metropolitan airports commission (mac)

Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)

Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) MAC General Office Building Lindbergh Conference Room

6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450

NOC Committee Members Jeffrey Hart – Co-Chair (Delta Air Lines) Elizabeth Petschel – Co-Chair (Mendota Heights City Council) John Bergman, At-large Cities Representative (Apple Valley City Council) Angie Moos, Cargo Carrier Representative (United Parcel Service) Paulajean Vick, At-large Airport User Representative (Delta Global Services) Karen Erazo, Charter/Scheduled Operator Representative (Sun Country Airlines) Cyndee Fields, City of Eagan Representative (Eagan City Council) Tom Fitzhenry, City of Richfield Representative (Richfield City Council) Doug Nelson, Minnesota Business Aviation Association Representative Dwayne Lowman, City of Bloomington Representative (Bloomington City Council) John Quincy, City of Minneapolis Representative (Minneapolis City Council) Gordon Goss, Chief Pilot Representative (Delta Air Lines)

MEETING AGENDA 18 November 2015

1:30 pm (Jeffrey Hart, Delta Air Lines, will be the acting Chairperson for the meeting)

*Note: 1:00 – Committee Agenda Review Session(NOC members only in the Coleman Conference Room)

1. 1:30 – 1:35 Review and Approval of the September 16, 2015 Meeting Minutes

2. 1:35 – 1:45 Review of Monthly Operations Reports: September and October, 2015

3. 1:45 – 2:05 Presentation: 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Program, Bridget Rief, Director of Airport Development

4. 2:05 – 2:15 Presentation: MSP Converging Runway Operations, Elaine Buckner, MSP Air Traffic Manager

5. 2:15 – 2:25 Annual MSP Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment

6. 2:25 – 2:35 Review Status of FAA Center for Excellence/PARTNER, TRB and FICAN Initiatives

7. 2:35 – 2:40 Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Update

8. 2:40 – 2:50 Draft 2016 NOC Work Plan

9. 2:50 – 2:55 Establish 2016 NOC Meeting Dates

10. 2:55 – 3:00 Review of October 27, 2015 Public Input Meeting

11. 3:00 Public Comment Period

12. Adjourn

1

MSP NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Wednesday, 16 September 2015, 1:30pm

MAC General Offices Building – Lindbergh Conference Room

Call to Order A regularly-scheduled meeting of the MSP Noise Oversight Committee, having been duly called, was held Wednesday, 16 September 2015, in the Lindbergh Conference Room at the MAC General Offices Building. Chair Petschel called the meeting to order at 1:35pm. The following were in attendance:

Representatives: P. Vick; K. Erazo; J. Quincy; D. Miller; J. Hart; E. Petschel; G. Goss; D. Lowman; T. Fitzhenry; J. Bergman

Staff: L. Peilen; T. Finley; J. Lewis

Others: R. Owen – Metropolitan Council; B. Gubrud – Edina; R. Jura – Minnesota Department of Transportation; D. Boberg – City of Bloomington; M. Park – City of Sunfish Lake; P. Dmytrenko – City of Richfiedl; M. McNeill – City of Mendota Heights; B. Hoffman – City of St. Louis Park; T. Link – City of Inver Grove Heights; K. Aaker – City of Edina; L. Olson – City of Minneapolis; C. Carrino - Edina

1. Review and Approval of the 22 July 2015 Meeting Minutes

IT WAS MOVED BY REPRESENTATIVE BERGMAN AND SECONDED BYREPRESENTATIVE QUINCY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE 22 JULY 2015MEETING.

The motion carried by unanimous vote.

2. Review of Monthly Operations Reports: July and August, 2015

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, said complaints increased 1.4% in July 2015 compared toJuly 2014 and increased about 3% in August 2015 compared to August 2014. She saidconcerns being expressed by complainants include nighttime operations. She noted noisecomplaints typically increase during the summer months when residents are outside or havetheir windows open more often. She noted that more airlines are operating more nighttimeoperations as part of summertime schedules. She noted the MAC and MSP have beenmentioned in the press recently and that complaints often increase after such exposure.

ITEM 1

2

MSP Noise Oversight Committee 16 September 2015

2

Nelson said total aircraft operations decreased about .5% in July 2015 compared to July 2014, and increased .5% in August 2015 compared to August 2014. She noted that August 2015 was the first month in which total operations were higher, when compared to the same month, than in 2014. She said there have been approximately 6,000 fewer operations in the first six months of 2015 than in the first six months of 2014.

Nelson said air carrier jet operations in July 2015 decreased 1.5% compared to July 2014, and decreased of just under 1% in August 2015 compared to August 2014. She said other, Manufactured Stage-3 jets comprised 58.1% of the air carrier jet fleet in July 2015 and 57.8% in August 2015, while regional jets comprised 41.9% of the air carrier jet fleet in July 2015 and 42.2% in August 2015. She said there were zero Modified Stage-3 operations in both July and August 2015.

Nelson said nighttime operations (10:30pm – 6:00am) increased 12% in July 2015 compared to July 2014. She said nighttime operations (10:30pm – 6:00am) increased 17% in August 2015 compared to August 2014.

Nelson said passenger and operations data show the peak number of operations by major air carriers and regional air carriers occurred in July 2009, while the peak number of passengers on major air carriers and regional air carriers occurred in July 2015. She said the trend continues to be increasing numbers of passengers on the same or fewer numbers of operations.

Nelson said there were 1,166 scheduled and 1,538 actual nighttime (10:30pm – 6:00am) arrival operations in July 2015. She said there were 249 scheduled and 453 actual nighttime (10:30pm – 6:00am) departure operations in July 2015. She said most of the differences in arrivaloperations in July 2015 occurred in the 10:30-11:00pm, 4:00am, and 5:00am timeframes. She said most of the differences in departure operations in July 2015 occurred in the 10:30-11:00pm and 11:00pm-12:00am timeframes. She said there were 1,014 scheduled and 1,471 actual nighttime (10:30pm – 6:00am) arrival operations in August 2015. She said most of the differences in arrival operations in August 2015 occurred in the 10:30-11:00pm, 4:00am, and 5:00am timeframes. She said there were 229 scheduled and 446 actual nighttime (10:30pm – 6:00am) departure operations in August 2015. She said most of the differences in departure operations in August 2015 occurred in the 10:30-11:00pm timeframe. Chair Petschel, Mendota Heights, said she understands weather and system delays can have an impact on the differences between scheduled and actual arrivals, but wondered what was causing the differences in scheduled and actual departures. Nelson said weather and system delays can have an impact on departures as well, and noted that Air Traffic Control meters departures as a result. She noted that Air Traffic Control may hold an aircraft at its departure airport past its scheduled departure time as part of that metering. Representative Quincy, Minneapolis, asked if cargo operations are included in the schedule information provided. Nelson said information for FedEx and UPS is included, but that other cargo operators do not report their schedules to the Official Airline Guide which is the source used for the information provided to the Committee. Quincy asked if there are any trends developing with regard to specific days of the week and scheduled vs. actual operations. Nelson said she would look into that and bring information to the next Committee meeting.

Nelson said there were 5,941 Runway 17 carrier jet departures, and 99.7% compliance with the Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Procedure, in July 2015. She said there were 5,860 Runway 17 carrier jet departures, and 99.1% compliance with the Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Procedure, in August 2015.

3


3

Nelson said 98.5% of the 4,277 carrier jet departures off of Runways 12L and 12R remained in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor in July 2015, and 97.5% of the 4,045 carrier jet departures off of Runways 12L and 12R remained in the Corridor in August 2015. Representative Hart, Delta Air Lines, noted the increased percentages of operations remaining in the Corridor and suggested sending a note of thanks to the Air Traffic Control Tower. Nelson said she thought that would be a nice gesture. Hart asked if it would be possible to see year-over-year data for the Corridor procedure.

Nelson said 71 carrier jet departures (50% of total carrier jet corridor operations) used the Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure during the nighttime hours of 11:00pm – 6:00am during July 2015, and 95 (62% of total carrier jet corridor operations) used it in August 2015. She said 1,596 carrier jet departures (39% of total carrier jet corridor operations) used the Procedure during the daytime hours of 6:00am – 11:00pm in July 2015, and 1,475 (38% of total carrier jet corridor operations) used it in August 2015.

Nelson said that 53.2% of total operations in July 2015 took place on the RUS high-priority runways and that 54.76% of total operations in August 2015 took place on the RUS high-priority runways. She said 34% of departures were off of Runway 17 in July 2015, and that a lot of the operations occurred during the 6:00-7:30am timeframe. Hart said he thinks this is a good development as it avoids departures over Minneapolis in the morning. Nelson said in July 2015, 19.8% of arrivals were on Runway 30L, 19% were on Runway 30R and 8% were on Runway 35. She said 2.6% of arrivals on Runway 30L and almost 2% of arrivals on Runway 30Roccurred during the nighttime-early morning transition period. Nelson said that 33.76% of departures were off of Runway 17 in August 2015. She noted that the FAA closed Runway 35 for arrivals in August 2015 and that Runways 30L and 30R picked up those arrivals. Nelson noted the airport was in a south-flow configuration from August 26 – September 7 due to south winds.

Representative Lowman, Bloomington, said that he has received comments from residents concerned about the routing change resulting from RNAV implementation and the frequency of overflights. Petschel noted she has received calls from residents also, and noted that warmer, more humid weather has an impact on aircraft noise.

3. Presentation: Airport Planning, Russ Owen – Metropolitan Council

Russ Owen, Metropolitan Council, provided a presentation on the Metropolitan Council and its aviation planning role. He noted:

The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) is a regional planning agency The Met Council’s legislatively-defined roles and responsibilities include

planning for the orderly and economic development of the region The Met Council is responsible for reviewing community and airport

comprehensive plans for consistency with the Metropolitan DevelopmentGuide, and for commenting on environmental reports

The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is an independent commissionresponsible for promoting aviation and competitive air service

4


4

Areas where the Met Council and the MAC interact are in planning and planreviews (such as Long-term Comprehensive Plans), environmental evaluations(such as Environmental Assessments), and implementation (such as theMAC’s Capital Improvement Program)

The four key areas of interaction between the Met Council and the MAC are theSystem Plan, the Long-term Comprehensive Plans, the Capital ImprovementPlan, and environmental evaluations

A Met Council members serves on the MAC commission, and a MACcommissioner is appointed to the Transportation Advisory Board

The MAC’s Long-term Comprehensive Plans need to be consistent with the MetCouncil’s Thrive MSP 2040 and Transportation Policy Plan; the goal is to haveland use compatibility between the communities and the airport system

Airports not owned and operated by the MAC are part of the airport system The Met Council was the lead agency on the dual-track studies conducted in the

1970s and the 1990s The Met Council specifies that Long-term Comprehensive Plans be updated

every five years The Met Council has no statutory role in noise mitigation, noise levels, or noise

metrics; operation use of the regional airports; use of surrounding airspace atairports; and flight paths in and around airports.

Chair Petschel, Mendota Heights, asked what the MNDoT Aeronautic Plan is. Owen said it’s the state’s aviation system plan. Representative Fitzhenry, Richfield, asked if the FAA is planning to eliminate VORs. Owen said he had heard that but had no further information.

4. MSP Converging Runway Operations

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, noted that FAA representatives from the MSP Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) had planned to be at today’s meeting were called away unexpectedly. She read a statement from Elaine Buckner, MSP ATCT:

"We apologize for not being here in person to brief you on the status of MSP’s current arrivals. We plan to be at the November NOC and will provide a fuller briefing at that time.

On Friday, July 24th, Minneapolis Tower temporarily suspended use of an operational configuration involving arrivals to Runway 35 while at the same time departing Runway 30L. This suspension was not the result of a specific event. Instead, it was based on new FAA guidance about operations on runways with intersecting flight paths. The new guidance required us to make some modifications to our standard operating procedures. At that time we said the change would reduce the maximum hourly arrival rate to about 64 aircraft.

On Friday, August 28th, we said that weather permitting, we would allow limited arrivals on Runway 35, alternating with departures on Runway 30-Left. This configuration could help us recapture 15 to 18 percent of our arrival capacity. Due to weather conditions, we have only been able to use this configuration on

5


5

six days since that August 28th date, and some of those days were partial use, again due to weather conditions.

Because of this partial use, we have limited data to share with you today. It’s important to note that the FAA is conducting a 60-day review period of these procedures, designed to meet the new safety requirement. It is our hope that we’ll have much more information to share with you at the November NOC meeting.”

Nelson noted that operations to the south and southeast are not affected by the CRO issue. She said it is expected that, during the FAA’s 60-day review, departures off of Runway 30R and 30L should have more balance than they have in the past. She said there is potential, during peak arrival periods, for arrivals on Runway 30L to be spaced further apart – up to almost eight miles apart – than they have been previous to the CRO issue. Representative Bergman, At-large Representative, asked if spacing the arrivals further apart will cause arrivals to be delayed into the nighttime hours. Nelson said that capacity issues at MSP that would cause arrival delays would be expected to occur during the early evening hours, between 5:45-7:00pm. She noted that the increased spacing would be used during high-demand arrival banks, not necessarily all day. Representative Hart, Delta Air Lines, said it was his opinion that arrivals being pushed into the nighttime hours may have occurred when Runway 35 arrivals were first suspended and the arrival rate was reduced to 64 aircraft. Nelson said staff looked into the capacity issue and found the airport operated in the same operational flow as occurs with the modified CRO flow about 1/3 of the time out of the last 12 months, during clear weather conditions, and exceeded the aircraft arrival rate of 75 only a handful of hours, or less than 2% of the time.

Nelson said the FAA will conduct a 60-day evaluation of the modified procedures, in September and October. She said the Annual Noise Contour Analysis will ensure that changes in runway use during this time are quantified and included in the 2015 Actual Noise Contour used for noise mitigation. She said that, assuming a successful outcome of the FAA’s 60-day evaluation, staff will collect runway use data in November and December and will assess the future runway use assumptions in the 2035 MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan, and any necessary adjustments will be made to reflect the procedural changes resulting from the CROs. She said staff will present the forecast runway use assumptions and the revised 2035 Forecast Noise Contour to the Committee in early 2016. Representative Miller, Eagan, asked why the CRO issue was not identified years ago when Runway 17/35 was being built. Nelson said her understanding from the FAA is that a recent study done by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) looked at CROs as a result of some go-around arrival operations conflicting with departures at other airports. She said the NTSB study was completed several years ago and the FAA used a phase-in approach to addressing CRO issues at airports across the country. Chair Petschel, Mendota Heights, noted a list of affected airports included virtually all of the major U.S. airports. Representative Quincy, Minneapolis, said he is pleased NTSB conducted the study as safety is a primary concern. He noted the City of Minneapolis has long believed the airport is too congested and that the aircraft acceptance rates have been too high, especially during peak hours. He noted that the increased spacing of aircraft improves safety but also improves “livability on the ground” when residents don’t experience frequent overflights.

6


6

5. MSP 2035 Long-term Comprehensive Plan Update

Neil Ralston, MAC Airport Planner, updated the Committee on the 2035 MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). He reminded Committee members the LTCP is an infrastructure planning tool that is updated every five years and does not authorize construction or serve as the basis for the noise mitigation program. He noted that a meeting on the LTCP was held on 27 August 2015 for members of the public to receive information about the LTCP purpose and process. He said that at its 8 September 2014 meeting, the MAC’s Planning, Development & Environment Committee directed staff to return to the full MAC Board on 21 September 2015 with options to extend the public comment period for the LTCP, in order to more fully assess impacts from the FAA’s CRO procedure changes. Ralston said there are three options:

Maintain the current timeline, which calls for publishing the draft LTCP andinitiating a 45-day public comment period in early October, closing the commentperiod in November, and presenting the final version of the LTCP to the MACBoard in January 2016 before presenting to the Metropolitan Council for review

Publish the draft LTCP and initiate a 60-day public comment period in earlyOctober, present the final version of the LTCP to the MAC Board in February2016

Defer publication of the draft LTCP until sufficient runway use data, reflectingimplementation of the FAA’s revised CRO procedures, are available through theend of December 2015; as a result, publication of the draft LTCP would bepushed back to late February or early March 2016, and the 45-day publiccomment period would run through mid-April 2016; the final version of the LTCPwould be presented to the MAC Board in June 2016

Ralston said that staff is recommending to the MAC Board at its 21 September 2015 meeting that publication of the draft LTCP be deferred per the third option. He noted that staff is proposing that, if publication is deferred, two public information meetings on the LTCP be held, one in Minneapolis and one in Eagan, mid-way through the public comment period in late March or early April 2016. In order to avoid rush-hour traffic concerns, staff is proposing the public information meetings be held either 6:00-9:00pm or 4:00-7:00pm.

Representative Fitzhenry, Richfield, asked if the proposed hotel at MSP is still part of the LTCP. Ralston said negotiations are underway with a developer and that construction on the hotel could being within a year. Representative Bergman, At-large Representative, asked what will happen to the post office located at the airport when the hotel is built. Ralston said the second phase of parking ramp development will require demolition of the post office after 2030, but the first phase of the parking ramp development does not affect the post office. Bergman asked how information about the second set of public information meetings will be conveyed. Chair Petschel, Mendota Heights, said the cities share a responsibility to communicate that information to their residents.

6. Nighttime Operations Update

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, noted that she briefed the Committee on nighttime (10:30pm – 6:00am) operations, which are 13% higher than the same time last year, at the July meeting.She noted that Committee community representatives sent a letter on 13 August 2015 to MSP

7


7

air carriers reminding them of the voluntary nighttime agreement to refrain from scheduling nighttime operations when possible. She noted a companion letter was sent to the MSP air carriers by MAC Chair Dan Boivin. She noted that neither the Committee nor the MAC has the authority to restrict nighttime operations at MSP. Nelson said staff has received one response, from Sun Country Air Lines which acknowledged it does have some operations scheduled during the nighttime hours, although it tries to limit them as much as possible in consideration of the noise concerns. She said Sun Country indicated its schedules are created as a result of passenger demand. Nelson said she will forward to Committee members any other responses she receives. She reminded Committee members that some nighttime operations occur as a result of weather- and system-related delays, but that there has been an increase in scheduled nighttime operations by American, Southwest, Frontier, Delta, and United. She noted that these carriers tend to increase operations in the summer to meet passenger demand, and that those operations tend to decrease during the fall/winter timeframe. Nelson noted that nighttime operations data are included in the monthly Technical Advisor’s Report, that the Committee’s Work Plan each year includes an assessment of scheduled nighttime operations, and that actual nighttime operations during the course of this year will be quantified and reflected in the contour for noise mitigation.

7. Sunfish Lake Mobile Noise Monitoring Study

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, noted the Committee approved the Sunfish Lake Mobile Noise Monitoring Study scope at its July meeting. She said monitoring for the study began at 12:00am on 4 August 2015 and concluded at 11:59pm on 10 August 2015. She said a total of 253 departure-related aircraft noise events were recorded at the monitor used for the study, which was located in Musser Park in Sunfish Lake. She said that, of the 253 operations, 226 were departures off of Runway 12L and 27 were departures off of Runway 12R. She said no arrival operations were recorded at the monitor. She said that, during the study period, time above or equal to the 65 dB threshold was one hour, 20 minutes, and 47 seconds, or .80% of the total monitoring time. She said that, during the study period, time above or equal to the 80 dB threshold was 12 seconds, or less than 0.00% of the total monitoring time. She said no events registered above 90 or 100 dB. Nelson said the study compared the measured daily aircraft day-night average sound level (DNL), the measured study period DNL of 51.6 and the modeled 2014 actual noise contour DNL of 50.3. She said the measured DNL being slightly higher than the 2014 actual noise contour DNL is attributed to the small sample size of data available for the study. Nelson said conclusions from the study are that the measured DNL levels correlate with the 2014 actual noise contour DNL and that the measured DNL levels are within a normal range for small town and quiet suburban areas. She noted that each aircraft operation that registered a noise event at the mobile noise monitor also registered noise events in at least one of the permanent RMTs, indicating aircraft noise trends experienced in Sunfish Lake are recorded and monitored at locations closer to the airport. She said staff will brief the study conclusion to the Sunfish Lake City Council in early October and will post the study results on the macnoise.com website. Mayor Molly Park, Sunfish Lake, thanked the Committee and MAC staff for conducting the study and expressed appreciation for the Committee’s and the MAC’s attention to nuanced noise data and resident concerns about aircraft noise. She said Sunfish Lake understands it will not receive mitigation but appreciates being included as part of the tapestry of aircraft-related noise data MAC staff has evaluated. Nelson recognized MAC staff members Brad Juffer, Assistant Manager – Noise, Environment & Planning, and Derek Anderson, Acoustics & Technical Systems Coordinator, for their work on the study.

8


8

8. Draft 2016 NOC Work Plan

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, noted that a draft of the Committee’s 2016 Work Plan was included in the agenda packet for today’s meeting. She asked Committee members to review the draft plan and to forward to her any suggested changes or additions, which would be reviewed and approved at the Committee’s 18 November 2015 meeting. She reminded Committee members that the Committee-approved plan would then be presented by the Committee co-chairs to the MAC Planning, Development & Environment Committee at its 7 December 2015 meeting. Nelson noted that a new item on the draft 2016 Work Plan includes items 2g – Evaluate and Advocate Enhanced Use of the Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure and item 2h – Evaluate Use of the FAA Runway Use System (RUS). Representative Quincy, Minneapolis, asked if an examination of altitudes and perhaps a gate analysis could be included as part of item 2d – Review of Fleet Mix Trends at MSP and/or item 2f – NextGen Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Update. He said he would be interested to see how the use of larger aircraft at MSP have an impact on noise and would like to see altitudes included in the analysis. Representative Miller, Eagan, asked if an update on Stage 5 requirements could be included in the Work Plan. Chair Petschel, Mendota Heights, asked for an update on information on the 737 MAX and the new Airbus NEO aircraft as it becomes available.

9. Review of July 28, 2015 Public Input Meeting

Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, said the third-quarter Public Input Meeting was held on 28 July 2015. She said 24 residents attended the meeting. She said comments and questions focused on:

Frequency and altitude of aircraft overflights Health effects of aircraft noise The MSP 2035 Long-term Comprehensive Plan and how the MAC plans to address

noise impacts and capacity constraints in the future Late-night and early-morning flights Lowering property values More resources for prospective homebuyers Concerns about the DNL noise metric and interest in using other noise metrics

Nelson noted that the fourth-quarter Public Input Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 27 October 2015, at 7:00pm at the Edina City Council Chambers.

10. Public Comment Period

Mr. Bob Gubrud, 4421 Ellsworth Drive, Edina MN, said he is experiencing more flights over his neighborhood and more noise. He said the idea of “whisper jets” on aircraft is a misnomer. He said he has to wear earplugs at night to get a decent night’s sleep. He said aircraft noise in the late afternoon makes it impossible to enjoy his yard and patio. He said he and his wife have lived in their home for 45 years and want to stay in their neighborhood the rest of their lives, but

9


9

the aircraft noise may force them to consider moving. He noted the parallel runways have been in place since the airport was built, but that something has changed. He says Runway 30L is being used more frequently than Runway 30R and that contributes to their experience. He says they were not informed of the change to using Runway 30L more often and would have liked to have had the opportunity to comment before that decision was made. He said they did not move the noise, but that the noise moved to them. He said there was no noise when they moved to the neighborhood 45 years ago. He said it is hard to reconcile adding capacity to MSP when people are experiencing so much traffic and noise already. He said he fails to see any benefits of that for people living under the flight paths. He asked if the NOC could tell residents when the FAA will return to the flights paths that were used previously. He asked for reassurance that the NOC will represent residents’ realities and interests in the future.

Ms. Connie Carrino, 4509 Garrison Lane, Edina MN, said that the noise has gotten worse in the past 3-4 years. She said she moved from South Minneapolis to Edina 23 years ago and are concerned because they didn’t move to the noise, the noise followed them to Edina. She said she appreciates the NOC’s efforts in looking at what has changed and what could be done to address the noise issue. She said she thinks the concerns expressed at the Long-term Comprehensive Plan public information meeting are about the byproduct of growth and planning at the airport, which is more noise. She said more passengers mean more planes and that means more noise. She said, “Business and human endeavors are systems. We tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system and wonder why our deepest problems never get solved.” She said instead of looking at the Long-term Comprehensive Plan as a document for facilities, it has to be more comprehensive and include the impact on communities.

The next meeting of the NOC is scheduled for Wednesday, 18 November 2015.

The meeting adjourned at 3:17pm.

Respectfully Submitted, Christene Sirois Kron, Recording Secretary

10

MEMORANDUM

TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)

FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORTS

DATE: November 1, 2015

Each month of the year the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) produces a Technical Advisor’s Report for the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). This report provides maps, tables, and charts that examine runway use, departures and arrivals, and noise levels associated with aircraft operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP).

The detailed content of a typical Monthly Technical Advisor’s Report is provided below:

1) Complaint Dataa) Number of Complaints

i) Type (noise, engine run-up, low altitude, etc.), time of day/night, and complaint city oforigin listing.

b) Noise Complaint Mapi) Showing location and number of complaints.

2) Runway Usea) FAA Available Time for Runway Usage

i) Showing the airport layout and hours per month (all hours and nighttime hours) thateach runway end met FAA Aviation Performance Metrics.

b) MSP All Operations Runway Usagei) Showing the airport layout and the percentage of monthly flights for each runway.

c) MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usagei) Showing the airport layout and percentage of monthly flights by the air carriers.

d) MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Compositioni) Table showing type of aircraft, number of monthly operations at MSP, percentage of

operations for each aircraft type and FAR Part 36 Take-Off Noise Levels.

3) Nighttime Runway Use (10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.)a) MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage

i) Showing the airport layout and the percentage of use of each runway at night.b) MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage

i) Showing the airport layout and percentage of nighttime flights by the air carriers.c) MSP Scheduled Nighttime Operators

i) Tables and a chart showing the names of the air carriers, number of operations percarrier and time of night of flights, including the schedule of nighttime jet operations.

d) MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators by Type and Stage Mixi) Tables and a chart the aircraft type (A320, MD 90, etc.), stage mix (Stage 3, hush-

kitted, etc.), and type of aircraft used by the air carriers by time of night.

ITEM 2

11

4) Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System

a) Flight Tracks i) A series of maps showing the density of weekly arrivals and departures and weekly

flight tracks during the nighttime for each runway. b) MSP MACNOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map

i) A map showing the locations of each of the 39 Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT). c) Time Above dB Threshold for MSP Arrival/Departure-Related Noise Events

Tables showing the address location of each RMT and the amount of time for the month that each RMT recorded jet aircraft noise arrivals and departures events >=65dB, >= 80dB, >= 90dB and => 100dB.

d) MSP Arrival/Departure-Related Noise Events i) Tables showing the count of jet aircraft arrival and departure events >=65dB,

>= 80dB, >= 90dB and => 100dB. e) MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT

i) Tables showing the flight number, aircraft type, runway and LMAX (dB). f) Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL

At the November 18, 2015 NOC meeting, MAC staff will provide an update on the monthly operations reports for September and October, 2015.

12

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: PRESENTATION: 2016-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,

BRIDGET RIEF, MAC AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 1, 2015 Each year, the MAC prepares a seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for projects at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the reliever airports. The CIP lists projects and cost totals for each project planned for the next seven years, and includes narratives for projects planned in the first two years of the seven-year program. The projects are categorized under the following project types: MSP End-of-Life Replacement Projects, MSP IT Projects, MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Projects, MSP Maintenance/Facility Upgrade Projects, MSP On-Going Maintenance Programs, MSP Noise Mitigation Projects, MSP Tenant Projects, Reliever Airports Long Term Comprehensive Plan Projects, and Reliever Airports Maintenance/Facility Upgrade Projects.

Final review and approval of the CIP is an annual function of the MAC Full Commission and usually occurs at the regular Commission meeting held in December. Subsequent changes or amendments to the CIP within a given year also require Commission approval. The CIP itself is “firm” for the coming year, in this case 2016. For the year 2016, following Commission approval, the MAC can proceed with final construction plan and specifications, additional scope, and cost analysis necessary to prepare a project for a public bidding process. When the project is bid, MAC staff returns the project to the Commission for consideration of the recommended bid award and execution of the construction contract. Once the CIP has been approved, MAC staff can begin more detailed scope and cost analysis for projects scheduled in 2017 and preliminary scope and cost analysis for projects scheduled in 2018. Further, projects are scheduled in the CIP for 2019-2022 for planning and coordination purposes.

In parallel with the preparation of the seven-year CIP, all of the MAC CIP projects are reviewed for environmental impacts in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1986, Chapter 473.614, as amended in 1988 and 1998. Under this Minnesota law, the MAC is required to “examine the cumulative environmental effects at each airport of the projects at that airport (in the seven-year CIP), considered collectively.” Many of the projects in the CIP entail replacement and maintenance/upgrades of existing facilities, Information Technology, and rehabilitation/upgrades of existing airport tenant facilities. Such work will not affect use of the facilities and will not add to, or subtract from, cumulative environmental effects.

The amended 1986 law also requires the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) for projects that meet all of the following conditions:

1. The project is scheduled in the CIP for the succeeding calendar year (2016 in this CIP);

ITEM 3

13

2. The project is scheduled to cost $5 million or more at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) or $2 million or more at any other MAC airport; and

3. The project involves the construction of: (i) a new or expanded structure for handling passengers, cargo, vehicles or aircraft; or (ii) a new runway or taxiway or the extension of an existing runway or taxiway.

An Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) for the Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program 2016-2022 has been prepared and distributed by the MAC for comment in October 2015.

Both the Commission review and approval process of the CIP and the AOEE process ensure that projects receive appropriate environmental review. In relation to the 2016 CIP projects, there are four projects that have already gone through environmental evaluation as part of the 2020 Improvements Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet, completed in January 2013. Three of the projects are components of the Phase 1 Parking Expansion at Terminal 1-Lindbergh.

The presentation of the 2016 CIP to the NOC membership will be done by Bridget Rief, MAC Director of Airport Development. This is an information item, no NOC action is requested.

14

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: MSP CONVERGING RUNWAY OPERATIONS, ELAINE BUCKNER, MSP

ATCT DATE: November 1, 2015 In 2014 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters developed new safety rules to address Converging Runway Operations (CRO), which affected 15 airports nation-wide. The FAA defines Converging Runways as two runways that have intersecting flight paths within one mile of the airport. This “convergence” in the sky poses potential risks if a landing aircraft must discontinue its approach and go around. At MSP, arrivals on Runway 35 and departures on Runway 30L result in CRO (see figure below). As a result, on July 24, 2015, MSP Air Traffic Control temporarily suspended arrivals on Runway 35 to develop a method to comply with the new CRO rules. After approximately a month of discussion and planning, the use of Runway 35 for arrivals was resumed. To comply with the new CRO safety requirements, arrivals on Runway 35 and departures on Runway 30L are being alternated. MSP Air Traffic Control estimates that this increases the maximum arrival acceptance rate to 78 per hour, still lower than the arrival rates (90) experienced during north-flow operations prior to implementation of the new CRO rules, but higher than today’s arrival rate (66) in a south-flow configuration.

ITEM 4

15

Initially, the FAA established a 60-day evaluation period of the CRO procedures to continually assess the capacity gains, allow Air Traffic Controllers the opportunity to use and familiarize themselves with the procedures and to determine if any further procedural changes are necessary. Since that time, prevailing south winds have not provided opportunity to evaluate these operations thoroughly; therefore, the FAA has extended its evaluation period another 120 days, ending February 24, 2016. MAC staff is planning to use runway use data from November 2015 through January 2016 and, in partnership with HNTB and MSP Air Traffic Management, assess if any changes are warranted to the forecast runway use assumptions currently in the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan 2035 forecast noise contour. The 2035 forecast runway use assumptions and noise contour will be presented at the March 2016 NOC meeting. After review by the NOC, MAC staff will resume the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan process. Elaine Buckner, Air Traffic Manager at MSP will update the NOC on the CRO topic at its November 18, 2015 meeting.

16

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: ANNUAL MSP AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX ASSESSMENT DATE: November 1, 2015 The Annual Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment is attached for NOC review. The Annual MSP Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment evaluates historical carrier jet trends at MSP using three aircraft groups: Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft, Regional Jet Aircraft and Hushkit Aircraft. The Annual MSP Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment includes:

• Monthly Count of Carrier Jets by Group (Hushkit, Manufactured Stage 3, and Regional Jet) from January 2010 through September 2015

• Annual Carrier Jet Percentages by Type (CRJ2, MD90, DC9Q, etc.) from January 2010 through September 2015

• Monthly Count of Manufactured Stage 3 Carrier Jets by Type from October 2013 through September 2015 Table and Chart

• Monthly Count of Regional Jets by Type from October 2013 through September 2015 Table and Chart

• Regional Jet Fleet Mix Percentage from January 2010 through September 2015 Chart

• Monthly Count of Hushkit Jets by Type from October 2013 through September 2015 Table and Chart

ITEM 5

17

Annual MSP Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment October 2015

MAC Noise Program Office

18

ANNUAL CARRIER JET PERCENTAGES BY TYPE 2010 - YTD 2015

GROUP TYPE FAR PART 36

TAKE-OFF NOISE LEVEL*

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

HU

SHK

IT

B72Q 97.6 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B73Q 91.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

DC9Q 91 6.0% 2.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PERCENT OF TOTAL 6.2% 2.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MA

NU

FAC

TUR

ED STA

GE 3

B742 110 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A124 109.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A225 109.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

DC10 101.8 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

B744 101.6 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

A340 96.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

B777 96.2 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

B763 95.7 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.8%

DC8Q 95.7 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A330 95.6 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

A380 95.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B748 94.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A310 92.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B767 92.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MD11 92.8 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

B762 92.1 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

A300 91.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

MD80 91.5 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.6%

B757 91.4 7.1% 6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 6.5% 6.7%

B764 91.2 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

A321 89.8 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9%

B734 88.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B738 88.6 4.4% 4.8% 4.6% 4.5% 5.6% 6.9%

B739 88.4 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 2.4%

A320 87.8 10.0% 8.8% 9.0% 8.4% 9.6% 8.5%

B735 87.7 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B733 87.5 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.8%

A319 87.4 9.2% 6.8% 6.4% 6.0% 7.5% 8.3%

B7377 85.9 2.6% 2.7% 3.4% 4.4% 5.0% 4.9%

MD90 84.2 3.3% 5.5% 6.8% 7.8% 6.8% 8.3%

A318 84.1 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

B717 84.1 0.9% 1.3% 1.4% 0.8% 0.6% 1.3%

F100 81.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PERCENT OF TOTAL 45.1% 44.9% 45.9% 47.2% 50.6% 55.6%

REG

ION

AL JETS

E190 86.9 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%

CRJ9 84.6 7.8% 6.7% 7.4% 7.6% 11.0% 14.6%

E145 83.7 3.2% 2.0% 1.2% 0.7% 1.9% 1.3%

E170 83.7 12.0% 14.3% 15.9% 13.2% 10.6% 7.4%

CRJ7 83.2 1.8% 3.2% 3.4% 4.1% 4.2% 3.5%

CRJ 79.8 0.1% 0.7% 4.3% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CRJ1 79.8 1.7% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

CRJ2 78.7 21.7% 24.6% 20.9% 9.4% 21.2% 17.4%

E135 77.9 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0%

J328 76.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PERCENT OF TOTAL 48.7% 53.1% 53.9% 52.8% 49.4% 44.4%

*THE NOISE LEVELS FROM FAR PART 36 ARE THE LOUDEST LEVELS DOCUMENTED FOR EACH AIRCRAFT DURING TAKE-OFF MEASURED IN A-WEIGHTED EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (EPNL DBA).

20

MANUFACTURED STAGE 3 CARRIER JETS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2013 - SEPTEMBER 2014

MANUFACTURED STAGE 3 CARRIER JETS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2014 - SEPTEMBER 2015

2013 2014 Total

2015

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total

A124 0 2 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A300 12 21 44 12 12 16 22 14 18 23 24 20 238 24 32 66 16 30 27 27 10 17 14 10 10 283

A310 0 0 14 6 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

A319 1,731 1,650 2,112 1,861 1,532 2,684 2,216 2,520 2,553 2,597 2,646 2,756 26,858 2,727 2,188 2,338 2,373 1,963 1,874 2,065 2,876 3,164 3,398 3,249 2,384 30,599

A320 2,463 2,837 2,560 2,773 2,671 2,525 3,108 3,042 3,043 2,997 2,674 3,153 33,846 3,847 3,636 3,147 2,191 2,200 2,921 2,838 2,646 2,531 2,626 2,572 3,367 34,522

A321 130 128 137 195 199 276 245 159 125 133 241 298 2,266 295 276 289 278 254 333 348 295 286 287 227 182 3,350

A330 240 182 203 187 183 242 249 276 227 259 248 190 2,686 185 194 192 185 177 189 225 264 248 249 212 211 2,531

A340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 58 60 1 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 54 60 62 38 244

A380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B717 258 222 235 226 202 253 229 229 190 184 186 123 2,537 62 170 183 214 342 415 829 854 210 189 206 383 4,057

B733 274 371 355 254 205 287 213 214 362 413 231 180 3,359 196 132 191 178 130 146 219 246 318 343 346 305 2,750

B734 4 10 16 8 26 24 21 16 1 6 2 0 134 6 14 19 16 25 15 12 10 4 0 2 2 125

B735 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B7377 1,701 1,556 1,744 1,545 1,523 1,653 1,766 1,678 1,588 1,556 1,581 1,546 19,437 1,625 1,502 1,538 1,495 1,394 1,687 1,545 1,429 1,677 1,697 1,532 1,400 18,521

B738 1,511 1,417 1,765 1,990 1,894 2,661 1,963 1,721 1,583 1,656 1,734 1,270 21,165 1,674 1,386 1,885 2,148 2,033 2,311 1,814 1,937 2,220 2,341 2,497 1,984 24,230

B739 41 40 52 80 147 93 124 249 268 270 258 343 1,965 521 173 428 321 429 477 497 893 1,016 1,071 1,050 1,109 7,985

B742 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4

B744 2 2 25 5 4 0 8 0 63 51 32 40 232 55 5 24 0 20 13 12 0 3 9 0 4 145

B748 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B757 2,034 1,943 1,990 1,764 1,712 2,400 2,461 2,198 2,242 2,339 2,318 2,092 25,493 1,804 1,542 1,786 1,842 1,659 2,457 1,943 1,789 2,441 2,354 2,410 1,913 23,940

B762 44 40 40 48 37 42 44 44 41 47 43 42 512 46 41 43 42 42 44 48 43 43 46 46 43 527

B763 143 130 252 324 327 451 135 127 391 410 409 251 3,350 92 72 187 248 332 436 290 126 217 258 261 125 2,644

B764 62 59 62 59 51 57 58 64 60 62 63 115 772 112 55 58 60 61 64 66 62 60 61 102 90 851

B777 61 63 61 62 36 32 6 30 2 14 30 24 421 17 62 82 70 56 63 63 64 66 64 64 62 733

DC10 48 41 66 47 48 50 46 47 48 52 47 45 585 46 53 178 52 50 43 46 47 127 131 127 36 936

MD11 204 174 164 187 175 177 198 188 179 190 183 175 2,194 204 163 60 179 171 183 194 176 101 116 100 194 1,841

MD80 1,740 2,085 1,678 1,162 981 782 796 959 1,251 1,538 1,491 1,287 15,750 1,381 1,312 1,199 980 874 1,021 1,094 1,184 1,294 1,330 1,360 910 13,939

MD90 2,577 1,821 2,208 1,990 1,613 2,050 1,581 1,665 2,910 3,322 3,349 1,867 26,953 1,671 1,954 1,889 2,183 2,028 2,666 2,251 2,375 2,745 3,221 3,203 2,509 28,695

Total 15,280 14,794 15,783 14,787 13,594 16,763 15,493 15,442 17,210 18,181 17,854 15,818 190,999 16,590 14,962 15,784 15,073 14,270 17,387 16,428 17,358 18,842 19,865 19,638 17,261 203,458 21

REGIONAL JET COUNTS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2013 - SEPTEMBER 2014

REGIONAL JET COUNTS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2014 - SEPTEMBER 2015

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

2013 2014 2015

OP

ER

AT

ION

S

TH

OU

SA

ND

S

REGIONAL JET OPERATIONS BY TYPE

CRJ CRJ1 CRJ2 CRJ7 CRJ9 E135 E145 E170 E190 J328

AIRCRAFT TYPE

2013 2014 TOTAL

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

CRJ 6,134 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 6,141

CRJ1 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 177 185 6 377

CRJ2 2,321 7,742 7,193 7,393 6,646 8,380 7,353 7,269 7,123 7,265 6,635 5,958 81,278

CRJ7 972 863 1,315 1,402 1,244 1,377 1,388 1,529 1,393 1,416 1,372 1,344 15,615

CRJ9 2,963 2,800 2,780 2,566 2,139 3,243 2,947 3,614 3,317 3,340 3,681 3,779 37,169

E135 416 4 12 4 4 0 2 0 7 4 10 4 467

E145 211 629 712 654 564 554 559 554 712 723 745 516 7,133

E170 3,976 3,863 3,390 3,479 3,270 3,549 3,598 3,426 3,404 3,600 3,752 3,323 42,630

E190 156 140 154 132 124 165 160 124 16 16 16 20 1,223

J328 8 17 6 2 16 12 16 8 2 10 8 12 117

TOTAL 17,157 16,062 15,564 15,632 14,008 17,284 16,023 16,524 15,975 16,551 16,405 14,965 192,150

AIRCRAFT TYPE

2014 2015 TOTAL


CRJ 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 7

CRJ1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 6

CRJ2 5,990 5,400 5,322 5,468 4,925 5,945 5,253 5,309 5,528 5,609 5,626 5,107 65,482

CRJ7 1,096 1,184 1,388 1,749 1,375 1,221 1,082 1,177 759 806 931 587 13,355

CRJ9 4,281 4,261 4,659 4,242 3,817 4,907 4,413 4,451 4,676 5,226 4,983 4,276 54,192

E135 8 2 4 2 2 1 4 0 4 18 12 10 67

E145 509 452 503 511 506 522 441 301 405 397 308 199 5,054

E170 3,586 2,864 2,576 2,080 1,986 2,536 2,503 2,126 2,171 2,263 2,446 2,548 29,685

E190 20 26 48 104 102 125 159 69 64 30 12 56 815

J328 12 19 2 12 19 8 12 10 5 2 0 7 108

TOTAL 15,504 14,208 14,502 14,171 12,732 15,267 13,867 13,445 13,612 14,355 14,318 12,790 168,771

23

HUSH KIT JET COUNTS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2013 - SEPTEMBER 2014

HUSH KIT JET COUNTS BY TYPE OCTOBER 2014 - SEPTEMBER 2015

AIRCRAFT TYPE

2013 2014 TOTAL


B72Q 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

B73Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 3 10

DC9Q 2 2 11 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 26

TOTAL 2 2 13 3 0 4 2 8 0 1 2 5 42

AIRCRAFT TYPE

2014 2015 TOTAL


B72Q 2 0 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

B73Q 2 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 12

DC9Q 2 0 0 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

TOTAL 6 0 6 4 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 34

26

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: REVIEW STATUS OF FAA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE/PARTNER,

TRB AND FICAN INITIATIVES DATE: November 1, 2015

In accordance with the 2015 NOC Work Plan, MAC Noise Program Office staff will review research studies pertaining to aircraft noise, environmental topics, and health effects pertaining to aviation.

A summary of the research projects that were updated or completed in the year 2014 or later is provided in the attached report, and includes work conducted by the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN). Recent studies concerning health effects are also summarized in the attached report.

ITEM 6

27

Update Report of Aviation-Related

Research Initiatives:

Aircraft Noise, Environmental Topics, Sustainability

And Health Effects

October 2015

28

Contents

PARTNER ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Transportation Research Board ....................................................................................................... 3

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise ........................................................................ 5

Other Health-Related Reports ......................................................................................................... 6

Airports Council International and Civil Air Navigation Services Organization ....................... 6

Noise & Health Journal ............................................................................................................... 6

American Journal of Preventive Medicine ................................................................................. 6

Environmental Health Perspectives ............................................................................................ 7

29

PARTNER

The Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) is a leading aviation cooperative research organization, and an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence. Research projects conducted by PARTNER include topics of interest to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee and the Metropolitan Airports Commission such as advancements in utilization of alternative fuels, emissions reductions, aircraft noise and operations, aircraft navigation technologies and science, and decision-making for the betterment of mobility, economy, national security, and the environment. The organization's operational headquarters is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology1.

While there are projects and studies being undertaken by PARTNER to address many facets of transportation, the list below includes projects that were completed or updated in 2014 and 2015 related to aircraft noise and operations, environmental topics, and health effects2:

Project

#

Title and Website Location Status Date

11 Health Impacts of Aviation-Related Air Pollutants http://partner.mit.edu/sites/partner.mit.edu/files/proj11-finalreport.pdf

Complete January

2015

45 Aviation System Air Quality Performance Analysis

http://partner.mit.edu/projects/aviation-system-air-quality-performance-

analysis

In

progress

1 http://partner.mit.edu/about 2 http://partner.mit.edu/projects

30

Transportation Research Board

The mission of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. According to the TRB website, the organization facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encouraged their implementation3.

The Airports Cooperative Research Program is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and managed by the National Academies through TRB. ACRP began work in 2006 and is an industry-driven applied research program that develops near-term, practical solutions to problems faced by airport operators. Research topics are selected by an independent governing board appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that includes individuals from airports, universities, FAA, and the aviation industry.

While there are projects and studies being undertaken by the ACRP to address many aircraft, airport and aviation aspects, below is a summary of the status of noise-related or health-related projects in 2014 and 20154.

Project

#

TRB Project and Website Location Status Date

02-44 Helicopter Noise Modeling Guidance http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3439

In

progress

9/30/2015

Report

135

Understanding Airport Air Quality and Public Health

Studies Related to Airports http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172802.aspx

Complete 6/29/2015

Report

132

The Role of U.S. Airports in the National Economy http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172595.aspx

Complete 5/14/2015

Report

119

Prototype Airport Sustainability Rating System—

Characteristics, Viability, and Implementation Options http://www.trb.org/ACRP/Blurbs/171840.aspx

Complete 12/21/2014

02-57 Reducing the Impact of Lead Emissions at Airports

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3703

In

progress

7/28/2014

03-33 NextGen—Airport Planning and Development http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3708

In

progress

7/11/2014

03-31 Aligning Community Expectations with Airport Roles http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3706

In

progress

6/16/2014

09-12 NextGen—Leveraging NextGen Spatial Data to Benefit

Airports

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3714

In

progress

6/13/2014

02-52 Improving AEDT Noise Modeling of Hard, Soft, and Mixed

Ground Surfaces http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3698

In

progress

6/11/2014

3 http://www.trb.org/AboutTRB/AboutTRB.aspx 4 http://www.trb.org/Projects/Projects2.aspx

31

Project

#

TRB Project and Website Location (Continued) Status Date

02-58 Dispersion Modeling Guidance for Airports Addressing

Local Area Quality Health Concerns http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3704

In

progress

6/10/2014

02-51 Evaluating Methods for Determining Interior Noise Levels

Used in Airport Sound Insulation Program http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3697

In

progress

6/9/2014

02-55 Enhanced AEDT Modeling of Aircraft Arrival and

Departure Profiles

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3701

In

progress

6/9/2014

01-28 NextGen- Guidance for Engaging Airport Stakeholders http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3692

In

progress

6/4/2014

02-48 Assessing Community Annoyance of Helicopter Noise http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3694

In

progress

6/3/2014

02-37 Integrated Noise Model Accuracy for General Aviation

Aircraft

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/171516.aspx

Complete June 2014

03-34 NextGen- Understanding the Airport’s Role in

Performance Based Navigation http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3709

In

progress

5/25/2014

02-47 Assessing Aircraft Noise Conditions Affecting Student

Achievement--Case Studies http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3693

In

progress

5/22/2014

S01-09 Practices to Develop Effective Stakeholder Relationships

at Airports http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.asp?projectid=3726

In

progress

5/13/2014

01-27 NextGen––A Primer http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3691

In

progress

4/9/2014

02-35 Research Methods for Understanding Aircraft Noise

Annoyances and Sleep Disturbance http://www.trb.org/ACRP/Blurbs/170979.aspx

Complete April 2014

02-45 Methodology to Improve EDMS/AEDT Quantification of

Aircraft Taxi/Idle Emissions http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3440

In

progress

7/8/2013

32

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise

The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) is a standing federal interagency committee established in 1993 “to assist agencies in providing adequate forums for discussion of public and private sector proposals, identifying needed research, and in encouraging the conduct of research and development in these areas5.”

Members of FICAN include: U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

There were no published new findings or reports on the FICAN website in 2014 or 2015; however, the following list represents the reports and findings by FICAN from 1997-20106:

Title and Website Location Status Date

Human Response to Low-Intensity Sonic Booms Heard Indoors

and Outdoors. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_sonic_booms.pdf

Complete 2010

FICAN Recommendation for use of ANSI Standard to Predict

Awakenings from Aircraft Noise: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_awakenings_2008.pdf

Complete 2008

Findings of the FICAN Pilot Study on the Relationship between

Aircraft Noise Reduction and Changes in Standardized Test

Scores: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_test_scores.pdf

Complete 2007

FICAN Report on Assessment of Tools for Modeling Aircraft

Noise in the National Parks, Fleming et al.: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_national_parks.pdf

Complete 2005

FICAN Report on Relationship between Aircraft Noise Reduction

in Schools and Standardized Test Scores, Eagan et al.: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_scores_presentation.pdf

Complete 2004

FICAN on the Findings of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International

Airport (MSP) Low-Frequency Noise (LFN) Expert Panel: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_minneapolis.pdf

Complete 2002

Effects of Aircraft Noise on Classroom Learning: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_classroom_learning.pdf

Complete 2000

Research on Natural Quiet:

http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_natural_quiet.pdf

Complete 2000

Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep: http://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_awakenings_1997.pdf

Complete 1997

5 http://fican.org/ 6 http://fican.org/findings/

33

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_sonic_booms.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_sonic_booms.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_awakenings_2008.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_awakenings_2008.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_test_scores.pdf



https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_national_parks.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/reports_national_parks.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_minneapolis.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_minneapolis.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_classroom_learning.pdf

https://fican1.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/findings_natural_quiet.pdf

Other Health-Related Reports

Airports Council International and Civil Air Navigation Services Organization

In September 2015, Airports Council International (ACI) and Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) published a report that “examines the challenge of aviation noise and describes methods that airport operators and [air navigation service providers] can use to manage and reduce its impact. It reviews four current approaches for managing noise: reducing noise at the source; land use planning; noise-reducing operational procedures; and operating restrictions7.”

According to ACI, the Managing the Impacts of Aviation Noise report “provides key principles

and recommended actions for better community interactions, including effective communication,

transparency and education. Eleven case studies highlight actual experience in dealing with

airport noise issues along with solutions and examples of stakeholder collaboration essential to

reduce the impact of aviation noise.”

This report may be found on the ACI website: http://www.aci.aero/Publications/Full-Publications-

Listing/ACI-and-CANSOs-Managing-the-Impacts-of-Aviation-Noise

Noise & Health Journal

The Noise & Health Journal published an article on September 10, 2015 titled: Does exposure

to aircraft noise increase the mortality from cardiovascular disease in the population living

in the vicinity of airports? Results of an ecological study in France.

According to the article abstract found on the journal website, “The impact of aircraft noise on

health is of growing concern. We investigated the relationship between this exposure and

mortality from cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

We performed an ecological study on 161 communes (commune being the smallest

administrative unit in France) close to the following three major French airports: Paris-Charles de

Gaulle, Lyon Saint-Exupéry, and Toulouse-Blagnac8.”

The abstract and the full article may be accessed through the following website:

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2015/17/78/328/165058.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Valuing Quiet: An Economic Assessment of U. S. Environmental Noise as a Cardiovascular

Health Hazard was published in September 2015 in the American Journal of Preventative

Medicine9. This article shares the economic perspective of noise as follows: “Environmental noise

pollution increases the risk for hearing loss, stress, sleep disruption, annoyance, and

7 http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2015/09/23/ACI-and-CANSO-launch-new-initiative-on-

reducing-aviation-noise 8 http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-

1741;year=2015;volume=17;issue=78;spage=328;epage=336;aulast=Evrard 9 http://www.ajpmonline.org/

34

http://www.aci.aero/Publications/Full-Publications-Listing/ACI-and-CANSOs-Managing-the-Impacts-of-Aviation-Noise

http://www.aci.aero/Publications/Full-Publications-Listing/ACI-and-CANSOs-Managing-the-Impacts-of-Aviation-Noise

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2015/17/78/328/165058

cardiovascular disease and has other adverse health impacts. Recent (2013) estimates suggest

that more than 100 million Americans are exposed to unhealthy levels of noise. Given the

pervasive nature and significant health effects of environmental noise pollution, the corresponding

economic impacts may be substantial.”

The study is accessible on the following webpage: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-

3797(15)00080-X/fulltext

Environmental Health Perspectives

Environmental noise pollution in the United States: developing an effective public health

response was published in February 2015 by Environmental Health Perspectives10 to discuss

“some of the most serious health effects associated with noise, summarize exposures from

several highly prevalent noise sources based on published estimates as well as extrapolations

made using these estimates, and lay out proven mechanisms and strategies to reduce noise by

incorporating scientific insight and technological innovations into existing public health

infrastructure.”

This article may be accessed on the following webpage: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-

content/uploads/122/2/ehp.1307272.pdf

10 http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307272/

35

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN TOOL (AEDT) UPDATE DATE: November 1, 2015 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) on May 29, 2015. The new AEDT software program is intended to replace the Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is used by the MAC and its consultants to prepare noise contour maps for MSP and the reliever airports. When AEDT was released, MAC partnered with its noise consultant, HNTB, to identify and explain any differences in the noise contours from the INM noise model and the new AEDT noise model. HNTB used the same data inputs as the 2014 Annual Noise Contour for MSP in the new AEDT model. During this exercise, HNTB discovered an anomaly in the AEDT noise model, specifically how the model applies the terrain around an airport. HNTB reported this to the FAA on September 4, 2015. The FAA is currently working to identify and correct the issue in AEDT. At the November 18, 2015 NOC meeting, staff will provide an update of the AEDT noise model status.

ITEM 7

36

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: DRAFT 2016 WORK PLAN DATE: November 1, 2015 On September 16, 2015 the NOC membership reviewed and discussed a proposed Draft 2016 Work Plan. Following NOC approval, the NOC 2016 Work Plan will be presented to the MAC Planning, Development and Environment (PD&E) Committee by the NOC Co-chairs on December 7, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at Terminal 1–Lindbergh. The list of 2016 Work Plan topics and brief descriptions are provided below. Items (i) through (l) have been added to the Draft 2016 Work Plan, which was reviewed at the September 16 NOC meeting. In addition, the pages following the work plan narratives provides the NOC with the traditional format of the Annual Work Plan, the 2016 meeting schedule, and the 2015 NOC accomplishments summary.

DRAFT 2016 MSP NOC WORK PLAN

1. Residential Noise Mitigation Program a) Review Residential Noise Mitigation Program Implementation Status

Description: Staff from MAC Airport Development will update the NOC on the completion of the 2007 Consent Decree Noise Mitigation Program and future implementation and outreach plans for the First Amendment to the Consent Decree Noise Mitigation Program.

2. MSP Noise Program Specific Efforts a) 2015 Actual Noise Contour Report and First Amendment to the Consent Decree

Noise Mitigation Program Eligibility Description: Each year in March, under the terms and conditions of the 2007 Consent Decree, MAC publishes an actual annual Noise Exposure Map for the previous year. The 2015 noise contours will be used to establish an address list of the single- and multi-family parcels that have met one, two and three years of candidate eligibility under the First Amendment to the Consent Decree, as applicable. To be fully eligible, a candidate home must be located for a period of three consecutive years (the first of the three years cannot be later than calendar year 2020) in the actual 60-64 DNL noise contour published in the Annual Noise Contour Report, and, within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to the home’s status under the noise mitigation program prior to the amendment. The 2015 noise contour reflects the first time a home may achieve the three-consecutive year eligibility criteria.

b) Forecast 2035 Noise Contour Runway Use Analysis Description: During the process of the MSP 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) the FAA suspended arrival operations to Runway 35 due to a new Converging Runway Operations (CRO) ruling. Once the FAA implements a long-term runway use solution for CRO and provides

ITEM 8

37

future runway use data and assumptions, the NOC will determine if updates to the forecasted runway use are needed.

c) Annual MSP Nighttime Operations Assessment Description: This is an annual assessment reviewing the number, time, and trends of nighttime operations at MSP. The assessment will compare actual nighttime flights with scheduled flights.

d) Annual MSP Fleet Mix Assessment Description: The single largest factor of conventional noise reduction is source control. Over the past several years the numbers of noisy aircraft in the fleet at MSP has been declining. This report will examine the current fleet mix and provide trends analysis. It will also investigate the noise benefits from emerging aircraft types, such as the Airbus New Engine Option (NEO) aircraft as well as the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft. Additionally, the assessment will examine the relationship between aircraft type and altitude, as airlines are up-gauging their aircraft fleet.

e) Status of FAA Center of Excellence/PARTNER, TRB, and FICAN Initiatives

Description: This is an annual report on the status of scientific, engineering, and medical research literature prepared by universities, governmental organizations, and transportation boards located within the United States.

f) NextGen Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Update Description: Since the FAA published and implemented RNAV STARs procedures for MSP in March 2015, the MAC has been collecting arrival flight information to assess the use of Optimized Profile Descents. This report will examine their use and associated fuel and carbon emission reduction benefits. It will also assess how these arrival procedures are impacting aircraft arrival noise complaints.

g) Evaluate and Advocate Enhanced Use of the Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure Description: Examine Crossing-in-the-Corridor Procedure usage during periods of low demand. Meet and confer with MSP Air Traffic Control regarding increased usage at night.

h) Evaluate Use of the FAA Runway Use System (RUS) Description: Examine the monthly RUS Report and meet and confer with MSP Air Traffic Control regarding ongoing improvements to RUS usage.

i) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Description: In 2015, the FAA released AEDT, a new computer software tool which will replace the Integrated Noise Model that is used to produce the noise contour maps prepared by airports. MAC staff will provide information about AEDT and how it compares to the previous noise model.

j) Investigate Noise Reduction Benefits from Vortex Generators on Airbus Aircraft Description: German Aerospace Center developed Vortex Generators to divert airflow from vents on the underside of wings on the Airbus A320. These devices reduce aircraft noise from arrival operations prior to landing gear and flap extension. MAC staff will facilitate discussion about vortex generators and their noise reduction benefits.

k) Analyze Trends in Wind and the Relationship to Aircraft Noise Complaints Description: Wind direction and speed play a significant role in aircraft operational flows at the airport. This would be a detailed trend analysis on wind direction and speed as well as how these trends impact aircraft noise complaints.

38

l) Update on the FAA’s Survey to Re-Evaluate Noise Measurement Methods Description: Beginning in the summer of 2015, the FAA began surveying residents around select U.S. airports to assess perceptions of aviation noise impacts throughout the course of a year. The FAA will gather survey results until the end of 2016. The agency will then assess the results to determine if changes to their noise measurement methods and/or compatible land use considerations are warranted.

m) Update on the FAA Stage 5 Noise Certification

Description: The FAA regulates the maximum noise level that an individual civil aircraft can emit through requiring aircraft to meet certain noise certification standards under CFR Title 14 Part 36. Currently, the FAA has aircraft standards up to Stage 4 (Chapter 4 internationally) for jet aircraft. The international community is looking to approve a more stringent standard, which the FAA will call Stage 5.

3. Continue to Review Input Received from the Public Input Meetings as Possible Agenda Items

Description: Self-explanatory. REQUESTED ACTION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL 2016 NOC WORK PLAN TO THE MAC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE.

39

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)

Draft 2016 MSP NOC WORK PLAN

1. RESIDENTIAL NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM

a. Review Residential Noise Mitigation Program Status Implementation

2. MSP NOISE PROGRAM SPECIFIC EFFORTS

a. 2015 Actual Noise Contour Report and First Amendment to the Consent Decree Noise Mitigation Program Eligibility

b. Forecast 2035 Noise Contour Runway Use Analysis c. Annual MSP Nighttime Operations Assessment d. Annual MSP Fleet Mix Assessment e. Status of FAA Center of Excellence/PARTNER, TRB, and FICAN

Initiatives f. NextGen Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) Update g. Evaluate and Advocate Enhanced Use of the Crossing-in-the-Corridor

Procedure h. Evaluate Use of the FAA Runway Use System (RUS) i. Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) j. Investigate Noise Reduction Benefits from Vortex Generators on Airbus

Aircraft k. Analyze Trends in Wind and the Relationship to Aircraft Noise

Complaints l. Update on the FAA’s Survey to Re-Evaluate Noise Measurement

Methods m. Update on FAA Stage 5 Noise Certification

3. CONTINUE REVIEW OF PUBLIC INPUT

a. Continue to Review Input Received from the Public Input Meetings as Possible Agenda Items

40

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)

2015 MSP NOC Accomplishments

• Reviewed the MSP 2014 Annual Noise Contour Report (assessing the 2014 actual noise

contour) published per the requirements of the MSP 2007 noise litigation Consent Decree, including maps and text for the second year of noise mitigation program qualification under the First Amendment to the Consent Decree

• Approved the inclusion of a new aircraft noise complaint map in the monthly Technical Advisor’s Report showing complaint location density in a more visible and comprehensive manner

• Reviewed trends in Structural Disturbance Complaints at MSP and found that two households were responsible for increased structural disturbance complaints.

• Reviewed the history and origin of the NOC and the recommendations by the 2002 Blue Ribbon Panel

• Received an update on the 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive planning process and reviewed the draft 2035 Forecast Noise Contours

• Compiled a new monthly report to assess the FAA’s use of the preferential Runway Use System

• Conducted a noise monitoring study for the City of Sunfish Lake • Conducted the Annual MSP Nighttime Operations Assessment • Received a presentation on climate and weather trends and affects to aviation from the

National Weather Service • Reviewed status of the Consent Decree Noise Mitigation Program implementation at MSP,

which was completed in 2014 • Reviewed FAA Center of Excellence/PARTNER, TRB and FICAN initiatives, including

airport-related health effects research • Received updates from the FAA on the implementation of the Area Navigation (RNAV)

Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) • Reviewed MSP Converging Runway Operations and received an update from the FAA on

new procedures, operational use of the runways and maximum arrival capacity • Reviewed nighttime flight trends and found that 2015 had increased flights between 10:30

PM and 6:00 AM and sent letters, in conjunction with MAC Chair, Dan Boivin, to the MSP air carriers emphasizing the increased noise impacts from these flights

• Received an update on the 2016-2022 Capital Improvement Program • Conducted the Annual MSP Aircraft Fleet Mix Assessment, which determined the use of

modified Stage 3 aircraft is minimal at MSP and small, Regional Jet traffic is decreasing • Continued to review input received from the quarterly public input meetings and prepared

documents responsive to comments and questions

41

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning SUBJECT: ESTABLISH 2016 NOC MEETING DATES DATE: November 1, 2015 Historically, the NOC meeting dates have been every other month (on the odd-numbered months) on the third Wednesday of each month. As such, staff recommends the following 2016 NOC meeting dates:

• January 20 • March 16 • May 18 • July 20 • September 21 • November 16

As has been the case, the agenda review session would begin at 1:00 PM and the meeting at 1:30 PM at the MAC General Office Building on the above-listed dates. REQUESTED ACTION APPROVE THE ABOVE LISTED 2016 NOC MEETING DATES.

ITEM 9

42

MEMORANDUM

TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)

FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager, Noise – Environment & Planning

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF OCTOBER 27, 2015 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

DATE: November 1, 2015

One of the elements of the Metropolitan Airports Commission’s (MAC) approved framework for the MSP Airport Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) requires MAC staff to conduct quarterly public input meetings. The intent is to ensure residents’ concerns are considered as part of the ongoing effort by the MAC and the NOC to address noise issues around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The NOC may also review these topics as possible future action items if the members so desire.

On October 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. MAC Noise Program Office staff conducted the fourth quarter 2015 public input meeting at the Edina City Hall Council Chambers. Thirty-nine individuals attended the meeting and 11 individuals made comments. MAC staff has begun preparing and will be sending responses to the questions. When complete, the comments and associated responses can be found on the MAC Noise Program’s website, accessible on the Internet at www.macnoise.com.

The primary issues raised by those who commented focused on concerns about noise impacts associated with arrival and departure operations at MSP.

Specifically, comments/questions focused on:

• Relocating the airport; increase landing fees to purchase land for a new airport• Changes in flight frequency and noise from aircraft arriving over northwest suburbs• The impact aircraft overflights have on value of homes and quality of life• Distribution of arrival and departure operations over a wider area• DNL calculation method and the threshold for residential compatibility• What is done with aircraft noise complaints• NOC membership• FAA Re-Authorization Bill

The next quarterly public input meeting is planned for January 27, 2016, 7:00 p.m., at the MAC General Office, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450.

ITEM 10

43

http://www.macnoise.com/

metropolitan airports commission (mac)

Documents