03-10-2010 ARC Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
Col
7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
March 10, 2010 — City Hall Council Chambers
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes from the February 10, 2010 Airport Relations Commission
Meeting
Unfinished and New Business
a. Open Meeting Law/Data Practices
b. Rules of Order
C. Review MSP Long Term Comp. Plan — Comments from other Communities
d. Merland Otto — Minneapolis Staff Perspectives
e. Updates for Introduction Book
Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. January 2010 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
b. January 2010 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
C. January 2010 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report
d. Airport Noise Report, February 5, 2010
C. Airport Noise Report, February 12, 2010
f. Airport Noise Report, February 19, 2010
g. Airport Noise Report, February 26, 2010
Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns
Upcoming Meetings
MAC Meeting
City Council Meeting
NOC Meeting
Planning Commission
8. Public Comments
9. Adjourn
3-15-10 1:00 p.m.
3-16-10 7:00 p.m.
3-17-10 1:30 p.m.
3-23-10 7:00 p.m.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than
120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be
possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2010
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota
Heights, Minnesota.
The following Commissioners were present: Liz Petschel, Chair; Robin Ehrlich, Vice
Chair; Sally Lorberbaum and David Sloan.
Also present were: City Administrator, David McKnight, Assistant to the City
Administrator, Jake Sedlacek.
Not Present: Joe Hennessy, Lyle Odland and Bill Dunn.
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Lorberbaum, seconded by Commission Ehrlich, to
approve the minutes of the January 13, 2010, ARC meeting. It was unanimously
approved.
Unfinished and New Business
A. Election of Chair/Vice Chair
A motion was made by Commissioner Lorberbaum, seconded by Commissioner Sloan, to
nominate Liz Petschel as Chair and Robin Ehrlich as Vice Chair of the ARC. There
being no additional nominations, Commissioners Petschel and Ehrlich were elected as
chair and vice chair on a 4-0 vote.
B. Rules of Order
Members discussed the proposed Rules of Order and made changes to sections 1.1, 1.6,
2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. This item will be brought back to the ARC at the March 2010
meeting. All commissioners expressed concern and the importance of attending the ARC
meetings.
C. NOC Meeting Update
Chair Petschel updated the commission on the January 2010 NOC meeting.
2009 had 430,000 operations, which was the same as 1992. The new noise
footprint was distributed and it was stunning to most cities. The plan is
Commission Meeting —February 10, 2010
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
looking out into 2030. The long term plan will be updated in five years and
should be a better estimate of future footprints.
Commission members shared comments they have received about reasons for
the footprint expansion including software accuracy, increased operations and
a more even distribution of flights.
The bulk of the public meeting dealt with the response to Mendota Heights
letter of concern dated December 14, 2009. 12L use, regional jets and budgets
were the answers provided to the question of increased noise over Mendota
Heights. There is no reason for flights over Mendota Heights if weather is
good between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Crossing in the corridor should be
used to address this issue according to Carl Rydeen.
A presentation was given on the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The
transportation impact of the LTCP was discussed. Use of 17 will increase
30% (volume). The fleet mix future message has not been consistent.
The issue of a third parallel runway was discussed. The cost and physical
change required to build this runway would be tremendous. This issue will be
addressed again in five years by MAC.
D. Long Term Comprehensive Plan Letter
Jake reviewed a draft letter to be sent in regards to the Long Term Comprehensive
Plan. Commissioner Lorberbaum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sloan,
to recommend that the City Council approve sending this letter to the MAC. The
motion was unanimously approved.
E. Updates for Introduction Book
Acknowledged.
Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence
a. December 2009 ANOM Technical Advisor's Report
b. December 2009 ANOM Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor
Analysis
C. December 2009 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report
d. Airport Noise Annual Index -Summary
e. Airport Noise Report, January 22, 2010
f. Airport Noise Report, January 29, 2010
Acknowledged.
2
Commission Meeting—February 10, 2010
Mendota Heights Airport'Relations Commission
Other Commission Comments or Concerns
F. September Meeting Date
The regular September meeting date falls on Rosh Hashanah. The ARC will request
that the City Council change the meeting date to Wednesday, September 15, 2010.
Upcoming Meetings
® City Council Meeting 2-16-10 7:00 p.m.
® Planning Commission Meeting 2-23-10 7:00 p.m.
Public Comments
None.
Adjourn
Chair Petschel made a motion adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McKnight
City Administrator
3
CITY OF MWNDOTA HEIGHTS
6 Al ,a ,-� - =' 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
BATE: February 17, 2010
TO: Members of the planning Commission, Airport Relations Commission and Parks
and Recreation Commission
FROM: David McKnight, City Administrator!
CC: Mendota Heights City Council
SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act
DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act are two laws in Minnesota that apply to local
government organizations and their members. It has been recommended to city staff that we
provide a brief overview of these two issues to all of our commissions on an annual basis. This
information may be a review for some of you and new information to others.
The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to prohibit actions being taken at secret meetings where
the public is unable to become informed about decisions of the public body or to detect improper
influences and to assure the public's right to be informed. The Open Meeting Law applies to all
meetings of the public body and meetings of its committees and subcommittees.
At your meeting we will discuss the following issues:
® Meeting Definition
m Serial Meetings
® Social Gatherings
® Electronic Communications
Penalties
I have attached a copy a Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust Resource Briefing on this topic that
I have found very useful. It deals with a lot of issues that we as staff deal with on this issue but
also gives you plenty of information on this topic.
The Data Practices Act regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination
and access to government data. The public policy behind the Data Practices Act is to provide the
public with access to data that is the basis for, and the product of, governmental decisions.
Government data is presumed to be accessible by the public for inspection and copying unless
they fall within an exception to the Data Practices Act created by state or federal law. While the
work. you perform on the city commissions deals almost exclusively with public data it is
important to remember that this would include such data as emails you send to each other about
city business, notes you make on your meeting packet and other "data" that we sometimes forget
about.
These two topics are laws that we all have to abide by in our work for the city. It is a good idea
to review these two issues on an annual basis.
ACTION REQUIRED
Listen to the presentation on these two topics and ask any questions you might have.
Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust
Revised
alfvA, - 7 d
neo' Open
e§aeT€ Chapter
r Ii
As interest and involvement in public policy grows, individuals in government must have a solid understanding of the
requirements of the Open Meeting Law. Whenever members of a public body come together to conduct business,
constituents, the media and special interest groups must be provided with an opportunity to observe and comment
on the issues and the actions of their representatives.
It was in this spirit that the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law in 1957. Since its adoption, the
law has evolved through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments. The purpose of the law is to:
9 Prohibit actions being taken at secret meetings where the public is unable to become informed about
decisions of the public body OR to detect improper influences; and
Assure the public's right to be informed.
This Resource Briefing will examine aspects of the law that expose public entities to risk, specifically, it will address
who is subject to the law, notice requirements, exceptions, the relationship with the Minnesota Data Government
Data Practices Act and new technologies, procedural issues and the penalties which may be imposed for
violations.
The Open Meeting Law applies to all meetings of the public body and, in general, meetings of its committees and
subcommittees.
The gathering of a quorum (a majority of the members of the public body) constitutes a meeting if "members discuss,
decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of the governing body."
Committees and Subcommittees of the Board: The law applies to these bodies if they possess decision making
authority on behalf of the board. Decision making authority is presumed if:
9 Members of the committee comprise a quorum of the governing body; or
➢ The governing body has delegated its power to the (sub) committee.
Serial Meetings: Public bodies that orchestrate serial meetings of less than a quorum to avoid the open meeting
requirements or to fashion an agreement in advance, may be found to have violated the law depending on the
circumstances.
Communication Between Board Members: The law does not apply to telephone conversations, e-mail or
letters between less than a quorum of the public body unless such communication was used to circumvent the
open meeting law requirements. Such communication can be used to have discussions and build consensus
outside of a public meeting. Like serial meetings, when used to avoid the open meeting requirements, these
communications may be found to have violated the law. i
No open meeting violation occurs when mail — e-mail or regular mail — is used to distribute materials to board
members. A problem or violation occurs when the board members respond to the information and begin a
discussion of the materials. Board members are cautioned against communicating on matters that may come
before the Board.
Social Gatherings: The law does not apply to a quorum of the governing body that comes together by chance at
a social gathering so long as the group does not use the setting for purposes of conducting official business.
Informational Gatherings: The law applies to informational gatherings such as retreats, executive sessions, public
hearings or work sessions
`I AEETItN`GT_REQ.w TIRE
The Open Meeting Law is intended to preserve the rights of the public to observe and comment on actions and
decisions being taken by its representatives. To satisfy this burden, the public must be informed as to the time and
place of open meetings. Although the responsibility to ensure that meetings are properly noticed lies with the
public body, this operational activity is typically carried out by the individual that functions as the Clerk to the Board.
The public body is also required to maintain a record of all votes taken at open meetings. This record must be
maintained in a journal and should identify the issues considered by the public body. The law requires the journal l
be open and available for inspection by the public:
The four kinds of meetings subject to varying notice requirements include
1. Regular meetings
2. Special meetings
3. Emergency meetings
4. Recessed or continued meetings
j
REQU'IRE�` `EN��Sc� •� ��
Regular meetings are meetings conducted routinely or on a prescribed schedule
Notice Requirements: A schedule of the regular meetings of the board must include times and locations and must
be kept on file at its primary office. If a meeting is to be held at a time or location inconsistent with the schedule,
notice of the changes must be made in the same manner as a special meeting.
:. Special meetings are not -conducted as part of the normal routine, but planned far enough in advance to be
scheduled.
Notice Requirements: Written notice must be posted with the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting /
on the principal bulletin board, or on the door of its usual meeting room. The principal bulletin board must be \
located in a place which is reasonably accessible to the public.
DD n t
.:.,. Jr..._..._a._:.,4. .. w._.:�x. ..k. >c.r}, �. � �, as^.s � ":.7•+t�i.�`.L+�.. �. ri_.. 73 '�! r'" rSj ti .r+r:'{ ..,.; �5,.�"F ��[7 �4'.. .rl i �£}�iF.3 � � �' rE tG� i i+r. }ai? .S7f 'G c ., + � �. :
/- The notice must be mailed Vrotherwise delivered of least three days (72 hours) before the meeting to each person
\ /
who has filed o written request for notice of special meetings. As on alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering
the notice, the public body may publish notice in the official newspaper three days prior to the special meeting.
Emergency meetings are called because of circumstances that, in the public body's judgment, require immediate
Notice Requirements: Good faith efforts must be made to provide notice to all news media that have filed a
written request for nnhoa of special meetings. The notice nnod include the dote, time, place and an explanation
u[the subject matter ofthe meeting. Notice must also begiven b"telephone orother reasonable method tu
members ofthe public body. -
Recessed or continued meetings are those meetings that are a continuation of a previous meeting.
Notice Requirements: No notice is required so long as the time and place of the meeting was established
during the previous meeting and recorded in the meeting minutes.
When in doubt whether a committee or subcommittee meeting of the governing body is subject to the
Open Meeting Law notice the meeting and conduct it in public.
-
The legislature has identified six valid reasons for conducting business in a closed session:
l. Labor negotiations
2. Preliminary consideration of charges against on employee
3. Performance evaluations
4. Attorney-client privilege
5. Preliminary considerations of purchase or sale of real or personal property; to review confidential or
nonpublic appraisal data
6. To receive security briefings and reports; todiscuss issues related 10security and emergency response
procedures
-
Labor negotiations may be closed to discuss strategy for labor negotiations and review labor negotiated
closeRequirements: A majority vote of the members of the board is required to the
roll must be taken of the members and other persons present at the closed meeting and must be made
available to the public following the meeting. While these meetings can be closed, the time and place
of the meeting must be announced in an open session. Meetings closed for labor negotiations must be
tape-recorded. The tapes are to be retained for two years after the contract is signed. The tapes are
_.
Preliminary consideration of charges against on employee must be closed unless the employee requests that
/ '\
the meeting remain open. The purpose for closing the meeting is to safeguard information or materials that may
Requirements: One or more meeting(s) may be closed while the body is considering whether
disciplinary action is warranted. Once a conclusion is reached, the discussion must be conducted in
public.
The employee does not participate in the closed meeting unless the:
➢ purpose of attendance is to respond to charges against him or her
9 the employee requests the meeting be open/public.
The employee should be given advance notice of the existence and nature of the charges so they can
make an informed decision on whether to request that the meeting be open.
Public entity employees must be given an opportunity to explain/defend their actions when termination
is being considered. This "due process" is referred to as a Loudermill hearing. Typically, this informal
hearing is conducted by the employer's human resource professional, coordinator/administrator
or county attorney. When the governing body becomes involved in the discharge of an employee a
closed meeting that allows an employee to respond to charges against them may satisfy due process
requirements for those employees that have a property or liberty interest in their job. A property interest
exists when a contract, personnel policy, union agreement includes a "for cause" provision for discipline
or the employee is a veteran pursuant to the Veteran's Preference Law. A liberty interest exists when the
action of the employer may impact the employee's good name and reputation.
Performance evaluation may be closed to the public unless the employee being evaluated requests to be
evaluated in public. In this case, it must be open.
Requirements: Prior to closing the meeting the body must identify the employee to be evaluated. At its
next open meeting, the body must summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.
Advance notice to the employee being evaluated should be given so that the employee can make an
informed decision on whether to request that the meeting be open.
Attorney-client privilege allows a meeting to be closed, if the meeting with counsel is to discuss pending or
threatened litigation against the public body. The meeting may not be closed to seek general legal advice or
discuss litigation they assume may occur or that is threatened.
Requirement: Prior to closing the meeting, the body must indicate that the meeting is being closed
under attorney-client privilege to discuss litigation and must provide a specific description of the subject
to be discussed. To satisfy the requirement for a specific description, the public body should state the
nature of the pending claim, e.g. "to discuss the pending EEOC charge filed against the county, "or to
"discuss a grievance filed in the social services department against the county."
The body should also describe how a balancing of the purposes of the attorney-client privilege against
the purposes of the open meeting law demonstrates the need for absolute confidentiality. An attorney
must participate in the meeting.
�( i 4 fr 7: "S3 . i r
Pagefd�! H x RL R t1 i lci 2yY }f; is t r _ k5r
t
1.J r..k _ �.. x.._.-� 'i,.
A preliminary consideration for purchase and sale of property u(|nws for public body to clone o meeting to:
> determine the asking pho* for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity and strategy
relating tothat sale;
> review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data under Minn. Stat. S13.44 [3) and
> develop orconsider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property and
strategy relating tothat sale or purchase.
Requirements: Before holding a closed meeting under this provision the public body must identify, on
the record, the particular real or personal property that is the subject of the meeting. The proceedings
of the meeting must be tape recorded at the expense of the public body. The particular property
must be described on the tape. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the
meeting and be available to the public after all real or personal property discussed at that meeting has
been purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. When an action
is brought claiming that public business, other than discussions allowed under this paragraph, was
transacted at a closed meeting held pursuant to this paragraph during the time when the tape is not
available to the public, the provisions of Minn. Stat. §1 3D.03(3) shall be applicable. Said provisions
establish a procedure for a court to review the recording to determine if a violation of the open
meeting low has occurred. When the court finds a violation has occurred the recording can be used in
the trial.
Security briefings and emergency response procedures provides that meetings may baclosed toreceive
security briefings and reports, to discuss issues nulohad tosecurity systems, to discuss emergency response
procedures and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure
and facilities, if disclosure of the information discussed would pose o danger to public safety or compromise
security procedures orresponses.
Requirements: Financial considerations including decisions regarding the use of public funds related
to security matters must occur at an open meeting. The meeting can be closed however, the motion
closing the meeting under this provision must describe the subject to be discussed and refer to the
facilities, systems, procedures, services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting.
A closed meeting must be tape recorded at the expense of the governing body. The recording must be
preserved for at least four years.
The Chairperson of the Board should state, in open session, the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be
closed. If the board is not in session, it may be necessary to convene o special meeting that will require special
notification.
)> Describe the subject to be discussed.
> Withhold, from the public, materials discu..ssed in the closed session.
> Ensure the minutes of the meeting simply state that o closed meeting was held and the shzhutory reason for
closing the meeting.
mom
Sample Resolution and Minutes:
Motion by Board Member X, seconded by Board Member Y to close the meeting of the public body to
discuss possible charges against an employee. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Board Member X, seconded by Board Member Y to close the meeting to conduct a
performance evaluation of the county engineer. Motion carried unanimously.
At the next meeting the minutes must reflect the conclusion of the board such as:
The public body has completed the performance evaluation of the county engineer and finds his/her
performance satisfactory. The meeting was closed under Minn. Stat. £13D.05 subd. 3.
DI'STRIBUTI�C?N�.OF� f �' T_ �c
The public must have access to materials distributed to the governing body for consideration during their meeting.
To satisfy this requirement, the public body must make available for inspection in the meeting room at least one
(1) copy of the agenda and other written materials which are:
➢ Distributed to all board members at the meeting;
➢ Distributed to all board members before the meeting; or
➢ Available in the meeting to board members.
The public body can provide additional copies available for the public at the meeting and distribute the materials
in advance of the meeting. The public body can only distribute materials classified as public pursuant to the
Minnesota Data Practices Act.
DISLGUSS'ING PRIV�'r�T
With increased awareness regarding risks associated with the release of private or confidential information there
may be an inclination to close the meeting whenever this data may be discussed. Meetings cannot be closed
simply because private or confidential data will be discussed. The law provides that any part of a meeting must
be closed if the following data is to be discussed:
➢ Data identifying alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment
of minor or vulnerable adults.
9 Active investigation data as defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, or internal affairs
data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel.
➢ Educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data, or mental health data that are not public
under the MGDPA.
(,. 4.i, fiYx _s .F',xi) A. ._ _. w.M1��'L .� 3 N+4 v �.'�i it'iS � ; r.� i., Suruit•U , :. SY z..�!+.7 JF.i 4r
If the meeting is not required to be closed, private data may be discussed in public without liability or penalty
when the disclosure related to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary
to conduct business.
ME�EYTII "- GS RBYIIN�'TEa �R�o►. �i
The law authorizes meetings of public bodies by interactive television as long as the following criteria are met:
➢ All members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see
one another as well as hear and see all discussion occurring at any location at which at least one member
is present,
9 Members of the public present at the regular meeting location can hear and see all discussions, testimony
and votes of the public body; and
9 At least one member of the public body is physically present at the regular meeting location.
➢ Each location at which a member of the public body is present is open and accessible to the public.
To comply with the Open Meeting Taw each member of the governing body choosing to participate in a
meeting via interactive television is considered present for purposes of defining a quorum and participating in
all proceedings. Tfie public body must allow the public to monitor the meeting from a remote location with or
without the presence of a member of the body (and may charge a fee for the additional costs if it can document
the charge as a result of the connection.) The public body must provide notice of the location of the regular
meeting AND notice of any site from which a member of the body will participate.
When a court finds a member of the public body violated the Open Meeting Law with specific intent to do so, the
member may be fined up'to $300 for each violation. The public body cannot indemnify the member for these
penalties.
When the member has been found to have intentionally violated the law three or more separate and unrelated
times he/she may be removed from office.
Note: This provision of the law is under consideration by the courts at the time of this publication's release
(Kenneth Brown and Robert Banks v. Cannon Falls Township, et al, on appeal with the Minnesota Court of
Appeals from Goodhue County District Court. The amended district court order appealed is dated November 23,
2005).
The court may order the member to pay costs and attorney's fees, up to $13,000, to the claimant. Unlike the
penalty, the public body may choose to indemnify the member for these expenses. MCIT excludes coverage for
Open Meeting Violation penarfies.
} For more information on the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, contact the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust at (651) 209-
6400 or Toll Free at (866) 547-6516.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL OR COVERAGE ADVICE ON ANY SPECIFIC MATTER.
it Y 's: PrKcr e '4 u P MIN. '^.�: n;J y�A'•R.w 3^s^L,
Fat;�z' z 'rxr
aut'�^.'b�q.,'` x,a_rgni�sa.;'G''iv`�:5 .Nh�.vx�.'.itir��a`t.>^i�vti7:;�.ani.aw''st'4'..#.,r,%','`'iv5.'� `�'�,'',.N,a:k�:�ss., ::rrr•t_G.. 8a. 5.•.rorac�• s;t'iv.usl�:s..c.71'J�..CS»...
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
sit .
MEMO
DATE: March 10, 2010
TO: Airport Relations Commissioners
FROM: Jake Sedlaceh, Assistant to the City Administratoe--�'11;
SUBJECT: Rules of Order
Discussion
Last month the Airport Relations Commission discussed a draft set of Rules of Order. Staff has
made changes as discussed at the last ARC meeting, and provided the updated Rules of Order.
Action Required
If Airport Relations Commission wishes to adopt formal Rules of Order, pass a motion adopting
Mendota Heights Airport Relations Cormnission Rules of Order, malting any changes the
commission deems necessary. This action requires a simple majority vote.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
RULES OF ORDER
In accordance with the City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 290, "Establishing An Airport
Relations Commission:, the following rules of order are adopted by the Airport Relations
Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a
Commission created by the City Council.
SECTION 1. MEETING
1_1 — Time. Regular meetings of the Commission are held on the second Wednesday
of each month at 7:00 P.M., unless otherwise agreed to and so stated in the agenda.
When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there is no meeting that month
unless otherwise noted.
1.22 - Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or
the Secretary.
1_3 — Place. Meetings are held in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101
Victoria Curve.
1_4 — Public. All meetings and hearings, and all records and minutes are open to
the public.
1_5 — Quorum. Four Airport Relations Commission members, at the beginning of the
meeting, constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
When a quorum is not present, the Chairperson may adjourn the meeting for the
purpose of hearing interested parties on items on the agenda. No final or official
action is taken at such a meeting. However, the facts and information gathered at such
a meeting may be taken as a basis for action at a subsequent meeting at which a
quorum is present.
1_6 — Vote. Voting is by voice. Commission members voice votes on each issue are
recorded. In the event that any member shall have a financial interest in a matter than
before the Commission, the member shall disclose the interest and refrain from voting
upon the matter, and the secretary shall so record in the minutes that no vote was cast
by such member.
SECTION 2. ORGANIZATION
2.1 — Membership. The number of members of the Airports Relations Commission is
established by the City Council. Appointments are made by the Mayor and approved
- by the City Council.
Rules of Order -Mendota Heights Aiport Relations Commission, March 10, 2010
2.2 — Absenteeism. A Commission member with three consecutive unexcused
absences is dropped from the Commission and the secretary then informs the City
Council so that another appointment is made.
An absence is excused if the member notifies the secretary or Chairperson before 4:00
P.M. of the day of the meeting that the member will be unable to attend. Minutes of
the meetings will record whether the absent member was excused or not excused.
2.3 — Election of Officers. At the February meeting each year, the Commission elects
from its membership a Chairperson and a Vice -Chairperson.
If the Chairperson retires from the Cormnission before the next organizational
meeting, the Vice -Chairperson becomes Chairperson. If both Chairperson and Vice -
Chairperson retire, new officers are elected at the next meeting.
If both Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson are absent from a meeting, the Commission
elects a temporary Chairperson by voice vote.
The Secretary to the Planning Commission is appointed by the City Administrator
from the City Staff.
2.4 — Tenure of Officers. The Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson take office
immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are elected
and assume office.
2.5 — Duties of Officers. The Chairperson, or if absent, the Vice -Chairperson presides
at meetings, appoints committees and performs other duties as may be ordered by the
Commission.
The Chairperson conducts meetings so as to keep them moving as rapidly and
efficiently as possible and reminds members, witnesses and petitioners to discuss only
the subject at hand.
The Chairperson is a voting member of the Commission.
The secretary is responsible for recording the minutes, keeping records of Commission
actions, conveying Commission recommendations to the City Council and providing
general administrative and clerical service to the Commission.
SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS
3.1 — Public Comment. The ARC does not hold public hearings, but may from time to
time have public comment.
a. Items not previously. scheduled on the agenda may be heard prior to business
section of the meeting.
Rules of Order — Mendota Heights Aiport Relations Commission, March 10, 2010
3 2 — Amendments or Suspension. These By-laws may be amended or suspended with
the approval by voice vote by a majority (four) of the members of the Commission.
3.3 — Adoption. These By-laws were duly adopted by the Airport Relations
Commission of the City of Mendota Heights on this 10th day of March, 2010.
Raffles of Order — Mendota Heights Aiport Relations Commission, March 10, 2010
February 16, 2010
Jenn Felger
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28'x' Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Felger:
C of _
0) ? !
Thank you for the chance to review and comment on the Draft MSP 2030 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). The City of Mendota Heights recognizes MSP as a significant
contributor to the economic viability of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. As a
commuuiity adjacent to the airport, we support these planning efforts as a means for us to better
oversee land use and development within our own borders.
The City of Mendota Heights has the following comments regarding the Draft LTCP:
Planning 1'or Capacity:
The LTCP forecasts operations up to 98.5% of estimated airfield capacity. Airport planning
guidelines suggest that planning for an additional runway or supplemental airport should occur
when an airport reaches 60-75% of capacity. The City of Mendota Heights requests that the
LTCP include some framework for what the ongoing process for capacity planning would look
like.
The City of Mendota Heights questions investing up to $2.4 Billion (on top of $3 Billion
invested in the 2010 program) as the best use of resources. At best, the outcome can only be an
airport functioning at full capacity with no plan or vision to address the congestion this will
create.
Noise Contours:
`I'he City oMendota Heights is in compliance with recommendations for local governs
f nt
-found in Chapter 6: Land Use Compatibility. The City relies upon accurate noise contour
information to make land use decisions.
The noise contour presented at the January 20, 2010 Noise Oversight Committee meeting shows
significant changes from the current noise contour. We regret the fact that this contour was not
presented at the MAC presentation to our City Council. The City of Mendota Heights
encourages the regular and accurate review of the noise contours.
Regional Impact:
The LTCP does not address regional impacts upon infrastructure. The plan forecasts increases in
( } airport usage. but makes no mention of traffic volumes for roadways in and out of the airport.
1101 ` Aa;Ita iroa Curve Mendota He5ghts, RN 55118 ° (651) 432-ILBSO FAX
The City of Mendota Heights requests that current and forecasted traffic volumes on roadways
be included in the plan.
Third Parallel Runway:
The City of Mendota Heights would like to, take this opportunity to restate our strong opposition
to any consideration of a third parallel runway at MSP Airport. Our community has been guided
and developed around the current configuration of the airport. A third parallel runway would be
in direct conflict to the long held and well established vision of this community.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter, please contact David McKnight, City
Administrator at (651) 452-1850 with questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Iu.b6r
f: Mayh�'
Copy: Senator James Metzen
Representative Rick Hansen
John McDonald, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Richard Aguilar, Metropolitan Council �.
gffl
'
- '
-` -
-
\
`
���nx Manager'sOffice
~°^�v �
^- ~
lilt'
February IS, 201O
MAC Planning & Environment
Mmxzx
Attn: Ms. JenOFe\ge[
oEBB|sG0oTEL
O04O28thAvenue South
Minneapolis, MN. 55450
CITY COUNCIL
PAT ELLIOTT
Subject: K8SP2O3OLT(�PCOnmDleDtg
-'
TnwpnZxENnY
SUZANNE w.a^moAxL
FRED L,wnoGs.JR.
Dear Ms. Fo|gor:
CITY MANAGER
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft of the 2030 Minneapolis/St.
STEVEN L.os»|on
Paul International Airport (MSP) Long Term Comprehensive Plan /LTCP\. The City of
Richfield has several comments related tothe draft ofthe 2O3OLT{}P.
Noise
|D198O.when itwas decided that MSP would expand at its current location, surrounding
communities were presented with tremendous challenges aswell osOpportunities. The
Cnrnnlit[Oenttou� ntinueUzreinvest \n����PiO�gstrunture,fmci|iUeo.and t[@nepo�at|on
`'-
systems provides asignificant economic benefit honot only the City ofRichfield, but all the
surrounding communities. However, the noise impact tV Richfield residents remains o
concern.
The draft LTCP forecasts a 40% growth in annual aircraft operations by 2030, which is an
increase from 45O,00D\D20O81o03O.DOOprojected opaFatonoin2O3O. Aapart ofthe
increase inoperations, the draft LTCPalso includes projected 2O3OnoiSecontoura(Figun85-
4\invvhiChthe projected OO-04DN[nDisecoO1oVreXte'dSVVe||beyDndpu�ioDmDfRichfie|d
that had previously qualified for noise mitigation funds.
The City of Richfield is extremely concerned that the draft LTCP does not address future
noise � ''~dUgation to the impacted residents of the projected 2030 noise contour. According to
the LTCP projections (Table 5.11)unaddi�ono| �.83D Richfield single fa[ni|yand rnu|tiforni|y
hornesinthe O-O4D'Lwould be impacted bvthe proposed 203O[}NLnoise contours.
After the difficuitVeXp8henoedingeUngRichfield hDOneOvVnen*inthe 2OO7[)NLnoise
contour noise mitigation, the CitvofRichfie|dvVaDts1Dseathofina|Versionnfth8 LT(�P
provide oplan for noise nnitiQ3U'Ofor those homes projected tDbeinnpaCt8diOthe2O3U
noise contours. At8minimum, the same level ofnoise mitigation a.sthe homes received
under the 2007legal settlement should beprovided. ,
Airport Capaci
The draft LTCP ata18s,"Though aircraft operations will grow, the existing f0up[unwmyoirOeld
is expected iobeable tocontinue toope[oteinoaof8aDdefhoendnnanOervvUh0utUl8nead
for additional runways."
The Urban Honnetonv
aroo ponrLAwo xvewue, mcoF/eLo, w/wwsuorA os*xx 612.861y7 00 pxx: 612.861y749
-�myofdchflmd.om AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
/
\
_ Me JnnnFelger
February 1D.2O1O
Pagetwo
The LTCPindicates that in2OO8there were over 450,000 operations at MSP. Airport
planning guidelines (F/V\[rdev5O9O.3u)GUggagtthEdaddibOna|[UDvvayo[ '
supplemental airport planning process should begin when an airfield reaches 60%-75%
of annual capacity, which would be reached by MSP when operations exceed 480,000
operations ayear. Table 2.10shows that MSP will exceed operations byatleast 2015.
well before the LTCP is required to be updated again by the Metropolitan Council.
Additionally, the draft LTCPstates that bv2O30.when the annual operations reach
G3O,O0O.aDaverage delay of18minutes per operation isacceptable. Comments have
been made to the City of Richfield and the surrounding communities of MSP that a
delay ranging from 9 to 12 minutes per operation is considered congested to severely
congested. -Based on all the information given to the communities, a number of
questions arise. Why doesn't the LTCPaddress the need for ongoing planning for
capacity? Shouldn't the LTCPfor MSP address the optimum size and capacity for
levels out to2O3O? Since the LTCPiafor future development goals and policies what
is the future plan?
Since the draft LTCP proposes on additional $2-2/4 billion in investment for the
suggested airport expansion improvements on top of the recent $3 billion invested in
the 2010 program, the City of Richfield questions whether this sets the stage for
discussions on the potential planning process for the construction of a third parallel \
runway. If an additional runway is e potential viability in the fUtUPe, than this is the
setting in -which itshould bediscussed and planned.
The City of Richfield realizes that forecasting is adifficult task, especially when
attempting toforecast over oDextended period oftime. Adthe January 2U.2O1ONoise
Oversight Committee meeting, MAC staff stated that they would review operation
forecasts and noise contours every five years ioensure they are asaccurate au
possible for all future planning. We look forward to receiving continuous updates.
Land Use
The Ci'�ofFUohfieldhasadopted land use goals and policies Comprehensive
Plan as well as adopting into our Zoning Code an airport overlay district that includes
the Joint Airport Zoning Board ordinance and additional recommendations for new
residential oOOStruoiiOn in areas vVhena the noise contour is OO DNL or higher.
The vecV[Omnnd8ikznS in the draft LTCPto use the Metropolitan Builders Guide in
airport impact areas for construction that isconsistent with the MSP Part 150program
goals needs clarification. The concern for the City OfRichfield iSthat the Builders
Guide isfor only new residential construction. The Builders Guide does not address
additions and alterations which are a large percentage of home improvements for
residential properties located in airport noise impacted areas in Richfield. Also, the
Builders Guide provides examples of wall construction for noise mitigation, but there
are no examples for roof/ceiling construction which would assist in noise reduction. If
this is to be a viable document that the City ofRichfield vvnU)d ha8| comfortable handinr
out tohomeowners and contractors than itneeds toaddress residential \
add itiono/o|hanations' include roof/ceiling eX@nlp)eS' and be updated and/or reviewed
more often, since the most recent Builders Guide isdated March 2O08.
Ms. JennFelger
February 18`201U
Page three
|nS8ctOn1.4.7.regarding sUppo� !oi|�es'the draft LTCPreferences that there are
three additional airline maintenance' hangers onthe western edge ofthe airfield with
approximately 247'OOOsquare feet for hangers, shops, and offices. The City of
Richfield vVOu|dlike iodnsm/tDthe K8AO'a8UBDtion8concern with the hangers in 2007
that resulted in a reduction on noise impacts that the City would hope future users
would consider. |n2OO7.the Cih/vvorkedclosely vvith��A{}s[affand the yJ{}[�to
monitor the noise impacts that were
Pe 8ffeCting residents directly west of the hangers in
Richfield. Procedures were developed with the businesses otthe time tochange the
way and direction inwhich aircraft where removed from the hangers. The changes in
operation produced no measurable noise impacts west of Cedar Avenue in Richfield
during the late night/early morning time period, thus solving operational noise
problems. The City realizes that at the time these practices were put into p|ooa the
hangers were being used and most ofthe aircwere Yet
it is hoped that when future users occupy these hangers that they consider the same
practices for aircraft operations on the west side.
Lastly, iD. --iO1.�Figure 1-9 ��ei�����e���s���m�
propgd—»- .-The figU[g' ^
dUdifficult to diabngV�hvVhermthe border ofthe City of
FUchfi�' is|od. .he UvVVoU|drequest that you revise the nnGp03indicate that the
border
— Richfield isvveSt ' Trunk Highway 77(TH77),but includes the Richfield
Public Works Kai t8n8DoB Facility which is located east of the northbound oDf@np
onto OOthStreet. And, the northern bDrdSr OfRichfield is from 62nd Street south, while
north of 62nd Street is the City of Minneapolis. We VvoU|d like to see this area more
clearly defined aaRichfield property.
Aooin.thank you for the n�vi000n�rnentonthepn0000ed203DLTCP. Should
Again, nnentomnadebvthe Cdvof��ohfe�,please feel
free to you have
Pam OrnvtnoDkO,Assistant tothe City Manager otO12-881-Q708orvia
email at pdm)drenko(a),cityofrichfield.org.
SD:dn
Copy: Richfield eM8�rend�bCouncil
� ' State Representative Pau|Thissen' District 63A
State Representative Linda Slocum, District 63B
State Senator Kenneth Ke|ash' District 63
MAC COnnrDisS)Oner Lisa PeUaD, District C|
Metropolitan Council Representative Polly Bowles, District 5
/ \ -
Metropolitan Council Sector Representative Denise Pedersen Engen
rj
February 19, 2010
Minneapolis
City of Lakes
Office of the Mayor Ms. Jenn Felger
MAC Planning and Environment
R. T. Rybak 6040 28t1i Avenue South
Mayor Minneapolis, MN 55450
350 South 5th Street - Room 331
Minneapolis MN 55415-1393 Re: MSP LTCP Update
Office 612 673-2100
Fax 612 673-2305 Dear Ms. Felger;
TTY 612 673-3187
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft update of the MSP Long Term
Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft
representing the Metropolitan Airports Commission's first update since the 2010
plan was approved in 1996. We further look forward to more regularly scheduled
updates each five years as has been expressed by MAC staff in presentations to
elected officials.
The City remains concerned, however, about the integrally related issues of airport
capacity, delay and infrastructure investment. As we expressed in our October,
2009 letter forecast operational activity is expected to be 98.5% of airfield capacity
in 2030, virtually assuring a congested airport. The LTCP update projects an
average delay of 10 minutes per operation while the 2030 regional benchmark for
aircraft delay is 7.1 minutes for 2030. The LTCP projection thus is more than 40%
over the regional benchmark for 2030.
MAC's January 15, 2010 response to the City's initial comments states,"...the
anticipated benefits from implementing the NextGen Air Traffic Control system,
we believe that the airfield capacity at MSP will actually increase by 2030." Our
understanding is that implementation of NextGen would, however, at best result in
possibly up to a 15% increase in capacity. If this were actually the case, MSP
would still be operating at over 85% of capacity, significantly above the threshold
of when planning should be addressing this constraint.
The 1993 MSP Capacity Enhancement Plan recommended action was to add both
new runways 17/35 and I IN/29N (nowl2N/30N) at "Future 2" operational levels
of 600,000 annual operations. How or why has this changed? Knowing that the
future airfield (even under fairly conservative forecasts) will be significantly
constrained, it begs the question how much additional investment should be made
in MSP. It seems prudent that the MAC knowing that this is going to be an issue
within this planning horizon should be addressing that particular problem in this
update.
As elected stewards of our community, we are sorely disappointed that once again
- MSP is proposed to be expanded increasing the impacts on neighboring
communities and making no attempt to address mitigating noise impacts. We are
quite aware that the FAA's threshold for significant noise impacts is at noise levels
above 65 DNL. However, this regional community set its airport noise threshold
at 60DNL in 1998 by action of the Noise Mitigation Committee and subsequently
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Affirmative Action Employer
,1
by MAC action. The expansion of MSP approved for the 2010 program was predicated on addressing
noise impacts in neighboring communities. Why would this new expansion plan be proposed without
addressing mitigation of noise impacts?
The trend toward addressing airport noise at levels beyond 65 DNL is increasing and is very likely to
change within this planning timeframe. The recent European HYENA studies are being discussed at
FAA's Aviation Research Roadmap Workshops in terns of issues of annoyance and sleep interference..
The International Standards Organization is likely to adopt a dose/response curve predicting community
annoyance to aircraft noise will show that twice as many people are highly annoyed than with the Schultz
noise curve. The point at which 12.3 percent of people are highly annoyed (FAA's current 65 DNL
threshold) would be pushed out to the 55 DNL level.
Quoting from the article in Airport Noise Report, "The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
(FICAN), which FICON evolved into, will be under pressure to adopt the revised ISO standard, which is
voluntary but represents the consensus of world experts, and FAA will be under pressure to recognize the
revision as a significant change."
As MAC continues to grow the airport and with the likelihood that noise impacts are going to continue to
be a significant annoyance to residents, the LTCP update must address how noise associated with the
expanded airport would be mitigated and include a budget recognizing the costs.
We look forward to your responses as you continue through this process. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please contact Merland Otto, Principal Planner, at 612-673-2576.
Sincerely,
Mayor R.T. Rybak
City of Minneapolis
CC: Glen Oreutt, FAA ADO
Peter Bell, Metropolitan Council
Chauncey Case, MC Sr. Aviation Planner
Minneapolis Legislative Delegation
Mike Maguire
February 16, 2010
Mayor
Ms. Jenn -Felger
Paul Bakken
MAC Planning and Environment
Cyndee Fields
6040 2$"' Avenue South
-Gary Hansen
MN 55450
Meg TilleyMinneapolis;
Council Members
Dear Ms. Felger:
Thomas Hedges
City Administrator Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2030 MSP Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). The Eagan City Council, per the recommendation of the
Eagan Airport Relations Commission, approved the following comments at the February
16, 2010 City Council meeting.
Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 551 22-1 81 0
651.675.5000 phone
651.675.5012 fax
651.454.8535 TDD
Maintenance Facility
3501 Coachman Point
Eagan, MN 55122
651.675.5300 phone
651.675.5360 fax
651.454.8535 TDD
www.cityofeagan.com
The Lone Oak Tree
The symbol of
strength and growth
in our community.
Noise Impacts t
The draft LTCP forecasts 40% growth in annual aircraft operations by 2030, from
450,000 to 630,000 operations. Based on the increase in operations, the draft plan
includes 2030 projected noise contours (Figure 5-4). These projected 60 DNL noise
contours depict noise levels in portions of Eagan and other communities extending well
beyond blocks that have previously qualified for noise mitigation funds.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has a history of proactively addressing
noise impacts on residential area through noise mitigation programs. However, the draft
LTCP does not discuss additional residential noise mitigation, nor does it state MAC's
anticipated expenditures towards noise mitigation through 2030. According to the LTCP
projections, an additional 536 single and multi family homes in Eagan would be added to
the 60-64 DNL contours. Given the dramatic increase to the noise contours over
southwest Eagan, which is .made up of predominately residential homes that were built
well before the decision was made to build Runway 17/35, the City of Eagan strongly
recommends that the final version of the LTCP outline a noise mitigation approach that
would apply to all newly impacted blocks. Specifically, the City advocates that those
homes being added to the 60-64 DNL contours receive, at minimum, the same level of
noise mitigation as those homes that received mitigation under the 2007 legal settlement
(with an adjusted funding allocation per the CPI).
Moreover, the City of Eagan has understandable concerns with the extension of the noise
contours, and corresponding increase in operations, using Runway 17/35. This concern is
exacerbated when the noise contours over the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor are
proposed to shrink significantly. How and why is it that the contour "lobe" is proposed to
increase so dramatically off of 17/35, while decreasing over the Corridor? Is the proposed
contour extension over southwest Eagan a direct result of additional gates being added to
the Humphrey Terminal? Additionally, Figure 5.9 shows that projected runway use in
2030 calls for Runway 17 to be used for 30.3% of all departures, the highest percentage
of all runways. Furthermore, Runway 17 is proposed to be used for 25.6% of all
nighttime departures, which well exceeds the forecasted use of both 12L and 12R. These
projections directly conflict with the approved Runway Use System (RUS) at MSP,
which calls for the parallel runways to serve as the first priority for both day and evening
departure operations. How will the MAC address this conflict between the 2030 runway
use projections and the approved RUS?
while the residents living in and around the Corridor would undoubtedly appreciate noise
relief, the City of Eagan has taken the long held public policy decision to plan and guide
the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor for noise compatible uses. Furthermore, the legal
settlement in 2007 ensured that those residents living in and around the Corridor received
the noise mitigation they deserved. As such, Eagan strongly encourages the MAC to
work with the FAA in the coming years to ensure that the RUS is adhered to and the
Corridor is used to the greatest extent possible so as not to place undue burden on the
predominately residential areas of Eagan, including those homes under the flight paths of
17/35.
During discussions with the Noise Oversight Committee regarding the LTCP, MAC staff
communicated their intent to revisit the LTCP operational forecasts and corresponding
noise contours in five years (2015) in hopes that the economy and airline industry will
have stabilized at that point so as to provide a more accurate forecast. The City of Eagan
recognizes that forecasts are difficult during this time of economic upheaval, and will
anticipate a thorough review of the operations and contours in five years, or as soon as
the economy and airline industry stabilize. Once that stabilization has occurred, the City
asks that the MAC undergo a formal Part 150 process to ensure that the noise
environment and corresponding noise mitigation program can be evaluated accordingly.
Land Use
In light of the proposed 2030 contours included in the LTCP, the City of Eagan reviewed its
own Comprehensive Guide Plan, and specifically the City's Noise Attenuation Construction
ordinance.
The City of Eagan has adopted land use policies through its Comprehensive Guide Plan and
construction regulations through its zoning code to minimize the introduction of substantial
new areas of noise sensitive uses within the 2008 Policy Contours and to require sound
attenuation construction practices where appropriate. The City cannot implement
modifications of the Policy Contours unless and until the Metropolitan Council takes action
in that regard. The City will monitor the Met Council review of the MSP LTCP and revisit
these topics as may be necessary once that review has been completed.
Airfield Capacity
The LTCP states that the existing four -runway airfield configuration is expected to b� .
able to continue operating in a safe and efficient manner without the need for additional
runways.
According to the operation projections in the LTCP, there were over 450,000 operations
in 2008. Airport planning guidelines (FAA Order 5090.3c) state that an additional
runway or supplemental airport planning .process begins when the airfield reaches 60-
75% of annual capacity, which is a threshold that would be reached at MSP when
operations exceed 480,000 operations per year. Additionally, statements have been made
to lead communities to believe that congestion levels at MSP Airport are on track to
exceed delay levels of 10 minutes per operation. In light of the operation levels being
predicted for MSP out to 2030, at what point will the MAC address airfield capacity
concerns, and is there is a optimum size or activity level for MSP? Additionally, what
considerations have been made in the long term planning process regarding the
possibility for the construction of a 3rd parallel runway?
MSP Infrastructure
The City of Eagan very much appreciates the ongoing commitment the MAC has made to
improve the infrastructure at MSP Airport. Eagan continues to support the efforts of the
MAC to strengthen the presence of MSP Airport through improvements to its facilities,
parking structures, and transportation system. As an employment and transportation hW'
Eagan- stands to benefit significantly from an economic development standpoint, anu
encourages the MAC to continue reinvesting in MSP Airport. Furthermore, as the City
promotes its goal of reducing energy and promoting environmental sustainability, we
encourage the MAC to continue its efforts to utilize sustainable building practices as
expansion and reinvestment plans for MSP take shape.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2030 tTCP. Should
you have any questions about the comments made by the City of Eagan, please feel free
to contact Dianne Miller, Assistant to the City Administrator, at 651/675 -5014 -
Sincerely,
Mike Maguire
Mayor
cc: Eagan's Legislative Delegation
Dan Wolter, District 15 Metropolitan Council Representative
Wendy Wulff, District 16 Metropolitan Council Representative
Governor Tim Pawlenty
Jean Felger
6040 28°i Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Felger:
The City of Sunfish Lake appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft MSP 2030 Long
Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). Since the MSP airport is such an integral part of the economic health of
our community we fully support continued improvement and development. However, we do have a number
of concerns regarding the current version of the plan. Following are our comments and suggestions.
1. Over the next 20 years MSP operations are forecasted to increase to 98.5% of estimated capacity.
Current airport planning guidelines suggest that additional runway or supplemental airport planning should
occur when an airport reaches 60-75% of capacity. Therefore, the City of Sunfish Lake requests that the
LTCP be amended to include a continuous process for assessing capacity and developing appropriate action
plans.
2. We are concerned that the significant investment of over $5.5 Billion ($3 Billion invested in the 2010
and $2.5 Billion yet to be invested) will result in an airport that will essentially reach full capacity by the
year 2030. In addition, the current LTCP does not adequately address the inevitable increase in roadway
congestion this will create in local communities. The LTCP does not appear to have adequate long -tern
planning and we suggest that these issues be reviewed before committing to the final plan.
3. In January the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) was presented with an estimate of the future noise
contour. This contour predicts a significant increase in noise for our community. We therefore request that
a regular review of the noise contour be .established and that ongoing -noise mitigation plans be developed
and enacted as needed.
4. Although a plan for a third parallel runway has not been set'forth in the Draft LTCP, we are very
concerned that it is a possibility in light of the planned growth of the MSP Airport. We are taking this
opportunity to express our strong opposition to any consideration of a third parallel runway at MSP Airport.
We believe that the increase in air traffic resulting from an additional runway would have a significant and
negative impact on our community.
We very much appreciate your review and consideration of our comments. If you should have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Molly Parl<
Mayor
City of Sunfish Lake
Copy: John McDonald, Metropolitan Airports Commission
February 1, 2010
Jenn Felger
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Re: Draft MSP 2030 Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Dear Ms. Felger:
The City of Bloomington appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft of the MSP 2030
Long Terni Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). On February 1, 2010, the Bloomington City Council
approved the following comments.
Humphrey Terminal Kxpansion — Traffic Impacts on 34`h avenue
The draft LTCP anticipates expanding the Humphrey Terminal in two phases from 10 gates to 27
gates in 2015 and again to 37 gates by 2025. All non -Sky Team airlines are proposed to move
from the Lindbergh Terminal to the Humphrey Terminal in 2015. This Humphrey Terminal
expansion will increase traffic volumes on 34`h Avenue and Post Road and require significant
improvements to the 34th Avenue interchange with I-494. The draft LTCP anticipates the
Metropolitan Airports Comnnission (MAC) funding $31 million in improvements for 34`h
Avenue and $95 million in improvements for Post Road.
Based on information presented in the 2015 MSP Terminal Expansion Project Environmental
Assessment, Bloomington understands that completing the Humphrey Terminal expansion prior
to major improvements at the 34`h Avenue/1-494 interchange would lead to "unacceptable"
traffic conditions at the interchange. Bloomington therefore commends MAC for incorporating
plans and proposed funding to improve the interchange. Given the challenges of having the
improvements in place by 2015, the City is ready to work quickly and cooperatively with MAC
and Mn/DOT to design the improvements and agree on an overall funding package.
Noise Impacts
The draft LTCP forecasts 40% growth in annual aircraft operations by 2030, from 450;000 to
630,000. Based on the increased operations, the draft plan includes 2030 projected noise
contours (Figure 5-4). These projected 60 DNL noise contours depict noise levels in portions of
Bloomington and other communities extending beyond blocks that qualified for noise mitigation
fiends in the past.
INIAC has a history of proactively addressing noise impacts on residential areas through noise
mitigation programs. However, the draft LTCP does not discuss additional residential noise
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL
1.800 W, OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD. BLOOMINGTON MN 55431-3027
PH .952-563-8780 FAX 952-563-8754 TTY 952-563-8740 OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER
Ms. Tenn Felger
February 1, 2010
Page 2 of 2
mitigation, nor does it call out any MAC expenditures for noise mitigation tbrough 2030.
Bloomington believes that increased noise impacts need to be mitigated and strongly
recommends that the final version of the LTCP outline a noise mitigation approach that would
apply to newly impacted blocks,
Sustainability Initiatives
The first three stated goals of the draft LTCP discuss environmentally friendly facilities,
improved energy efficiencies and increased use of public transportation, all of which the City of
Bloomington strongly supports, As we have previously discussed, Bloomington is currently
preparing plans for the South Loop District on MSP's southern border. The South Loop District
Plan will focus on a variety of sustainability initiatives. Given our mutually shared goals,
adjacent sites and similar plans, there are opportunities to work cooperatively on various
sustainability initiatives, including district energy and shared parking during peak demand
periods. Bloomington looks forward to additional discussion on these and other mutually
beneficial projects.
Thank you in advance for consideration of Bloomington's comments, Should you have any
questions regarding this letter, please contact Larry Lee, Community Development Director, at
(952) 563-8917.
Mayor
Copy: Lisa Peilen, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Dennis Probst, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Table of Contents for January 2010
�1
1
Complaint Stuimzary
Noise Complaint Map
2
FAA Available Time for Runway Usage
3
MSP All Operations Runway Usage
4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
5
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
6
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage
8
MSP Scheduled Nighttime Operators
9-11
MSP Top 1.5 Nighttime Operators by Type
12
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators Stage Mix
13
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
14-17
MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map
18
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
19
Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
20
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
21
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
22
MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT
23-35
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL
36-38
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
MSP Complaints by City
January 2010
City
Arrival
Departure
Other
Number of
Complaints
Number of
Complainants
"/o of Total
Complaints
RICHFIELD
0
0
0
0
1033
0
1033
1
47.4%n
EAGAN
0
3
0
454
3
133
593
12
27.2%
APPLE VALLEY
t)
242
0
12
2
10
266
7
12.2t o
MINNEAPOLIS
0
9
0
19
6
61
95
38
4.4%n
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
0
0
0
11
2
73
86
5
3.9%
SAINT LOUIS PARK
0
57
0
0
0
7
64
1
2.9%
BLOOMINGTON
0
0
0
0
2
19
21
9
1"/0
EDEN PRAIRIE
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
1
0.3%
BURNSVILLE
1
0
0
4
0
1
6
3
03%"
CHANHASSEN
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
1
0.2"/n
SAINT PAUL
0
0
0
I
1
1
3
3
Total
M
501
1365
21.78
1 71
Nature of MSP Complaints
of Day
Complaint
_ Total
2178
^Early/Late
36
31.4
Engine Run-up
1
0
Excessive Noise
1050
1083
Frequency
5
717
Ground Noise
7
1
Helicopter
0
0
Low Plying
6
778
Structural Disturbance
3
298
Other
0
79
Total
4378
Note: shaded Culumm represent MSP complaints filed vii the Internet.
'._.._...% sum uf';5. Total of Complaints may nut equal 100% due to rounding.
"As of May 2005, the MSP Complains by City report includes multiple
complaint dcscripturs per individunl complaint. Therefore, the number of
complaint descriptors mny be more than the number of reported complaints.
Time
of Day
Total
Time
2178
Airlake
0000-0559
_Total
I
33
0600-0659
9
28
0700-1159
265
299
1200-1559
269
127
1600-1959
258
343
2000-2159
141
204
2200-2259
97
76
2300-2359
10
18
Total
2178
Complaints by Airport
Airport
Total
MSP
2178
Airlake
0
Anoka
61
Crystal
0
Flying Cloud
159
Lake Elmo
0
St. Paul
5
Misc.
0
Total
2403
-1-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
MSP International Airport
Aviation Noise Complaints for January 2010
'I f 7'71�'._'��7_1
T
Cal'urribia
Heights
5.
0
Crystal
'_T
Medina
L i�_!' LittleCana`
U I
lyrn
R. ey
ill7
�� G.- e_.
of all
Y
r
'ea,
Wlin'n
K'St U
S ji�
IN
KE;�Mll'ONK\ AEJ A
6 avull 11111t�
M, RI\/F Z
L
Sho wood
Eclj:
Mendotarl-Ieiydddilts
'77,17
iarihMs.4n -zA;nraine I � Vi t' I a
8NC AE41
mil luiEwl I
tw
r.
of-
v'S
Shakopee
Y . .......
Burnsville
-.5
-CIVA e
W'.
S
'A
le Ualley,:se.mount
_S,
Prior Lake -
f.
Eq r
_—A --Empire Twp.
it River T
pw Li ng a Twp.
Farmington
Number of Complaints per Address
1-3 4-8 9-15 16-25
26-36
37-71
72-242
243-1033
-2- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Available Hours for Runway Use
January 2010
(source: r -iv-\ /-Xvlal,lul 1 oyz—, 1 r u,
All Hours
ka.
M pollsPaul
7
-V55
6
tl
Ell ,
i b. h f i e I d
2
Blo min
Y�
Nighttime Hours
10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.
I is
j V-
PAA Average Dail v Count
EMMI
JI
,a,g a n i,(
January 2009
January 2010*
Air Carrier
739
Z
Commuter
380
NA
:Ridhfiel-d
34
NA
Military
-------
--------- NA
Total
1164
NA
ro),
min
Nighttime Hours
10:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.
I is
j V-
PAA Average Dail v Count
EMMI
JI
,a,g a n i,(
Note: Sum of daily average count may not equal total aue to 1-11-119.
*Data was not available from FAA when this report was published. Once this data becomes available this report will be amended and re -published.
-3-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
January 2009
January 2010*
Air Carrier
739
NA
Commuter
380
NA
General Aviation
34
NA
Military
-------
--------- NA
Total
1164
NA
Note: Sum of daily average count may not equal total aue to 1-11-119.
*Data was not available from FAA when this report was published. Once this data becomes available this report will be amended and re -published.
-3-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
All Operations
Runway Use Report January 2010
Richfield `w `
4
1 V0
Blooming/
l
55
� I)
Eag n =
-4-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
i�
Last Year,
Arrival/
-
Count
Count
Last Year
RWY
Departure
Overflight Area
Operations
Percent
Operations
Percent
04
Arr
So. Richfield/Bloomington
1
0%
0
0%°
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
3088
18.4%
2083
11.7%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
3074
18.3%
1994
11.2%
17
Arr
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0
0%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Highland Park
0
0%
0
0%
30L
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
3463
20.6%
4525
25.5%
30R
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
4102
24.4%
5595
31.5%
35
Arr
Bloomington/Eagan
3092
18.4%
3547
20%
Total Arrivals
16820
17744
Last Year
Arrival/
Count
Count
Last Year
RWY
Departure
Overflight Area
Operations
Percent
Operations
Percent
04
Dep
St. Paul/Highland Park
2
0%
0
0%--
%12L
12L
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
1945
11.6%
1326
7.6%
12R
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
926
5.5%
795
4.6%
17
Dep
Bloomington/Eagan
3767
22.5%
2609
%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloomington
9
0.1%
7
0
0%
30L
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
4716
28.1 %
5546
31.9%
30R
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
5399
32.2%
7082
- 40.8%
35
Dep
So. Minneapolis
2
000
0
0%
Total Departures
16766
17365
Total Operations
33586
35109
-4-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
i�
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report January 2010
Last Year
C 1. ount
Count
Last Year
RWY
Arrival/
Departure
Overflight Area , .
Operations
Percent OperOtions
PeOr �ent
04
Arr
So. Richfield/Bloomington
0
1705
11.4%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
2649
18.3%
110.%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
2708
18.7%
17013
17
Arr
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Highland Park
0
0%
20.7%
0
3922
26.2%
30L
Arr
. Eagan/Mendota Heights
3000
24.6%
4625
31%
30R
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
3567
17.8%
2976
19.9%
35
Arr
Bloomington/Eagan
2574
Total Arrivals
14498
14941
Last Year
Arrival/
Count
Count
Last Year
RWY
Departure
Overflight Area
Operations
Percent
Operations
Percent
04
Dep
St. Paul/Highland Park
2
0%
0
6.8%
12L
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
1512
10.5%
4.6%
12R
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
750
5.2%
603
680
2333
15.9%
17
Dep
Bloomington/Eagan
3467
24%
--
0%
--0.1%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloomington
8
6
491 0
33.4%
30L
Dep
So. Minneapolis No. Richfield
4129
28.6%
39.3%
30R
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
4594
31.8%
5781
35
Dep
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0
-0%
Total Departures
14462
14713
Total Operations
28960
29654
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
-5-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
January 2010 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition
Type
FAR Part 36 Take -
Off Noise Level
Aircraft Description
Stage
Count
Percent
DC10
103
McDonnell Douglas DC10
3
104
0.4%
8744
101.6
Boeing 747-400
3
70
0.2%
DC8Q
100.5
McDonnell Douglas DC8 Re -manufactured
3
58
0.2%
MD11
95.8
McDonnell Douglas MD11
3
123
0.4%
8767
95.7
Boeing 767
3
97
0.3%
A330
95.6
Airbus Industries A330
3
202
0.7%
B72Q
94.5
Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3
3
6
0%
A300
94
Airbus Industries A300
3
6
0%
MD80
91.5
McDonnell Douglas MD80
3
678
2.3%
B757
91.4
Boeing 757
3
2277
7.9%
DC9Q
91
McDonnell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3
3
2837 1
9.8%
A321
89.8
Airbus Industries A321
3
125
0.4%
B734
88.9
Boeing 737-400
3
19
0.1%
A320
87.8
Airbus Industries A320
3
3710
12.8%
B735
87.7
Boeing 737-500
3
82
0.3%
8738
87.7
Boeing 737-800
3
1305
4.5%
A318
87.5
Airbus Industries A318
3
69
0.2%
B733
87.5
Boeing 737-300
3
278
1%
A319
87.5
Airbus Industries A319
3
3092
10.7%
B7377
87.5
Boeing 737-700
3
.652
2.3%
MD90
84.2
McDonnell Douglas MD90
3
156
0.5%
E145
83.7
Embraer 145
3
1092
3.8%
E170
83.7
Embraer 170
3 1
3666
12.7%
E190
83.7
Embraer 190
3 1
145
0.5%
8717
83
Boeing 717
3
351
1.2%
CRJ
79.8
Canadair Regional Jet
3
7451
25.7%
E135
77.9
Embraer 135
3
305
1.1%
J328
76.5
Fairchild Dornier 328
3
4
0%
Totals
28960
Nnt>• Rum of 11-1 m1v % may not enual 100% due to rounding.
Note: Stage 3 represent aircraft modified to meet all Stage 3 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. UPS
DC8Q are re -engined with manufactured Stage 3 engines and are classified as Stage 3 Manufactured as of /
January 1, 2008.
-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 level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone -corrected perceived noise level
of an aircraft flyover measured in A -weighted decibels.
- 6 _ Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Count
Current
Percent
Last Years
Percent
Stage 2
0
0%
0%
Stage 3
2843
9.8%
7.3%
Stage 3 Manufactured
26117
90.2°/%
92.7%
Total Stage 3
28960
Note: Stage 3 represent aircraft modified to meet all Stage 3 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. UPS
DC8Q are re -engined with manufactured Stage 3 engines and are classified as Stage 3 Manufactured as of /
January 1, 2008.
-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 level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone -corrected perceived noise level
of an aircraft flyover measured in A -weighted decibels.
- 6 _ Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report January 2010
-7-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Last Year
Arrival/
Count
Count
Last Year
RWY
Departure
Overflight Area
Operations
Percent
Operations
PeOr cent
04
Arr
So. Richfield/Bloomington
0
0%
0
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
92
10.2%
96
8.4%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
154
17.1%—
179
15.6%
17
Arr
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0
0%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Highland Park
0
0%
0
0%
30L
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
401
44.5%
531
46.3%
30R
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
249
27.6%
338
29.5%
35
Arr
Bloomington/Eagan
6
0.7%
2
Total rrivals
A
902
1146
Last Year
Arrival/
Count
Count
Last Year
RWY
Departure
Overflight Area
Operations
Percent
Operations
Percent
04
Dep
St. Paul/Highland Park
0
0%
0
0%
12L
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
41
16%
111
13.1%
12R
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
65
25.4%
80
9.4%
17
Dep
Bloomington/Eagan
47
%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloomington
3
3
.2
1.2%
0
0%
0
30L
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
63
24.6%
173
20.4%
30R
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
64
25%
436
51.5%
35
Dep
So. Minneapolis
2
0.8%
0
0%
Total Departures
256
847
Total Operations
1158
1993
Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding.
-7-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Runway Use Report January 2010
RWY
04
Arrival/
Departure
Arr
Overflight Area
So. Richfield/Bloomington
Count
Operations
0
e'
Last Year
Count
Operations
0
Last Year
Percent
0%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
_ _
E 10 III.
N
RWY
04
Arrival/
Departure
Arr
Overflight Area
So. Richfield/Bloomington
Count
Operations
0
Richfield
Last Year
Count
Operations
0
Last Year
Percent
0%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
84
10.1%
92
8.6%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
°' rt
i�
18%
—
15.6%
17
Arr
% r II
0
0%
0
0%
22
r ;�i00 n
St. Paul/Highland Park
!
Blo mrngto
0
0%
30L
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
368
RWY
04
Arrival/
Departure
Arr
Overflight Area
So. Richfield/Bloomington
Count
Operations
0
Percent
0%
Last Year
Count
Operations
0
Last Year
Percent
0%
12L
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
84
10.1%
92
8.6%
12R
Arr
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
149
18%
167
15.6%
17
Arr
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0
0%
22
Arr
St. Paul/Highland Park
0
0%
0
0%
30L
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
368
44.4%
500
46.6%
30R
Arr
Eagan/Mendota Heights
226
27.3%
313
29.2%
35
Arr
Bloomington/Eagan
1
0.1 %
1
0.1%
Total Arrivals
828
1073
RWY
04
Arrival/
Departure
Dep
Overflight Area
St. Paul/Highland Park
Count
Operations
0
Percent
0%
Last Year
count
Operations
0
Last Year
Percent
0%
12L
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
33
16.8%
97
13.1%
12R
Dep
Eagan/Mendota Heights
49
25%
67
9%
17
Dep
Bloomington/Eagan
14
7.1%
38
5.1%
22
Dep
So. Richfield/Bloomington
2
1%
0
0%
30L
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
50
25.5%
154
20.8%
30R
Dep
So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield
48
24.59/o
385
52%
35
Dep
So. Minneapolis
0
0%
0
0%
Total Departures
196
741
Total Operations
1024
1814
IVOLt:: JIIITI UI RL1J /o illay „�. cyuci ,w.v •+.+..... ............y
_ _ Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
February 2010 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations
10-30 r).m. to 6:00 a.m.
120
100
80
0
41
60
z
40
20
0
L
W-) <n� C) <>
<> <> W)
M co M M <> <> <> <> — — — — — — - > <> <-- <M> <5 <5 <> <>
C� C� CNJ <> <> <-, <> <:> <>
Time
February 2010 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations
gg riwn
E] Scx,
EM 'UPS
DAL
MEP
UAL
FDX
[TO USA
[3 FFT
El TRS
AAL
SwA
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
February 2010 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations
Time
A/D
Carrier
Flight
Number
Equipment
Stage 3
Days of
Operation
Routing
22:37
A
United
726
A319
M
MTWThF
OAK DEN MSP
22:37
A
United
726
A320
M
Su
OAK DEN MSP
22:37
A
Northwest
2397
A319
M
MTWThFSu
JFK MSP
22:37
A
United
463
A319
M
Su
ORD MSP
22:40
A
United
463
A320
M
MTWThF
ORD MSP
22:40
A
Sun Country
216
B738
M
MF
IFP MSP
22:40
A
Sun Country
346
B737
M
Su
MCO MSP
22:42
A
Airtran
869
B737
M
MTWThFSu
FLL ATL MSP
22:45
A
Southwest
1469
B735
M
MTWThFSu
OKC DEN MSP
22:45
A
Sun Country
104
8738
M
Th
LAS MSP
22:47
A
Airtran
869
B737
M
S
FLL ATL MSP
22:58
A
Northwest
7297
DC9Q
H
MTWThF
PHL DTW MSP
22:58
A
Northwest
7297
DC9Q
H
Su
DTW MSP
23:00
A
American
1284
MD80
M
MTWThFSSu
DFW MSP
23:06
A
Northwest
2598
A320
M
S
PVR MSP
23:06
A
Frontier Airlines
108
A319
M
S
DEN MSP
23:06
A
Frontier Airlines
108
A318
M
MTWThFSu
DEN MSP
23:20
A
Sun Country
384
B738
M
MThFSSu
RSW MSP
23:30
A
Sun Country
416
8737
M
MWF
PSP MSP
23:30
A
Sun Country
216
8737
M
S
IFP MSP
23:35
A
American
1673
8738
M
MTWThFSu
DCA ORD MSP
23:45
A
Delta
1522
8738
M
MTWThFS
ATL MSP
23:46
A
Delta
1522
B757
M
Su
ATL MSP
23:49
A
Continental
2816
E145
M
MTWThFSu
IAH MSP
23:50
A
Sun Country
704
B738
M
MWThFSSu
PHX MSP
23:50
A
Midwest Airlines
1578
E170
M
MTWThFSu
DFW MKE MSP
23:53
A
US Airways
984
A320
M
WThFSSu
CLT MSP
23:54
A
US Airways
940
A321
M
MTWThFSSu
LAS PHX MSP
23:54
A
Northwest
2512
A320
M
MWThFSu
LAX MSP
23:55
A
Sun Country
404
B738
M
MF
SAN MSP
00:05
A
Sun Country
594
M
M
MZT MSP
00:05
A
Sun Country
106
_13738
8738
M
MTThFS
LAS MSP
00:15
A
Sun Country
346
B738
9—
Su
MCO MSP
00:15
A
Sun Country
548
8738
M
Su
SJD MSP
00:20
A
Sun Country
108
B738
M
LAS MSP
00:45
A
Sun Country
386
B738
—M
M
Su
RSW MSP
00:55
A
Sun Country
594
8738
M
Su
MZT MSP
00:58
A
Northwest
2216
A320
M
Su
SJD MSP
03:14
A
UPS
3982
B757
M
F
03:59
D
UPS
3982
8757
M
F
04:24
A
UPS
556
B757
M
TWThF
04:37
A
UPS
558
8757
M
TWThF
04:47
A
UPS
558
B757
M
F
05:13
A
FedEx
1718
MD11
M
TWThF
05:15
A
UPS
560
MD11
M
TWThF
05:20
D
Delta
1073
B738
M
MTWThFSSu
MSP ATL PBI
05:30
D
Continental
2017
E145
M
MTWThF
MSP IAH
A
FedEx
1407
MD11
M
TWThFS
A
Northwest
2570
A320
M
MTWThFSu
SP DCA
A
Northwest
2570
A320
M
S
SEA MSP
_10- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
February 2010 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Flight
Days of
Time
A/D
Carrier
Number
Equipment
Stage 3
Pperation
Routing
--07550
D
Midwest Airlines
1620
E170
M
MTWThFS
MSP MKE DCA
657-5-0
A
UPS
496
B757
M
—M
S
05:55
A
Northwest
2438
—A333
MTWThFSSU
HNL MSP
—05--57
—A
Northwest
22206
A320
M
MTWThFSu
AS MSP JFK
LAS
--6-5-57
—A
Northwest 1
2206
A320
M....- I
S
MSP
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
January 2010 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
Oaerations by Hour
Airline
ID
Stage
Type
I
Air Transport Intl
ATN
3
DC8Q
30
America West
AWE
3
E190
1
America West
AWE
3
A320
21
Airline
ID
Stage
Type
Count
Air Transport Intl
ATN
3
DC8Q
30
America West
AWE
3
E190
1
America West
AWE
3
A320
21
America West
AWE
3
A321
31
American
AAL
3
B738
27
American
AAL
3
MD80
30
Compass
CPZ
3
E170
34
Continental Exp.
BTA
3
E145
60
Delta
DAL
3
DC9Q
1
Delta
DAL
.3
A319
1
Delta
DAL
3
A330
1
Delta
DAL
3
A320
3
Delta
DAL
3
8757
17
Delta
DAL
3
B738
49
FedEx
FDX
3
B72Q
1
FedEx
FDX
3
MD11
9
FedEx
FDX
3
DC10
21
Frontier Airlines
FFT
3
A319
6
Frontier Airlines
FFT
3
A318
25
Mesaba
MES
3
CRJ
22
Northwest
NWA
3
A330
25
Northwest
NWA
3
B757
28
Northwest
NWA
3
DC9Q
28
Northwest
NWA
3
A319
31
Northwest
NWA
3
A320
155
Pinnacle
FLG
3
CRJ
26
Republic Airlines
RPA
3
E170
26
Southwest
SWA
3
B7377
5
Southwest
SWA
3
B733
8
Southwest
SWA
3
B735
12
Sun Country
SCX
3
B7377
21
Sun Country
SCX
3
B738
145
UPS
UPS
3
A300
3
UPS
UPS
3
MD11
16
UPS
UPS
3
8757
34
TOTAL
953
Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 93.1% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations.
-12- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
January 2010 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Mix for Top 15 Airlines
10.30 D.M. to 6:00 a.m.
140
120
100
25
SO
O
60
40
20
0
W-, C> U-) <> 'R ci c.: -?.
LO W-� U-) U�
Cj C -,i M M co CO :> C> C>
<5 <5 <> <> <>
N <> c>
Til -l -le
January 2010 Nighttime Carrier Jet Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines
0 NWA
ScX
DAL
❑ BTA
Cj ARL 51
UPS
El AWE
El CPZ
El FFT
10 FOX
El ATN
El RPA
FLG
El SWA
F-1 MES
El
-13-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Manufactured
Airline
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 3
Total
Northwest (NWA)
0
28
239 --
261
Sun Country (SCX)
0
0
166
166
Delta (DAL)
0
1
71
72
60
Continental Exp. (BTA)
0
0
60
57
American (AAL)
0
0
57
53
UPS (UPS)
0
0
53
53
53
America West (AWE)
0
0
34
Compass (C P Z)
U
0
34
31
Frontier Airlines (FF I
U
0
31
31
FedEx (FDX)
0
1
30 —
30
Air Transport Intl (ATN)
0
0
--30
26
Rig—u—b-5—ic Airlines (RPA)
0
0
26
26
Pinnacle (FLG)
0
0
26
25
Southwest (SWA)
0
-6--
0
25
22
Mesaba (MES)
0
22
71
Other
Total
6--5
0
--
35
66
989
1024
-13-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - January 2010
Jan 1 thru 8, 2010 - 3823 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan I thru 8, 2010 - 3813 Carrier Jet Departures
Jan 1 thru 8. 2010 - 247 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 1 thru 8, 2010 - 80 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
-14- Report Generated: 02/1 6/201 0 12:57
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - January 2010
Jan 9 thru 16, 2010 - 3703 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 9 thru 16, 2010 - 3681 Carrier Jet Departures
Jan 9 thru 16, 2010 - 199 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 9 thru 16, 2010 - 39 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
-15-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System -Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - January 2010
Jan 17 thru 24, 2010 - 3697 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 17 thru 24, 2010 - 3705 Carrier Jet Departures -
Jan 17 thru 24, 2010 - 199 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 17 thru 24, 2010 - 43 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
- 16 - Report Generated: 02/1 6/201 0 12:57
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks
Carrier Jet Operations - January 2010
Jan 25 thru 31, 2010 - 3275 Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 25 thru 31, 2010 - 3263 Carrier Jet Departures
Jan 25 thru 31, 2010 - 183 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals
Jan 25 thru 31, 2010 - 34 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures
-17-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
MSP International Airport
Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations
@ Remote Monitoring Tower
- 18 - Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Time Above d13 Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events
January 2010
-19-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Time >=
Time >=
Time >=
Time >=
RMT
ID
City
Address
65dB
80dB
90dB
100dB
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Ave. & 41st St.
08:51:59
00:00:33
00:00:00
00:00:00
-50—.0000
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
1:48:02
00:03:49
00:00:00
3
Minneapolis
& Belmo
West Elmwood St nt Ave.
14:48:28
00:18:06
00:00:03
00:00:00
4
Minneapolis
Park Ave. & 48th St.
12:40:03
-16.05.58
00:08:32
-
00:00:00
00:00:00
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St.
62�.0213
00:00:29
00:00:00
—
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St.
5:11:46
01:46:30
00:01:50
00:00:00
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
00:22:28
00:00:03
-do--.0000
00:00:00
00:00:00
—
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
-60--.0000
00:00:00
00:00:00
—
9
St. Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
00:00:00
0.00.00
00:00:00
--
00:00:00
--
10
St. Paul
Itasca Ave. & Bo wdoin St.
E00:30:26
00_00_1 1
00:00:11
00:00:00
---
00:00:00
00:00:00
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
00:00:15
00:00:00
00:00 :00
00:00:00
12
St. Paul
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
00:00:09
00:00:00
-60-00-00
00:00:00
00:00:00
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican —Court
00:05:46
--60 —:0016
00:00:00
00:00:00
--7-0.4523
14
Eagan
1st St. & McKee St.
00:00:00
00:00:00
—
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
00:20:16
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane
15:24:40
—
00:22:32
00:00:07
00:00:00
—
17
—
Bloomington
84th St. & 4th Ave.
00:00:11
-�--
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
18
Richfield
75th St. & 17th Ave.
o .26.10
----
0 :00:27
00:00:00
00:00:00
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
00:05:59
00:00:03
00:00:00
00:00:00
20
Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
00:00:51
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
00:01:22
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
03:43:20
---,
00:00:11
00:00:00
00:00:00
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kenndon Ave.
61.30,25
00:00:14
00:00:00
00:00:00
24
Eagan
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
09:45:08
00:00:10
00:00:00
00:00:00
—00:21:46
25
Eagan
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd.
-6-0.19.55
00:00:11
00:00:00
00:00:00
26
river Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
--:00:00
:00:03
00:00:00
00:00:00
—:00:00
27
Minneapolis
Ave..
Anthony School 5757 Irving S.
00:18:10
00:00:02
00
28
Richfield
6645 16th Ave. S.
02:11:00
00:00:54
00:00:00
00:00:00
—00:01:18
29
Minneapolis
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
—
00:00:00
00:00:00
co—.0000
—01:46:21
30
Bloomington
8715 River Ridge Rd.
00:00:07
00:00:00
00:00:00
31
— _
Bloomington
9501 12th Ave. S.
00:00:42
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
32
— —
Bloomington
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
00:00:09
—
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
33
Bu rn svi' le
Burnsville
"s Park
h River Hills Park
N or'h River Hills
North
00:00:47
00:00:00
00:00:00
--
00:00:00
34
ur
Burnsville
Burnsville
Red Oak Park
Red Oak Park
00:04:15
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
35
Eagan
g
1 r
2100 Garnet Ln.
02:30:02
00:00:07
00:00:00
00:00:00
36
Apple Valley
Pp Valley
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
r r 0 Sc t
06:30:00
----
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
37
Eagan
9 W t L
4399 Woodgate Ln, N.
00:02:50
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
--
38
Eagan
u ois Cir.
3957 Turquoise Cir.
9 Turquoise
00:00:00
--d-0
0 0:00:00
00:00:00
:00:00
—
39
Eagan
3477 St. Charles00:02:29
.7—
.00 .19
:00:00
00:00:00
00:00: 00
q000
Total Time for Arrival Noise Events
136:36:50
04:45:03
00:00:00
-19-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events
January 2010
IRIVIT
ID
City
Address
Time >=
65dB
Time >=
80dB
Time >=
90dB
Time >=
100dB
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Ave. & 41st St.
02:15:44
00:00:33
00:00:00
00:00:00
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
02:46:13
00:00:34
00:00:00
00:00:00
3
Minneapolis
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
07:06:31
00:03:24
00:00:02
00:00:00
4
Minneapolis
Park Ave. & 48th St.
08:13:13
00:06:48
00:00:00
00:00:00
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St.
29:37:36
01:37:36
00:05:26
00:00:00
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St.
36:19:00
--T5744.40—
03:10:58
00:28:30
-
00:00:00
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
00:15:34
50,00.00
00:00:00—
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St..
68.02:53
00:07:27
00:00:07
00:00:00
9
St. Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
00:01:17
--00--,03:17
00:00:00
-6-0.00-30
00:00:00
--60-.00-09
00:00:00
10
St. Paul
ltbsca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
--6�0.05,56
--60.00-30
00:00:00
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
00:00:04
00:00:00
12
St. Paul
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
00:01:13
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
1 . 3
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
03:46:59
00:00:25
-6-0.03
—51
00:00:00
--7-
00:00:00
14
Eagan
1st St. & McKee St.
03:49:23
--.02:06
60 .00..14
--- —
00:00:00
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
05:25:43
00---
00:00:02
00:00:00
-
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln.
04:33:10
00:10:08
00:00:38
00:00:00
17
Bloomington
84th St. & 4th Ave.
00:11:18
00:01:10
00:00:06
00:00:00
18
Richfield
75th St. & 17th Ave.
11:42:26
00:18:24
00:00:44
00:00:00
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
65733-16
00:01:51
00:00:00
00:00:00
20
Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
00:12:00
00:00:21
00:00:00
00:00:00
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
00:45:28
00:00:04
00:00:00
00:00:00
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
00:42:34
00:00:00
00:00:00
—
-6-0-.0102
00:00:00
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kenndon Ave.
6-0--.1434
00:00:00—
24
Eagan
Cha Ln.
02:26:44
00:00:57
00:00:00
00:00:00
25
agan
Eagan
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd.
05:02:53
00:00:04
00:00:00
00:00:00
26
Inver Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
01:50:40
:00:56
00:00:00
00:00:00
27
Minneapolis
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
08:45:53
00:03:25
00:00:00
00:00:00
28
Richfield
6645 16th Ave. S.
16:43:57
00:12:57
00:00:00
00:00:00
29
Minneapolis
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
02-32*27
00:00:55
00:00:00
00:00:00
30
Bloomington
8715 River Ridge Rd.
13:56:33
�R-;9'O8
00:00:58
00:00:00
31
Bloomington
9501 12th Ave. S.
00:45:43
00:00:27
00:00:06
00:00:00
32
Bloomington
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
00:09:15
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00 -
33
Burnsville
North River Hills Park
01:17:41
00:00:03
00:00:00
00:00:06
34
Burnsville
Red Oak Park
00:10:35
00:00:00
00:00:00
--0-0.0000
00:00:00
35
Eagan
2100 Garnet Ln.
01:48:10
00:00:29
00:00:00
36
Apple Valley
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
00:27:40
00:00:00
00:00:00
00:00:00
37
Eagan
4399 Woodgate Ln. N.
01:42:50
00:00:18
00:00:00
00:00:00
7—
38
Eagan
1 3957 Turquoise Cir.
02:54:09
00:00:00
00:00:00
39
Eagan
F- 3477 St. Charles'Pl.
04:08-01
1 00-01:20
00-00-00
00-00-0
�0:00
Total Time for Departure Noise Events
221:44:32
1 07:18:53
8,W�800-00
38-08
- 20 - Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Arrival Related Noise Events
January 2010
-21-
Report
21-Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Ar—rival
Arrival
Arrival
Arrival
Events >=
Events >=
Events >=
Events >=
RMT
ID
City
Address
65dB
80dl3
90dIB
100dB-0
1
Minneapolis
S
Xerxes Ave. & 41st t.
2383
6
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
2858
71
0
0
—
3
Minneapolis
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
3131
253
1
0
4
—Minneapolis
Park Ave. & 48th St.
3071
142
0
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St,
3259
1754
13
0
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St.
3280
1840
71
0
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
98
2
0
--
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
103
0
0
0
9 —
St, Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
0
0
0
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
1
0
0
0
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
1
0
0
0
12
St. Paul
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
1
0
0
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
20
0
0
0
14
Eagan
1st St. & McKee St.
2939
5
0
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
69
0
0
0
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln.
3497
333
3
17
Bloomington
84th St. & 4th Ave.
1
0
0
0
0
18
Richfield
75th St. & 17th Ave.
132
7
0
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
36
2
0
0
0
20
— Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave,
2
0
0
0
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
9
0
0
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
1143
4
0
0
23
Mendota Heights
n of Kenndon Ave.
339
6
0
—
0
24
Eagan
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
2822
4
0
25
Eagan
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd.
83
3
---
0
0
26
Inver Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
116
1
0
—
0
0
27
Minneapolis
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
75
1
0
28
-------Richfield
6645 16th Ave, S.
451
16
0
0
29
Minneapolis
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
5
0
0
0
30
Bloomington
8715 River Ridge Rd.603
2
0
0
31
Bloomington
9501 12th Ave. S.
3
0
0
0
0--
32
Bloomington
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
1
0
0
—
0
33
Burnsville
North River Hills Park
5
0
0
34
Burnsville
Red Oak Park
26
0
0
0
0
35
Eagan
2100 Garnet Ln.
756
2
0
----T8-67
36
Apple Valley
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
o
0
0
37
Eagan
4399 Woodgate Ln. N.
17
0
0
--
0
38
Eagan
3957 Turquoise Cir.
0
0
0
0—
39
Eagan
3477 St. Charles Pl.
1
0
0
--
0—
---- --
Total Arrival Noise Events
33144
4454
88
0
-21-
Report
21-Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Departure Related Noise Events
January 2010
RMT
ib
.City
Address.
Dop arture
Evensit >
,
65dB
Departure
Ent >=
ve s
80dB
Departure
Events >=
90dB
Departure
Events >=
100dB
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Ave. & 41st St.
619
8
0
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
696
11
0
0
3
Minneapolis
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave.
1628
28
1
0
4
Minneapolis
Park Ave. & 48th St.
1731
74
0
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St.
5390
722
86
0
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St.
6633
1474
305
1
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
3127
173
0
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
1620
69
1
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
5
0
0
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
9
3
2
0
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Schaffer Ave.
19
4
2
0
12
St. Paul
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
4
0
0
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
878
10
0
0
14
Eagan
1 st St. & McKee St.
788
40
3
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
1119
26
1
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln.
858
78
8
0
17
Bloomington
84th St. & 4th Ave.
32
--�294
7
2
0
18
Richfield
St. & 17th Ave.
75th -
208
7
0
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
1066
42
0
20
Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
41
3
0
0
21
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
191
2
0
0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
167
0
0
0---
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kenndon Ave,
1728
111
14
0
24
Eagan
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
533
12
0
0
25
Eagan
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd.
721
3
0
0
26
Inver Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
458
11
0
0
27
Minneapolis
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
1919
49
0
0
28
Richfield
6645 16th Ave, S.
2830
172
0
0
29
Minneapolis
Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S.
597
14
0
0
30
Bloomington
8715 River Ridge Rd.
2380
294
18
0
31
Bloomington
9501 12th Ave. S.
201
5
1
0 —7-
32
Bloomington
10325 Pleasant Ave. S.
39
0
0
0
-Burnsville
33
North River Hills Park
31 - 5
3
---
0
0
34
Burnsville
Red Oak Park
45
0
0
0
35
Eagan
2100 Garnet Ln.
415
10
0
0
36
Apple Valley
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond
100
0
0
0-
37
Eagan
4399 Woodgate Ln. N.
374
11
0
0
38
Eagan
-.
3957 Turquoise Cir.
649
---�94
16
0
0-
39
Eagan
3477 St. Charles Pl.
28
0
0
Total Departure Noise Events
4311 3
-22- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#1)
Xerxes Ave. & 41 st St., Minneapolis
--Date/Time
Flight —Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure_
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/05/201013:48
NWA321
B744
D
30L
85.3
01/20/201010:21
NWA2393
B757
A
12L
85.2
—A
01/22/201017:41
AAL1484
MD80
DC9Q A
12R
83.4
01/31/201013:36
DAL619
B744
D
30L
82
-
61/21/2010 12:11
--N-W—A7300
30L —
A
12R
81.8
01/18/201015:26
----NWA7281
DC9Q
D
30R
81.7
01/21/201010.26
NWA7287
DC9Q
A
12R
81.7
01/25/201015:24
NWA7281
DC9Q
D
30R
81.3
01/26/201012:55
NWA619
8744
D
30L
81.3
01/03/201013:12
NWA321
8744
D
30L
81.1
-23-
Report Generated: 02116/2010 12:57
(RMT Site#2)
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/15/2010 8:52
N VA7316
DC9Q A
12L
88.2
---
61/18/2010 12:50
---NWA619
8744 D
30L
86.4
01/21/201011:49
NWA7320
DC9Q A
12L
86.3
01/011201019.53
NWA7367
DC9Q D
30R —
85.9
01/28/201013:13
A619
B744 D
30L —
85.8
01/22/201017:45
--
�1/23/2010 16 04
N VA7236
--�WA7303
DC9Q A
DC9Q A
12L
12L
85.6
84.6
01/23/201017:14
01/23/201016:09
NWA7392
NWA7308
DC9Q A
DC9QA
12
12L
84.4
84.2
01/23/2010 9:10
A7388
_
DC9Q A
I
12L
84.1
—
(RMT Site#3)
West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/21/201016:14
NWA2141
B757 A
12R
9230L
01/31/2010-13:35
UAL819
B744 D
90.8
01/28/201013:12
NWA619
8744 D
30L
89.9
01/26/201012:55
NWA619
8744 D
30L
89.5
--
01/25/201013:15
NWA619
B744 D
30L
89.5
01/03/2001/03/201013:11
NWA321
B744 D
30L
89.3
01/04/201014:01
-----N—WA321
—B744 D
30L
88.5
01/21/201012:17
KFS98
LJ25 A
1—
2R
88.2
01/23/201011:53
NWA7300
DC9Q A
12R
87.4
01/05/201013:48
NWA321
8744 D
30L
87
-23-
Report Generated: 02116/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#4)
PPH4, ANip & 4Rth qt MinnPRnolis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/27/201013:57
NWA619
B744
D
30L
89.6
01/02/201013:02
NWA321
B744
D
30L
89.3
01/24/201013:10
NWA619
8744
D
30L
89
01/23/201017:54
DAL1490
MD80
A
12L
88.7
01/20/201015:56
NWA7303
DC9Q
A
12L
88.5
01/18/201013:58
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
30R
88.3
01/21/201019:41
BMJ69
BE65
A
12L
87.5
01/05/2010 8:53
NWA7302
DC9Q
D
30R
87.4
01/22/2010 22:10
NWA7297
DC9Q
A
12L
87.1
01/22/2010 20:48
NWA7200
DC9Q
A
12L
87
(RMT Site#5)
19th Ax/P A r)Rth qt Minnpqnnlis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/02/201013:02
NWA321
B744
D
30L
96.9
01/05/201013:47
NWA321
B744
D
30L
96.7
01/04/201014:00
NWA321
B744
D
30L
96.2
01/03/201013:11
NWA321
B744
D
30L
95.6
01/18/2010 12:49
NWA619
8744
D
30L
95A
01/07/201013:59
NWA321
B744
D
30L
95
01/25/201013:14
NWA619
8744
D
30L
94.9
01/24/201013:09
NWA619
8744
D
30L
94.9
01/24/2010 22:27
NWA7247
DC9Q
D
30L
94.8
01/28/201013:12
NWA619
B744
D
30L
94.7
(Ri\A i 5ite4b)
95th Ax/P & .57th St.- MinneaDolis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrivall
Departure
Runway
L max(dB)
01/24/201015:12
NWA7281
DC9Q
D
30R
100.1
01/25/201013:48
NWA730W
DC9Q
D
30R
99
01/24/201014:05
NWA7320
DC9Q
D
30R
98.3
01/18/201013:57
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
30R
98.1
01/24/201017:51
NWA7396
DC9Q
D
30R
98.1
01/24/201017:41
NWA7354
DC9Q
D
30R
98
01/25/2010 7:48
NWA7234
DC9Q
D
30R
97.5
01/24/2010 20:11
NWA7384
DC9Q
D
30R
97.5
01/01/201015:59
NWA7372
DC9Q
D
30R
97.3
j 01/24/201013:46
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
30R
97*3
-24- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#7)
IAI r+,.,.,, -+h A%in P- RAth �t Pirhfipld
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/02/2010 7:41
AAL2263
MD80
D
30L
88.7
—
01/31/201014:15
AAL1 196
MD80
D
30L
88.6
01/03/2010 8:48
AAL675
MD80
D
30L
87.9D
01/01/201014:49
DALI 563
MD80
30R
30L
87.9
01/67/2010 8:20
AAL2263
MD80
D
30L
-30L
87.5
01/03/201019:42
NWA7212
DC9Q
D
87.2
87.3
01/02/201014:13
01/14/201014:20
AAL1196
AAL1 196
MD80
MD80
D
D
30L
30L
86.9
86.8
01/02/2010 7:09
01/29/2010
FDX645
AAL675
DC10
MD80
D
� I
30L
30L
--�o —L
86.6
86.6
(RMT Site#8)
H A— 9. AZrr4 qt l\AinnPqnnIi.c;
Date/Time
ZI
Flight Number Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/25/2010 7:48
NWA7234
DC9Q
D
30R
91.3
01/11/2010 8:54
NWA7302
DC9Q
D
3OR
89.5
—
01/24/2010 20:12
NWA7384—
DC9Q
D
30R
89.1
—
01/30/201013:28
NWA7300—
DC9Q
D
30R
89.1
01/30/201019:07
NWA7254
DC9Q
D
30R
87,6
01/25/201013:49
N A730W
DC9Q
D
30R
87.2
01/14/2010 8;02
AAL543
MD80
D
30R
86.8
—
01/18/2010 7:47
NWA7234
DC9Q
D
30R
86.2
01/29/2010 8:45
NWA7302
DC9Q
D
30R
85
01/25/201010:51
NWA7380
DC9Q
D
30R
84.8
kr-\Ivl I '--)ILUrrUj
-25-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Saratoga
St. & Hartford
Ave., 6t. Haul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Runway
Lmax(dB)
Departure
01/11/201013:28
NWA619
8744
D
04
76.4
01/11/2010 21:28
NWA7236
DC9Q
D
30R
73
01/27/2010
BMJ48
BE65
D
30R
69.8
01/28/20101:24
ATN807
DC8Q
D
30R
69.5
01/01/2010
20
A320
D
30R
67.5
-25-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#1 0)
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.. St. Paul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/11/201013:28
NWA619
B744
D
04
94.2
01/22/2010 13:03
NWA619
8744
D
04
91.6
01/21/2010 7:01
BMJ62
BE65
D
12R
81.6
01/19/201010:04
BMJ88
BE80
D
12R
78.9
01/23/2010 7:25
BMJ66
BE80
D
12L
75.6
01/27/2010 7:23
BMJ48
BE65
D
30R
72.7
01/20/2010 6:40
BMJ88
BE65
D
12R
71.9
01/10/201013:52
MES3138
SF34
A
12L
71.9
01/23/2010 7:20
BMJ72
BE65
D
12L
70.6
F 61/21/2010 6:57
BMJ68
BE99
D
12R
69.7
(RMT Site#1 1)
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.. St. Paul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/11/201013:28
NWA619
8744
D
04
92.5
01/22/201013:04
NWA619
8744
D
04
90.5
01/21/2010 7:02
BMJ62
BE65
D
12R
81
01/07/2010 7:35
BMJ48
BE65
D
30R
80.1
01/20/2010 6:40
BMJ88
BE65
D
12R
76.4
01/2712010 7:23
BMJ48
BE65
D
30R
76.4
01/19/201010:05
BMJ88
BE80
D
12R
75.6
01/20/201013:21
MES3168
SF34
D
12L
74.6
01/26/20101.0:41
BMJ59
BEK
D
30L
73.1
01/21/2010 6:57
BMJ68
BE99 I
D
12R
72.8
(RMT Site#12)
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/25/201016:11
DALI 760
8738
A
30R
75.3
01/23/2010 7:22
BMJ54
BE65
D
12L
73.5
01/20/2010 6:40
BMJ88
BE65
D
12R
72
01/23/2010 7:19
BMJ72
BE65
D
12L
71.6
01/19/2010 6:50
BMJ70
BE65
D
12R
71.2
-26- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#1 3)
C, +11 + onA r -,f NAnhir-:::in Cr)i irt NApndnt2 Heiahts
Date/Time
Flight Number v
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/13/2010 21:45
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
82
01/15/2010 22:24
NWA7247
DC9Q
D
12L
81.3
—
01/16/2010 19:39
I NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L
80.9
01/15/201015:38
NWA7239
DC9Q
D
12L
80.7
01/12/2010 20:36
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
80.6
—
01/16/201019:28
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
80.5
—
01/13/2010 20:11
NWA264
A330
D
12R
80.5
01/22/201019:29
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
80.2
01/12/201018:24
AAL1 167
MD80
D
12L
80.1
01/12/201015:02
NWA7281
DC9Q
D
12L
80—
(RMT Site#14)
I-+ Q+ R. I\ArWinin -qt Pnriqn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/17/201010:03
NWA9900
B744
D
12R
94.3
01/13/201012:51
NWA619
8744
D
12R
93.5
01/21/201013:18
NWA619
8744
D
12R
90.8
01/09/201013:01
NWA321 —
8744
D
12R
89.9
01/29/2010 8:01
NWA7280
DC9Q
A
30L
89
01/06/201012:59
NWA321
B744
D
12R
87.7
01/19/201013:11
NWA619
8744
6--12R
12L
87.2
01/20/201013:01
NWA619 —
8744
D
12R
87
01/16/201015:39
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
12R
86.1
01/13/201014:20
AAL1 196
MD80
D
12R
85.4
(N,IVI I !-,ILel+ I Z))
c+ 9- 1 ovinrifnn A\/,n Mpnrintq Hpinhts
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/16/201019:59
NWA7351
—
DC9Q
D
12L
90.3
01/21/2010 22:22
NWA7247
DC9Q
D
12L
89
01/15/2010 22:23
NWA7247
DC9Q
–6—
12L
86.7
01/23/201019:54
NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L—
83.6
01/13/2010 20:16
NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L
83.3
01/23/201019:40
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
83.3
01/23/201019:53
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
83,2
01/19/201019:23
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
83.2
01/12/201018:24
AAL1 167 1
MD80 I
D
12L
83.1
01/16/201019:38
NWA7392 I
DC9Q I
D
12L
83
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57 -27-
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#1 6)
Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane. Eaaan
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(d!B)
01/17/201010:03
NWA9900
B744
D
12R
94.5
01/21/201013:18
NWA619
B744
D
12R
92.7
01/13/201012:51
NWA619
B744
D
12R
92.5
01/26/2010 21:57
DALI 710
8757
A
30L
91.9
01/16/201015:38
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
12R
91.7
01/17/201019:53
NWA7238
DC9Q
D
12R
91.6
01/17/201013:33
NWA7300
DC9Q
D
12R
91.4
01/20/201013:00
NWA619
B744
D
12R
90.9
01/06/201012:59
NWA321
B744
D
12R
90.7
01/25/201012:20
NWA7320
DC9Q
A
30L
90.5
(RMT Site#1 7)
84th St. & 4th Ave.. Bloorninaton
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/10/201012:58
NWA619
B744
D
22
90.9
01/15/201014:15
NWA619
8744
D
22
90.4
01/12/201013:22
NWA619
B744
D
22
89.8
01/14/201013:09
NWA619
B744
D
22
84.5
01/17/201013:01
NWA619
8744
D
22
84,4
01/23/2010 7:34
BMJ64
BE65
D
17
81.8
01/30/201013:59
DAL619
B744
D
22
80.1
01/28/2010 23:01
UPS559
MD1 I
D
22
79.2
01/11/2010 22:01
FDX1 207
DC10
D
30L
792
01/19/2010 6:59
BMJ64
BE65
D
17
76.6
(RMT Site#1 8)
75th St- & 17th Ave.. Richfield
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/17/201013:00
NWA619
B744
D
22
98.4
01/15/201014:14
NWA619
B744
D
22
97.8
01/12/201013:21
NWA619
8744
D
22
97.2
01/30/2010 13:59
DAL619
8744
D
22
95.7
01/10/201012:58
NWA619
B744
D
22
95.7
01/14/201013:09
NWA619
8744
D
22
94.6
01/19/2010 0:12
VIR44W
8744
D
22
91.1
01/22/2010 9:22
NWA7230
DC9Q
D
17
89.1
01/23/2010 9:25
NWA374W
DC9Q
D
17
87.7
01/18/2010 7:17
NWA7331
DC9Q
A
35
87.6
-28- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#1 9)
1, A — Q- QA+k Q+ Pir-inminr-itnn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/ v
Departure_
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/17/201013:01
NWA619
B744
D
22
87.1
01/21/2010 7:35
NWA7234
DC9Q
D
17
84.3
01/19/2010 6:59
BMJ64
BE65
D
17
83.8
01/22/201013:38
NWA7300
DC9Q
D
17
83.1
01/10/201012:58
NWA619
B744
D
22
83
01/27/201013:12
NWA7371
DC9Q
A
35
82.9
01/21/201014:24
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
17
82.3—
01/10/201014:44
NWA7222
DC9Q
D
17
82.2
01/15/201014:14
NWA619
B744
D
22
82.1
01 /21 /2010 16:24
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
17
82
(RMT Site#20)
7r,+t, Q+ Q. qrrA Axiai Pirhfiplri
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/19/2010 0:12
VIR44W
B744
D
22
83.6
01/14/201013:09
NWA619
8744
D
22
81.9
01/30/2010 13:59
DAL619
B744
D
22
80.2
01/17/201013:01
NWA619
B744
D
22
79.2
-79
01/1112010 22:01
FDX1 207
DC10
D
30L
78.4
01/10/201012:58
NWA619
8744
D
22
77.4
01/12/201013:22
NWA619
B744
D
22
75.8
01/15/201014:14
NWA619
8744
D
22
75
01/14/2010 7:23
FDX645
DC10
D
30L
74.5
01/07/201015:22
NWA2489
A319
D
30L
74,3
�KIVI I OlLel+Z 1)
9- 97tk C -'t Invc-r r�rr-i\lin Hp-inht.c;
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/20/201013:021
NWA619
8744
D
12R
83.6
01/21%201013:19
NWA619
B744
D
12R —80,2
01/13/201011:43
NWA7340
DC9Q
D
12L
78.6
01/13/201019:59
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L —78.4
01/21/2010 20:00
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
78.4
01/21/201019:56
NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L
78.3
01/23/2010 22:08
NWA7336
DC9Q
D
12R
77.6
01/16/201015:22
NWA7275
DC9Q
D
12R —
77.4
01/22/2010 20:01
NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L
76.8
—
01/23/201013:20
..NWA619
8744
D
12R
76.5
-29-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heiqhts
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/07/2010 7:06
NWA7265
DC9Q
A
30R
85.4
01/25/2010 9:40
AAL1038
MD80
A
30L
84.5
01/25/201011:14
NWA2393
B757
A
30R
82.1
01/25/2010 7:49
NWA7331
DC9Q
A
30L
'80.2
01/25/2010 8:18
NWA7370
DC9Q
A
30L
79.1
01/24/201017:05
NWA265
A330
A
30L
78.8
01/02/2010 5:54
FDX1407
DC10
A
30L
78.4
01/07/201012:46
NWA7300
DC9Q
A
30R
78.4
01/23/201016:06
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
12L
78.2
01/22/2010 8:56
NWA7302
DC9Q
D
12R
77.9
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heiqhts
Date/Time -
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/16/201019:59
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
97.1
01/16/201019:38
NWA7392
DC9Q
D
12L
95.9
01/13/2010 21:44
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
93.1
01/19/201019:22
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
92.9
01/15/201019:49
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
92
01/1312010 22:00
NWA7247
DC9Q
D
12L
91.9
01/13/201019:57
NWA7351
DC9Q
D
12L
91.1
01/22/201019:28
NWA7260
DC9Q
D
12L
90.9
01/12/201015:41
NWA7275
DC9Q
D
12L
90.8
01/15/2010 22:23
NWA7247
DC9Q
D
12L
90.8
(RMT 81te#24)
Chanel Ln. & Wren Ln., Eaqan
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/26/2010 8:11
NWA7280
DC9Q
A
30L
89.8
01/17/201010:04
NWA9900
8744
D
12R
85.9
01/13/201012:52
NWA619
B744
D
12R
85.5
01/21/201013:18
NWA619
8744
D
12R
83.7
01/13/201014:20
AAL1196
MD80
D
12R
82.4
01/16/201015:39
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
12R
82.4
01/06/201013:00
NWA321
8744
D
12R
82.4
01/25/2010 8:58
NWA7256
DC9Q
A
30L
81.5
01/20/201015:56
NWA7224
DC9Q
D
12L
81.4
01/17/2010 8:16
AAL2263
MD80
D
12R
80.9
- 30 - Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#25)
k;-- Dnrle 1q91 liirri%/ Rri Fagan
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure_
Runway
Lmax(dB)
—
01/25/201010:25
NWA7378
DC9QA
D
12R
87.6
01/04/201013:43
NWA7197
DC9Q
A
12L
83.8
01/03/2010 5:46
NWA2414
B757
A
30L
83
01/12/201014:26
AAL1779
MD80
D
17
81.4
01/20/201013:01
NWA619
B744
D
12R
81.1
-,90—.6
01/21/201013:18
NWA619
B744
D
12R
82.5
01/17/201010:03
NWA9900
8744
D
12R
79.7
01/12/201015:36
7394
—NWA
DC9Q
D
17
78.9—
01/12/201014:31
NWA7222
DC9Q
D 1
17
78.1
01/16/201015:39
NWA7394
DC91(1!
D
12R
77.7
(RMT Site#26)
-7nr- Art nc,nc Axia NAI In\/Pr (-nrn\/p Heights
Date/Time,
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/13/201012:52
NWA619
B744
D
12R
87.8
01/20/201015:25
NWA7275
DC9Q
D
12L
83.4
01/20/201013:01
NWA619
8744
D
12R
83
01/28/201017:50
FLG3902
CRJ
A
30R
83
01/17/201010:04
NWA9900
B744
D
12R
82.6
01/16/2010 9:38
D \L! 593
MD80
D
12L
82.5
01/20/201014:54
NWA7281
DC9Q
D
12L
82,3
01/19/201013:11
NWA619
B744
D
12R
82.1
01/29/201013:11
VV
WNA619
8744
D
12R
81
01/23/2010�301/23/201013:19
+ NWA619
8744
D
12R
80.9
( M IVI 1 0 1 Ujff/- I )
Q-kr-d r,7q7 lr%iinri AvP q MinnPRDOliS
Date/Time
Flight Number
V Aircraft Type
v Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/18/2010 8:47
AAL675
MD80
D
36L
86.2
—
01/05/2010 9:40
DAL1 593
MD80
D
30L
84.94
01/30/2010 7:35
AAL2263
MD80
D
30L —
84.
01/31/2010 9:53
DAL1593—
MD80
D
30R
83.9
01/03/2010 9:27
DAL1 597
MD80
D
30L —83.7
01/02/201011:04
DAL377
MD80
D
30L
83.4
01/04/201013:15
DAL1 627
MD80
D
30L
83.3
01/31/201016:33
DAL1620
MD80
D
30L
83.1
01/18/201014:28
AAL1 196
MD80
D
30L
83
01/18/201015:31
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
30L
83
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57 -31 -
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#28)
6645 16th Ave. S., Richfield
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/01/2010 21:45
NWA289W
DC9Q
D
30L
88.8
01/01/2010 22:27
NWA7219
DC9Q
D
30L
88.2
01/21/201015:19
NWA2356
A319
A
12L
88.2
01/14/2010 22:04
NWA7336
DC9Q
D
30L
88
01/14/201011:39
NWA7360
DC9Q
D
30L
87.6
01/21/2010 7:42
NWA7291
DC9Q
D
17
87.3
01/23/201013:47
NWA7323
DC9Q
D
17
86.8
01121/2010 9:57
NWA7331
DC9Q
D
17
86.6
01/20/2010 7:44
NWA7291
DC9Q
D
17
86.6
01/23/201011:55
NWA7329
DC9Q
D
17
86.2
(RMT Site#29)
Frir..-,qnn FlPm qrhnnI 4315 31st Ave. S.. Minnear)olis
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/27/2010 7:25
BMJ72
BE65
D
30R
84.9
01/24/201011:52
NWA7340
DC9Q
D
30R
82.5
01/26/2010 7:59
AAL543
MD80
D
30R
82.3
01/24/201010:36
NWA7388
DC9Q
D
30R
82.2
01/17/201015:59
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
30R
82.1
01/25/201014:40
NWA7222
DC9Q
D
30R
82.1
01/25/2010 7:49
NWA7234
DC9Q
D
30R
82
01/15/2010 6:59
BMJ48
BE65
D
30R
81.9
01/01/2010 7:59
AAL543
MD80
D
30R
81.7
01/06/201019:27
AAL429
MD80
D
30R
81.2
(RM I Siteno)
8715 River Ridae Rd.. Bloominaton
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/21/201016:24
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
17
95.1
01/20/201010:42
NWA7372
DC9Q
D
17
94
01/22/201015:39
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
17
92.8
01/23/201013:26
NWA7338
DC9Q
D
17
91.4
01/21/201010:26
NWA7329
DC9Q
D
17
91.3
01/21/2010 7:42
NWA7291
DC9Q
D
17
91.3
01/20/201019:39
NWA7325
DC9Q
D
17
91.2
01/21/201013:17
NWA7305
DC9Q
D
17
91.2
01/20/201010:11
NWA7329
DC9Q
D
17
91.2
01/22/201019:39
NWA7333
DC9Q
D
17
91.2
-32- Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#31)
r -n -i �O+k A%/ia Q Pinnrninntr)n
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure_
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/17/201013:01
NWA619
8744
D
22
94.2
0-1/20/2010 8:43
AAL675
MD80
D
17
85.3
01/22/201010:50
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
84.8
01/2D/2010 13:46
-----§—CX713
---877-377
D
17
81.9
01/21/201011:02
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
80.3
01/25/201010:27
NWA7378
DC9Q
A
30L
79.6
01/20/201010:50
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
79.3
01/19-/-20109:19
---jM—ES3573
CRJ
D
17
79.2
01/21/2010 7:41
A AL2263
MD80
D
17
78.7
01/22/2010 6:58
BMJ64
BE65
D
..17
78.2
(RMT Site#32)
01)r- 01—��nrwf Awin -q PInnminntnn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Runway
Lmax(dB)
Departure
-�—
01/10/201012:59 .
NWA619
B744
D
2
6.7 —7
01/22/201010:51
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
75.3
01/25/2010 22:35
NWA7336
DC9Q
D
30L
75
01/21/2010 11:03
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
74.2
01/18/201011:30
AWE941
A321
D
17
74
01/15/2010 6:44
ATN808
DC8Q
D
17
72.2
01/18/201011:34
-----N
A320
D
17
71.9
01/22/201014:58
01/22/2010
--IM—ES3546
CRJ
D
17
71.7
01/18/2010 6:38
FM 13
A318
D
17
71.6
01!25/2010 14:38
MES3260
S
D D
OL
71.2
(t--,IVI I OILG*00)
KI +k Dior WHIc Park Riirnqvillp
Date/Time
Flight Number'v
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Runway
Lmax(dB)
Departure
01/21/2010 9:02
AAL675
MD80
D
17
81.1
01/18/201010:59
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
80.5
—
01/23/201017:32
NWA7335
DC9Q
D
17
--
80
01/10/2010 9:29
NWA7331
DC9Q
D
17
79.8
01/16/2010 7:34
AAL2263
MD80
D
17
79.1
01/17/201019:41
NWA7325
DC9Q —
D
17
78.4
-/—
01/162010 8..43
AAL675
MD80
D
17
78.4
—6-1—/13/2010 10:33
NWA7329
—
DC9Q
D
17
78.1
01/21/2010*20:07
NWA7381
DC9Q
D
17
78
01/15/201018:34
AAL1167
MD80 +
D D
17
77.1
-33-
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#34)
Red Oak Park, Burnsville
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/16/2010 9:33
NWA7331
DC9Q
D
17
75.3
01/10/2010 9:29
NWA7331
DC9Q
D
17
74.8
01/01/2010 6:52
DAL1747
MD80
D
17
74.5
01/16/201017:35
NWA7335
DC9Q
D
17
74.4
01/31/201016:36
MES3150
SF34
A
35
74.2
01128/2010 7:49
MES3259
SF34
A
35
73.9
01/06/2010 20:13
BMJ63
BE65
A
35
73.7
01/18/201010:42
NWA7372
DC9Q
D
17
72,9
01/19/201011:58
NWA7391
DC9Q
D
17
72.8
01/18/201010:40
NWA7280
DC9Q
D
17
72.2
(RMT Site#35)
2100 Garnet Ln.. Eaaan
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/11/201011:57
NWA7220
DC9Q
A
35
85.1
01/21/201015:17
NWA7365
DC9Q
D
17
81.9
01/15/201014:20
DAU 597
MD80
D
17
81.6
01/17/201013:02
NWA619
B744
D
22
81.2
01/16/201010:47
AAL1408
MD80
D
17
81.1
01/18/201017:06
TRS861
B717
A
35
80.7
01/14/2010 7:17
UPS2557
MD11
D
17
80.6
01/22/201018:48
AAL1 167
MD80
D
17
80.5
01/21/201019:40
NWA7330
DC9Q
D
17
80.5
01/17/201011:29
NWA7360
DC9Q
D
17
80.4
(RMT Site#36)
Briar Oaks & Scout Pond, Apple Vallev
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/06/2010 7:17
MES3353
CRJ
A
35
79.7
01/27/2010 7:23
MES3209
SF34
A
35
79.1
01/19/201014:29
NWA7219
DC9Q
D
17
79
01/06/201018:48
FDX728
MD1 1
A
35
78.9
01/27/201017:11
NWA2590
A320
A
30L
78.8
01/18/201010:42
NWA7372
DC9Q
D
17
78.8
01/20/201014:46
NWA7365
DC9Q
D
17
78.7
01/05/2010 7:33
MES3292
SF34
A
35
78.6
01/29/2010 7:48
MES3148
SF34
A
35
78.6
01/18/201011:28
NWA7360
DC9Q
D
17
78.5
- 34 - Report Generated: 02/1612010 12:57
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
January 2010
(RMT Site#37)
AQQO XA/r%r-)r4nnfc:i I n 1\1 Fprinn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/21/201010:54
---qW—A7372
DC9Q
D
17
82.9
01/22/2010 9:37
DAL1593
MD80
D
17
81.4
01/21/201010:27
NWA7280
DC9Q
D
17
81
01/21/201016:25
NWA7394
DC9Q
D
17
80.9
01/17/201010:36
NWA7372
DC9Q
D
17
80.3
01/15/201016:04
AAL597
MD80
D
17
80.3
01/15/201014:20
15A L 15 9-7
MD80
D
17
80.2
01/23/201016:17
NWA7224
DC9Q
D
17
80.2
01/20/201019:50
NWA7238
DC9Q
D
17
80.2
01/21/201020:13
NWA7238
DC9Q
D
17
80
(RMT Site#38)
qOr,7Tiirr1iir)iqP('ir F:,q(-jRn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure_
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/22/2010 9:36
-----ffA—L1593
MD80
D
17
83.9
01/21/201015:20
KF—S98
LJ25
D
17
83.8
01/22/201011:30
NWA7360
DC9Q
D
17
83.7
01/17/201013:02
NWA619
B744
D
22
83
01/21/2010 9:33
DAL1593
MD80
D
17
82.717
01/21/2010 8:47
FDX4-20
MD11
D
17
81.8
01/23/201014:50
N !A7365
DC9Q
D
17
81.5
01/10/201010:49
----TA L 14 0-8
MD80
D
17
81.3
01/15/201016:04
—L597
A-A
MD80
D
17
81.21.2
01/16/2010 7:57
AAL543
MD80
D.
...17
81
(RMT Site#39)
QA77 Q+ r'hnrIrnz PI Pqr-iqn
Date/Time
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lmax(dB)
01/15/2010 20:07
A 5,L429
MD80
D
17
84.5
01/23/2010 9:25
DAL1593
MD80
D
17
82.9
01/17/201019:26
NWA7254
DC9Q
D
- 17
82.8-9-2.6
01/12/2010 9:41
DAL1593
—
MD80
D
17
01/16/2010 14:24
AAL1779
MD80
D
17
82.6
01/17/201019:46
AAL429
—
MD80
D
17
82.5
01/15/201013:55
NWA7214
DC9Q
D
17
82.4
01/13/201011:02
AAL1408
MD80
D
17 -
81.9
01/23/2010 8:24
AAL543
MD80
D
17
81.7
01/15/201017:23
NWA7354 —T
DC9Q
D
17
81.6
January.201 0 Remote. Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for January 2010 were comprised of 86.1 %
departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 43.2% of the highest Lmax
events.
January 2010 Technical Advisor Report Note
Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data. Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the
month of January 2010.
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57 - 35 -
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
January 2010
Remote Monitoring Towers
Date
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
01/01/2010
48
47.7
54.1
54.8
63.6
66.6
57.9
52.3
37
39.6
41.3
NA
NA
52
NA
01/02/2010
48.2
52.3
58.6
56.1
66.9
67.7
60.8
54.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
48
56.3
48.5
01/03/2010
47.1
48.3
54.8
55.3
65.3
67.5
58 1
53.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50.5
30.7
01/04/201048.9
45.7
53.7
53
65.1
67.7
59.3
53.4
NA
NA
NA
34.6
NA
52.5
41.4
01/05/2010
48.9
49.6
52.6
54.6
64.6
67.2
58.5
53.3
NA
NA
27.2
34.7
38.7
52.7
41.9
01/06/2010
53.3
54.5
58.8
57.8
65.4
66.4
56
54.1
NA
NA
NA
38.1
44.4
55.1
45.9
01/07/2010
48
49.4
56
55.8
64.3
66.6
60.5
53.7
NA
NA
40.9
NA
32.5
55.9
30.8
01/08/2010
48.1
48.4
52.8
54.6
63.4
66.8
58.2
55.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.7
52.3
27.9
01/09/2010
52.8
54.6
58.2
56.4
63.3
64
43.7
47.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
46.3
53.8
49.9
01/10/2010
48.4
53.5
56
55.1
63.4
65.6
54.7
50.1
NA
30.8
NA
NA
46.7
56.9
48.6,
01 /11 /2010
48.1
49.6
53.3
56.5
64.3
68.6
59.4
56.7
38.4
52
51.3
33.6
38.4
55.9
38.3
01/12/2010
54.6
57.7
61.9
58.6
65.8
64.7
44.9
46.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.5
57.6
56.7
01/13/2010
55.5
58
61.3
58.7
66.1
65.3
42.6
41.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
56.5
60
58.3
01/14/2010
51.8
50.6
54.3
57.8
65.1
68.61
59
55.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
40.6
59.7
42.5
01/15/2010
52.9
57.5
61
59.4
66.2
67
55.8
52.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.1
59.1
58.8
01/16/2010
54
55.8
60.4
56.7
64.4
63
NA
41.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
51.2
61.1
55.2
01/17/2010
55.2
56.2
59.6
58.8
64.9
67.5
54.6
52.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.6
60.4
51.4
01/18/2010
52.5153.7
57.5
158.6
69
159.2
56.61
NA
NA
I NA
I NA
50.8
58.6
52.51
01/19/2010
53.7
57.4
61.3
59.2
_66.2
64.5
65.1
54.1
51
1 NA
38.3
43.31
42
46.8
58
50.8
01/20/ 2010
58.8
60.5
64.2
60.8
67.2
67
42.6
42.71
NA
42.2
46.3
42.4
52.8
57.9
57
01 /21 /2010
59.4
61.9
64.3
61.8
67.5
67.3
45.2
40.41
NA
42.7
42.8
NA
55.8
57.4
59.8
01/22/2010
59.2
60.4
66
61.4
69.7
66.4
40.3
44.2
NA
49.3
48.5
NA
56.5
59.7
58.9
01/23/2010
56.8
59.2
64
60_
68.3
1 66
144.2
42.5
NA
36.2
32.2
34.3
49.7
54.3
52.81
01/24/2010
53.4
51.8
58.7
57.7
68.2
70
159.4
56.5
NA
NA
31.3
NA
36.1
59.8
44.6
01/25/2010
48.5
50.7
55.6
57
65.7
70
161.3
58
NA
NA
NA
31.6
29.6
58.7
41.8
01/26/2010
44.6
48.2
53.2
53.4
62.9
66.3157.6
55.8.
NA
NA
131.2
31.9.25.7
55.9
28.7
01/27/2010
48.1
50.8
54
55.1
63.1
66.3
58.5
53.4
29.9
30.7
36.7
NA
126.2
55.3
39.2
01/28/2010
47.7
51.2
53.9
54.6
63.6
67.8
56.8
53.81
36
NA
NA
30.2
NA
53.9
25.8
01/29/2010
46.8
56
57
58
64.2
67
54.9
52.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.1
55.4
50.8
01/30/2010
50.5
53.2
52.2
54.1
59.9
67.5
49.9
54.1
36.5
44.5
NA
NA
42.4
55.4
41.4
01/31/2010
48.5
50.4
54.2
55.9
62.9
67.4
56.8
53.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
42.6
58
44.5
J
Mo.DNL
1 53.3
1 55.4
59.4
57.7
65.5
67.2
56.8153.31
-
28.4140.31
40.2
1 32.5
52.6
I
- 36 - Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
January 2010
Remote Monitoring Towers
Date
-
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21.
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
01 /01 /2010
60.1
NA
43.6
43.7
NA
NA
46.3
43.8
50.3
28.8
40.2
51.3
58.4
52.1
01/02/2010
62.9
NA
44,8
33.4
37.9
44.7
51.1
57.9
54
43.4
48.4
54.5
51.3
47.2
01/03/2010
61.1
39.5
49.2
33.1
43.2
NA
44.6
44.6
51.1
49.4
34.7
55.1
53.6
43.8
01/04/2010
61.1
NA
42.4
35.2
NA
33.4
46.3
47.5
51.6
41.3
30.5
54.7
53.1
44.3
01/05/2010
61.5
NA
46.3
30
NA
38.9
46.8
43.6
53
34.1
33.7
55.7
51.4
42.6
01/06/2010
61.5
NA
55.4
47.5
NA
37.9
48.8
51.4
53.7
40.9
48.1
54.2
56.5
47.5
01/07/2010
62
25.9
40,6
NA
38
NA
50,1
46
55.2
38.5
41.7
54.8
57.7
44.8
01/08/2010
61.7
40
48.8
453
43.6
NA
47.4
48.4
51.2
39,8
35.8
53.2
53.7
44.5
01/09/2010
59.8
38.8
54.3
45.5
40.2
43.6
43.2
57.7
50.8
41.2
53
44.8
51.1
39
01/10/2010
-
61
50
56.8
50.1
36.8
40.6
46.4
53.7
54.1
43.7
47.9
52.2
55.8
42
01/11/2010
61.6
49
50.3
48.3
49.9
32
49.9
47.1
55
38.6
44.8
55.1
55.9
47.3
01/12/2010
59.3
49.5
59.7
51
39.3
47
49.5
61.8
54.9
53.8
53.1
40.6
55.8
33.7
01/13/2010
62.1
NA
57.9
51.6
NA
48.9
51.7
6 F4. 5
56.9
52.6
53.2
42.6
56.2
32.3
01/14/2010
64.4
47.4
53.2
52.9
44.8
NA
55.2
51.7
58.6
36.2
46.3
52.6
60.6
49.7
01/15/2010
62.5
50.2
60.1
54.3
37.2
45.7
53.6
63.6
56.8
51.6
47.6
51.8
56.3
51.8
01/16/2010
61
NA
57.2
52.2
NA
43.7
51.2
62.8
58.4
51.3
55.6
38.6
54.7
32.9
01/17/2010
63.9
48.4
58.5
53.9
44.3
42.5
52.2
57.9
57.8
45.4
51.2
52
53.6
45.5
01/18/2010
63
46.5
53.8
45.6
46.9
45.8
53
59
56.8
47.7
48.6
55.4
56.6
47.9
01/19/2010
61
49
62.5
55.4
54.5
41.8
48.7
59.8
55.6
48.2
48.8
47.2
56.5
42.2
01/20/2010
60.4
NA
58.8
55.7
NA
43.4
46.8
61.2
53,9
55.6
50.5
41
58.6
NA
01/21/2010
i
159-.5
NA
59.5
567
NA
49
---
44.7
64.5
53
52.3
53.3
41.5
61
33.9
01/22/2010
61.4
NA
59.9
55.1
NA
46.8
49.7
63.4
56.9
56.9
51.6
33.4
59
NA
01/23/2010
-
57
9
39.8
59.1
.52
NA
48.2
40.8
58.8
50.9
49.8
50.3
41.4
60.4
NA
01/24/2010
65.3
31.8
40.3
NA
42.1
NA
53.4
50.4
58.5
45.4
42.3
56.4
57.6
49
01/25/2010
64.3
NA
36.1
28.4
31.6
NA
55.1
49.6
59.2
45.1
40.1
54.8
58
51.8
01/26/2010
62
NA
37.4
32.2
NA
41.2
51.3
38.9
8 *9
55.4
37.4
7 ' 4
43.3
55.1
53.3
50.2
01/27/2010
61.5
NA
41.3
37.6
38.5
26.4
51.4
45.5
5.5
r36
55.3
6 . 4
26.4
rNA
38.2
53.8
53.1
51.2
01/28/2010
61.7
48.5
54.7
46
40.3
26.9
48.8
43.6
4
53.1
NA
54.6
53.8
52
48.3
01/29/2010
60.6
40.9
50.9
43.5
NA
53.1
51.1
7
55.7
53.6
2
37.8
47.7
51
51.1
41
01/30/2010
59.6
41
55.4
46.9
41.3
30.1
507
50
53.4
44.3
45.6
47.8
53.7
42.1
01 /31 /2010
58.8
36.1
41.4
44.9
35.7
27.5
52.1
53.3
57
24.7
46.4
53.1
---
52.1
44.8
Mo.DNL
61.7
43.9
55.8
50.3
43.1
44
50.6
158.3
1 55.41
48.11
49.441
52.6
56.4
46.7
Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57 -37-
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL
January 2010
Remote Monitoring Towers
Date
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
1 #38
#39
01/01/2010
58.4
39
NA
41
42.8
50.2
50.8
35.5
NA
NA
01/02/2010
45.7
NA
45.1
NA
NA
45.8
51.6
NA
NA
NA
01/03/2010
56
36.3
NA
NA
26.8
45.1
49.1
37.8
NA
NA
01/04/2010
44.4
NA
NA
NA
38,8
44.3
49.4
39.5
NA
NA
01/05/2010
43.6
37.6
40
30.2
36.7
44.5
48.5
39.3
NA
NA
01/06/2010
59.7
36.9
29.3
42.7
36.6
49
49.9
44.2
46
46
01/07/2010
42.41
NA
NA
126.8
27.8
46.1
46.7
NA
NA
31.7
01/08/2010
54.9
40.4
41.7
40.5
40.9
44.8
50.3
42.3
NA
NA
01/09/2010
58.8
41.3
NA
43.9
33
48.9
41.5
46.4
46.6
47.1
01/10/2010
55.9
34.3
35.2
44.1
38
47
48.8
45.9
48.1
49.3
01 /11 /2010
57.1
44.6
42.5
43.9
43.1
51.7
52
37.3
NA
33.4
01/12/2010
57.4
39
32.3
45.1
33.4
44.2
33.5
46.4
48.8
52.7
01/13/2010
59.3
42.4
32.3
46
39.1
44.5
31.3
49.7
50.7
511.9
01/14/2010
60.4
48.6
45.3
35.2
37.5
54.2
53.4
35.6
29.2
NA
01/15/2010
62.6
44.2
45.2
46.3
31.1
51.1
47.5
47.3
49.6
53.4
01116/2010
59.2
40.1
30
148.9
40.6
45.9
41.4
46.5
49.8
52.6
01/17/2010
59.2
52.8
32.9
47.2
35.2
1 50.7
149.6
48
150.4
51
01/18/2010
NA
144.5
43.5
44.3
38.4
52.6
54.6
NA
I NA
NA
01/19/2010
60.7
35.1
NA
39.5
31.8
46.3
35.2
48
49.3
49.6
01/20/2010
63.7
46.4
30.7
44.8
38
49.2
41.9
48.8
50.1
52,1
01 /21 /2010
64.6
47
36.2
45.8
33.6
50.2
37.1
50.8
53.5
52.7
01/22/2010
62.6
49.7
38.3
43.6
32.5
48.6
35
48.6
51.7
52.4
01/23/2010
59.6
135.2
NA
43.6
NA
45.4
34.1
47.21
50
50.6
01/24/2010
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
01/25/2010
44.4
38.2
43.8
26
NA
45.7
48.8
NA
NA
NA
01/26/2010
44.7
28
38.5
NA
27
47.1
50.8
31.3
NA
NA
01/27/2010
46.3
NA
NA
NA
33.1
47.8
51.7
NA
NA
NA
01/28/2010
53
NA
40.6
NA
40
45.8
50.8
NA
NA
30.8
01/29/2010
57.9
36.2
NA
34.9
38
48.4
49.8
41.4
42.6
47.9
01/30/2010
60.4
34.2
NA
41.6
30.1
51.2
51.7
38.2
41.3
41.4
01 /31 /2010
58.9
NA
NA
38.6
31.2
49
51.6
39.2
NA
NA
Mo.DNIL
58.5
43.1
38.7
42.4
36.9
48.6
i 49.2
44.5
46.3
47.8
- 38 - Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:57
// ® 1/31/2010
Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
USP
'
yWddr
�i qA tib Yi #�
"11 r #ir
- i i : t r4C11
60
This report is for informational purposes only
and cannot be used for enforcement purposes.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
2262* Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in January 2010
2128 (94.1 %) of those Operations Remained in the Corridor
'A"
Nqjnneapdlq� . .....
W, -
L I UW,
Y'
O."g, (P
Ichifiel v ti,/X
IX,
t5loom ifgtylj
R
d
�(2
id
k
P
lip.
2262* Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure
Operations
2128 (94.1 %) Total 12L & 12R Carrier
Departure Operations in the Corridor
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for In Corridor Gate
1/1/2010 00:00:00 - 1/31/2010 23:59:59
2128 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1181 (55.5%), Right = 947 (44.5%
6000
5500
5000
4566
Co 4000..
0 C,
lfi W "g
'N'
Rz
'This number Includes 2 12U12R departure tracks that began beyond the couldorboundarles; thereforethecompliance of these tracks is undetermined.
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:18 Page 1
Metropolitan Airports Commission
97 (4.3%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
North of the 090° Corridor Boundary during January 2010
Of t I hose, 67( � returned to Corridor before reaching SE border of Ft. Snelling State Park
0321
"0., 4
4,
I i
p q Valley
6AFMIlliIIIIII
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for North Corridor Gate
1/1/2010 00:00:00 - 1 /31 /2010 23:59:59
97 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 81 (83.5%), Right = 16 (16.5%
Page 2 Monthly Eagan/menooia r-iejgnLs uuyaitui u 1111-1 Y-.
ill
Metropolitan Airports Commission
35 (1.5%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During January 2010
Of those, 5( -) returned to Corridor before reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park
1181 Paul
! 4v
z
jj_VV,V000 L
V�5,buth St �V
.11P.
I if a
00M11, h
.. ... ....
e -A
;P j G H ht
4 L,,
rl
,do
A
j
W7
Y.fj
P.
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis, Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:18 Page
t.
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for South Corridor Gate
1/1/2010 00:00:00 - 1/31/2010 23:59:59
35 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 21 (60%), Right = 14 (40%)
d
4i
't 3000
Ck
2000
0,
1500
logo
500
0
-1:8 -i.6. =1.4 '-1.'WL6 8 '-0.6 _0-4, 0.2! 0.0 6.2 C; 4 0:6' 1.4, 1.6 ,
,
(bora�.i��C, vvy N1i
"
'* ,
Ee �r1�6itPr, 6F, Ca�e,
1,
on: labs that opera� ini�above'.graoh'.`* 1'4
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis, Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:18 Page
Metropolitan Airports Commission
1 (0%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 50
South of the Corridor (50 South of 30L Localizer) During January 2010
J111
51
�i ( ��, y� i�� li
A'.
&�db
13
, sl�
L
149WestvSt, P
�-10 ...... .......
110 ii
_jn St.
NA
4 �,S J III ih La PUttI
nn ua -1Ez-
rnji �,Qtdr)
St! IPqI P.AN
In er GrpHeights',,
rey�QlbudIslandjwp
S".
",%H5v
6
"u-
-I- W,111 X IRoserno
P
ey
Yi
Page 4 Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:18
`
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12L/1 2R Departure Destinations for January 2010
Airport City Heading #ops Percent of
(deg.) Total Ops
FAR FARGO 3120 70 3.1%
SEA SEATTLE 2780 70 3.1%
ORD CHICAGO (O -HARE) 124- 69 3.1%
BIS BISMARCK 2910 58 2.6%
DLH DULUTH 190 54 2.4%
GRB GREEN BAY 900 54 2.4%
SLC SALT LAKE CITY 2520 53 2.3%
DTW DETROIT 110-5-0 51 2.3%
Yyz TORONTO 950 50 2.2%
GFK GRAND FORKS 3160 47 2.1%
YWG WINNIPEG 330- 46 2%
SFO SAN FRANCISCO 2510 42 1.9%
BOS BOSTON 970 41 1.8%
YEG EDMONTON -302- 38 1.7%
�
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/16/2010 12:18 Page
N
1/1/2010® 1/31/201
Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
1 c
.yyypp��Wy
t
)y'
IN36LIN-
:
36:
4t:
This report is for informational purposes only
and cannot be used for enforcement purposes.
3467 Carrier Jets Departed Runway 17 - 1/1/2010 - 1/31/2010
Runway 17 Departure Overflight Grid Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 11112010-113112010. Report Generated: 0211012010 16:21 - 1 -
fill.,
VYA
CI
,��,•®•
�...
®moo
,
A�" pll�:°�e_
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 11112010-113112010. Report Generated: 0211012010 16:21 - 1 -
Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 1/l/2010-1/31/201..
= _ 3461 (99.8%) West Bound Carrier Jet 6 (0.2%) Carrier Jet Departure
Departure Operations Flying the Runway 17 Jet Operations Turned West Before Passing Over the
Departure Procedure (Passing Over the 2.5 NM Runway 17 2.5 NM Turn Point. This is 6.0E+13%
Turn Point) and Runway 17 Eastbound Carrier Jet of 0 Westbound Departures
Departure Operations
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2010-1/31/2010. Report Generated. 02110/2010 16:21 - 2 -
l
Runway 17 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 1/1/2010 - 1/31/2010
{
t j
100 t�
rl
1� s�Bloorrjingto`�,
r
14 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations off of
Runway 17 in 1/1/2010 - 1/31/2010 (10:30 p.m.-6:00a.m.)
0 (0%) West Bound Carrier Jet
�"_-.-, 5 (35.7%) West Bound Carrier Jet
Departures Turned West Between 2.5 and 3.0 NM
Departures Turned West After 3.0 NM from Start of
from Start of Takeoff and Remained Over the
Takeoff and Remained Over the Minnesota River
Minnesota River Valley (trending with Runway 17
Valley (trending with Runway 17 River Departure
River Departure Heading)
Procedure)
0 (0%) Carrier Jet Departures Turned
1 (7.1%) Remaining West Bound Carrier
West Before Passing Over the Runway 17 2.5 NM
Jet Departures Flew the Runway 17 Jet Departure
Turn Point
Procedure (Passing Over the 2.5 NM Turn Point),
and with an enroute heading to the destination
airport
8 (57.1°/x) Other Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2010-1/31/2010. Report Generated: 02110/2010 16:21 - 3 -
Remote
ote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations
LEGEND
!Existing RMTs
Runwav 17-35 RIvIT's
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 11112010-113112010. Report Generated: 0211012010 16:21 - 4 -
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Levels - QNL dBA 1/1/2010-1/31/2010
Date
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35 1
#36
#37
#38
#39
1
58.4
39
NA
41
42.8
50.2
50.8
35.5
NA
NA
2
45.7
NA
45.1
NA
NA
45.8
51.6
NA
NA
NA
3
56
36.3
NA
NA
26.8
45.1
49.1
37.8
NA
NA
4
44.4
NA
NA
NA
38.8
44.3
49.4
39.5
NA
NA
5
43.6
37.6
40
30.2
36.7
44,5
48.5
39.3
NA
NA
6
59.7
36.9
29.3
42.7
36.6
49
49.9
44.2
46
46
7
42.4
NA
NA
26.8
27.8
46.1
46.7
NA
NA
31.7
8
54.9
40.4
41.7
40.5
40.9
44.8
50.3
42.3
NA
NA
9
58.8
41.3
NA
43.9
33
48.9
41.5
46.4
46.6
47.1
10
55.9
34.3
35.2
44.1
38
47
48.8
45.9
48.1
49.3
11
57.1
44.6
42.5
43.9
43.1
51.7
52
37.3
NA
33.4
12
57.4
39
32.3
45.1
33.4
44.2
33.5
46.4
48.8
52.7
13
59.3
42.4
32.3
46
39.1
44.5
31.3
49.7
50.7
51.9
14
60.4
48.6
45.3
35.2
37.5
54.2
53.4
35.6
29.2
NA
15
62.6
44.2
45.2
46.3
31.1
51.1
47.5
47.3
49.6
53.4
16
59.2
40.1
30
48.9
40.6
45.9
41.4
46.5
49.8
52.6
17
59.2
52.8
32.9
47.2
35.2
50.7
49.6
48
50.4
51
18
NA
44.5
43,5
44.3
38.4
52.6
54.6
NA
NA
NA
19
60.7
35.1
NA
39.5
31.8
46.3
35.2
48
49.3
49,6
20
63.7
46.4
30.7
44,8
38
49.2
41.9
48.8
50.1
52.1
21
1 64.6
47
36.2
45.8
33.6
50.2
37.1
50.8
53.5
52.7
22
62.6
49.7
38.3
43.6
32.5
48.6
35
48.6
51.7
52.4
23
59.6
35.2
NA
43.6
NA
45.4
34.1
47.2
50
50.6
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25
44.4
38.2
43.8
26
NA
45.7
48.8
NA
NA
NA
26
44.7
28
38.5
NA
27
47.1
50.8
31.3
NA
NA
27
46.3
NA
NA
NA
33.1
47.8
51.7
NA
NA
NA
28
53
NA
40.6
NA
40
45.8
50.8
NA
NA
30.8
29
57.9
36.2
NA
34.9
38
48.4
49.8
41.4
42.6
47.9
30
60.4
34.2
NA
41.6
30.1
51:2
51.7
38.2
41.3
41.4
31
58.9
NA
NA
38.6
31.2
49
51.6
39.2
NA
NA
Av. DNL
58.5
43.1
38.7
42.4
36.9
48.6
49.2
44.5
46.3
47.8
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 11112010-113112010. Report Generated., 0211012010 16:21 - 5 -
Aircraft Noise Levels
DNL dBA 1/l/2010--1/31/2010
RMT
Aircraft DNL
Aircraft DNL
Aircraft DNL
Aircraft DNL
ORD
01 /01 /07-01 /31 /07
01 /01 /08-01 /31 /08
01/01/09-01/31/09
1/l/2010-1131/2010
30
62
60.1
58.9
58.5
31
-
47.9
45.6
43.5
43.1
32
47.5
42
40.6
-�3. -1
38.7
33
49.9
47.1
108
42-4
34
46.6
40.7
40.1
36.9
35
54.1
51.1
52.1
48.6
36
53
50.7
50.6
49.2
37
-45.2
47.1
46
44.5
38
47.8
50.1
46.6
46.3
39--
46.5
50.3
45.9
47.8
Top 15 Runway 17 Departure Destination Report
Airport
City_
Heading (deg.)
#Ops
Percent of Total Ops
ORD
CHICAGO (O'HARE)
124'
217
6.3%
DEN
DENVER
237*
165
4.8%
ATL
ATLANTA
149*
161
4.6%
DFW
DALLAS/ FORT WORTH
193*
117
3.4%
STL
ST LOUIS
160'
108
3.1%
IAH
HOUSTON
185'
92
2.7%
MDW
CHICAGO (MIDWAY)
124'
86
2.5%
NEW YORK
77
2.2%
-EWR
MKE
MILWAUKEE
114'
65
1.9%
FSD
SIOUX FALLS
245'
60
1.7%
--B-T-W
DETROIT
105*
60
1.7%
MEM
MEMPHIS
162'
60
1.7%
-6-MA
-OMAHA
205'
57
1.6%
---6-L-E
CLEVELAND
109,
55
1.6%
P -HX
PHOENIX
231'
53
1.5%
Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 11112010-113112010, Report Generated. 0211012010 16:21 - 6 -
E
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 22, Number 3 February 5, 2010
Budget
NEXT'GEN FUNDING INCREASES BY $275 M.
IN ®BA1d XS FISCAL 2011 BUDGET REQUEST
The ObamaAdministration's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $1.1 bil-
lion for the Federal Aviation Administration's NextGen initiative, which is an in-
crease of $275 million (32 percent) over the funding levels enacted by Congress in
fiscal 2010.
The budget request includes $16.05 million for NextGen environmental re-
search on aircraft technologies, fuels, and metrics.
Some $3.5 billion is requested for FAA's grants-in-aid for airports, including
airport noise and emissions mitigation projects. This level did not increase from
last year.
President Obama's total request for FAA funding for fiscal 2011 is $16.5 bil-
lion, slightly less than the $16.7 billion proposed in fiscal 2010 but more than the
$15.9 billion enacted by Congress in fiscal 2010.
The NextGen funding will begin addressing recommendations proposed by a
recent industry advisory committee. These funds will support an integrated plan to
speed delivery of NextGen's benefits to the traveling public, FAA said.
Research
EXIM's 'it 'WAY
(Continued on p. 10)
On Feb. 3, the Transportation Research Board issued a Request for Proposals
seeking a contractor for a 20 -month, $450,000 Airport Cooperative Research Pro-
gram study on the effects of aircraft noise on student learning.
Specifically, the study goals are (1) to identify and evaluate conditions under
which aircraft noise affects student learning and (2) to identify and evaluate one or
more alternative noise metrics that best defines those conditions.
"Concerns over the effects of noise on student learning present potential barri-
ers to airport operations and expansion and can contribute to delays in both facility
and capacity improvements," the TRB noted.
"As is evident from numerous studies, there is a considerable body of research
demonstrating that chronic exposure to noise is associated with learning deficits in
children. For example, a recent study prepared for the European Union suggests
that a 5 dB -increase in noise exposure translates to a 2 -month delay in reading
scores (the "RANCH" Study—''Road Traffic and Aircraft Noise Exposure and
Children's Cognition and Health: Exposure -Effect Relationships and Combined Ef-
fects"). Furthermore, a pilot study for the Federal Interagency Committee on Avia-
(Conthrued on p. 11)
Airport Noise Report
In This ,issue.
Budget ... The Obama Ad-
ministration's FY 2011
budget request seeks $1.1
billion for NextGen, includ-
ing $16 million for environ-
mental research, and $3.5
billion for the FAA's AIP
grant program - p. 9
ACRP ... TRB seeks con-
tractor for 20 -month,
$450,000 study on how air-
craft noise affects student
learning - p. 9
San Antonio Int'l ... Airport
celebrates milestone in its
residential sound insulation
program - p. 10
Louisville Int'l ... Airport
approves Phase 2 of home
insulation program; 93 more
homes eligible for sound in-
sulation - p. l l
Nantucket Memorial ... Of-
fering financial incentives to
commuter airlines for com-
plying with the airport's
noise abatement flight paths
is proving to be very effec-
tive and has resulted in a dra-
matic drop in the mmnber of
noise complaints - p. 11
February S, 2010
Bridget, ft•ona p.9
NextGen aims to improve the efficiency and capacity of
the national airspace, improve safety, and improve the envi-
romnental performance of the national airspace.
The NextGen funding request for fiscal 2011, which be-
gins on Oct. 1, 2010, includes:
• An increase of $25 million for development of Area
Navigation / Required Navigation Performance procedures;
$153 million for Air -to -Ground Data Communications,
an increase of $106 million over FY 2010. FAA will use the
additional fiunding to accelerate the transition from the cur-
rent voice -based communication system to a data communi-
cation system;
. $176 million for Automatic Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast (ADS -B) satellite -based surveillance capabilities
_that will provide a more complete picture of airspace condi-
tions and more accurate position data;
• $3 billion is requested for the FAA's Facilities and
Equipment (F&E) capital program. These resources will
allow FAA to maintain the capacity and safety of the current
national airspace while moving ahead with modernization ef-
forts;
• $1.9 billion will be used to support the current infra-
structure; power systems, information technology, naviga-
tional aids, and weather systems;
• $190 million is requested for FAA's Research, Engineer-
ing & Development (RE&D). Funds will be used to continue
work in current research areas as well as to advance NextGen
efforts and environmental research for aircraft technologies,
alternative fuels, and information.
NASA Budget
President Obama's budget request for the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration's Aeronautics program
seeks a funding level of'$580 million for fiscal 2011; $585
million for fiscal 2012; $590 million for fiscal 2013; $595
million for fiscal 201.4; and $600 million for fiscal 2015.
The request includes:
$20 million per year for an aeronautics grant program to
support NASA s environmentally responsible aviation pro-
gram;
• $20 million per year for research that will enhance
NASA's ability to verify and validate complex software -
based systems, with a focus on promoting reliable, secure,
and safe use in the national airspace; and
• $30 million per year to address operational and safety
issues related to the integration of unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) into the national airspace.
The Air Transport Association said that the FAA budget
request does not contain a user fee'proposal for air traffic
control, an idea which was footnoted in last year's budget as
a proposal that would be developed in the future. The FAA
does request a 30 percent increase in its budget for NextGen
programs to $1.1 billion.
"We urge Congress to make the needed investment in
10
equipage infrastructure to ensure that the passengers and
users of the air traffic control system will realize the benefits
of the government's investment," said ATA President and
CEO Jarnes C. May.
"We are pleased that the Administration's proposed $4
billion for the National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance
Fund includes eligibility for aviation, and we believe that an
appropriate share of these dollars should be spent on the criti-
cal element of NextGen equipage."
Airports Council International — North America. (ACI -
NA) President Greg Principato said, "We are pleased that in
these difficult economic times the Airport Improvement Pro-
gram (AIP) has escaped reductions from currently appropri-
ated amounts. However, the President's budget speaks
directly to the need to have an FAA Reauthorization bill
signed into law that increases authorization amounts for AIP
and increases the limit on the passenger facility charge (PFC).
The AIP and the PFC play important roles in improving
safety, security and customer service at airports. Critically,
they also create tens of thousands of jobs in communities
around the country."
Principato applauded the Administration's inclusion of in-
creased funding for NextGen. "Since NexGen begins and
ends at the airport, we are glad to see that the President has
included $1.1 billion to help speed the development and im-
plementation of a modernized air traffic control system. Air-
ports look forward to working with the Administration and
FAA on providing the ground infrastructure necessary to
make NextGen a reality."
San Antonio Intl
San Antonio International Airport, along with THC Inc.,
celebrated a major milestone on Jan. 25 with a ceremonial
ribbon -cutting ceremony recognizing the completion of the
500th home under the Airport's "Acoustical Treatment Pro-
gram."
The program, launched in July of 2006, is designed to
make neighborhoods located near the airport more compati-
ble with airport noise by providing acoustical treatments to
eligible homes. The treatment involves a variety of noise-mit-
igatmor measures, including window and door installations, as
well as added insulation. The result is a drop in noise level of
at least 5 decibels, comparable to doubling the distance of the
aircraft flying overhead.
"At San Antonio International Airport, we are always
striving to be the best in customer service to our passengers,"
said Frank Miller, Aviation Director. "But, it is also important
to be good neighbors, this program speaks to that goal."
Funding for the program is the result of a partnership be-
tween the airport: and the Federal Aviation Administration.
The FAA provides 80 percent of the necessary funding, while
Airport Noise Report
February 5, 2010 11
the remaining 20 percent is provided through the use of air-
port -generated funds. No San Antonio tax dollars are used in
the funding of this program.
Louisville Intl
OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
The Board of Directors of the Louisville Regional Airport
Authority (LRAA) on Jan. 27 approved Phase 2 of its Qui-
eterHome® program, making 93 more homeowners near the
airport eligible for customized, sound -insulation treatments,
which will reduce noise from aircraft in their homes.
"While the highly successful relocation program will re-
main a priority until its completion, the QuieterHome® pro-
gram exemplifies the LRAA's continuing commitment to
being a good neighbor," said Phil Lynch, Chairman of the
Airport Authority's Board of Directors.
A map showing the Phase 1 and 2 boundaries may be
viewed on the Authority's Web site at www.flylouisville.com.
In November 2008, the LRAA Board of Directors ap-
proved Phase 1 of the voluntary QuieterHomed-D program,
_making 61 homes just northeast of — and closest to — the air-
port eligible for sound -insulation improvements. To date, 59
homeowners have registered for the program.
Phase 1 is divided into three components (A, B and Q.
Homeowners who have lived in their homes the longest will
be the first to have their homes sound insulated. Construction
is scheduled to begin by the end of March for the 15 home-
owners in Phase IA; by the end of July for the 24 eligible
1iomeowners in Phase 1B; and in mid-September for the 20
homeowners included in Phase IC.
Noise reduction improvements provided in the program
include insulated doors and windows, attic and wall insula-
tion and HVAC if needed.
The average cost of installing these insulation measures is
$30,000 to $35,000 per home not including adirmistrative
costs. With administrative costs, the average cost per home is
$50,000.
The sound insulation effort is being funded by the sale of
land acquired for noise mitigatin purposes but no longer
needed.
The airport authority has purchased or relocated more
than 3,600 homes since the early 1990s.
Research, from p. 9
tion Noise (FICAN) found that low -performing students' test
scores were more likely to improve after their schools were
insulated against aircraft noise.
"Although an important sunuuary of existing literature is
available in the recently released ACRP Synthesis 9: Effects
of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Selected Topics, addi-
tional studies directed specifically to aircraft noise impact are
needed. In particular, a remaining question is the level of air-
craft noise at which learning impacts occur.
"In FY07, the FAA awarded $56.5 million in grants to in-
sulate public buildings — mostly schools — often based on a
criterion of achieving a maximum Day -Night Average Sound
Level (DNL) of 65 dB. Despite this history, there has been lit-
tle research to date as to whether this criterion is appropriate
for determining when noise levels impact schools and learn-
ing.
"The Environmental Working Group (EWG) Science and
Metrics Standing Committee of the Joint Planning and Devel-
opment Office (JPDO) has proposed metrics to the EWG Pol-
icy Standing Committee for consideration in their preparation
of the EWG environmental targets. What is evident from
available studies is that there is no clear understanding of the
conditions as to when aircraft noise affects student learning
and when to implement mitigation measures. Research is
needed to enhance that understanding.
Contractors must submit study proposals by 4:30 p.m. on
March 23. This is a firm deadline and no extensions will be
granted. For further information on how to submit proposals,
go to
http:/hvww.trb. org/ACRP/RequestsforProposals.aspx.
Click on ACRP Project 02-26, Assessing Aircraft Noise
Conditions on Learning.
NantzicketAirpor•t
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOSTER
COMPLIANCE WITH FLIGHT PATHS
Nantucket Memorial Airport has found a very effective
way to increase its commuter airlines' voluntary compliance
with noise abatement flight paths: it's offering them financial
incentives.
Any commuter carrier that achieves 85 percent compli-
ance with the noise abatement paths — which route aircraft
around the island rather than over it — gets a 15 percent reduc-
tion in their landing fees for that month.
That reduction in landing fees can add up to $30,000 per
month during the busy summer months, said Foley Vaughan,
chairman of the Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission.
Nantucket is the second busiest airport in Massachusetts.
The airline with the highest compliance score also re-
ceives a $500 voucher that can be used by its pilots in the air-
port restaurant and gift shop.
The increased compliance with the noise abatement flight
paths has resulted in a dramatic drop in aircraft noise com-
plaints, especially during the summer months when they are
highest.
For example, 80 noise complaints were filed in August
2007, prior to offering the financial incentives to the com-
muter airlines. The following August complaints spiked to
257 because the commuter airlines were facing higher fael
Airport Noise Report
February 5, 2010
ANR EDITORIAL
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiaimid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Denver
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
President, Nlestre Greve Associates
Laguna Niguel, CA
Steven F. Pflaum, Esq.
McDermott, Will & Emery
Chicago
Mary L. Vigilante
President, Synergy Consultants
Seattle
12
costs and didn't follow the noise abatement paths as much, Vaughan ex-
plained. But in August 2009, after the financial incentives were being of-
fered,
ffered, the number of noise complaints dropped to just 25.
That significant drop shows the success of the financial incentives, he
told ANR..
Prior to instituting the financial incentives, one of the commuter carri-
ers was not following the voluntary noise abatement routes much of the
time, he said, adding it now has excellent compliance.
Vaughan said to his knowledge Nantucket Airport's use of financial
incentives to encourage use of noise abatement flight paths is unique.
The noise abatement flight paths adds two minutes additional time to
the commuter flights, increasing fuel costs, but the airlines have been
willing to absorb the additional costs, he said.
Dan Wolf, CEO of Cape Air, told the Cape Cod Times that flying
around Nantucket rather than over it adds between two and four minutes
to a flight. He said it costs the three commuter airlines a total of about
1,500 additional flight hours and more than $500,000 in added fuel cost
each year to comply. But he said his airline was willing to absorb the
extra cost because "any responsible corporate citizen looks for ways to
mitigate the negative effects of what it does."
Nantucket Shuttle Wins Latest Award
On Feb. 3, the airport announced that Nantucket Shuttle Airlines has
been named the recipient of the air taxi noise abatement incentive award
for the month of January.
Nantucket Shuttle Airlines outperformed the field of air taxi airlines
by posting a 97.75 percent compliance record for the month. IslandAir-
lines finished second at 90.98 percent and Cape Air/Nantucket Airlines
was third at 90.42 percent. January was the fifth month in a row that all
three local airlines achieved results above the Incentive Goal of 85.0 per-
cent compliance.
"The Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission believes that part of
its mission is to help maintain the tranquil atmosphere on the island and,
to that end, introduced voluntary routes to mitigate aircraft noise several
years ago," the airport said.
All local airlines will receive a 15 percent discount on their January
landing fees and Nantucket Shuttle Airlines will receive $500 in Nan-
tucket Memorial Airport coupons.
Anne H. Kohut, Publisher
Published 44 tunes a year at 43978 Urbancrest Ct., Ashburn, Va. 20147; Phone: (703) 729-4867; FAX: (703) 729-4528.
e-mail: editor@airportrnoisereport.com; Price $850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Aviation Emissions 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.
Apo
irrt No' Report
we
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
In
13
Volume 22, Number 4 February 19, 2010
Atlanta Hartsfield Int'l
LOWERING FLOOR OF CLASS B AIRSPACE
WILL INCREASE NOISE IMPACT, FAA TOLD
Lowering the floor of the Class B airspace around Hartsfield -Jackson Atlanta
International Airport (ATL) will compress general aviation aircraft at lower alti-
tudes, resulting in flight delays and increased noise impact at nearby satellite air-
ports — including four of the busiest airports in the state of Georgia — an Ad Hoc
Committee warned the Federal Aviation Administration in a recent report.
"There are unquestionable concerns about lowered altitudes causing an increase
in noise over residential areas," FAA was told by the Ad Hoc Committee, which is
comprised of a broad spectrum of aviation interests including GA airports in the At-
lanta area, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
The Committee was set up by the Georgia Department of Transportation in late
2008 at the request of the FAA's Atlanta Large Terminal Radar Approach Control
(TRACON) to review and comment on preliminary modifications to the ATL Class
B airspace proposed by the FAA.
The ATL airspace has not been changed since the mid-1970s and FAA contends
(Continued on p. 14)
ICAO
CAEP COMMITS TO CO2 STANDARD TIMETABLE,
ASSESS NEED FOR. TIGHTER NOISE STANDARD
The International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Envi-
ronmental Protection (CAEP) has committed to a timetable for the development of
a CO2 standard for commercial aircraft, aiming at 2013, a milestone that would es-
tablish the first global fuel -efficiency standard for any industry sector.
The new standard will set clear direction and timeframes for manufacturers to
keep producing innovative aircraft design and materials, as well as more fuel-effi-
cient engines, in order to further reduce the impact of aviation on climate change
and meet the ambitious goals the sector has set for itself, ICAO said in a Feb. 19
press release.
"This is an integral component of our aggressive plan of action to systemati-
cally address the effects of aviation on climate change," said Roberto Kobeh
Gonzalez, President of the ICAO Council.
"In 2009, under the leadership of ICAO, aviation produced the first globally -
harmonized agreement to address climate change from a specific sector, which in-
cluded a call for the development of a new CO2 standard," he emphasized.
Other elements of the agreement include a 2 percent annual improvement in
fuel efficiency globally until the year 2050; a framework for market-based meas -
(Continued on p. 16)
Airport Noise Report
In This issue.
ICAO ... The Eighth meet-
ing of 1CAO's Committee on
Aviation Environmental Pro-
tection (CAEP) results in a
commitment to a timetable
for developing a CO2 stan-
dard for commercial aircraft,
aiming at 2013. CAEP mem-
bers also agree to assess the
need for tighter aircraft noise
standards - P. 13
Atlanta Hartsfield In.t'Z ...
Lowering floor of Class B
airspace will increase noise
impact at nearby GA air-
ports, FAA told - p. 13
ACRP ... Contractor sought
for project to develop aircraft
taxi noise database - p. 14
Bradley Int'l ... PASSUR
gets contract to provide flight
ops data for NOMS - P. 15
Charlotte -Douglas Intl ...
New fourth runway opens as
airport is finishing its third
Part 150 update - p. 15
Conferences ... The annual
UC Davis Aviation Noise
and Air Quality Symposium
in on final approach - p. 15
February 19, 2010
Atlanta, from p.13
that the current Class B airspace cannot efficiently handle air
traffic, especially since the opening of the new fifth runway
at Hartsfield in 2006_
Lowering the floor of the ATL Class B airspace would in-
crease airspace efficiency at Hartsfield and allow for Contin-
uous Descent Approaches into the airport, which reduce noise
and emissions for communities near Hartsfield.
But the FAA is not acknowledging the increased noise
impact that satellite airports will get as a result of the airspace
changes at Hartsfield, said Mike Van Wic, assistant airport di-
rector at DeKalb Peachtree Airport, the second busiest airport
in the state, with 228,000 annual operations.
Under FAA's proposal, the Class B airspace floor would
be lowered from its current 8,000 feet and 6,000 feet over
DeKalb Peachtree Airport to 5,000 feet.
Van Wie also questioned why the FAA airspace change
proposal is categorically excluded from environmental re-
view.
In an April 22, 2009, Memorandum for the Record at-
tacbed to the Ad Hoc Committee's report, Van Wie told the
Georgia. DOT, "... the FAA states that this airspace proposal
is Categorically Excluded (CATEX) from the environmental
process. I don't really understand the logic; however, it seems
to be that this is only an airspace change and airspace does
not mance noise. This is an absurd position that offends me as
both an airport professional and as a citizen. Lowering the
floor of the Class B airspace will encourage Air Traffic Con-
trol to use the airspace. Using the airspace will bring aircraft
closer to the ground. Bringing aircraft closer to the ground
will increase the amount of noise the public is exposed to.
The proposal needs to be completely environmentally as-
sessed, including the effects at the outlying airports."
Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for FAA's Southern Re-
gion, told ANR that no final decision has been made yet re-
garding what kind of environmental review, if any, is required
for the proposed airspace change but said "it would not be
unheard of for it to be designated as categorically excluded.
A decision on the environmental review will come after
the FAA conducts public hearings on the proposal and deter-
mines what airspace revisions it will make, she said. That
process could take one to two years.
Four public hearings on the proposed airspace change are
scheduled at various locations in the Atlanta area on Feb. 22
and 25 and on March I and 4.
Regarding the impact of the airspace change on DeKalb
Peachtree Airport, Bergen said that an analysis of flight alti-
tudes at PDK show that 99 percent of flights are already at or
below 4,500 ft.
The FAA's proposed change of the ATL Class B airspace
has received wide media coverage in Atlanta and Van Wie
and Peachtree Airport Director Lee Remmel have taken a
very pro -active stance, going to nearby communities and urg-
ing them to write FAA in opposition to the airspace change.
The Ad Hoc Committee also urged FAA not to lower the
14
Class B airspace around DeKalb Peachtree and Covington
Municipal Airport.
The report states, "With the preliminary modifications, ar-
riving and departing traffic at a satellite airport would be
maintained at a lower altitude to avoid the commercial airline
traffic arriving or departing ATL. The means aircraft may fly
closer to houses, schools, and commercial areas, increasing
noise thus increasing noise complaints.
"A great example of current noise issues can be found at
the DeKalb -Peachtree Airport, just 15 miles north of ATL,
which currently has an average of 120 noise complaints each
month. Lowering the altitude of local and commercial traffic
would have the potential to increase the discontent of the air-
port locals, which would greatly increase noise complaints.
PDK's example could easily be expanded to reflect the effect
of noise at other ATL satellite airports."
An additional concern of the Committee is that the low-
ered Class B floor will allow a greater amount of traffic at
lower altitudes than currently seen and this creates "an over-
whelming potential for IFR delays for arriving and departing
traffic into and out of the satellite airports."
The Committee asked FAA that it be considered an inter-
ested/consulting party when actual changes to ATL arrival
and departure flight procedures are made. "This will allow
the Committee to evaluate and provide comments concerning
noise issues at the time," it told FAA.
The Committee recommended that FAA establish transi-
tion routes through the Class B airspace for aircraft operating
under Instrument Flight Rules and to better segregate aircraft
operating under Visual Flight Rules under the Class B floor.
"As it currently stands, the Class B airspace allows for
VFR traffic to safely navigate under the airspace floor alti-
tudes; however, with the preliminary changes, these altitudes
are greatly reduced and the committee is concerned with po-
tential safety hazards that may correspond."
Research
The Transportation Research Board announced.Feb. 12
that it is seeking a contractor to conduct a $150,000, 16 -
month project that will develop an aircraft taxi noise database
for airport noise modeling.
The project is part of the Airport Cooperative Research
Program (ACRD), which the TRB manages for the Federal
Aviation Administration.
The objective of this research is to develop a noise -
power -distance (NPD) and spectral class database for nomi-
nal taxi, break -away, and idle thrust levels for use in FAA's
Integrated Noise Model (INM) as it transitions into the more
advanced and sophisticated Aviation Environmental Design
Tool (AEDT), which also will model aviation emissions,
TRB explained. The database will be presented in a spread-
sheet format and will encompass the fixed -wing fleet mix
Airport Noise Report
February 19, 2010
provided in INM/AEDT.
Further information on the project, ACRP 02-27, is avail-
able at hittp://Nvw,,v.trb.org/ACRD/ACRPProjects.aspx. Click
on the project number.
Bradley Int'l
PASSUR GETS CT DOT CONTRACT
TO PROVIDE FLIGHT ®PS DATA
PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. announced Feb. 5 that it has
contracted with the Connecticut Department of Transporta-
tion (ConnDOT) to provide its flight operations data feed for
Bradley International Airport. The information will be inte-
grated into the airport's new Noise Operations Monitoring
System (NOMS).
The PASSUR flight operations data feed will ensure that
the most accurate information about individual flights, the
airspace, aircraft routing and the airport configuration are
flowing through its noise system, PASSUR said.
"We are pleased to welcome Bradley International Airport
to the family of airport customers who are turning to PAS -
SUR to address some of their most critical business
processes," said Jim Bary, President and CEO of PASSUR
Aerospace. "These are airports who have understood that
they need access to their own state-of-the-art business intelli-
gence data and software to support independent analysis and
action."
"The PASSUR flight operations data feed for noise opera-
tions monitoring systems (FlightSure(TM)) is built on the
same proprietary radar network, aviation database, and busi-
ness intelligence engines which support our airport opera-
tions, financial and collaborative decision -malting software.
Over 20 airports use the PASSUR flight operations data feed
for their NOMS," the company said.
Charlotte Douglas Int'l
NEW FOURTH RUNWAY BUILT
TO CUT DELAYS COMMEMORATED
O ATED
Charlotte Douglas International Airport's newest runway,
18R/36L, became fully operational on Feb. 12. Federal, state
and local dignitaries were among those in attendance at a spe-
cial commemorative event hosted by Charlotte Mayor An-
thony Foxx and held on the new taxiway to mark this historic
moment in North Carol'ina's aviation history.
Asked if the opening of the new nmway sparked any
community response, Robert Andress, community programs
coordinator, told ANR, that several noise complaints have
been filed, especially in areas directly under the new arrival
path.
The airport currently is finishing up its third Part 150 Air-
port Noise Compatibility Program update, which will be sub-
mitted soon to the FAA for approval, he said.
Prior to a ribbon cutting, Mayor Foxx proclaimed Feb. 12
15
"a day to celebrate Charlotte Douglas Intemational Airport
and its significance to our community and its impact on avia-
tion history." A ribbon cutting signaled the official opening
and full operation of CLT's third parallel runway, the fust
new runway to open at CLT since the opening of Runway
18C/36C in 1979, more than thirty years ago.
Construction of Runway 18RJ36L wrapped up in Decem-
ber 2009. For passengers and airlines, the new runway will
result in a decrease in arrival and departure delays.
"It's been a long time coming," said Aviation Director
Jerry Orr of the project that has taken over two decades to
come to fruition. "We're looking forward to all the benefits it
will provide the community," he added.
This is CLT's fourth runway and third parallel
runway. The Airport also has one crosswind runway. The new
runway will permit triple independent landings and will save
airlines an estimated $65 million in annual delay avoidance
costs. The new runway's primary purpose will be used for
flight arrivals. CLT averages more than 600 arrivals each
day.
Constriction began in March 2007. The ninway con-
striction project, including road relocation and adjoining
roadway construction, costs total $325 million - $124 million
came from the FAA in a letter of intent to assist with con-
struction of the new runway. Additional funding for the proj-
ect came from. federal grants and proceeds of the 2007 and
2009 General Airport Revenue Bonds, which will be repaid
with Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues.
Conferences
UC DAVIS NOISE, EMISSIONS
SYMPOSIUM ON FINAL APPROACH
The University of California at Davis' annual Aviation
Noise and Air Quality Symposium is on "final approach' and
will convene Feb. 28 - March 3 meeting in San Diego.
Get your swimsuits out of mothballs and your sunglasses
polished because the symposium organizers are expecting
sunny weather in the 70's in time for the annual UC syrnpo-
sium in San Diego - this year celebrating its 25th Silver An-
niversary, UC Davis said.
A tightly packed program of cutting-edge presentations
on aviation noise and air quality is on -tap.
Monday opens with a Keynote Address from Edward
Boling from the White House Council on Environmental
Quality on "Navigating Towards a Sustainable Aviation Sys-
tem."
Monday sessions will uncover the latest in Cap & Trade
with both a discussion and case studies session. General Avia-
tion needs are addressed and the afternoon ends with a loop
into what the future holds with FAA Reauthorization on the
horizon.
Tuesday morning begins with a scintillating (and sure to
be animated!) discussion looking at contours beyond the
65DNL, followed by talks on key issues in the international,
Airport Noise Report
February 19, 2010 16
ANR EDITORIAL
U.S. Federal, and environmental arenas. The afternoon will see sessions
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
on Next Gen, air quality implementations and recent noise efforts.
ADVISORYBOARD
On Wednesday morning basic elements of working with Communities
is addressed, followed by sessions covering the latest technological ad-
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
vancements, and in the afternoon sessions on ACRP updates and the com-
John J. Corbett, Esq.
plexity of sustainability planning.
Spiegel & McDiarmid.
The meeting hotel The Holiday Inn on Mission Bay has agreed to ex -
Washington, DC
tend the special discounted hotel rate (a great deal for downtown San
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
Diego) through Feb. 26 as well.
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
ICA D, front p. 13
Federal Aviation Administration
ures in international aviation; measures to assist developing States and to
Peter J. Kirsch, Esq.
facilitate access to financial resources, technology transfer and capacity -
Kaplan, Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
building; and the development and implementation of alternative fuels for
Denver
aviation worldwide, which could lead to aviation being the first sector to
use sustainable alternative fuels on a global basis.
Vincent E. Mestre, P.E.
CAEP also initiated work on assessing the need for a more stringent
President, Mestre Greve Associates
standard for aircraft noise.
Laguna Niguel, CA
The eighth meeting of the CAEP, held Feb. 1-12 at ICAO Headquar-
ters in Montreal, also recommended NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) standards up
Steven.F. Pflaum, Esq.
to 15 percent more stringent than the current levels, applicable to new air -
McDermott, Will & Emery
craft engines certified after Dec. 31., 2013. A cut-off date of Dec. 31,
Chicago
2012, was recommended for engines produced under existing NOx stan-
Mary L. Vigilante
dards.
Together, these two recommendations would help ensure that the
President, Synergy Consultants
most efficient technology is used in the production of aircraft engines in.
Seattle
the near future.
All recommendations of the meeting will be reviewed by the Council
of ICAO in the coming months.
Regarding market-based measures, the meeting recommended that re-
ports related to voluntary emissions trading systems, linking of open
emissions trading systems, and offsetting emissions from aviation sector
be published. These reports will provide guidance to aviation stakeholders
when evaluating different schemes for.environmental mitigation.
ICAO's CAEP is composed of leading technical experts in the envi-
ronmental field from around the world, whose recommendations over the
past 40 years have laid the basis for the remarkable progress of civil avia-
tion in minimizing the impact of aircraft emissions and noise through
technological, operational and market-based measures.
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@airportnoiscreport.com; Price $850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Aviation Emissions 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.
17
Airport we Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 22, Number 5 February 26, 2010
Special Report
NEW PAX GROUP WILL EXPLORE STRATEGIES
FOR REDUCING NOISE IMPACT OUTSIDE ANL 65
By Jason Schwartz
Aviation Noise Manager, Port of Portland
Although the aviation industry and the Federal Aviation Administration seem to
be moving slowly toward addressing noise impacts beyond DNL 65, many airports
have already recognized this step as essential to continuing operations at their air-
ports and meeting the growing regional and national demand for aviation services.
Port of Portland officials believe airports must take the lead in exploring solu-
tions to noise impacts beyond DNL 65 for their own benefit and on behalf of their
communities and the aviation industry.
To that end, a unique stakeholder Noise Working Group — believed to be the
first of its kind in the country — has been established to formally explore opportuni-
ties for reducing noise impacts in communities located beyond the DNL 65 dB con-
tour of Portland International Airport.
The Port already considers noise impacts beyond DNL 65 but the new Working
(Continued on p. 18)
Sound Insulation
TRA SEEDS CONTRACTOR TO UPDATE
SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES
The Transportation Research Board issued a Request for Proposals on Feb. 24
under its Airport Cooperative Research Program seeking a contractor for a
$200,000 project to update Federal Aviation Administration guidelines for airport
sound insulation programs.
The objective of this research is to develop updated guidelines for sound insula-
tion of residential and other noise sensitive buildings for use by airport and non -air-
port sponsors to develop and manage their aircraft noise insulation projects.
Noise sensitive buildings are defined as "residences (single family and multi-
family), schools, hospitals, churches, and other non -compatible structures identified
in the sponsor's Noise Control Program and approved by the FAA as a project in
the NCP," as defined in AIP Handbook FAA Order 5100.38C paragraph 812.A.
The project, ACR? 02-04, includes a comprehensive survey of stakeholders —
including but not limited to FAA, airports, industry sponsors, consultants, and ven-
dors in a variety of regions — to obtain their methods of implementing sound insula-
tion efforts. These methods should include program development, community
outreach, acoustical testing methods, acoustical and architectural design treatment
(Continued on p. 20)
Airport Noise Report
In This Issue..
Portland Int'ZAirport ... In
an ANR Special Report,
Jason Schwartz, Aviation
Noise Manager for the Port
of Portland, discusses the
goals and strategies of a
unique new Working Group
that will explore opportuni-
ties for reducing aviation
noise impact on communities
located beyond the DNL 65
dB contour of Portland Inter-
national Airport.
The Working Group will
focus primarily on non -
acoustic measures for reduc-
ing community annoyance —
such as community outreach,
public involvement, commu-
nity support and investment,
and sustainability programs —
that, to date, have not been
well utilized to address air-
port noise impact - p. 17
Sound Insulation ... TRB
issues an RFP for a $200,000
ACRP project to update FAA.
guidelines for airport sound
insulation programs. The
project includes a compre-
hensive survey of current
methods for implementing
airport sound insulation pro-
grams - p. 17
February 26, 2010
Special Report, from p. 17
Group, developed as part of the Airport's master planning
process, will expand that effort and focus primarily on the
critical, but underutilized, avenues of non -acoustic strategies
for addressing community annoyance with aircraft noise,
such as community outreach, public involvement, and com-
munity enhancement programs.
The Working Group includes a "Core Team" of staff from
the Port of Portland Noise Management Department, the City
of Portland, and the City of Vancouver, WA. Supporting the
core team is the working group made up primarily of mem-
bers from the Airport Futures Public Advisory Group and the
PDX Citizen Noise Advisory Committee (both of which in-
clude community residents); however, participation is open to
any interested party.
The stated mission of the Noise Working Group is to
identify and mitigate noise impacts outside the airport's DNL
65 noise contours. The focus of this effort is to reduce im-
pacts using both acoustic and non -acoustic measures.
Like most airports in the United States, Portland Interna-
tional receives most noise complaints from residents who re-
side outside the DNL 65 contour. Although the land
surrounding the airport is all "compatible" under federal stan-
dards and guidelines, residents of communities impacted by -
exposure below DNL 65 will tell you, there are impacts.
Staff from the PDX Noise Management Department have
been working with leading researchers from around the world
in an effort to better understand the noise dose -response rela-
tionship and why individuals respond differently to aircraft
noise events, with a particular focus on annoyance.
We are seeking -to understand why is it that some resi-
dents within a specific neighborhood become annoyed or
highly annoyed in response to aircraft operations and noise
events while others from the same community report less an-
noyance or no annoyance at all.
This effort to better understand the differences in individ-
uals' response to aircraft noise led to a review of the 2007 re-
port, "Noise Annoyance Mitigation at Airports by Non -
Acoustic Measures," by Ruud Vader, a journalist from The
Netherlands. Vader conducted research with the support of
Professor Jan Stallen of Leiden University in The Nether-
lands, who is an internationally known researcher and expert
in dose -response relationships and the human response to air-
craft noise. In his report, Mr. Vader identifies a number of
non -acoustic factors that influence individuals' response (e.g.
annoyance) to aircraft noise exposure. The report is available
at: http://www.wylelabs.corn/content/globaVdocuments/Re-
searchReportNonA coustic.pdf
The information contained in Vader's report helped
change the Port of Portland's approach to noise management
and resulted in changing our focus to noise impact reduction
rather than focusing on noise exposure reduction. We realized
that as the DNL contours become smaller, the opportunities to
reduce noise exposure diminish. A new approach is required
to address complainants' concerns, which PDX has found lies
in focusing on reducing noise impacts and recognizing that
noise exposure levels may not change (observably), espe-
cially not in terms of DNL. However, by understanding what
factors influence the degree to which some residents are both-
ered by aircraft noise, we are better able to mitigate those im-
pacts, often independent of addressing noise exposure levels.
Research has shown that annoyance associated with air-
craft noise exposure is the result of both acoustic and non -
acoustic variables, including personal and social aspects of
individuals.
Examples of these variables include noise sensitivity, atti-
tudes toward the source, perceived control, trust of the
source, predictability, perception of "fairness," and future ex-
pectations. In cases where an individual feels his or her con-
cern is acknowledged and valued by the source, annoyance
may be lessened. Similarly, when one's concern is perceived
as ignored or unimportant, annoyance associated with noise
exposure may be increased. Conversely, tolerance is reduced.
"Annoyance" is a leading cause of community opposition
to airport operations and development. Unless we take a
proactive approach to mitigating annoyance, community op-
position will likely continue. Thus, it is in the best interest of
all stakeholders — airports, industry, government, and the
community — to identify and implement more effective strate-
gies for reducing noise -related annoyance.
Focus on Five Core Areas
Having exhausted most of the "traditional" strategies for
reducing noise exposure (operational measures, land -use
planning, and administrative programs), PDX is now for-
mally looking for new approaches and to target impacts be-
yond DNL 65 contours. The work plan for the Noise Beyond
DNL 65 Working Group focuses primarily on non -acoustic
impacts (e.g. annoyance) and non -acoustic strategies for an-
noyance mitigation. In addition to studying factors which in-
fluence human response to noise, staff surveyed airports from
around the world to explore non -acoustic strategies which
may be used to mitigate annoyance.
These strategies were broken down into five core areas:
• Community Outreach;
Public Involvement;
• Community Support;
• Community Investment; and
• Sustainability Programs.
Effective community outreach can help achieve three im-
portant goals. First, it ensures the public, government, and
impacted communities are aware of the airport's noise pro-
gram and efforts by the airport and industry partners (e.g. the
airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and regulators) to minimize
noise exposure and impacts to the extent possible. Commu-
nity outreach also can help ensure that residents and prospec-
tive residents are aware of aircraft noise and/or overflights in
their community, thus encouraging realistic expectations and
avoiding surprises.
Airport Noise Report
February 26, 2010 19
Second, effective education and outreach efforts can en-
courage awareness of the airport's role in the national air-
space system and its role as an economic engine and asset to
the community and the region. People need to know the bene-
fits the airport brings to their cormnunity. Helping the public
understand the community and regional benefits of the airport
can go a long way toward "balancing" the negative aspects of
the airport, especially noise.
And finally, effective outreach can help build relation-
ships and trust between the community and the airport. Often,
trust is low on both sides, with both sides unwilling to work
together or to try to understand the other's position or mo-
tives.
Although similar to outreach, public involvement in-
volves not only sharing information with the community but
soliciting input and feedback used in decision-making. This
can be implemented in the form of project -specific public in-
volvement (e.g. that which is required as part of the Part 150
process) or in the form of ongoing programs such as commu-
nity advisory boards tasked with providing ongoing input to
the airport.
In addition to collecting additional information and per-
spectives, which otherwise may have not been considered,
public involvement programs show the community the airport
is in fact "listening" and it gives a "voice" to the community
and those who may be impacted by the airport's decisions.
Both strategies — community outreach and public involve-
ment — are typically practiced at airports throughout the
United States; however, these are often overlooked as effec-
tive, non -acoustic strategies for mitigating noise impacts. Ad-
ditionally, with some effort, these programs can be expanded
and/or otherwise refined to maximize the value to both the
airport and the community.
"Community support" is aimed at compensating for those
impacts perceived as negative by the community. Noise is a
negative community impact which can affect those who live
near the airport or under flight corridors further from the air-
port. Community support programs provide tangible, quan-
tifiable, positive benefits to offset the negatives perceived by
the community. Community support programs may include
education and vocational training programs, support of com-
munity projects and events, volunteer prograrns sponsored by
the airport (e.g. employees volunteering in impacted commu-
nities), and providing meeting rooms and other airport facili-
ties free for public/community use.
Community investment is similar to community support
but typically focuses on financial investment for community
enhancement. Examples of community investment include
"Community Enhancement Programs" where the airport
(and/or community partners) provides funding in the form of
grants for community enhancement projects within impacted
areas. On a smaller scale, funding can be used for sponsoring
community projects or events.
Community investment programs are more common in
Europe than they are in the United States; however, these pro-
grams can be managed within the U.S. in compliance with
federal airport funding guidelines and/or funded through part-
nerships with other agencies or organizations.
Sustainability programs are a growing trend in the United
States and abroad. Programs such as "Cash for Clunkers" are
usually aimed at encouraging improvements in energy effi-
ciency, reducing emissions and waste, or encouraging the use
of recyclable materials. There currently are pilot programs
around the United States focused on improving home effi-
ciency related to heating and cooling and appliances (e.g. En-
ergy Star) and programs focused on improving home
insulation. Many cities, states, and federal agencies are ex-
ploring new programs and incentives for homeowners to
make improvements to reduce energy use, which as a byprod-
uct, could reduce interior noise levels associated with airport
noise.
The Working Group in Portland will explore partnerships
with local municipalities, state, and federal programs and the
private sector to encourage sustainability enhancements in
residents' homes within the region. The Port's contribution
may be financial or may be informational. This has not yet
been determined and will rely, in part, on FAA regulations
and support regarding use of airport funds.
Although this list is not all-inclusive, it reflects the Port's
ongoing commitment not only to address noise exposure
within the DNL 65 contour but to acknowledge and work to
reduce airport noise impacts throughout the entire commu-
nity. _
Looking Beyond DNL 65 Is Not New
At PDX addressing noise impacts beyond DNL 65 con-
tours is not new. Noise impacts, with a lesser focus on noise
exposure levels, drive noise program priorities, while contour
boundaries are most relevant when seeking federal funding
for mitigation and in zoning for compatible land uses.
Over the last decade, PDX has closely collaborated with
local FAA officials to identify and implement effective noise
abatement measures to minimize exposure in areas that likely
would not have qualified for Federal noise mitigation funding
(because they were outside DNL 65 dBA contour).
Together, PDX and FAA staff developed new operational
procedures for light turboprop and propeller aircraft, includ-
ing so-called "cargo feeders" who were a major cause of
complaints for communities north and south of PDX. Recog-
nizing that this class of operator did not impact the 65 DNL
contours, the effort to address their impacts was pursued out-
side the Part 150 process. (To be approved, the Part 150 regu-
lations require a measure to reduce noise within the DNL 65
dB contour).
Through collaboration with the local control tower, local
aircraft operators, and community representatives, new proce-
dures and policies were established including the develop-
ment of new air traffic arrival and departure procedures,
which had a positive impact on the community.
In 2009, the FAA implemented Area Navigation (RNAV)
overlays of PDX noise abatement procedures. Although in-
cluded as a recommendation in the 2006 FAR Part 150 up -
Airport Noise Report
February 26. 2010
ANR EDITORIAL
John J. Corbett, Esq.
Spiegel & McDiarmid
Washington, DC
Carl E. Burleson
Director, Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
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
date, the benefits were greatest outside the DNL 65 contours. And finally,
in 2009, the FAA initiated the development of RNAV arrival and depar-
ture procedures at Hillsboro Airport (HIO), one of the two general avia-
tion airports operated by the Port of Portland. Though not developed
specifically for noise abatement (HIO has no non -compatible land -uses),
these capacity enhancing procedures were refined to reduce comintuiity
noise impacts.
All of this work has been done at low or no cost to the airport and
minimal costs to our collaborative partners.
Managing aircraft noise is an ongoing challenge for airports and com-
munities around the world. The tradition of focusing on acoustics is
clearly the cornerstone of effective noise management. However, research
suggests that both acoustic and non -acoustic factors can influence indi-
viduals' response to noise; therefore, non -acoustic measures also may be
useful. The benefits of a combined approach will likely be greater than
those achieved using either approach exclusively.
For more infonnation about the PDX Noise Beyond DNL 65 Working
Group or the PDX Noise Management Program, contact Jason Schwartz
at (503) 460-4068 or by email: Jason.Schwartz@portofportland.com.
Sound Insulation, front p.17.
strategies, pre-existing building deficiencies, HVAC and ventilation strate-
gies, product strategies, green initiatives, bid process, construction man-
agement, and project closeout. A database of all information gathered in
the survey must be developed and be put in a standard accessible format.
In July 1993, the Federal Aviation Administration published Advisory
Circular 150/5100-9A, Guidelines for Sound Insulation of Residences Ex-
posed to Aircraft Operations.
The guidelines themselves had been published in 1992 for military and
FAA programs to serve as a project management handbook for studying,
initiating, and implementing sound insulation measures developed under
airport noise compatibility programs, TRB explained.
The guidelines were updated in 2005 by the U.S. Navy for application
at military airports. The Navy updated the guidelines to meet their current
program objectives and to reflect current building codes and insulation
product specifications.
Research is now needed, TRB said, to develop updated guidance to ef-
fectively manage noise insulation programs of eligible structures around
civilian airports in conformance with FAA's Part 150 Noise Compatibility
Program and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding requirements.
The closing date for submitting proposals is April 14. Further infor-
mation on the project is available at littp://www.trb.org/ACRP/ACRPPro-
jects.aspx. Click on project number.
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@auportnoisereport.com; Price $850.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients,
is granted by Aviation Emissions 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.