7 - Runway Use for MSP Alternative - Average Annual Use Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage oi Arrivats 4 i2L 12R ' 17 22 30L 30R 3S Total 1.o percent 7.4 percent 16.3 percent 36.6 percent iess than 0.05 perceni 15.4 percent 23.3 pe�cent less than 0.05 percent i Od.00 percent Source: HNTB Analysis less than 0.05 percent 21.3 percent 15.1 percent tess than 0.05 percent less than 0.05 percent 21.7 percent 25.0 pe�cent i 6.9 pe�cent 100.0 pe�cent In describing Table A.3-7� an page A.3-17 of the FEIS, the foliowing is stated: �' � "The runway use percentages in Table A.3-7 are operatianal gaals based on weather conditions (both wind and visibility), direction of flight, noise impacts and operationai efficiency; however, the actuat use of the runways couid vary on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, but shauld closely approximate the percentage goals aver an averac�e vear." (emphasis added) Subsequently, page 4 of the September 1998 ROD provides a list of required actions a part of the proposed action stating the foilowing with regard to FAA Air Tra�c Control: "Air Tratfic. The proposed action will require that the FAA's Air Tra�c Division expand the Class B airspace surrounding MSP and establish new air tra�c procedures, consistent with fhe int'ormafion confained in the FEfS. Related Air Traffic actions may aiso involve redesign of the terminal radar approach control (TRACON) airspace surrounding MSP.° (emphasis added) In 1999 the MAC began construction of the 2010 airport expansion project. Simuitaneously the MAC began the process of updating the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) and Noise Exposure Map (NEM}, As cornmitted to in #he above-detailed Dua!-Track Pl�nning process, the MAC, along with the communities surrounding MSP, began analyzing various options for a departure procedure off Runway 17 to reduce noise impacts in the City of Btaomington. Foilowing the determinatio� of a possible option through the Part 150 Update, an EA process commenced for implementation of the Runway 1 i departure procedure prior ta the opening of Runway 17/35. The catalyst for the EA was the FAA's position that an ai� traffic control procedure change not anticipated in #he Dual-Track FEIS, which routinely routed air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 fee# AGL, required an evaluation consistent with FAA O�der 1050.1. The July 2003 Runw�y 17 Departure Procedure EA (fo� the 2.5 na�ticai mile turn point for westbound departures aff Runway 17) included implementatian af the Runway Use System January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 4 (RUS as detailed in the November 2401 MSP Part 150 Update document} which resulted in minor changes from the runway use percentages in the FEIS. However, as stated on page A-7 of the EA: "Due to the consistency between the Part 150 Update RUS evaluation criteria and th� criteria utilized as part af the EIS process, the change to the enviranment arcaund MSP is minimai. Because there is no significant change in the noise environrnent around MSP as a result of the RUS mod�cation, the modifications are not subject to further environmental review." Below is Table A-6 from page A-7 of the EA, which provides the approved updated runway use percentages with Runway 17/35 in opera#ion. 4 Zz �z� 12R 3�L. 30R 17 35 0.1 % 0 5% z�:7�o 14.6°l0 21.1% 25.5% 0.1% 16.6% 10Q.0°Yo Table A-6 Revised RU3 Forecast 2005 Average Annuai Runway Use 3.8% 2.5% t7.$�io 1Z.O°IO 24.2% 26.Q°� 0.1 °!o 13.7% 100.0°fo 0.5% a 7�� 21.2% 14.3% 21.5% 25.5% 0.1% 16.2% Note: Tatals may nat equal 100% due to _ raunding 0.2°k o.��io 9.5% 15.9% 14 8°!0 22.4% 37 1 °!o 0.1 °10 100.0°� D A°� o.s�� 12.5% 18.6°!0 13.2% 19.9% 34.6% �.'� % a.2°� a.a�� 9.9°fo 16.2°k 14.5°k 22.1 °k �.7% Q.1 % Change from Unrrutigated FEI& Forecasi 2Qd5 Annuai Average Ruoway Use 4 0.0% 22 0.0% 12L -0.i�o 12R -0.2% 3C1L 0.1% 30R 1.096 17 D.0% � -0:8°k Source. HNTB analys�s 3./% Q.4% 0.0% 0.2'% 2.C}% 0.2% -0:1% 0.$% 1.5% 0.1 % 1.3°!0 2.2% -1.7% -0.3% 0.0% -2_0% -7:9°/n -0.9% -0.3% -1.3% 1.7% 1.d% -0.7% -0.6% a.o�io 0.0% -0.1% 0.7% I}.6% -0.7% 0.�% 0.0% 0.0% Q.1 % 1.4% -0.4% -0.5°l0 -0.6% -0.1 % 0.0% The runway use percentages resulting from the 2007 forecast of operations with the RUS that was submitted to tFre FAA in the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update dacurnent are virtuaily identical to the 2005 use numbers in the EA, with minor overalt percentage use differences (less than one percent) due to the updated forecast aperations�information. Below is Table 7.26 from page 7-3'I of the November 2004 MSP Part 150 Update that provides the 2p07 forecast runway use percentages with Runway 17/35 in aperation. C �". Januery 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 5 4 22 12L i2R 30L 30R 17 35 Total Note Table �.26 Revised RUS Forecast 2007 Annugl Average Runway Use _...._... .. _ _.. Arrival D�v __..__ Nig6t 0.0% 3.8% 0_5% 2.4% 21.$% 17.2% 14.7% 12.4% 21.1°/a 25.1% ZS.1% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 16.9% 12.7% Overall 03°10 0.6% 21.4% 14.5% �1.4% 25.2% 0.0% 16.5% not equal 100% due to 0.2% 0.4% 0.1°10 0.8% 8.9°l0 14.1% 15.9% 18.3% 15.0% 12.8% 22.7% 19.2% 37.2% 34.6% 0.0% 0.0% _.._._.__._._ _ _.__._ .._. ioo�io iao�io 0.2% 0.1% 2.]% 0.3% 0.1 % 0.3% 1.6% 0.4% 9,3% 15.3% 15.6% 15.4°10 16.1% I5.3% 15.3% 15.3% 14.8% 18.0% 19.0% 18.1% 22.4% 23.9% 22.8% 23.8% 37.0% 18.6% 17.1% 18.5°�/0 O.Q% $.4% 6.4% 8.3% _---- .... _.__._.. ioo�i4 too� �on�io ioo�io Analvsis of Farecasted v. Actuai Runwav Use Percentaaes For purposes of analysis the following charts and tables detail the actual runway use percentages from Qecember 2Q05 to November 2006 as compared to the runway use percentages forecasted (for 2005) in the 2003 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA. The EA is the most recently approved FAA RlEPA docurnent rela#ed ta the planned operation of MSP with Runway 17/35 operationai. �o.o% 35.D°% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0°/a 10.0% 5.0°!0 O.D% �Octual vs Forecast Runway tlse System - Arrivals December 200v - November 2006 4 22 12L 12R 30L 30R 17 35 Runway A�rivai Day Actual ❑Arrival Night Actuai January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 6 ao.o� 35.0% 30.096 25.0% 20.0°% 15.0°,6 10.Og6 5.0°�6 0.0% �o.o% 35.0°!0 30.0°.6 25.0°,6 20.0°.b 15.0% 10.0% 5.096 0.0% Actuai vs Forecast Runway Use System - Departures December 2005 - November 2006 Forecast d 22 12L 12R 30L Runway 30R 17 35 � Oeparture Day Actual ❑ Departure Night Actuai Acival vs Forecast Runway l9se System - T�tal December 20�5 - IVovember 2006 Foreaast 4 22 12� 12R 30L 30R 17 35 i�?unway � Total Arrival Actual ❑ Total �eparture Actual m January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 7 July 2003 Runway 17 Departure �rocedure EA 2005 For�cast Runway Use V. Actual Runway Use December 2005 to November 2Q06 �,r�Vas Dey - -- Night Runwa Porecast Actuai Difference Forecest Actuai Difference 4 0.1% 0.035 -0.1% 3.8°i5 d.0% -3.8% 22 0.5°�6 0.0°rfi -0.5".5 2.5aib 0.0°fo -2.5% 121. 21.7°k 22.3°k 0.6°!0 17.8°� 14.8°k -3.4% 12R 14.6% 21.7% 7.1% 12.0°�U 23.4°bi 11.4% 30L 21.1% 19.7°k -1.4°.b 24.2% 37.2% 13.0% 30R 25.5°k 23.0°�(i -2.5°k 26A°/b 23.9°k -2.1% 17 0.1 °k 0.0°�t, -0.1°fo 0.1 °h 0.0% -0.1% 35 16.6°rb 13.3°!0 -3.3°�6 13.7°� 0.7% -13.0°�i ( Runwav � Forecast Actual Difference� Farecast 22 0.1% d.i°r6 0.0°r6 0.8°% d.0"k -0.8% 12L 9.5°hr 19.d°.5 9.5% 12.5°,fi 20.3°�fi 7.8°bi 12R 15.9°h 10.8°.0 -5.0°l0 1$.6% 22.9% 4.3% 3UL 14.8% 25.8°% 11.U°r6 13.2°k 28.8% 15.6°r6 30R 22.4°!0 28.1°� 5.7°k 19.9°.6 25.2% 5.3°r6 17 37.1°!0 16.1°�6 -21.0°�6 34.6% 2.8°fo -31.8% 3B 0.1°k 0.0% -0.�°i6 0.136 0.0°% -0.1% f ��r. ' Arrivai Departure Runwa� Forecest Actual Difference Forecast Actusl Difference 4 0.5°r6 O.d°% -0.5% 0.2% Q.0% -Q.2°.5 22 0.7°l6 d.d°.6 -0.7°h 0.336 0.1 °fo -Q.2°!o 12l 21.2°•fi 21.8% 0.4'96 9.9°r6 19.1% 9.2% 12R '14.3°� 21.8".5 7.5�k 16.2°� 12.1°r6 -4.1°� 30� 21.5°.k 21.4°/6 -0.1% 14.5°r6 262% 11.7°r6 30R 25.5°k 23.1°% -2.4°!0 22.1°!0 27.8% 5.7% 17 0.1°!0 4.0°!0 -0.1°�b 36.7°r6 14.8% -21.9°�0 35 16.2°k 12.�% -4.7% Q1°�6 0.0°b, -0.1°k Assuming that a difference of less than 5% between the forecast and actual numbers is within an acceptable range of variation, several trends emerge fram the above figures. The fflilowing provides a summary of the findings. Night#ime Runway Use Percentages: NightCime arrivaf operatian runway use percentages on the south parallel, Runway � 2R and Runway 30L, are over forecast by 11.4% and 13.0%, respectively. It appears that the primary factor affecting the use percentages on the south parailel is the fact that Runway 36 arrival runway use percentage is lower than farecast by 13.0%. Nighttime departure aperation runway use percentages are higher than farecast by 15.6% on Runway 30L, 5.3% on Runway 30R and 7.8% on Runway 12L. It appears that the primary factor affecting these departure runway use percentages is Runway 17 usage, which is lower than forecasted by 31.8%. Total Runway Use Percentages: Arrivai operations are trending well with the forecasted runway use percentages. The anly notable difference is the arrival percentage on Runway 12R where the actual percentage is greater than forecast by 7.5%. It appears that this is a result of focused use of Runway 12R to accommodate arrival demand during southeasi operational flows. In the case of departure operations, Runways 12L, 30L and 30R are over forecast runway use percentages by 9.2%, 11.7% January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 8 and 5.7%, respectively. The Runway 17 runway use departure percentage is lower than forecasted by 21.9%. It appears that these differences are being driven differently during southeast and northwest aperational configurations. Specifically, in a southeast operational canfiguration the airport is operating with lower than anticipated use of Runway 12R and Runway 17. 2 Conversely, in a northwest operational configuration it appears that the differences are being driven by a higher frequency of Runway 35 arrivals than Runway 17 departure operations while arrival and departure operations are occurring on Runways 30L and 30R. In consideration of the actual runway use percentages, it is also helpful to consider the number of aperatians which result on a given runway as a factor of the total number of overatl airport operations when assessing the impact of actual runway use percentages. The 2005 forecasted number of operations in the July 2d03 Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA was 575,000 total MSP operations. From December 2005 fo November 2006 the total number of airport operations as repotted by ANOMS was 469,460. The following table applies the forecast and actual total operatian numbers to the respective runway use percentages detailed previausly. July 2003 Runway 1T Departure Procedure EA Forecast Average Daily Operations V. Ac#ual Averaged Daily Operations from December 2005 to November 2006 � Tota1 Arrival Differenr.e (Actual _Runway �orecast Actual minus Porecasteci) 4 3.9 0.0 -3.9 22 5.v Q.0 -5.� 12L 167.0 139.6 -27.4 12R 112:6 140.9 28.2 30L 169.3 138.3 -31.1 30Ft 200.9 149.3 -51.6 �7 o.a o.o -o.s 35 127.6 78.2 -49.4 Total 787.? 646.1 .141.6 Total Departure Difference (Actual . Runway Forecast Actual minus Forecasted! 4 1 _6 OA -1.6 22 2.4 0.6 -1.7 12L 78A 122.3 44.3 12R 127.6 77.4 -50.2 30L 114.2 167J 53.5 30R 174.1 177.9 3.9 17 289.1 94.7 -194.3 35 0.8 O.t� -0.8 Total 78T.T 640.7 -147A _ _. _. _ _ __ _ _ _ � ; 2 FAA ATC personnel have indipted that this is due to a desire to avold deRarture sequencing in arrival ftows on Rumnray i2R, and Runway 12R [urn+vay crossing impat�s when ta�ding aircxaft fn Runway 11 for departur�e. January 25, 20d7 Mr. Rydeen Page 9 As provided in the above table, regardless of the overall reduction in total operations from the forecast to the actual, average daily arrival operations are higher than forecasted on Runway 12R and actuai average daily departure operations are higher than forecasted on Runways 12L, 30� and 30R. Re uest In consideration of the background and analysis contained in this letter and the comments presented at the January 17, 2007 NOC meeting, the NOC unanimously voted to forward the following questions to the FAA for a written response: 1. The City of Mendata Heights feeis it was promised relief in terms of noise impact reduction as a result of the opening of Runway 17/35. Hawever, there has been an increase in opera#ions over the City of Mendota Heights, particularly nighttime operations. Why then is the FAA continuing to operate the airport in a manner inconsistent with the runway use outiined in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway fi7 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 2. When can we anticipate runway use at MSP to become consistent with the runway use figures provided in the Dual-Track �EIS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 97 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 3. What steps can be taken, or shauld be taken, to ensure that the FAA operates the airport in a manner consistent with the runway use outiined in the Duai-Track FEiS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 4. Are Runways 30U12R and Runways 30R/12L operating at capacity and, if so, will any additianal capacity/operatians grawth be accurring almost exclusively on Runway 17135? 5. Given the facts that: {�1) nighttime represents a low-demand operational period at MSP, (2) the FAA's �unway use selection based on the Runway Use System (RUS) is most conducive during low-demand time periods, and (3) Runway 17 is the number two priority for departure operatians behind use of Runway 12L and 12R in the RUS, haw is it that nighttime departure operations on Runway 17 are fower than farecasted by 31.8%? 6. Is the FAA presently using Runway 17/35 primarily for the purpose of ineeting demand during high-use periods and secondarily for the purpose of noise redistribution? If so, is there a way to achieve more equitable noise distribution so that use of Runway 17/35 is brought into line with what was projected in the Dual-Track FEIS, Dual-i'rack ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSI/ROD? 7. If the FAA continues to operate inconsistent with the Dual-Track FElS, Dual-Track ROD, and the Runway 17 Departure Procedure EA/FONSUROD, ar is of the position that the assumptions and associated runway use inforrnation within these documents are not valid, when will action be taken by the FAA to initiate an Environmental Assessment and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)? We are forwarding the above seven questions an behalf af the NOC and look forward to your response. January 25, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 10 As always, fhank you for your consideration and attention to air traffic noise issues around MSP. Sincerely, �%' .�F'ia�-.�'�' � G%i Vern Wilcox NOC Co-Chair & City Counci! Member — City of Bloomington / , G` ' � �—e�' 1 � �: � r ') � _ �..l�c.'^�'—"". KathCeen Nelson NOC Co-Chair & �lorthwest Airlines Regional Director — Airiine Affairs cc: MSP NOC Mr: Nigel Finney — Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment Mr. Tom Andersc�n — MAC Gene�al Counsel Mr. Roy Fuhrmann — Director of Environment Mr. Chuck Prock — FAA Great Lakes Region Legai Counse! Mr. Glen Orcutt — FAA Minneapolis ADO Ms. Annette Davis — FAA Great Lakes Region Environrnental Specialist C: Vern Wilcox ' NOC CaChair & City Cauncil Member City of Bloomington Attachment 2 lYlinneapolis Air Tra�ic Control Tower Minneapolis-S�. Paul International Airport . 631 i 34'� Avenue South • Minneapalis, MN 55450 Apri16, 2007 Kathleen Nelson NOC C6�Chair & Northvsrest Airlines Regional Director — Airline Affairs Re: Runway Use at MSP with l�.unway 17/35 in Operation . �i ^. D�� co-cn�: � We have received. your letter dated January 25, 2007 and have carefutly reviewed and given consideration ta the issnes wluch you raised, In the letter you posed 7 questions'related to use of the runways at MSP since opening Runway 17/35, specifically during the period of December 2005-November 2006. Before we answer the questions, the following provides soma backgraund information for yau. ( ) The Miiu►eapolis Air Traffic Control Tower was asked to answer questions and rnake pre'senta.tions to ma�ny --- different audiences (includ.ing the NOC Committee). We were asked why the peicentage of use predicted . on each runway is not at the levels prescribed in the March 1998 Dua1-Track Airport Pianning Pmeess Final Environmental Impact Statement (F'ETS) and the Run'vvay 17 Departure Proeedure EA/FONSUR.UD (EA). As we have sliared with those: grougs, Management at Minueapolis Air Trai�c Control Tower after the runway opened chose to be conservative. Specifically, the choice was inilially made to keep the operatian as simple as possi'ble with a primary emphasis an. ensuring safety. This decision caused the limiting of use of Runway 17/3S to use mainly in one direction. For exarnple, if landing Runways 30I.-R, we woiuld also land on Runway 35 (not depart on Runway 17). Conversely, if la.nding' Runways 12L-R, we would also depart on Runway 17 (not land on Runway 35). This conservative agpraa.ch allowed al1 tower perso�el to became familiar with the uniqueness of each configuration and ensure a safe operation while gaining familiarity in these new configurations. � We stayed in this conservative mode for the first 4-6 months of the new runway use. As time progressed we added configurations such as land 3�L-R/depart 17 and land 12L-R/land 35 and depart 12 L-R. Conttoller familiarity with these configurations has steadily grown. Because af safety coricerns a decision was made ta not simuitaneously land on Runways 12L or R while landing on Runway 3S. We are however using the configuration where aircraft land on Rvnway 35 while departures are occurring on Runways 12I.r R . We recognize that Runway 12L is predicted to have 9.9% of the total deparhires while Runway 12R is predicted to have 16.2%. The Tower has a long history of using the Runway Use System (RUS) which, does not place a priority on Runway 12L versus 12R, but does specify a priority of departing Runways 12IrR first, then Runway 17: A,s a result, the number of departures offRunways 12L and 12R have been inconsistent with those predicted. Community Officials have questianed this iuconsistency of departures. In response we have had intensive discussians with staffand believe the reason for tbis is twofold. One reason is based on the position af gates at the Lindberg Terminal for staging aircraft with available deparhue runways. If an imaginary line were drawn in a southeastlnorthwest direction from the control tower through the middle af the Lindberg Terminal and a count of gates were made northeast of that line versus southwest, the difference is more than 2-1 (79 gates northea'st v�rsus 37 gates southwest). Without a specific priority of one runway over another (exarruple 12L versus 12R) the proximity of tbe gates closer. to Runway 12L than Runway 12R has resulted in a greater percentage of departures offRunway 12L. � The second reason is with the Iighter amount of traffic demand as there are more opporhmities where fewer arrivals are occurring with departures, As the traffic valume builds, to expedite this volume, comrollers will zeroute departures to runways based on depariure routes/destinations and not to the clasest nmway. This inereases efficiency and lessens complexity. Prior to the contrallers receiving their briefings on the percentage of use, it wou]d be reasonable if an aircraft is leaving fram Gate Cl6 and could be taxied to either Runway 12L or 12R, that the aircraft is directed ta Runway 12L based on its closer proximity and no or minimal sirivals. This is also likely to be the situarion diuing night or midnight operations. We sre responding to the questions iu a different arder than they were raised to provide for a more undersmndable e�cplanation. ' (Question 4) `The FAA, and the community closely moniWr the t�craffic pereentageltrends tbat are regorted each manth. Consistent with what I briefed the NE�C on July 19, 2006 as well as the Finance, Developm�nt, and �nvironment Committee on Septzmber 6, 2006 the statistics are preliminary and w�l. not reflect wbat the lang-term results will be because we have been. "conservative" in using all runway configt�rations• In September and October of 2006 we began briefing a11 personnei an the need to • � incorporate Runway 17 departures more into our operation This is especially important when in a northwesberly flow (landing Runways 3p I,..R), aince this configuration is weather dependent as aircraft have varying cagabiliiies to the tailwind they can accept. T'his.conservative approach has resulted in a higher percentage of departures off Runways 30I.-R especially when it's calculated over a long periad . wlvch yau included. In the.iuture, greater use of Runway, l? can be expected. This will also result in nmway use percenbges more consistent with what was predicted for departures un Itwiw$ys 12L-R and � 30L-R • (f�)ueskion G) We have recentty started what we have labeled the imal phase of the'new nmway utilization. This assutnes that all persoanel are famiIiar with the different configurations and are canfident tbat safety is not compromised. Not to iricfer the runway configurations at•MSP aze unsafe, but experience'has shown that it is not prudent to introduce major changes in a.ir traffic control pracedures/processes withont ensuring ti�at controllers have complete familiarity and confiderice witl� those pracedures and pmcesses. Based on our safety record since the runway opened in October of 2005, I would say that it has been a gaod plan. Captain Tim Beutell, NWA Chief Pilot and NOC Member recently told me that NWA Airlines was the anly major sir carrier in. 2006 not to have �an NTSB reportable event. Although we cannot take credit for this gteat accomplisi�ment we can reaognizs that our catrtrollers had a part in their success. In the future it is expeeted as traffie increases, especialiy during the nighttime hours and as we have more familiarity with all tvnwaq aonfigurations, runway use will approximate the percentages set forth in the FEIS and EA. Question 2, 3) We have briefed all Tower gersonnel on the nmway use percentages year to date and the gredicted percentages outlined in the FEIS anci EA. Each controller is becoraing fa�miliaz with the runway priorities outlined in the RUS es descnbed in the FEIS and EA. The briefing thnt eacfl of our controllers received incIuded an expectation that, when wsather and traffic conditions allowt we will be increasing the use of departing Runway 17 and landing Runway 35. The long-term inopact will be an increase of aircraft that depart Runway 17 as well as land Runway 35. This will result in an increase in the overall percen#ages of departures offRunway 17 and as well as an inerease of arcivals on Runway 35. Also, it will zesult in runway use percentages that aze more consistent with what was predicted for deparkures on Runways 12If- R and 30L-R. ;' �, (Quesfion 1) The data that you included points out that during night operations the percentag8 of departures offRunway 17 is at 2.8 %, which is well below tha 34.6 % predicted. The FEIS dacument descn'bes "Tra�c Demand Period Criteria" in Table A-3: To ��mm-a*►�p� this table outIines the Iimits of the RUS. In the table it is descn`lied that with fewer than 3.5 operations in a 15-minute period "tc�a�c lavels allow far maximum flexibility in runway selecrion and RUS implementation..." It goes fiuther to describe that with traffic demand belween 3.5 and 15 operations per 15-minute geriod "traffic levels aliow for efficient selection of runways based on noise considerations, given requirements for �runway crossings, capacity, and safety... moderate use of the RUS." Wh�n weather/winds require opera,tions in a southeast flow, traffic levels @etween the hours of 10:3��PM to 6:OOAM} are such that they do not aurrently require controllars to use'3 runways to preserv� capacity. An exaxnple of this occurred during the period of Wednesday, January 17�' at 10:30 PM until Thursday, January 18�' at 6:00 AiVi.- On that evening the prevailing winds were southerly from 7-ip knots, which resulted in a southeast flow the entire night. Traffic during that period was: . Arrivals Departurea I0:30-11:00 PM 11:0U-Niidnight Midnight 1:00 AM 1:00-2:00 AM 2:00-3:00 AM 3:00-4:00 AM 4:00-5:00 AM . s.oa6:aa .�r� 4 1S i0 3 2 � � 0 4 1 1 � 1 2 0 4 0 18 5 It is expected as traff'ic increases, especially during the nighttirne hours and as we l�ave more familiurity with all nmway canfigurations, runway use will approximate the percentages set forth in the FEIS and EA. (�uestion 5� The above example is typical of traffic on a weeknight with the cturent airline schedule aud volume. During this tune frame 0 aircraf� departed off Runway 17. The de�iand that evening was not enough to use Runway 17, wluch is consistent with the Traffic Demand GSriteria outlined above. Therefore, all departures that night used Runways 12L and R. When weather and winds allow iis to ogerate in a northwest flow (land Runways 30i.-R) there will be more oppordmities to depart an Rimway 17. However, based on the current Iow demand, reachi�ng 34.6% will be dif�cult withont compromising the RUS priorities. On weekends the narmal kaffic during these periods is even less. If txaffic at MSP inereases during the nighttime hours there will�be more apportunities to route traffic to Runway 17 for departure consistent vcrith the informa6an in Table A-3. Alsa, if there are interruptions in the traffic during the day (such as thunderstorms, snow events, airline computer issues, runway closures,) deparhue banks msy be delayed into the nighttime haurs. This may result in contrallers using Runway 17 during nighttime hours. (Qaestion 7) The operations of the airport, which resulted in the runway use percentages yau have referenced, are consistent with the overall assumptions used in develogment of the FEIS and EA. These assumptions continue to be valid. We are confident as we gain familiarity with all n�nway use con�gurations, and as operations increase it will result in peroentages af runway use that are reasonable and appro�te those given in the FEIS and EA. However, based on the cuirent low demand durir�g nigbttime hours reaching Runway 17 use, nighttime percentages will be difficult without compramising the RUS priorities. • In that it is anticipated that average annual runway use wi11 approxittiate the percentages in the FEIS and EA, edditional envirot�mental evaluation will not be necessary. ' I mist that this letter adequately answers your questions. If we can provide any fiirther information, please cantact me, at (612) 713-Qf?00. • Sincerely, . <._._.____._ . ' Car1 E. Rydeen .- , District Manager — M5P Air Traffic Control Tower cc: � 1'�Iigel Finney, MAC Tom Anderson, MAC '�oY F�, MAC Glen Orcutt, FAA , � .Annette Davis, F.A.A. � Chuck Pmck, FAA � � .�� -� ';t � �? ��o-� � � � -� .� m3 ��i�'4. i��.,',.. w .TUilt; � �). ?nn7 MAC Cumn�issic�nrrs Metro��olitan nirp��rts Commission G301 34`�, i�venuc Soutli Mii�neapolis. R�1N »=4�0 ��Citl' C01711111SSil71lC1'S: Attachment 3 �. �� '�; �� ,,` ? 'J� }�' .b � � '{% `C� 'A 'J: 'gi, �ik, fi4 iyf' �, 'y, r . � ��..... � � ��.�� ' � c'i�4� � u. �i�,.. �T ��.*(L � !�i �r-. . y. . �7r Menclata (-lei`�I115 IlilS CCC�Il1�V I�tli'111.CI Oi llll' Clly ��1' F�,a�.!an's coneerns r�lativ� tc� thc rumvay use cha�l��es tl��! c�cci�rr�cl at R�ISP ta make thc i�se �3erernta��es consiste,�t «�i�h thc dual tracl•: 1�'�:iS's projcction�; (i�r Runw�iy 17/i�. Please knc>�v that tl�c City of Ylendota Flei��I115 \��IIUIc:II��u•tcdly supports th�s� nc�� run��ay use patierns thai wcre outlincd �vld detailed in thc numcrous public ol�c:n hc�uscs `�oin�� I.,uck to the 199U's and the dual track FL15 bePor� the cunstruction and c>��cnin�� of Run��a�� 17/3>. ��'4 arc cxtrcli�cl�• ��Icascd th�lt the air�7ort is nc�� l�unctic�nin�� as it �vas pri�jected �o fiu�ctic�n in the I;LIS. Mende�ta Ilci��hts is ��Ieasecl ��'t1I1 llli' C111'i'�Ill i'1111�1-ay «se ��crci;nt��cs at R1`il' an�l <<�;I:s thai nc� �icti��i7s h� tak�n t�� rctun� tci �i usc ��att�rn lhtil ��is nc��c:r pro.jcctcci. �inccrclv. ,-, r ! � � ---__. _._ ! . � ,� ,� ,- ----- �%'� �%�"�- .� ;� ;:�' .(c��':i: I 1 ulic�.. Ntav��r J 1 QO! S,�ELY.6E7i3 �urve � I��ee�rlo8�e fi�igt�t,s. PEIY 55! 6£3 (�i� E)�t�2- E£�5Q3 � Ff6� (G5 t)!t-52�F3�40 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS July 3, 2007 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, City Administr SUBJECT: August Meeting DISCUSSION: The MAC is holding a Community Open House in the City Councii Chambers to share information on their summer's reconsfiruction operations on August 6tn beginning at 6:�0 p.m. The ARC had previously discussed rescheduling their August meeting to coincide with that meeting. I will get City Council's approval for the new date and time at their July 17th meeting. . (r' '; �; � tS � �� '�v6 ��► �C C s * • a r�'E, .,. ! ;, e � � , .r A u �°S „ . + 5 .t: � �.;Y•�F::., ' � ,� 'r� � c - � t � d Y �a,� '� ...� ,. Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport �� .�F :�.. ��: ��,� � � ,p�� , !' ""e, ,S *This report is for informational purposes oniy and cannot be used for enforcement purposes. Metropolitan Airports Commission , , 3640 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in May 2007 3300 (90.7%) of those Operations Remained in the Corridor �- 3640 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 3300 (90.7%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 06/29/2007 10:06 Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission 236 (6.5%0) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were North of the 090° Corridor Boundary During May 2007 Of Those, 33(�)Returned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park Page 2 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Neights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 06/29/2007 10:06 Metropolitan Airports Commission , � 104 (2.9%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During May 2007 Of Those, 3( �)Returned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 06/29/2007 10:06 Page' 3 �" Metropolitan Airports Commission 14 (0.4°/o) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° South of the Corridor (5° South of 30L Localizer) During May 2007 Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 06/29/2007 10:06 , Metropolitan Airports Commission , Top 15 Runw�y 12L/12R Departure Destinations for May 2007 ` ' Heading Percent of' A�rport ' Git ' ` ;: � Y ' , #Ops 4 ,.. ,.. � .. �deJ ),. ... ..: , ,.,�.., Total Ops; �: . , .. ... . . ... rv..� FAR FARGO 312° 131 3.6°/a SEA SEATTLE 27$° 124 3.4% YYZ TORONT� 95° 99 2.7% ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 93 2.6% YWG WINNIPEG 330° 90 2.5% BIS BISMARCK 291° � 88 2.4°/a GRB GREEN BAY 90° 83 2.3% LAX LOS ANGELES 238° 82 2.3% DTW DETRC?IT 105° 80 2.2% BOS BOSTON 97° 78 2.1 %� ATL ATLANTA 149° 77 2.1 % PDX PORTLAND 272° 75 2.1 % SFO SAN FRANCISCU 251 ° 65 1.8% 1�4S LAS VEGAS 243° 63 1.7% MOT MINOT 304° 58 1.6% C Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 06/29/2007 10:06 Page 5 : �' .,,. `�: .' ; � . � � ' 1 1 • ' i � • ;� , . . - 1 1 1 ' � Metropolitan Airports Coinmission 3640 Carrie� Jets Departed I�unv�ays 12I� and 12R in 1Viay 2007 ' 3343 (9�.8%) of those Operations 12emai�ed 'an the Coa-ridor 3640 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 3343 (91.8%) Total 12L & I2R Carrier Departure Operaiions in the Corridor Minneapolis-St. Paui Penetration Gate Plot for Gate In Corridor 05/01/2007 00:00:00 - 06/01/2007 00:00:00 3343 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 2035 (60.9%), Right = 1308 (39.1%) .� 6000 a� m � 5000 0 a 4000 a�i W 3000 � 0 Q 2000 Q } 1000 0 .n a 0 ................:...............�.✓ .: .................:...............-- �'� ' � ,:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,:�.:;. . . . ,i�. ;;.�. � - - . . . . r:.,. . . . . . . . . . . �:x,�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... -2 -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) -f Arrival ' Departure � Overflight .�.�,., �. ��..:�,,.. �..�,�.� .�.,.,.�,;�� . �. �, ,�.�.�� d �.M..�.� Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Page 1 �" � Metropolitan Airports Commission 193 (5.3%) Runway 12L and 12�.2 Carrier Jet Departure Operations were North of the 090° Corridor Boundary LDuring May 2007 Minneapolis-5t. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North_Corridor 05/01 /2007 00:00:00 - 06/01 /2007 00:00:00 193 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 6(3.1%), Right = 187 (96.9%) +^+ 6UUU --- a� � � ; Y5000 ..................:..................:..................:.................. c : � � o • : ,; ; : a4000 ................ ............... ......... J...... .................. > : : r' ;��t.,��,, d , . r-4�? ?: S'� `��.1 r=.r �.,., . W 3000 .................:...................:... .�j.. (, .i��;f�, ,�'�........ . � . `� : `� ,..('�..rYy}��4'��t �.� .. �.�., fl' 2�� ................ : ......... ... ��..?+�.�w�� -�`�'�x#��''�c�.......... L . . c:; .. < ' `�,�� U _,1,�,�.� ._ . C- L, ' Q . r� �;� t}J c _-- 1000 ' ......... �:�'....`:..:.r-�` r..?. i C'U ........... a� .................... �,...., ................ > � : : o : . � Q o , . . -2 (Runway End) �l� Arrival -1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) iCorridor End) .. Departure � Overflight Page 2 Monthiy Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Corridor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Coirunission 104 (2.9%)12unway 12I� and 12I2 Car�ier Jet Departure Operations were ' South of the Cor�idor (South of 30I, I,ocalizer) l)uring May 2007 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor 05/01/2007 00:00:00 — O6/01/2007 00:00:00 104 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 68 (65.4%), Right = 36 (34.6%) w buu a� � � 500 _ 0 m 400 > a� � 300 � 200 'a � 100 0 � a Dt..................:...................:..................:.................. Df..................:......................................:.................. � �} j.i`....'� ......:...................:..................:................. � r �iV � �,3' r'•. j� �• ��, � � : : � p ��.'. �'� y� . !,:(. `�.?:' . . . :Yi. . . . . .C: s. . . . . .C;:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �'t'��• �� . �!^+ ��('�'" . �` ..�. �`� _ • �.�' i�'7' �..Jt`:1�� ` f ��j �.�,� .' ..1� z.��f-�y,) �} �.�:_,�� Cr�.c: r�r C^'�:5,..`�'^, �5 � . ... ... .. ..... : ... . . } '�'+�. . � ,,..:�� •xr,+c3 c �,,�,� . `� . ....... .. : : „`.-� :vi �.��..'Fi.u,�(.�:'-� ,J� i7 � —2 (Corridor End) —1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY + Arrival ��' Departure ❑ OverFlight ��;�,� ,.�.�,.....��..��.�.�.-.�,�.��«.�.�...��.�-��.��.�:-��.� Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Page 3 �. Metropolitan Airports Commission 14 (0.4%) Runway 12Y, and 1212 Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° 5outh of the Corridor (5° South of 30I, I,ocalizer) During May 200'7 Minneapolis—St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South Corridor_5deg 05/01/2007 00:00:00 — 06/01/2007 00:00:00 14 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 14 (100.0%), Right = 0(0.0%) .� 6000 . . . d . . . � . . . v5000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. c : : : o • � • a4000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. � : : : m : : : � 3000 ..................:...................:..................:.................. . �_. . . o ., : : : °- 2000 .. .�1. . .� . �:'. CJ>. .•>; . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ � �, r : : ... �� : : °�' 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'� . .:. . . . .C:; r� . . S: ; �'. .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � : : : � . . . Q � —1 0 1 2 Deviation From Center of Gate (Miles) �RWY Mid-Poin r�' Departure ❑ Overflight Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Comdor Analysis Metropolitan Airports Coinmission 'I'op 1512unway 12Y� and 121Z Departure Destinations for 1VIay 2007 � Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Depariure Comdor Analysis Page 5 � ' '' , � , ; � � ' � � ., �. � � � , � �` , � � '� : , �-=-� ��s• � �. ofA� �r:�t ,�� ' tJ a�?�� 3y� '.G:: r F+r,c�c: F��r � � S1 � / ' '' , �' � � ' I � , , Table of Con�ents for ay 2007 � Complaint Suinmary 1 Noise Complaint Map 2 FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage � MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway LTsage 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 Deparlure Related Noise Events 17 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 18 Carrier Jet Departure 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 Metropolifan Airports Commission ANOMS Program MSP Comp�aints by City May 2007 � Notc: Sh�dcd Columns represcm MSP compiaints filed via �he ]ntcmct. (� � � Sum of % Total of Complain�s may not equai 100% due �o rounding. .__ "As of Moy 2005, the MSP Complaints by Ciry repon includes muhiplc compluint descriptors per individunl wmpinint Therefore, the number ot complaint descriptors may bc more than the number of reportcd compiaims. Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - �- MSP International Airport Aviation Noise Com�laints for May 2007 Number of Complaints per Address ° � � 1-5 6-16 17-34 35-65 -2- � �•�-„ �'t. s � ��: !x�;k;i?2 ;�e L4{,:� 71� ��G. � � �s�M- `4., �,w;�" .. � . . � � .,, Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Available Hours for Runway Use May 2007 FAA Averaae Dailv Count Air Carrier 802 775 Commuter 388 414 � � General Aviation 103 58 __ Military 6 8 Tofai 1299 ;' 125f Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 3- � � •' o � Runway Use Report May 2007 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 1�0 % due to rounding. _ 4_ Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report May 2007 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100 % due to rounding. Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 " 5" May 2007 MSP Carrier Jet Fleefi Composition . FAR Part 36 Take � ' ' ; � Type. , Off Noise Level .; ; A�rcrafE Descnption„ ,; ,Stage, , Count:, Perceni ' B742 ' 110 Boeing 747-200 3 3 0% DC10 103 McDonnell Dougias DC10 3 17$ 0.6% B744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 69 0.2% DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Dougias DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 71 0.2% MD11 95.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 4 0% 8762 95.7 Boeing 767-200 3 1 0% 8767 95.7 Boeing 767-300 3 3 0% A33Q 95.6 Airbus Industries A330 3 306 1% B72Q 94.5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 328 1% A300 94 Airbus Industries A300 3 155 0.5% A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 37 0.1 % MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 978 3.1 % 8757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 3569 11.3% DC9Q 91 McDonneil Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 4847 15.3% B734 88.9 Baeing 737-400 3 4 0% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 4996 15.8% 6735 87.7 Boeing 737-500 3 420 1.3% 8738 87.7 Boeing 737-800 3 1009 3.2% 8733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 620 2% A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4468 14.1% 8737 87.5 Boeing 737-700 3 379 1.2% A318 87.5 Airbus Industries A318 3 59 0.2% E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ-170 3 283 0.9% E145 83.7 Embraer ERJ-145 3 627 2% 8717 83 Boeing 717-200 3 474 1.5% CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 7396 23.4% E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ-135 3 341 1.1 % , } ' Totais . ::;.� � ' " .:::. . . . ... . � ; 31625': `; ` � Note: Sum of tieet mix % may not equal 100 % due to munding. Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet ali stage III criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (/ (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configu�ations. �� -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 levei 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: 06/08/2007 09:45 Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report May 2007 Note: Sum of RUS % may not equai 100% due to rounding. Report Generated: 06/08l2007 09:45 - � ' Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ' . - s-•• . 11 Note: Sum of RUS %, may not equal 100 % due to rounding. ' $ ' Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 � �' � May 2007 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet Operations by Hour Hour ,,.,.;, ,t Count; 2230 650 2300 405 2400 117 100 29 200 26 300 39 400 83 500 495 American American America West Continental Expre; DHL Fed Ex FedEx FedEx FedEx Pinnacle Kitty Hawk Kitty Hawk Narthwest Northwest Narthwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Republic Airlines Sun Country Skvwest Airlines Airtran United United United UPS UPS UP5 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 Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 93.9% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 � ?50 700 650 600 550 � C K� 500 :i.. � ' 450 G!= C �%' 400 v.. Q s_ 350 tl7 � � 300 � � 250 200 150 100 50 O May 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. ' AAL AWE BTq ❑HL FDX FLG KHA NWA. RPta SCX SKW TRS UAL UPS USA A€e-iYnc . ,. � �hlanu�Factur�ed �:$tage . 3;;, , Stage 3 ::�. � ri Stage 2' �`i -� � May 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines Note: UPS DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re-engined with manufactured stage 3 engines. - 10 - Repo�t Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — May 2007 May 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4102 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4098 Carrier Jet Departures May 1 thru 8, 2007 — 260 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 1 thru 8, 2007 —191 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 �� - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Opera�ions — May 20�7 � May 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4141 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4130 Carrier Jet Departures May 9 thru 16, 2007 — 306 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 9 thru 16, 2007 —186 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures - 12 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Airpo�rt Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — May 2007 May 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4075 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 17 thru 24, 2007 — 4093 Carrier Jet Departures May 17 thru 24, 2007 — 294 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals May 17 thru 24, 2007 — 206 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures Report Generated: 06/OS/2007 09:45 - 13 - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jefi Operations — May 2007 May 25 thru 31, 2007 — 3494 Carrier Jet Arrivals May 25 fhru 31, 2007 — 3492 Carrier Jet Departures May 25 thru 31, 2007 — 243 Nighttime Carrie� Jet Arrivals May 25 thru 31, 2007 —158 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures - 14 - Repo�t Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower �RMT) Site Locations �,:.; � * ,;�, Remote Monitoring Tower ,�,,�r Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 15 - Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events . �� ,, , ,. , � . , , , � : . `RMT s _ , T�me > T�me > Time > T�me > , ' ; � ID .. : ... ....::. G�.tY . �: .. �.. .. ,,.,.... �:.. Address ! ... ..i . ..�..�.. t: 65c�B � 80dB � . ..�90,,dB,� ,� � ,;100tl6 �'� ... �.. _... �.. . . . .,.. ... 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 29:10;56 00:03:24 00:00:02 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 27:24:53 00:18:20 00:00:13 OO:OO:QO 3 Minneapalis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 32:30:35 01:55:46 00:00:34 OO:OQ:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 28:03:38 00:50:56 00:00:31 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 33:24:09 07:09:00 00:05:05 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 31:56:42 05:49:01 00:12:46 00:00:13 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:28:01 00:00:09 Od:00:00 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfeliow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:19:48 00:00:00 OO:OO:QO 00:00:00 9 St. Paui Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:01:36 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:01:25 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:01:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:39 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:06:36 00:00:23 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 18:44:37 00:00:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. C10:23:01 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 14:28:01 00:53:29 00:00:08 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:01:41 OO:OO:OQ 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:24:07 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84fh St. 00:06:14 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:01:50 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 21 inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:20:40 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 11:14:19 00:00:18 OQ:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 02:45:37 00:00:37 00:00:00 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 19:46:45 00:03:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 00:54:23 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 01:54:29 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:17:45 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 02:10:45 00:01:52 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:01:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bioomington 8715 River Ridge Rd: 03:50:15 00:00:26 00:00:01 00:00:00 31 Bioomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:01:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 B(oomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:02:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsviile North River Hilis Park 00:02:48 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:05:55 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 06:21:02 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 09:21:37 00:00:35 00:00:00 OO:Od:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:04:16 00:00:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:00:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:01:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 , -, . �` Total T�me far Arriyal Noise Events , ' �,276 57�5'I 17:09 41 ;' 00 19 20 , 00 OU '13;: - 16 - Report Generated: 06/O8/2007 09:45 Time Above Threshold d6 for Departure Related Noise Events May 2007 : ., .; RMT Time> ' Time > T�me > T�me > ..�.�ID .. ,.". ... ... .:C�h! . Address ...... . .. , �.... ...... 65d6. .: 80dB .... 90dB,: . _100dB ,i :: ... .. : ..�.� ....:.... . . 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 03:26:42 00:00:55 OO:Q0:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremant Ave. & 43rd St. 04:28:00 00:03:53 00:00:00 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 09:29:02 00:11:09 00:00:06 OO:OQ:00 4 Minneapolis Perk Ave. & 48th St. 12:05:14 00:26:05 00:01:00 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12fh Ave. & 58th St. 31:04:50 03:18:26 00:32:15 00:00:16 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 37:01:08 05:34:11 01:04:33 00:01:09 7 Richfield ' Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 13:38:43 00:34:56 00:0029 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfeilow Ave. & 43rd St. 11:32:14 00:30:46 00:00:40 OO:OO:QO 9 St. Paul Saratoga 5t. & HartFord Ave. 00:07:01 00:00:03 00:�0:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:09:OQ 00:02:51 00:01:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:11:02 00:02:50 OQ:00:45 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:06:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court. 08:47:07 00:02:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 09:46:00 00:35:51 00:00:46 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 13:27:59 00:15:45 00:00:24 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 10:42:22 Q1:11:48 00:08:16 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:31:43 00:03:26 00:00:43 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 20:51:05 00:18:59 00:02:24 00:00:01 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th Sf. 15:01:56 00:07:14 00:00:31 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:45:30 00:02:22 00:00:05 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 02:38:57 00:00:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 03:04:29 00:01:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 20:53:58 01:15:35 00:07:34 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 06:09:18 00:09:34 00:00:05 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 132� Jurdy Rd. 11:00:17 00:01:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 04:00:48 00:02:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 07:14:53 00:11:46 00:00:18 00:00:03 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 33:59:01 00:38:05 00:00:13 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Rve. S. 06:09:08 00:04:30 00:00:03 00:00:00 30 Bloomingtan 8715 River Ridge Rd. 34:37:29 02:39:17 00:08:43 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 03:44:07 00:02:36 00:00:05 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 01:22:43 00:01:02 00:00:�0 00:00:00 33 Burnsviile North River Hiiis Park 02:40:38 00:00:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:58:0'1 00:00:18 00:00:00 OO:OQ:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 06:06:44 00:04:40 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Appie Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 02:09:20 00:01:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 04:25:48 00:02:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 07:37:04 00:05:39 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 11:17:53 00:09:41 00:00:00 00:00:00 . , ,,.: ' Total Ti,me for;Departure, No�se Events ; '`;; 3.73 23 38 18:57 45 02 10 58 00:01 29 Report Generated: O6/08/2007 09:45 ' ��' Arrival Related Noise Events May 2007 ' ; , Arr�val /��nval ArnVaf Arn�al RMT , ' E�ents ' Events Events Events '� � > > > ID .. . � .:;. ..' . ,., ,G�tY. ... ....:�. .. , �..: . .. .. .. . ' .�� . : :: Address ... .... . . . . . .. :::.. .�_ .:65dB .'.:, ..�..80dB ...:. 90dB ...... ...' 100tlB , . '; ...... �. 1 Minneapolis Xences Ave. & 41 st St. 6471 53 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 5447 269 5 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 5893 1455 11 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 5708 747 7 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6144 4466 119 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 6022 4744 379 4 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St 117 4 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longteliow Ave. & 43rd St. 72 0 0 0 9 5t. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 6 1 0 0 10 St. Paul itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 6 1 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 5 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Sf. & Rockwood Ave. 3 1 0 0 13 Mendota Heighfs Southeast end of Mohican Court 23 1 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 4023 15 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Gulion Sf. & Lexington Ave. 76 4 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 2910 629 2 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 8 0 0 0 18 Richfield 75th Sf. & 17th Ave. 100 2 0 0 19 Bioomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 24 2 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 8 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 78 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2432 8 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 691 6 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 3982 40 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 207 1 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 461 5 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 70 3 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 410 35 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 4 0 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1023 4 0 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 7 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 7 0 0 0 33 Bumsville North River Hilis Park 10 1 0 0 34 Burnsvilie Red Oak Park 24 1 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1478 3 0 0 3f Apple Valfey Briar Oaks & Scout Pond ` 1861 8 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 15 1 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 5 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 7 0 0 0 ;: , � Total Arrival No�se Events ` �' '55838 ''� '12511 524 4 ' ; , : �;:, ,.. .. , . � - 18 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Departure Related Noise Events May 2007 ,;. ; ' � p ure Departure DeparEure Departure : RMT , ' � ,:� , , � ,.. s> s� s> s`>=; e a ' Ev'ent Event Event Event ..ID, . .., ...':.v.. �.C�ty. . . _�: � .; ._... ..: .. ...Address ... ... .:: .....� ..:. , ....65dB.�., � .. 80dB � ' 90dB � �100dB i . . .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. . . .. . , . ........ . .. . 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St. 672 15 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 835 43 0 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 1671 102 2 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2111 201 14 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4598 1116 331 7 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5583 2071 509 32 7 Richfieid Wentv✓orth Ave. & 64th St. 2124 264 11 0 8 Minneapolis Longfeilow Ave. & 43rd St. 1851 247 9 0 9 St. Paui Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 24 1 0 0 10 St. Paul itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 20 11 10 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 23 11 9 0 12 St. Paul Aiton St. & Rockwood Ave. 19 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1646 62 Q 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 1461 275 9 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & �exington Ave. 2329 151 8 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 1509 369 91 0 17 Bloamingion 84th St. & 4th Ave. 87 16 7 0 18 Richfield 75th Sf. & 17th Ave. 3721 297 21 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 2705 111 5 0 20 Richfield 75th 5t. & 3rd Ave. 115 15 1 0 21 Inver Grove Neights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 507 12 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 494 14 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3197 484 100 0 24 Eagan Chapei Ln. & Wren Ln. 925 127 2 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 1141 19 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 737 39 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1343 120 4 0 28 Richfieid 6645 16th Ave. S. 4874 556 2 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 1124 46 1 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 5374 952 133 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 757 22 1 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. 5. 287 8 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hiils Park 506 11 0 0 34 Burnsviile Red Oak Park 166 5 0 D 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 1016 66 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 353 14 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 697 49 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 1253 77 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 5t. Charles PI. 1977 129 0 0 ` ; Totai ;Departure No�se Events ; . ;` , 59832 8'128 ' 1280 : ° 39 , ' Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - � g- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St., Minneapolis 05/23/2007 $:05 NWA617 DC9Q A 05/02/200713:00 FLG5671 CRJ A 05/31/200711:21 NWA1542 A320 A 05/06J2007 9:21 NWA1704 DC9Q A 05/22/2007 11:52 NWA624 A320 A- 05/25/2007 9:22 NWA5$0 A320 A 05/1812Q0711:07 AAL548 MD$0 A 05123/2007 4:42 FDX1718 DC10 A 05(22/200715:04 NWA1532 DC9Q A 05/27/200711:18 MES3279 SF34 D (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St:, Minneapolis •� c ;. . :: • � � :. � � :� :� , 05/ 12/2007 17:18 05/28/2007 7:25 05/29/2007 14:52 05/11 /2007 10:25 05/04/2007 6:32 05/31/2007 7:07 05/05/2007 18:06 05/04/2007 15:25 05/28/2007 "I 9:10 05/30/2007 16:51 (RI�IT Site#3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis NWA170 N WA739 RRR2511 NWA$05 KHA773 CCP400 CCP4'I 3 CCP405 DAL1198 N WA404 A 12R A 12R A 12R A 12R A ......._.._ 12R ........._ D 30L A 12R A 12R A 12R A 12R _ 20 _ Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 05/1112007 7:29 05i06/2007 5:51 05/30/2007 17:52. 05/14/2007 7:20 05/23/2007 20:31 05124/2007 9:48 05/22/2007 12:51 05/30/2007 16:05 05/11/2007 22:45 05/11/2007 20:41 N WA744 N WA844 NWA137 N WA742 NWA1056 NWA1201 NWA129 NWA160 DHL197 N WA1056 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis . •e � � • t� � •� r • �► � •� � •� � '-�� (RMT Site#5) 12th Ave. & 58th St., Minneapolis 30R 12L 12L 30L 30L 30R 12L 12L 30L 30L 95.2 95.1 95 94.3 93.5 93.3 93.2 92.9 92.9 91.8 (RMT Site#6) 25th Ave. & 57th St., Minneapolis Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 21 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St., Richfield 05/23/2007 21:23 05/16/2007 20:54 051�412007 20:37 05110/2007 15:03 05/09/2007 20:41 05(23/2007 22:54 05/23/2007 20:57 05/10/2007 10:42 05/16/2007 9:39 05/09/2007 19:25 (RMT Site#8) Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis DH�304 B72Q D DHL304 B72Q D CCP2690 672Q D AAL354 MD80 D DHL304 B72Q D DHL197 B72Q D NWA868 DC9Q D NWA10$2 DC9Q D AAL1125 MD80 D NWA1056 DC9Q D (RMT Site#9) Saratoga St. & Harlford Ave., St. Paul - 22 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 �. C Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Pau) (RMT Site#11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 23 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2C107 (RMT Site#13) Southeast end of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights (RMT Site#14) 1 st St. & McKee St., Eagan 05/13/2007 19:28 05/29/2007 22:32 05/03/2007 15:26 05/13/2007 21:37 05130/2007 8:01 05/13/2007 19:14 05123/2007 8:03 05/26(2007 14:46 05/21/2007 22:19 05/2312007 14:59 -24- (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights NWA137 N WA867 NWA1471 N WA867 NWA1212 NWA1667 NWA1212 NWA131 N WA867 N WA790 , •� � • t� � •e � •� r •e � �e s •e � •� � •� � •� 12� 12� 12L. 12L 12� 12L 12L 12L 12� 12L Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 C � (. Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#16) (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington (RMT Site#18) 75th St. & 17th Ave., Richfield Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 25 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84#h St., Bloomington (RMT Site#20) 75th Sfi. & 3rd Ave., Richfield Q5/30/2007 10:42 05/03/2007 15:30 05/15/2007 19:17 05/31/2007 20:15 05/23/2007 6:49 05/31/2007 11:22 05/20/2007 12:21 05/25/2007 15:30 05121 /2007 11:36 05/29/2007 23:26 (RMT Site#21) Barbara Ave. & 67th Sfi., Inver Grove Heights NWA19D NWA19 N WA1675 CCP2690 CC 1706 AAL366 NWA19 N WA19 D CC1705 -_... . � .. � •� : � : e s •� �:� ; .. � .. � � : • � � : . :i : :i : :� . :� - 26 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 � Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights 05/30/2007 22:Q2 05/29/2007 15:25 05/18/2007 19:26 Q5/21 /2007 12:09 05/26/2007 14:19 Q5126/2007 14:45 05/1812007 14:43 05l29/2007 19:46 05/29/2007 22:32 05/13/2007 14:53 05/30/2007 8:03 05/24/2007 23:48 05/23/2007 7:46 05/26/2007 9:25 05/07/2007 9:46 05/25/2007 8:12 05/02/2007 7:55 05/18/20Q7 8:17 05l29/2007 22:17 05/18/2007 8:09 (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heights NWA607 DC9Q D NWA1054 DC9Q D NWA606 DC9Q D NWA869 DC9Q D NWA766 DC9Q D NWA131 DC9Q D NWA1471 DC9Q D NWA618 DC9Q D NWA867 DC9Q D NWA790 DC9Q D (RMT Site#24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln., ' �ght Number A�,r"craft Type Arr�v � , ' ', ,. � ' ,� , Depar ,. : _,, ,. , .... ..,. --.: ,.. CCP412 B72Q D CCI705 B72Q D CCP412 B72Q _ D CCP412 B72Q D NWA411 DC9Q D AAL2040 MD80 D CCP412 B72Q D CCP404 B72Q D FDX1106 B72Q D NWA1212 DC9Q D Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 n 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 12L 95.3 95.2 95.1 94.9 94.6 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.1 93.6 � .� :• :. : : : . : . : � � � -27- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan (RMT Site#26) 05/14/2007 7:53 05/24l2007 7:04 05/25/2007 11:57 05l10/2007 12:06 05/23l2007 20:25 05/11 /2007 17:57 05/07/2007 15:24 05/11 /2007 14:25 05/10/2007 18:15 05/24/2007 10:59 (RMT Site#27) , Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis CCP404 CCP400 N WA452 N WA452 NWA1535 N WA407 N WA19 DAL832 NWA407 AAL2Q06 :_ � : t� � •� � •� � •A � �� :� � •e �:� 30L 3QL 30L 30L 30L 30L 22 30L 30� 30L �� . � .� :• :: :: : � � :. • - 2g - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 (��" Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 {RMT Site#28) 6645 16th Ave. S., Richfieid (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S., Minneapolis 05l07/2007 8:13 05/04/2007 10:22 05/15/2007 22:45 05/03/2007 22:04 05/31/2007 22:10 05/02/2007 7:00 05/04/2007 17:34 05/17/2007 7:07 05/01 /2007 22:59 05/04/2007 17:07 NWA1525 DHL197 FDX1106 FDX1106 KHA773 NWA1463 CCP400 CC 1705 NWA136 (RMT Site#30) 8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomington :_ e i •l1 : t� : � � � � •� � : e • •� 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 96 95.6 95.3 94.7 94.6 94.5 94.5 94.5 94.4 94.4 Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 29 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#31) 9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington 05/16/2007 7:07 05/09/2007 6:46 05/03/2007 22:06 05/21/2007 22:11 05/06I2007 17:19 05(15/20Q7 23:07 05/31 /2007 15:18 05/19/2007 9:17 05/31 /2007 22:11 05/06/2007 10:14 (RMT Site#32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomington CC1706 CC 1706 FDX1106 FDX1106 TAG399 CC1705 NWA19 CGP412 FDX1106 NWA1201 17 17 17 17 17 17 22 30L 17 17 84.5 83.8 83.5 83.2 82.7 81.6 81.2 81.2 79.6 79.4 - 30 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Top Ten LQudest Aircraft Noise Evenfis for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#34) Red Oak Park, Burnsville (RMT Site#35) 2100 Garnet Ln., Eagan 05/01120Q7 22:30 05/09/2007 16:02 05/25/2007 0:29 05/14/2007 10:26 05/Q9/2007 720 05/28/2007 8:13 05/09/2007 7:25 05/24/2007 22:14 05124/2Q07 21:05 05/30/2007 9:34 (RMT Site#36) Briar Oaks & Scout Pond, Apple Valley DHL197 MES3173 CC11739 NWA1698 FLG5637 CCP404 F�G2$50 CCP401 NWA445 NWA126 : � � : E � •� � : � � : � � • !► � •� 17 35 35 17 35 12R 35 35 35 17 84.9 84.6 83.9 $3.3 83 82.7 82.5 82 81.6 81.2 Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 31 - � Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP May 2007 (RMT Site#37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N., Eagan 05/21 /2007 16:15 05102/2007 0:09 05104/2007 11:Q8 05/13/2007 10:28 05/25/2007 22:31 05/26/2007 9:40 05/22/2007 18:48 05131 /2007 14:11 Q5104/2007 11:02 (RMT Site#38) 3957 Turquoise Cir., Eagan ght Number �Aircraft Type Arr�val/,� ,, RunK :. .. .D;eparture , ..�. .. :; . �. � 1 '- � ' 4 . . �- ... . . . .:. . . .. . : : . ., .. AAL1591 ' MD80 D 17 KHA772 B72Q D 17 NWA1286 DC9Q D 17 NWA134 DC9Q D 17 DH�304 B72Q D 17 DHL197 B72Q D 17 NWA411 DC9Q D 17 AAL422 MD80 D 17 AAL1096 MD80 D 17 NWA1030 A319 D 17 (RMT Site#39) 3477 St. Charles PI., Eagan : • � � ;, . :� : :� : :� : • : : May 2007 Remote Monitoring Tower Too Ten Summarv The top ten noise events and fhe event ranges at each RMT for May 2007 were comprised of 86.7°/a departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the 672Q with 31 % of the highest Lmax events. May 2007 Technical Advisor Report Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during fhe month of May 20Q7. - 32 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 Analysis ofi Aircraft Noise Events DNL May 2007 Remote'Monitoring Towers , ': Da#e ` #1 k #2' #3 -; #4 �';#5 #6 #7 #8; #9 .; #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15;: 05/01 /2007 51.9 55.4 59.7 60.2 70.5 73.6 63.2 62.5 NA 53 53.4 NA 32.3 61.1 47.5 05102/2007 59.3 62.2 66.6 62.9 71.5 68.2 37.7 26.2 35.1 5Q.4 50.9 33.4 57.4 62J 58.8 05/0312Q07 60.7 63.1 67.9 64.1 71.3 69.4 46.4 40.9 47.2 NA NA 49.8 56.3 60.7 60.7 05/04/2007 62.3 63.4 69.3 63.5 72.5 69.3 31.5 47.1 43.9 49.9 53 43.8 57.4 60 61.8 05/05/2007 61.5 62.7 68.1 62.3 71.8 68.1 38.7 35.4 38.6 56.1 54.7 38.5 53.7 56.5 59.2 05/06/2007 60.4 63.7 66.1 66.5 70.3 72.1 40.5 39.4 NA NA 43.3 44 57.6 59.5 59.9 05/07/2007 57.7 62.3 64.1 65.7 71.3 74.7 60:4 59.5 NA NA NA 38.2 45.$ 60.3 51.9 05/08/2007 54.4 55.3 59.7 61.4 70.6 74.1 63.7 62.6 36 39.5 46.5 26.5 47.5 62.7 48.1 05/09/2007 54.4 56.9 58.5 63.3 72.1 75.2 64.7 61.6 31.3 38.3 27.4 31.6 35.8 61.7 35.9 05/1 Q/2007 53.2 55.6 61.9 62.8 71.8 73.8 67.2 62.7 31 34.6 NA NA 34.2 60.4 46 05111/2007 51.9 55.5 60.2 66.1 71.6 74.4 64.7 62.1 39.2 51.2 52.4 NA 45.7 60.6 47.6 05/1212007 58:6 61.2 65.5 62.2 68.8 67.3 37.9 NA 44 57.1 50.8 NA 55.1 57.7 56.5 05/1312007 58.9 62.3 66 63.3 69.5 69.2 NA 40 NA NA 27.9 NA 56.4 57.5 59.2 05/1412007 55.8 56.9 63.8 63.7 71.8 73 61.8 60 NA 28.6 NA 36.3 43.1 61.3 47.8 05/15/2007 55.2 56.2 59.1 62.1 70.6 73.8 65:5 63 NA 50 49.8 NA NA 62.9 38.1 �5/16/2007 53.4 56.5 59.9 60.1 69.2 74.5 62.2 63 37.3 52.3 51.4 NA 48.2 62 48 05i17/2007 57:6 59.9 65 62.1 69.1 68.6 38.3 44.5 NA NA NA 41.7 56 64.1 57.8 05/18/2007 59 61.7 66.6 64.1 70.2 69:6 42.1 NA NA NA NA NA 60 61 62.5 05/19/2007 51.6 54.3 57 60 67.5 74.4 58.1 622 37.3 51.3 52.$ 39.5 50.3 60 57.2 05/20/2007 60.6 63.3 65.3 62.8 68.6 68.5 38.7 49.1 NA 26.5 NA NA 57.7 64 60 05/21/2007 58.8 62.3 65.2 64.1 69.4 70.5 41.6 47.2 35.2 NA NA 37.6 57.6 61.6 63 05122/2007 60.3 64 66.2 66 70.2 71.9 45.4 46.8 38 44 42 NA 58.5 56.8 60.3 05/23/2007 61.1 63 65.1 66.3 73 77.3 63.5 65 39.6 26.3 31.1 42.9 53.1 62.9 59.5 05/24/2007 53.5 56.9 60.1 61.6 72 74.4 66.2 62.1 43.8 43.7 NA 36.3 39.3 64.9 48.1 05/25/2007 59.1 59.8 64.4 62.3 70.3 69.9 53.4 56.5 NA 29.7 NA NA 56.9 63.3 57.9 05/26/2007 57.5 60.3 64.8 62.9 70.2 70.8 54.4 56 49.3 32.5 47.4 NA 52.6 60.5 56.2 05/2712007 52.6 54.3 59.7 57.8 68.3 70.4 57.6 60.6 NA NA 36.3 NA 47.9 59.8 49.3 05/28/2007 58.1 61.9 65 63.4 69 69.7 45.3 43.7 NA 32.1 40.1 35.2 56.7 57.4 59.5 05/29/2007 58.9 61.6 65.8 63.3 69.5 69.3 39.6 39.5 36.6 NA NA 41.7 58.9 64.6 64.9 05/30/2007 60 63.2 66.6 64.6 712 70.6 40.9 44 40.2 NA NA 40.3 58.9 64.5 64.6 05/31/2007 58.7 592 64.5 62.2 71 70.2 55.3 57.4 34 29.2 NA 48 55.8 62.5 61.8 .,.. _ ,. . ,: , , ,:: , �IIo,DIVL , 58; 3 60.9 64.8,: 63 4 70 7 72 3 60:1 58.8 39 6. ;; 48 47 4 40 55';1 61 �7 59 Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 33 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Evenfis DNL May 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #16 '#17 #18 #19 #20 #21 : #22 ;#23' #24 #25 #26 #27! #28;' #29. .. ,�. , _�.�. �. ..: , _ . .,: . � : , . . ...,. . , � .,_. , . „ ; , , , .. . ,.. ,, . , _ , .:.1. . , ,.. . . ,... . . _ .. _ . 05/01/2007 66.5 51.5 58.4 55.7 56.7 262 59.3 49.9 61:5 36.2 48.4 57.6 63.2 58.8 05/0212007 66.2 29.9 64.4 61.6 30.2 51.2 54.7 64.3 59.1 60.1 56.7 65.8 68.9 36.4 05/03/2007 65.6 35.6 63.3 60.9 39.3 50 54.3 64.6 57.3 54.3 53.8 40.4 64.5 32.6 05/04/2007 62.1 32.9 62.7 60.6 43.1 51 51.5 66.1 56.7 48 53.1 402 64.6 40:2 05/05/2007 60.8 33.2 60.9 60.1 NA 48.9 46.7 63.2 53.2 50.7 54.6 32 62.3 NA 05/Q6i2007 60.8 40.8 62.1 602 NA 49.2 50.8 65.6 56.6 52.4 56.4 42.4 63.1 NA 05/07/2007 64.9 50.2 59.2 54.7 50.5 41.8 55.8 57.4 59.2 51.5 51.9 53.1 61 54 05/08/2007 66.9 55.1 60.3 57.8 61.5_ 48.3 59.9 56.9 62.6 59.4 58.1 56.9 64.5 57.8 05/09/2007 65.8 58.3 58.6 55.1 60:3 44.6 59.4 54.1 61.5 50.1 52.3 60.4 59.8 56.4 05/10/2007 65.3 52.2 57.9 52.7 47.3 37 57.1 51.1 59.8 51.4 50.2 58.8 66.8 54.5 05/11 /2007 66.7 32.7 52.1 47.6 27.3 44.8 57.9 54:2 60.9 51 50.4 59.9 61.4 54.2 05/12/2007 62.3 34.7 60.3 57.7 34 50.9 .51.2 63 55 53.6 5Q.8 27.4 62.3 NA 05/13/20Q7 59.6 48.4 61.6 56.1 38.6 51.2 48.9 64.4 51.8 56.9 52.1 38.1 61.2 32.4 05/14/2007 65.7 49.1 56.2 50 48 49.2 58 53.6 60.7 48.2 53.6 55.9 59.8 52.7 05/15/2007 67.7 44.9 58.6 56.8 55.4 45.4 59.6 51.1 63.2 40.4 43.2 56.6 64.3 56.2 05/16/2007 67.1 48.1 59.5 58.3 53.1 41.1 58:7 51 62.1 46 47.1 55.9 61.2 56.7 05/17/2007 66.4 44.3 60.8 59.1 43.8 54:.4 58 63.7 60.8 57.6 56.4 32.8 62.5 NA 05/1812007 64.2 51 59.8 56.4 36.7 49.9 53.1 67.6 57.2 56.1 51.7 43.9 58.2 NA 05/19/2007 64.4 51 55:8 52.3 40.7 45.8 57.5 58.8 60.4 43 52.7 54:4 54.8 55.4 05/20/2007 65.7 NA 58 54.5 NA 54.4 56.6 65.9 61.4 55.5 58.3 48.3 60.5 39.2 05/21/2007 63.5 31.$ 62.9 58.5 39.1 50.3 51.8 65.6 56.2 56.3 51.9 38,6 63.8 42.9 05/22/2007 59.5 37.1 62.8 58.8 45.2 53.4 49.1 64.9 52.7 54.6 50.6 26.1 642 30.5 05/23/2007 63.9 46.2 59.7 54.5 50.9 52.6 55.6 632 59.4 56.1 53.5 60.9 61 55.5 05/2412007 67 52.9 56.7 49.1 46.5 47.4 61:7 562 64.1' 39.7 51:1 60.5 61:2 59.2 05/25/2007 66.3 47.6 62.8 58.7 50.6 54.7 58.8 64.1 61.5 54.5 55.1 52.4 62.2 49J 05/26/2007 65 49 60.3 55.3 54.5 49 55.1 62.1 59 � 53 52 50.8 60.7 54.3 05/27/2007 62.3 48 56.7 50.4 43.1 41.6 55.6 58.9 59 44.9 50.6 54.1 60 56.9 05/28/2007 60.4 41 60.5 57.1 42.6 49.9 47.9 65.4 53.9 54.6 52.2 NA 60.7 39.7 05/29/2007 66.9 27.4 58.8 54.7 30.6 562 57 69.3 61.4 55 57.7 33.9 59.4 35.8 05/30/2007 66 52.4 6'1.3 57.5 39.4 52.2 57.1 69.3 60.6 52.9 55.9 29.7 62.9 32.6 05131 /2007 65.4 44.6 NA 58.8 34.6 52.9 56.2 65.9 60.5 53.4 55.8 52.2 61.6 61.1 ; ,:: ,, Mo' DNL ,; 65 �I 49 3 fi0 3 57:3 51;6 50 4.,: 56 7:;63 8' 59 9 541 53.9 56 1; 62 8 53 8; - 34 - Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 f� r 1 � Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL May 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers = Date #30 #31 #32: #33 �#34 #35 #36 #37 #3$ #39 ' , .. .. . _. , ... , _ . ......:..:... ...:.:. .... 05/01 /20Q7 66.6 50.3 49.6 52.4 56.9 59.5 61.1 NA 27.4 NA 05/02/2007 71.5 51.6 45.8 52.1 512 59.9 55.3 58.8 60.9 60.1 05/03I2007 69.6 59 55.4 45.7 42.6 54.8 44.6 55.7 58.6 61.1 05/04/2007 68.9 54.5 47.7 49.1 44.1 52.8 40.8 53.3 56.5 61.5 05/05/20Q7 66.4 49.2 43.9 45.1 42.5 54.4 46.6 53.9 56.1 56.3 05/06I2007 65.5 51.5 48.1 42.4 34.6 53.4 37.5 51.2 55.3 56.3 05/07/2007 63.7 45.3 45.6 49.8 41.$ 54.6 54.3 51.3 53.7 54.7 0510812007 65.6 51.2 46.2 55.5 45.1 57 56.5 39.5 45.4 49.4 05/09/2007 64.3 55.6 56.4 522 51.7 59.1 59.7 NA NA NA 05/10/2007 63.3 47.5 NA 45.7 47.4 58.8 59.1 NA NA NA 05/11 /2007 57.5 33 36.2 41.6 43.3 53.6 56.3 44.9 45.8 48.3 05/12/2007 65.4 492 39 44.8 39.1 56 45.1 55 55.1 56.4 05/13/2007 63 49.9 36.8 48.3 34.7 49.3 42.7 53.7 55.4 55.3 05/14/2007 63.3 51 48.4 49.3 47.4 53.7 52.2 43.4 39.8 NA 05/15/2007 68.4 50.8 55.4 51.5 52.4 57.7 59.8 31.7 NA NA 05/1612007 69.4 53.8 53.5 55.4 56.9 59.3 60 45.1 27.4 NA 05/17/2007 66.8 50.1 44.3 51.5 47.7 55.1 52.8 54.4 54.9 59.7 05/18/2007 65.2 54.6 46.9 50.6 39.7 49.7 45.1 522 53.8 59.9 05/19/2007 62.7 45.8 43.6 52.8 45.7 54.9 55.7 42.5 36.9 NA 05/20/2Q07 61.7 47.4 26.6 38.9 40.3 46.6 41.6 49 51.2 51.1 05/21 /2007 66.6 55.6 54.2 48.9 44.4 51.8 45.8 53.8 56.1 60.1 05/22/2007 66.7 54.1 49.1 50.8 38.7 52.3 44.5 50.7 56.4 59.7 05/23/2007 62.8 46.9 38.3 45.9 41.2 54.6 54.3 53.4 55.1 55.8 05/24/2007 61.9 35.7 45.4 43 36.9 58.6 58.7 55.7 48.7 52.3 05/25/2007 68.7 54.5 45.6 52.2 46.6 56.6 55.8 52.2 57.6 58.8 05/26/2007 63.3 50.5 41.7 47.5 45.6 51.6 50.2 49.6 52.2 56 05/27/2007 58.1 4Q.2 32.5 45.8 40.9 51.4 54.5 36.8 43.9 51.3 05/28/2007 65.4 48.5 39.8 49.2 39.8 52 47.4 52.1 54.4 57.4 05/29/2007 64.6 47.8 39.8 48.9 38.5 54.9 51.9 47.9 52.7 57 05/30/2007 66.4 52.1 47.3 45.8 51.3 53.8 49.4 56.3 57.3 60.5 05/31 /2007 68.7 55.2 52.8 47.4 45 59.2 57.5 54.4 56 57.6 . ,. , . , IVIo DNL 66 2 52 1 49 2� 50 48 4. 55 9 55:1 52 2! 54 2; :56 7 � ::::.. �, ..,. Report Generated: 06/08/2007 09:45 - 35 - 74 mti � _ �* F :_ � ° `,' r �c �' f,�`:: g •r c,`� ,., �., .r� Is �� ,I'''' �� ' }� rv4n. ,"i §, � ..�v ��,. '� � �,t �{t„ „€, .��3 t r� A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volamel9,Numberl9 June 22, 2007 Minneapolis-St. i'aul Int'l �65 1VIIILLION SETTLEM�NT PRCIPOSEID TO END CLASS ACT�CDN O'V�R INS�JI.,ATICDN Under a proposed agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed by homeowners near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) would provide nearly $65 million in noise mitigation benefits to more than 4,400 horneowners in the airport's 60-64 dB DNL noise contour. Homeowners filed suit in 2005 aileging that the MAC had agresd, as a condition of expanding MSP International, to expand its residential sound insulation program to include homes in the airport's 60-64 dB DNL contour and to provide the full sound insulation pacicage that homeowners in the 65 dB DNL and higher contours had received. The cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, and Eagan, MN, filed a similar lawsuit and on Jan. 25 Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich issued a partial ruling in their favor, finding that the MAC had made an enforceable commitrnent to extend its full sound insulation package to homeowners in the 60-64 dB DNL contour (10 ANR 17). Judge Aldrich is presiding over both lawsuits and has asked the cities, which have indicated that they are not satisfied with the proposed settiement in the (Continued on p. 75) Oceana Naval Base DOJ, PR4P�+ RT'Y' OWN�+ RS S�+'I'Z'I.�+ CLASS ACT�i�N STJ�T OV�R ,TE'I' �LOCA'�'�CaN The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Navy recentiy reached a settlement agreement with approximately 3,400 property owners in Virginia B each and Chesapeake, VA, regarding litigation over the relocation of Navy fighter jets from Cecil Field, FL, to Naval Air Station Oceana in VirginiaBeach. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the property owners agreed to dismiss their clairns against the federai government and acknowledged that the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the United States. Most of the property owners involved in the settlement agreed to grant the federal government a permanent avigation easement over their properties to accommodate existing and additional future Naval aircraft operations. The settlement amount is not to exceed $34.4 miliion and is expected to provide a median $5,000 payment to homeowners invoived in the agreement. "We are pleased that the federal government and residents near the Naval Air Station Oceana and Naval Auxiliary Land Field Fentress have been able to reach an amicable resolution in this matter and avoid further litigation," said Matthew J. McKeown, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environ- ment and Natural Resources Division. "This resolution signals an end to six years of litigation and provides positive results for the citizens as well as the govern- ment " (Continued on p. 75) In This Issue... Minneapolis-St. Paullnt'l ... The MAC and homeowners in a class action lawsuit overthe '� extent ofsound insulation program reacfi atentative settlement agreement but cities of Minneapo- lis, Richfield, and Eagan, who are engaged in similar litigation, are not satisfied with it - p. 74 Oceana Naval.,s'ase ... DOJ, theNavy, andproperty owners agreeto $34.4 million settlement ofclass action suit averrelocation of Navy fighter jets - p. 74 Ft. Lauderdale Kollywood Int'1... Ending almosttwo decades ofdebate, Broward County commissioners vote to extend runway to accommodate larger jets, reduce delay - p. 7S Research ... U.S. and EU announce joint prograrn to speed introduction ofnew air traffic procedures to reduce aviation's environmental footprint-p.'76 News Briefs ... Lochard says its upgraded WebTrak airport noise website opens new lines of communication betweenthe , public and airportnoise offices ... John Wayne Airport is seeking an experienced AirportAccess and Noise Specialist - p. 77 June 22, 2007 class-action litigation, to present a proposal more palatable to them. The judge gave the cities until the first week in July to formulate a proposal but they asked for an extension to that timeframe. On June 21, Judge Aldrich extended the cities' deadline to file their counter proposal until July 23. The judge also issued an order for interim relief for the homeowners, telling the MAC that it needs to gear up now to prepare for the expansion of its residential sound insulation pragram. The judge wants the MAC to start working on hornes in the 64 DNL contour by Feb. l, 2008. John Putnam of the Denver law firm Kaplan Kirsch, who represents the City of Minneapolis and takes the lead among the counsel for all three cities in the case, told ANR that the cities do not agree with either the noise map the MAC wants to use in the proposed settlement to define the 60-64 dB DNL contour (the projected 2007 mitigated noise exposure map) or the method used by the MAC to deter- mine what homes fall within that contour (the "parcel intersect" method, which requires that homes actually be located in the contour as opposed to only being in a neighborhood block located in the contour). The map and process used by the MAC "cuts a fair number of homes out" of the settlement, he explained. He said that the cities are not satisfied with the total amount of money being proposed in the settlement or the amount that each homeowner would be entitled to. "The cities are in the process of putting something together that is a rnore realistic and appropriate settlement," he said. Melissa Scovronski, a spokeswoman for the MAC, told ANR, "Because Judge Aldrich must sign off on any settlement agreement, we expect that he will not make a judgment on the class action settlement between the MAC and the citizens until he has a chance to look at what the cities come back with. The MAC has also sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, per the court's request, requesting FAA approval of the proposed settlement within two months and their opinion on whether it would qualify for AIP [Airport Improvement Program] funds. The court has indicated that it will not approve the settlement without FAA approval," she said. The proposed settlement "builds on the MAC's standing as a world leader in airport noise mitigation," said MAC Chairman Jack Lanners. He said he hoped that city leaders in Minneapolis, Richfield, and Eagan will support the settlement as well. Terms ofProposed Settlement Under the proposed settlement, which was announced on June 1, owners of homes currently without central air conditioning would receive it — including ducting and finishing work — free of charge. In addition, they wouid receive $1,750 for the purchase and installation of noise mitigation products or cash reimbursement for eligibte improvements made within the past five years. Up to $750 of that amount could be applied to the fees for the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit. 75 Owners of homes that already have central air conditioning would receive $9,250 for the purchase and installation of noise mitigation products or cash reimbursement for eligible improvements made within the past five years. Up to $?50 of that amount could be applied to attorneys' fees. As an enticement for the cities to join the settlement agreement, the MAC has agreed to pay a portion of their ]egal fees as well, which it estimates at well over one million dollars. The MAC plans to use federal ATP grants and passenger facility charges or other airport revenue to fund the settle- ment agreement, pending approval by the FAA. "This settlement would bring the MAC's total capital expenditures on noise mitigation over the past 15 years to more than $400 million and bring the total number o£homes receiving noise mitigation to more than 12,000," said MAC Chairman Lanners. "I know of no other airport in the country that has provided that level of per capita noise mitigation: ' Oceana , from p. 74 The class-action lawsuit stems from the relocation of 156 Navy F/A-18 C/D Hornet fighter jets from Cecil Field, FL, to Naval Air Station Oceana between December 1998 and July 1999. Plaintiffs own approximately 2,100 properties and alleged in a group of nine lawsuits filed between Apri12001 and June 2005 that the introduction of the Hornets resulted in a substantial increase in overflights and jet noise. The first of a series of trials was set to being in October 2006 but the parties agreed to postpone trial to pursue settlement. After several month of discussions, including mediation proceedings before Judge Eric Bruggink of the U.S. Court of Federal CIaims, the parties finalized the terms of the settle- ment, DOJ explained. F� Lauderdale-Hollywood Int'l CO�T'�Y CO ISSIOl� A�"PI�6�VE� EXTEI�TSION O�' SC�UTH RTJI�TWAY Ending almost two decades of contentious debate over the expansion ofFt. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, the Broward County Coznmission on a 6 to 3 vote agreed June 7 to extend the airport's south runway, cunently used by smaller planes, to a length of 8,000 feet to accommodate large commercial jet aircraft in an effort to reduce delay at the airport, which serves the fast-growing Florida tourist industry. T'he vote came after almost seven hours of discussion before a raucous crowd of 1,200 people mostly hostile to the expansion and jeering those who supported it. One environ- mental activist was arrested at the meeting and led away in handcuffs by county sheriffs after refusing to leave the microphone when the commissioners declined to extend her two-minute time allowance for speaking. Estimated to cost $695 million, the extension of the south runway will involve bridging both a highway and railroad Airport Noise Report C June 22, 200'7 tracks. $ut the project is expected to reduce delay at the airport from 13 minutes currently to four minutes by 2012, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. Without the runway extension, delays will grow to 26 minutes by 2020, the agency said. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project is due by the end of the year and is likely to be challenged by the cities of Dania Beach and Davie, which located to the south of the airport and wiil take the brunt o the noise impact. In 2002, the cities were sharply critical of an earlier DEIS and supplements to it, which considered a longer extensio are f n of the south runway to 9,000 feet. The county did not move forward on that DEIS after a consultant it hired said the document was flawed. In 2003, the comanissioners agreed to study a shorter extension of the south runway to 8,000 feet . and the DEIS on that project is what they considered in voting to approve it. They rejected other options to extend the south runway to a length of only 6,001 feet, to add a new runway on the north side of the airport, or to add no new runway capacity. The commissioners were concerned about the noise impact that the cities of Dania Beach and Dayie will be subject to and said they do not want the extended south runway to be fully utilized unti12020 when noise mitigation measures are completed. An estirnated 1,200 homes will have to be bought out or soundproofed to mitigate the noise impact of the proposed runway extension, according to Greg Meyer, ( � public information officer for the airport. He said the commission has not yet decided what kind of mitigation program it will adopt but said it could range from complete buyouts or total sound insulation of homes to a combination of both. But he stressed that the commissioners said they will not use eminent domain to acquire any housing. Meyer also said that the commissioners are considering extending their noise mitigation efforts beyond the 65 dB DNL contour but have made no decis3on on the matter yet. One concern, he said, is how to fund such additional noise mitigation efForts. Opponents of the runway extension project assert that a regional approach should be taken in dealing with aircraft delays in south Florida. Traffic should be shifted from Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International to Miama International Airport, which has the capacity to take more traffic, they contend. The extension of the south runway requires that a cross- wind runway, that caused considerable noise impact, be closed. Air Traffic �� ,��,, r. I � � . ;� , � . The European Union and the United States announced June 18 that they wil] work on a research and demonstration program with aviation 9ndustry partners intended to bring on 76 line more quickly new air traffic procedures that are able to reduce aviation's environmentat footprint during all seg- ments ofaircraft flight. However, the agreement does not change the EU's plan to make all airlines that fly into Europe participate in an emissions trading scheme, which the United States contends may break international aviation and trade law. The Atlantic Interoperabiliiy Initiative to Reduce Emis- sions (AIRE) agreed to by the U.S. and EU will provide the framework for Europe and the United States to work with airlines and aircraft manufacturers on several goaIs: • Accelerate development of operational procedures to reduce aviation's environmental footprint for ali phases of flight, beginning at the gate; • Accelerateworld-wideinteroperabilityofenviron- mentally-friendly procedures and standards; � Capitalize on existing technology and best practices and on gateway airports already using advanced technology and best practices; and • Provide a systematic approach to ensure appropri- ate mitigation actions with short, medium, and long-term results. The Federal Aviation Administration said that new air traffic control technologies being developed under its NextGen air traffic control program are now sufficiently mature to support the AIRE Partnership initiatives. AIItE wili include a demonstration flight program to explore the potential environmental benefits of several new air trafiic control technologies and procednres, including (1) Trajec- tory Based Operations (TBO) on the ground designed to minimize fuel burn while moving planes onto runways for departure; (2) Collaborative Oceanic Trajectory Optimization designed to put planes on the most fuel-e�cient routes over the Atlantic; (3 ) Tailored Arrivals, which are low-power, continuous descent approaches designed to reduce fuel burn, emissions, and noise on approach; and (4) global system-wide real-time infoimation management data sharing designed to connect users seamlessly and securely to flight information. Boeing and Airbus will participate in the AIRE Initiative as will severai airlines (De1ta,AirFrance, KLM, SAS, Virgin Atlantic, FedEx, and United Parcel Service) as well as the air navigation services in Ireland, Sweden, and Poriugal. EU Development of Green Ptanes In a related development, the EU announced that it is planning a$2.1 billion public-private partnership calied Clean Sky under which a new generation of more environmentaliy- friendly planes will be developed. The new program will consolidate the European research community in key strategic areas and streamline project funding to bring results earlier. The goal of the program is to � reduce CO2 emissions by around 40 percent, reduce NOx emissions by 60 percent, and reduce noise by SO percent. Technology breakthroughs are hoped for in time for major fleetrenewal in 2015. Airport Noise Report June 22,2007 �I�� ' i ! � � • � I� 1' , Ci•':1 John J. Corbett, Esq. Spiegei & McDiarmid Washington, DC Carl E. Burteson Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, C6azles M. Salter Associates San Francisco Michaei 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, Will & Emery Chicago Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle 77 In Brief ... � Lochard's WebTrak2.0 Advances Techuology Lochard announced June 4 that it has deployed a next generation airport noise website at Long Beach Airport in California "that is the first and only airport community outreach website to display all the information needed by the local cornmunity to investigate airport noise issues." WebTrak 2.0 "combines near real-time and 60 days of past noise, flight tracks, weather, naise invsstigations, and complaint entry into a fun-to-use public websiie," Lochard explained. Long Beach Airport Noise Office Manager Dennis Rambeau said that the upgraded WebTrak 2.0 "is the culmination of two year's worth of work and gives our community an easy option to report a disturbance. It's amazing that once registered, you can long in, fnd the aircraft, click the "Report Corn- plaint" button, and then WebTrak will automatically populate all of the flight details into the complaint form. You then enter the nature of the disturbance and simply click to submit it. That's it! Once subrnitted, the complaini goes directly into our airport's Noise and Operations Monitoring Sytem, and sends a confirmation e-maiL It's very easy to use. I would hope that the increased level of information that WebTrak gives our community will elevate our credibility as a responsible neighbor." Lochard said that iYs WebTrak 2.0 "opens new lines of communication between the public and any airport's noise program, and is a simple add-on to noise monitoring systems: ' The firm said that it will be deploying the new technology at the 130 airports worldwide using Lochard's ANOMS systems and at other airports with other noise systems. "The Long Beach Airport installation of WebTrak 2.0 shows how advanced airport noise websites have become," said Robert Brodecky, vice president of Lochard Americas. "Fully integrating WebTrak with ANOMS monitoring systems means the public and airport staff are now using the same informa- tion." Jolhn Wayne Airport Seeks Noise Specialist John Wayne Airport (SNA), located in Orange County, CA, is seeking an experienced Airport Access & Noise Specialist to perform a critical role in working with a variety of customer groups to interpret and explain the provisions of the Airport's access and noise programs, relafed laws and ordinances, and to monitor the operarion of noise monitoring stations. Requires a minimum of one year of related experience. For a full job description and position requirements, ptease visit the Orange County employment website at http://agency.governmentjobs.com/oc/ default.cfm. Only on-line applications will be accepted. Appiy by July 6, 2007. AIRPDI�T 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@airporinoisereport.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$1.03 per page per copy is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. USA. �s , , � F�$�` fh� c.� I I r� ,x ��.� .. d��'' ,,:.-, W.•r n..J,� t�r r�: µ� f�'.. ,4 , kt . �, 5.�?s: _ c '. r" ! 4 �Y� 1 ;.t� �'+4 9 � cF'� � .i�� .,, �,. Y d :.41:4' A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technologicat developments Volumel9,Number20 June 29, 2007 LegislaPion � i � ' � � ` ' � � - �7 I� !� �� ' � , ► � , , , Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee James Oberstar (D-MN) introduced legislation to reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration on June 27 that includes several significant environmen- tal provisions as well as the mandatory phase out of Stage 1 and 2 business jets (aircraftunder 75,0001b.) within five years. Unlike the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill (5.1300, the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007, introduced on May 3), the House bill would not allow airports to opt out of the phase out requirement for Stage 1 and 2 business jets. Oberstar's bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2881), also would: � Estabiish a pilot program for the development, maturing, and certification of continuous lower energy, emissions, and noise engine and airframe technology; • Establish a program to fund six projects at public-use airports to take promising environmental research concepts into the actuai airport environment to demonstrate the reduction or mitigation of aviation impacts on noise, air quality, or water quality in the airport environment; (Continued on p. 79) .�4IP Naise Grants .. . � .�, �. . .�� . ,! � .� � . .�. .� � � . � .. . � . . , , , , . ,� . On June 27, the Federal Aviation Administration announced Airport Improve- ment Program (AP) grants thatwere awarded between April 26 and June 26. Included were awards to 48 airports for noise mitigation projects: • Adams Field in Little Rock, Arkansas, received a$2.2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, CA, received a$7 million grant for noise rnitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Los Angeles (CA) International Airport received two grants: a$3 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences in the airport's 7�-74 DNL contour in EI Segundo and a$5 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 70-74 DNL contour in Los Angeles County; • Monterey (CA) Peninsula Airport received a$2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences wittain the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Ontario (CA) International Airport received two grants: a$3 miilion grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL confour and a$350,000 grant to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; San Diego (CA) International Airport received a$10 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 70-'i4 DNL contour; (Continued on p. 79) Ii2 7'IZZS .IsSliea .. Legislation ... An FAA reauthorizationbill is approvedby theHouseTransportation and Infrastructure Cammittee. It includes significantenvironrnental provisions and a phase out of Stage 1 and 2 business jets. But the bill includes an amend- mentthatwouldreinstatea 1998 contractwithairtra: includingbackpay. Secretazy ofTransporation Mary Peters warned that Presi- dentBush would veto any FAA reauthorization proposal that alters the e�sting almost-year-old contractwith controllers. ATA says the bill does nothing to solve delay problem; airports applaudihe billbecause it in- creases the cap on PFCs - p. 78 AIP Noise Grants ... FAA announces awards of1�IP' grants to48 airportsfornoisemitigation projects - p. 78 Portland Int'C ... FAA approves most of update to airport's Part 150 airportnoise mitigationprogram-p.80 ' News Sriefs ... FAA officials to speak at NOISE conference ... Nancy Young named first ATA v ice president for enviromental affairs - p. 81 June 29, 2007 79 • Direct FAA. to establish a pilot program at five public-use airports to design, develop, and test new. air traffic flow management technologies to better rnanage the flow of aircraft on the ground to reduce ground holds and idling times for aircraft with the goal of reducing emissions and increasing fuei savings; • Raise the cap on Passenger Facility Charges from $4.50 to $7, which pleased airport trade groups; • Amend the air tour management program over national parks to exempt parks with 50 or fewer commercial air tours per year from the requirement to develop an air tour management plan and allow voluntary agreernents between FAA, the National Park Service, and air tour companies to replace air tour management plans at ail national parks; • Allow airport funding or FAA grants to be used to support special studies or reviews to support approved Part 150 airport noise compatibility programs; and • Extend until Sept. 30, 201 l, a program under which state and local governments can apply for Airport Improve- ment Program (AIP) grants to fund land use compatibility projects; CleenEngineand AirframeTechnoiogy Section 505 ofthe House bill would direct the FAA administrator to enter into a cooperative agreement, using a competitive process, with an "institution, entity, or consor- tium" to carry out a program for the development, maturing, and certification of CLEEN engine and airframe technology for aircraft over the next 10 years. The program would be funded at a level of $6 million in fiscal 2008; $22 million in fisca12009; $33 million in fiscal 2010, and $50 million in fiscal 2011. The bill would establish performance objectives for the CLEENprogram: • Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by increasing aircraft fuel efficiency by 25 percent relative to 19971evels; • Development of certifiable engine technology that reduces landing and takeoff cycle nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent, without increasing other gaseous or particle emissions, overthe International Civil Aviation Organiza- tion standard adopted in 2004; • Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 10 dB at each of the three certifica- tion points relative to 2007 subsonic jet aircraft teehnology; � Determination of the feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful demonstration and quantification of the benefits of such fuels; and • Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may be used to retrofit or re- engine aircraft to inerease the integration of retrofitted and re-engined aircraft into the commercial fleet. The Senate bill includes similar goals. Differences between the House and Senate biils to reauthorize the FAA program will be reconciled in a House-Senate conference to be held later this summer. The text of H.R. 2881 is available at the Library of Congress web site at: http://thomas.loc.gov. Write in bill number under heading "Search Bill Text" in center column of page. Grants, from p. 78 • Norman Mineta San Jose (CA) International Airport received a$6 million grant for noise mitigation rneasures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Santa Barbara (CA) Municipal Airport received a $665,000 grant to install a noise monitoring system; • Lake Tahoe (CA) Airport received a$150,000 grant to install a noise monitoring system; � Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, CT, received a$400,000 grantto install a noise monitoring system; • Orlando (FL) International Airport received a $845,597 grant for noise mitigation measures for public school sound insulation; � Guam International Airport in Agana, Guam, received a$2 millian grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Chicago (IL) Midway International Airport received two grants: a$3 million grant for noise mitigation measures for public buildings and $5,730,000 grant for noise mitigation measures for public buiidings; • Chicago (IL) O'HareInternational Airportreceived three grants: a$3 million grant far noise mitigation measures forpublic buildings and an $18 million grant and a$2,256,928 grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Indianapolis (IN) International Airport received a 400,000 grant to condu�t a noise compatibility plan study; • Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Covington, KY, received a$1,398,193 grant to acquire land for noise compatibility within the airport's 70-?4 DNL contour; • Westover Air Reserve Base in Springfield/Chicopee, MA, received a$2.5 million grant to acquire land for noise compatibility within the airport's 70-74 DNL contour; • Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Detroit, MI, received a$5,168,808 grant for noise mitigation raeasures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; Willow Run Airpart in Detroit, MI, received a $163,463 grant to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; • Gulfport-BiloxiInternationalAirportinGulfport,MS, received a$S million grant to acquire land for noise compat- ibility within the 75 DNL contour �phase 2 noise land acquisition) and for noise mitigation measures for residences witkin the 65-69 DNL contour (phase 3 home insulation program); � Manchester(NH)Airportreceiveda$2.Smillion grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Pease International Tradeport in Portsmouth, NH, Airport Noise Report � C Jane 29, 2A07 received a$500,000 grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the airport's 65-69 DNL contour; • Newark (N� Liberty International Airport received a $11,884,519 grant for noise mitigation measures for an elementary school in Kearny, NJ; • Teterboro (N.n Airportreceived a $3,40Q,000 grant to soundproof a school; � RenolTahoe International Airport in Reno, NV, received a$2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; • Buffalo/NiagaraInternationalAirportinBuffalo, NY, received a$6,580,000 grant for noise mitigation measures for public buiidings and for residences within the 70-74 DNL contour; John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York received a$13,733,232 grant for school soundproofing; • LaGuardiaAirportinNewYorkrecaivedthree grants of $3,975,290, $2,069,519, and $1,574,3 S8 for school soundproofing; • Syracuse Hancock Internationai Airport in Syra- cuse, NY, received a$47,500 grant to conduct a noise compatibility plan study (noise exposure map updaie); • Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Cleve- land, OH, received a$3.3 rnillion grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour and within the 70-74 DNL contour; • Ohio State University Airport in Columbus, �H, received a$500,000 grant to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; • James M. Cox Dayton International Airport in Dayton, OH, received a$750,000 grant to acquire land for noise compatibility within the 70-74 DNL contour; • Tulsa (OK) International Airport received a $6,930,000 grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; • Lehigh Valley Internationai Airport in Ailentown, PA, received a$3 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; Harrisburg {PA) International Airport received a $700,000 grant to acquire land for noise compatibility within the 65-69 DNL contour (appzaisais and environmental); • Philadelphia (PA) International Airport received a $2.A million grant for noise mitigation measures for resi- dences within the 65-69 DNL contour; � T.F. Green State Airport in Providence, RI, received a$10 million grant to acquire land for noise compatibility within the'70-74 DNL contour; • Columbia (SC) Metropolitan Airport received a$3 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65•69 DNL contour; • Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Austin, T'X, received a$5 million grant to acquire iand for noise cornpatib9lity within the 65-69 DNL contour; • George Bush Intereont9nental Airport in Houston, TX, received a$6.5 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; Laredo (TX) International Airport received a 80 $6,513,444 grant for noise mi#igation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour and other non-noise projects; San Antonio (TX) International Airport received a $6,094,446 grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; • Roanoke (VA) Regional Airport received a$2 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 65-69 DNL contour; • Winchester (VA) Regional Airport received a $380,000 grant to acquire land �or noise compatibility within the b5-69 DNL cantour; • Burlington (VT) International Airport received two grants: a$1 million grant to acquire land for noise compatibil- ity within the 75 DNL contour and a$133,000 grant to conduct a noise compatibility plan study; • Boeing Field/King County International Airport in Seattle, WA, received a$5 million grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 70-74 DNL contour; • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Seattle, WA, received three grants: a$2,131,866 grant for noise mitigation measures for residences within the 70-74 DNL contour, a$7,�48,855 grant to acquire land for noise compat- ibility within the 70-�4 DNL contour, and a$1,747,834 grant for noise mitigation measures for public buildings; • JacksonHole(WY)Airportreceiveda$500,000 grant to install a noise monitoring system. Portla�d Int'l � . . �� , .� ;� � � .i ' � . I \ � _ ` : � ; •, 1l_I On June 25, the Federal Aviation Administration an- nounced its overall approval of the Part 150 Airport Noise Mitigation Program for Portland, Oregon, International Airport. The agency granted outright approval for 24 specific program elements; said no action was required on a proposal to reduce the use of reverse thrust on landing; and disap- proved two program elements: a proposal to soundproof floating homes and a proposal to explore the use of quiet technology for propeller retrofits. T'he FAA said it was not aware of any published studies on the feasibility of sound attenuating flaating homes and that Part 150 is not intended as a means to undertake new research. It used the same reason for not approving the exploration ofpropeller retrofits. T'he agency said that the Port of Portland removed from consideration two program elements: investigation of possible solutions to reduce noise exposure for residents of mobile homes and noise disclosures for prospective purchasers at or above the 55 DNL noise contour. The FAA's Reeord of Approval of the Part I 50 program will be available on-line athttp://www.faa.gov/arp/environmen- tal/14cfr150/indexl4.cfm. The FAA announcement did not discuss the program elements that were approved in the third update to the Airport Noise Report June 29, 2007 , � � ,�� , .� �• ;�.•� John 3. Corbett, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, DC Cart E. Burleson Director, O�ce of Environment and Energy Federat Aviation Administration John C. Freytag, P.E. Director, Chazles M. Satter Associates San Francisco Michael Scott Gatzke, Esq. Cmtzke, Dillon & Baltance Carlsbad, CA Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Denver Vincent E. Mestre, P.E. President, Mestre Greve Associates Laguna Niguel, CA Stcven F. Pflaum, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery Chicago Mary L. Vigilante President, Synergy Consultants Seattle airport's noise mitigation program but they were addressed in an earli�r ANR. report(19 ANR26). In Brief ... N.O.I.S.E. Conference Two key Federal Aviation Administration o�cials will speak at the annual conference of the Nationat Organization to Insure a Sound-controiled Environment (NOISE), which will be held on June 26 in College Park, GA, near Atianta. - Lynne Pickard, senior advisor on environmental policy in the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy, will be a keynote speaker on new environmental programs proposed in legislation to reauthorize the programs of the FAA currently being considered by Congress. She will provide and up-to-the- minute report on the status of the bilis. Ashraf Jan, of the FAA Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports/ Community Environmental Needs Division, will update attendees on land use planning and other FAA programs to heIp communities and airports manage and plan for growth in aviation traffia Registration for the conference can be done on-line at www.a�iation- noise.org. ATANames New VP for Environmental Affairs The Air Transport Association announced June 25 that Nancy N. Young will be rejoining ATA in the newly created position of vice president, environmentat affairs, effective July 9. She will lead the airline industry's expanding environmental activities, ATA ��' said. "Environmentai affairs is one of the top priorities for the airline industry and Nancy Young is the top talent in this arena," said ATA President and CEO James C. May. Young first joined ATA, covering enyironmental programs as assistant general counsel in 2000. She became an ATA officer in 2004, serving as associate general caunsel, environment and international programs. "She has broad experience in environmental law and litigation, coming frorn the prominent law firm ofBeveridge & Diamond, P.C. as shareholder/partner," ATA said. Among other things, Ms. Young has served for several years on key working groups ofthe International Civil AviaEion Organization's environ- ment commitGee and recentiy co-chaired Beveridge & Diamond's climate change practice. She received a juris doctor degree, cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1990. AIRPORT NOISE REPORT Anne ET. Kohut, Publisher Published 44times ayearat 43978 UrbancrestCt., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528. e-mail: editor@airportnoisereport.com; Price $850. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal u�e, 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..