Loading...
02/23/2021 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2021 6:30 PM VIRTAL MEETING: Call in 651-675-5050 I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. PRESENTATIONS A. PART 1: FAA NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY B. PART II: AREA NAVIGATION AND MAC RESIDENTIAL NOISE MITIGATION UPDATE V. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS VI. NEW BUSINESS A. MSP AIR SERVICE UPDATES B. 2020 COMPLAINT DATA ASSESSMENT C. 2020 FLEET MIX AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT VII. STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT A. 2021 ADVISORY COMMISSION VACANCIES AND APPLICATION PROCESS VIII. ROUNDTABLE IX. ADJOURNMENT Memo To: The Airport Relations Commission From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator Date: February 12, 2021 Subject: February 23, 2021 VIRTUAL ARC Meeting The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will have a special meeting on Tuesday, February 23 at 6:30pm via a Web Ex virtual call. All City Council and advisory commissions are meeting virtually through at least the month of March due to COVID precautions. Commissioners will receive an email invitation to join the WebEx. Members of the public will be able to call into the meeting. Please contact Executive Assistant Cheryl Stevenson at (651) 675-5005 or cstevenson cit ofea an.com if you are unable to join the meeting. Please note the new start time for ARC meetings (6:30pm) as agreed upon by the Commission. Also, please note that the February ARC meeting will replace the previous scheduled March meeting; thus, there will not be a commission meeting in March. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is for adoption by the Commission. II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the beginning of public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. Members of the public wishing to call into the meeting should call (651) 675-5050. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosed on pages 6 and 7 are the minutes of the January 12, 2021 ARC meeting. The minutes are in order for adoption by the commission. 0 EAGAN Memo To: The Airport Relations Commission From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator Date: February 12, 2021 Subject: February 23, 2021 VIRTUAL ARC Meeting The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will have a special meeting on Tuesday, February 23 at 6:30pm via a Web Ex virtual call. All City Council and advisory commissions are meeting virtually through at least the month of March due to COVID precautions. Commissioners will receive an email invitation to join the WebEx. Members of the public will be able to call into the meeting. Please contact Executive Assistant Cheryl Stevenson at (651) 675-5005 or cstevenson cit ofea an.com if you are unable to join the meeting. Please note the new start time for ARC meetings (6:30pm) as agreed upon by the Commission. Also, please note that the February ARC meeting will replace the previous scheduled March meeting; thus, there will not be a commission meeting in March. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is for adoption by the Commission. II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the beginning of public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. Members of the public wishing to call into the meeting should call (651) 675-5050. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosed on pages 6 and 7 are the minutes of the January 12, 2021 ARC meeting. The minutes are in order for adoption by the commission. 0 IV. PRESENTATIONS A. Part 1: FAA Neighborhood Environmental Survey — Brad Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Affairs, will join the WebEx meeting to provide a presentation to the commission regarding the recently released FAA Neighborhood Environmental Survey. Enclosed on pages 8 through 10 a memo from Mr. Juffer to the Noise Oversight Committee summarizing the FAA's survey and the public comment being sought. The results of the survey show a substantially higher percentage of people highly annoyed by aircraft noise at decibel levels well below the 65 dB DNL. Mr. Juffer will speak to the findings of the survey in his presentation. Also enclosed, on pages 11 through 14 is a letter from the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) to the FAA, which was approved by the NOC on February 17 and sent to the MAC Commission for formal consideration in advance of the FAA public comment deadline. As a community impacted by aircraft noise, enclosed on pages 15 and 16 is a draft letter to the FAA from the City of Eagan commenting on the Neighborhood Environmental Survey. Since Eagan is a community member on the NOC, the proposed letter offers support for the NOC's detailed analysis and comments. Additionally, the letter emphasizes the salient points made by the NOC. The Commission is asked to review and discuss the proposed letter to the FAA. Formal action is requested to make a recommendation to the Eagan City Council to send the correspondence to the FAA in response to the Neighborhood Environmental Survey. Pending ARC action, the letter would be included on the City Council's March 2, 2021 agenda for formal consideration. The City's comments would then be sent to the FAA in advance of their March 15 deadline. B. Part II: Area Navigation and MAC Residential Noise Mitigation Update — Per the ARC's 2020-2021 Work Plan, Brad Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Affairs will also provide an update to the commission on Area Navigation (RNAV), and specifically if and when RNAV will be used at MSP Airport. Mr. Juffer will also provide an update on the MAC's residential noise mitigation program, and specifically, an overview on how the program will impact Eagan in 2021. V. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC Monthly Reports — Enclosed on pages 17 through 21 is the December 2020 monthly summary report from the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC). The MAC has combined several of their reports into one document, intended to be more user friendly to those less familiar with aircraft operations. To view the more detailed data pertaining to runway usage, complaints, sound monitoring, and noise abatement go to: https://www.macenvironment.o[g/reports/. The data on the reports is best viewed online as the website is interactive. There was a delay in the reporting of the January data, so the IVJ December reports are the most recent available. Brad Juffer is available to answer questions about operations, including the impacts of the COVID pandemic on air traffic at MSP. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. MSP Air Service Updates — On January 20, 2021, the NOC received an update from the Delta Airlines and Sun Country Airlines representatives pertaining to daily departures in 2020 and forecasted departure operations in 2021. Enclosed on pages 22 through 25 are the slides provided at the meeting. This data is being provided as an informative item only. B. 2020 Complaint Data Assessment —On January 20, 2021, the NOC received an assessment on the 2020 Complaint Data compiled by the MAC. Enclosed on pages 26 through 40 is the 2020 MSP Complaint Data Assessment Report. Also enclosed are the presentation slides provided to the NOC. As could be expected, complaints were significantly lower in 2020 as a result of lower operation numbers. Eagan households made up 9% of complaints filed in 2020. This data is being provided as an informative item only. C. 2020 Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Assessment —On January 20, 2021, the NOC received a report on the 2020 fleet mix and night operations assessment from MAC staff. Enclosed on pages 41 through 58 is the fleet mix and nighttime operations report. This data is being provided as an informative item only. VII. STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT A. 2021 Advisory Commission Vacancies and Application Process — The City is currently accepting applications for those wishing to serve on advisory commissions. The application is available at www.cityofeagan.com/commissions. While applications are accepted year-round, applications must be received by March 19 to be considered for appointment in 2021. All incumbents need to reapply if they would like to be considered for reappointment. Vlll. ROUNDTABLE Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that Commissioners can ask questions or make requests for future agenda items. IX. ADJOURNMENT Per the request of the Commission, the Eagan ARC meetings will go no later than 8:00 p.m. unless agreed upon by the Commission. /s/Dianne E. Miller Assistant City Administrator LI ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC, under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without jeopardizing safety. MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP JANUARY 12, 2021 A virtual meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. Those present from the Airport Relations Commission were Michael Johnson, Jeff Spartz, Bill Raker, Lou Lundberg, Joseph Axmacher, Debra Dulligner, Theresa Hughes and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Jeff Eckerle was absent. The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnson. AGENDA Commissioner Raker moved, Commissioner Dulligner seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. All members voted in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dulligner moved, Commissioner Raker seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2020 Airport Relations Commission meeting. All members voted in favor. PRESENTATIONS Best Practices in Noise Abatement, Part 1 Assistant City Administrator Miller welcomed Brad Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Affairs, who spoke on the following four topics on the Airport Relations Commission 2020-2021 Work Plan: • Worldwide best practices in aircraft noise abatement • US Regulations impacting noise abatement measures at MSP • Noise Abatement measures at MSP -How does MSP compare to other airports? • The roles of the MAC, Noise Oversight Committee, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Mr. Juffer will also give an update on the results of the FAA survey to reevaluate noise measurement methods. Best Practices in Noise Abatement, Part II Commissioner Lundberg gave an executive summary about noise abatement procedures from a study conducted by Helios in 2017 for the Toronto Airport Authority. OLD BUSINESS MAC Monthly Reports The Commission discussed the MAC monthly report for the month of November 2020. There was no new business to be heard. NEW BUSINESS 4 Airport Relations Commission Minutes January 12, 2021 Page 2 STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT 2020 NOC Accomplishments and 2021 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Work Plan Assistant City Administrator Miller summarized the NOC's 2020 accomplishments, along with the approved 2021 NOC Work Plan. NOC Co -Chairs Miller and Jeff Hart presented the accomplishments and work plan to the MAC's Planning, Development and Environment Committee in December 2020. Miller noted the January 20th NOC meeting will include an update from several airlines on MSP air service and the impacts of the pandemic. Beginning on January 20, the NOC meetings will take place via Teams, an online meeting platform. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Commissioner Axmacher, seconded by Commissioner Lundberg the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. All members voted in favor. Date P7 Secretary TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Brad Juffer, Manager, Community Relations SUBJECT: FAA NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY DATE: February 3, 2021 ITEM 3.1 On Wednesday January 13, 2021, through a Federal Register Notice, the FAA released a summary to the public of the research programs it sponsors on civil aircraft noise that could potentially inform future aircraft noise policy. Excerpts from the Notice are included in this memo. The Notice included measures the FAA is undertaking to gain a broad understanding of aircraft noise and any potential impacts, from many different perspectives. These measures are grouped into three distinct areas: 1. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities 2. Noise Modeling, Noise Metrics, and Environmental Data Visualization 3. Reduction, Abatement, and Mitigation of Aviation Noise One of the elements of this research included a Neighborhood Environmental Survey (NES). Working with statisticians, noise experts, and other Federal agencies that have statutory, regulatory, or other policy interests in aviation noise, the FAA conducted a nationwide survey to update the scientific evidence on the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its annoyance effects on communities around airports, based on today's aircraft fleet and operations. This effort is also known to the NOC as the Community and Noise Survey as well as the FAA's Work to Reevaluate the DNL metric. This study was originally initiated in 2015. According to the Federal Register Notice, "Current FAA noise policy is informed by a dose -response curve initially created in the 1970s known as the Schultz Curve. This dose -response curve is generally accepted as a representation of noise impacts and has been revalidated by subsequent analyses over the years. The dose -response relationship it depicts has provided the best tool available to predict noise -induced annoyance for several decades. In 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) reviewed the use of the Schultz Curve;, and created an updated version of the curve using additional social survey data. The updated dose response curve was found to agree within one to two percent of the original curve, leading FICON to conclude that "the updated Schultz Curve remains the best available source of empirical dosage -effect to predict community response to transportation noise." According to the 1992 FICON Report, the DNL-annoyance relationship depicted on the Schultz Curve "is an invaluable aid in assessing community response as it relates the response to increases in both sound intensity and frequency of occurrence." Although the predicted annoyance, in terms of absolute levels, may vary among different communities, the Schultz Curve can reliably indicate changes in the level of annoyance for defined ranges of sound exposure for any given community. While the validity of the dose -response methodology used to create the Schultz Curve remains well supported, its underlying social survey data, including the additional data used by FICON to update the curve, is now on average more than 40 years old and warrants an update. The NES was conducted to create a new nationally representative dose -response curve to understand how community response to aircraft noise may have changed." The survey was a twelve -question survey sent to residents around 20 airports. MSP was not included as one of the 20 airports. Those airports at a minimum, needed to have at least 100 jet operations per year, and contain at least 100 households within the 60-65 dB DNL area and the 65+ dB DNL contour area. Those airports were meant to be representative of all airports by considering the geographic location, temperature, airport activity level, nighttime activity level, fleet mix and population near the airports. A follow up phone survey was conducted with a subset of households that responded to the mail survey. The results show that compared with the Schultz Curve representing transportation noise, the NES results show a substantially higher percentage of people highly annoyed over the entire range of aircraft noise levels (i.e., from DNL 50 to 75 dB) at which the NES was conducted. Specifically, at a noise exposure level of DNL 65 dB, the updated Schultz Curve from the 1992 FICON Report indicated that 12.3 percent of people were highly annoyed, compared to between 60.1 percent and 70.9 percent within a 95 percent confidence limit from the NES. The FAA is requesting comment on three specific areas as listed.below: 1. What, if any, additional investigation, analysis, or research should be undertaken in each of the following three categories as described in this notice: • Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities; • Noise Modeling, Noise Metrics, and Environmental Data Visualization; and • Reduction, Abatement, and Mitigation of Aviation Noise? 2. As outlined in this notice, the FAA recognizes that a range of factors may be driving the increase in annoyance shown in the Neighborhood Environmental Survey results compared to earlier transportation noise annoyance surveys—including survey methodology, changes in how commercial aircraft operate, population distribution, how people live and work, and societal response to noise. The FAA requests input on the factors that may be -contributing to the increase in annoyance shown in the survey results. 3. What, if any, additional categories of investigation, analysis, or research should be undertaken to inform FAA noise policy? y� The FAA is accepting comment on the survey through March 15, 2021. At the February 17, 2021 NOC meeting, the Committee will receive an update on this topic and take action on the disposition of the attached letter as the Committee's public comment on the federal docket. REQUESTED ACTION APPROVE THE ATTACHED LETTER AND REQUEST THAT THE MAC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ENDORSE AND FILE IT ON FEDERAL DOCKET NO. FAA -2021-0037 "OVERVIEW OF FAA AIRCRAFT NOISE POLICY AND RESEARCH EFFORTS". �1 February 17, 2021 6040 28th Avenue Sou-th, Minneapolis, MN 55450 - 612-467-0741 Mr. Kevin Welsh Director, Office of Environment and Energy Federal Aviation Administration Docket Operations, M-30 US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Room W12-140, West Building, Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 Re: Docket No. FAA -2021-0037 "Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy and Research Efforts" Dear Mr. Welsh: Thank you for inviting comments on the Federal Register Notice regarding the scope and applicability of research initiatives being undertaken by the Federal Aviation Administration to address aircraft noise. The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) is the primary advisory body on aircraft noise issues associated with the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The NOC is composed of six community representatives and six aviation industry representatives that provide policy recommendations to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), which owns and operates MSP1. For more than 18 years, the NOC has provided a balanced forum and amassed a distinguished record of identifying and analyzing airport noise issues around MSP, which has resulted in the development of many innovative solutions2. These solutions are based both in acoustical mitigation as well as non -acoustic methods, such as stakeholder and community collaboration. The NOC recognizes the importance of collaboration and, in conjunction with MAC staff, maintains a robust calendar of engagements designed to meet and collaborate with our stakeholders. 1 The NOC aviation industry representation includes air carriers, cargo air carriers, chief pilots, charter air carriers, and the Minnesota Business Aviation Association. NOC community representation includes the cities of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Richfield and an At -Large community seat on the Committee representing the cities of Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, Apple Valley and Edina. 2 Please see https://www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-abatement-efforts. 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450 • 612-467-0741 survey period at these airports. The NOC further encourages the FAA to find creative ways to integrate timely and holistic community involvement when pursuing changes at airports with a long history of intelligent dialogue and active participation in noise, like MSP. Third, the NOC urges the FAA to fully consider the impacts of aircraft noise beyond the current federally established 65 dB DNL threshold when making policy decisions on the impacts of aircraft noise in communities around U.S. airports. In its efforts, the NOC would encourage the FAA to think creatively about strategies to reduce noise impacts for residential areas outside of traditional sound insulation programs. The NOC monitors the current MSP residential sound insulation program, which is the most unique and expansive program in the country. Resulting from an agreement settling litigation at MSP, the MAC currently offers sound insulation to homes within the actual 60 dB DNL contour. This program achieves an excellent record of homeowner satisfaction with 95 percent of respondents indicating the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise. The NOC recognizes and appreciates the value of this successful program. Further, the NOC also recognizes that residential sound insulation is not the only form of noise reduction. Therefore, this Committee encourages the FAA to think broadly about alternative and innovative forms of noise reduction, including operational abatement measures, and provide the necessary tools and resources to airports to enable these efforts. This is an opportunity to build upon the long-established collaboration and ingenuity among airports, communities, regulators, and industry. Fourth, the NOC urges the FAA to consider the use of alternative noise metrics to evaluate single event and threshold noise impacts, such as number ofevents and time above decibel thresholds and maximum sound levels. While the MAC uses the DNL metric, as directed by federal regulations, the NOC finds that alternative metrics are useful and necessary to more effectively communicate with residents concerned about aircraft noise. The MAC operates the largest system of permanent sound level meters around any airport in the country. Data from this system is available daily and reported to the NOC monthly to provide a more complete assessment of aircraft activity. From this system, the NOC monitors Events Above 65 dB and Time Above 65 dB regularly. Further, sound octave data is used to investigate sound source, L„ data has been used to explain ambient environmental sound, and L,,x data helps to explain unusually intrusive events. The NOC will also incorporate data from temporary sound level meters during work plan studies. to inform Committee members. In 2016, communities around MSP passed resolutions stating that the FAA's noise metric for determining significant impact does not convey the magnitude of high single event noise levels and that alternative noise metrics aid in making quantitative assessments for aircraft noise impacts and communicating those impacts to surrounding communities. Given the use and acceptance of alternative metrics in this community, the NOC would encourage the FAA to further study the inclusion of alternative metrics into future efforts to quantify aircraft noise exposure. Specifically, metrics that quantity the frequency of aircraft activity 6040 281h Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450 - 612-467-0741 The results of the FAA Neighborhood Environmental Survey validate a principle known by the NOC: Noise concerns around MSP do not stop at 65 decibel (dB) Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL). Between 2017 and 2019 the NOC reviewed reports of more than 450,000 total noise complaints attributed to MSP operations. Complaint locations were overwhelmingly from locations with an annual noise level below 65 dB DNL, with only one percent of complaints filed from homes within the 65+ dB DNL noise contour. It is with the above as background that the NOC formulates the following comments and suggestions in response to the FAA's request for public comment on the Neighborhood Environmental Survey. First, the NOC encourages the FAA to continue to explore and accelerate implementation of creative noise reduction strategies. Technology designed to reduce noise at the source is tremendously beneficial to residents, and often provides mutual benefits to airports and operators. Research on a Low Noise Augmentation System being tested in Europe or landing gear noise reduction tests being conducted by Boeing and Safran are examples of exciting progress that will take years to materialize. The NOC is also closely monitoring research conducted by MIT through ASCENT on advanced operational flight procedures, such as modifying landing gear and flap extension and changes to aircraft speeds, to reduce noise at the source. Federally developed incentive programs should be considered for aircraft operators to install or employ noise reduction equipment and methods to accelerate the adoption of these systems and incorporate noise reduction equipment into the fleet as quickly as possible. The NOC encourages the FAA to build capabilities into the Aviation Environmental Design Tool to quantify the noise reduction benefits provided by such advanced operational flight procedures and accurately model these low -noise procedures and systems. These capabilities would allow the agency to further reduce the impact on affected residents, by actively designing and implementing noise abatement procedures at airports that would reduce the frequency of flights over residential and other sensitive land uses. Second, as outlined in the survey results, non -acoustic factors will often help to predict the likelihood that a person is highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Frequency of successive overflights may be causing higher annoyance levels. Further, drastic or abrupt changes to aircraft activity or the mere perception of change will alter the patterns of complaints received at MSP. National public awareness and sensitivity to aircraft noise was heightened after NextGen procedure implementation issues at airports such as Phoenix Sky Harbor and San Francisco. These are two potential examples that may have impacted the survey responses. Locally at MSP, the discussion of Area Navigation procedure implementation was contentious, disruptive, and highlighted the fact that early and effective outreach to communities is a critical component to successful implementation. The NOC suggests the FAA evaluate the survey results in concert with operational or procedural changes occurring during the lot NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450 - 612-467-0741 and considers the time that activity occurs, would augment the benefits of DNL while also addressing the concerns of residents that feel an average level is not representative of their experience. Finally, we applaud the efforts of the FAA to objectively study and understand the effect that aviation noise exposure may have on communities that neighbor airports. The collection of research outlined in this Federal Register notice is extensive. Current research on the Effects of Aircraft Noise on Individuals and Communities including Speech Interference and Children's Learning, Health and Human Impacts Research, Impacts to Cardiovascular Health, Sleep Disturbance, and Economic Impacts will be crucial elements in the portfolio of scientific evidence on the impact of aviation in the community. These results will more effectively inform future policy makers on the best use of resources and techniques available to minimize the impact on our communities. The NOC would encourage the FAA to prioritize these efforts and complete its research to enable the next phase of this discussion to begin. In keeping with its mission to provide noise program recommendations to the MAC, the NOC is poised and eager to participate in discussions as to how aircraft noise in communities near airports may be effectively managed as well as the FAA's future decisions on federal noise policy. Sincerely, Jeff Hart NOC Airport User Co -Chair Dianne Miller NOC Community Co -Chair cc: MAC Planning, Development & Environment Committee Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director / CEO -_ s :i ,/ ✓' �..:v .�. _ i SHR _ _ EAGAN ESTABLISHED 1050 March 2, 2021 Mr. Kevin Welsh FAA Director, Office of Environment and Energy 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Room W12-140, West Building, ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 Re: Docket No. FAA -2021-0037 "Overview of FAA Aircraft Noise Policy and Research Efforts" Dear Mr. Welsh: On behalf of the City of Eagan, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the FAA's recently completed Neighborhood Environmental Survey. The City of Eagan is located adjacent to MSP International Airport, with properties located within the 65+ dB DNL noise contours. Eagan has long balanced the benefits from its proximity to the airport with the burden of aircraft noise. Eagan is a member of the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), and as such, supports the comprehensive findings and observations documented in the NOC's letter to the FAA dated February 17, 2021. In support of the NOC's comments to the FAA, the City's advisory Airport Relations Commission and City Council offer the following points of emphasis in response to the FAA's survey findings. 1. Reducing noise at the source is the most effective way to manage noise. Research on new noise reduction technology should continue, and incentives to bring those technologies to the fleet should be implemented. Modeling of low -noise procedures should be incorporated into the Aviation Environment Design Tool (AEDT) to analyze and study how such procedures could reduce the frequency of flights over residential land. 2. Non -acoustic factors occurring during the survey likely contributed to annoyance. The surveyed increase in annoyance are likely impacted by concern over FAA airspace changes that were occurring nationally during the time the survey was conducted. The City watched activism on the topic of aircraft noise grow during the discussion around Area Navigation (RNAV). As a witness to the contention caused by RNAV, we respectfully request the FAA involve the communities early in any dialogue or considerations pertaining to RNAV or procedures that would alter existing noise or current operational conditions. MAYOR I MIKE MAGUIRE COUNCIL MEMBERS I PAUL BAKKEN, CYNDEE FIELDS, GARY HANSEN, MIKE SUPINA CITYOFEAGAN.COM CITY ADMINISTRATOR I DAVID M. OSBERG MUNICIPAL CENTER 13830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EAGAN, MN,55122-1810 MAIN., (651) 675-5000 MAINTENANCE: (651) 675-5300 UTILITIES: (651) 675-5200 IF YOU HAVE A HEARING OR SPEECH DISABILITY, CONTACT US AT (651) 675-5000 THROUGH YOUR PREFERRED TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE. 15 3. Noise annoyance does not end at 65 dB DNL. The FAA should recognize actual annoyance levels are significantly higher than previous studies, and thus areas outside of the 65 dB DNL threshold should be considered when policy decisions are made regarding the impact of aircraft noise. Nearly 500 Eagan homes between the 60-65 db DNL contour received noise mitigation as a result of a legal settlement reached between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and surrounding communities. Satisfaction rates from those receiving mitigation are over 95%, demonstrating the success of mitigating to the 60 db DNL contour. Likewise, we encourage the FAA to work in tandem with aviation noise professionals, such as those in the MAC Noise Office, along with aviation industry members. The more we can work as partners, the better the outcomes for our communities. 4. Alternative noise metrics are necessary to fully understand noise exposure DNL as an average does not fully represent an individual's experience. Eagan is a perfect example of the ineffectiveness of DNL in that overflights are significantly more prevalent during southerly winds. Thus, a resident may experience 100+ operations overhead on a beautiful, summer day while experiencing zero operations on a cold, winter day. The way DNL averages noise does not depict a realistic snapshot of what residents are experiencing on a daily basis. We request the FAA expand its use of alternative noise metrics as a better way to quantify aircraft noise exposure. 5. The remaining scientific research included in the notice needs to be completed so that the results can inform future policy discussions. The City of Eagan commends the FAA for the research and survey work done to date. We encourage the FAA to prioritize the completion of the research in order to begin public policy discissions. We respectfully request the FAA data be properly used and communicated when policy decisions are made. Most residents do not have the time to read or respond to 900 -page research documents. Thus, please be mindful of the end-user and concisely communicate any future findings. Likewise, we ask the FAA to meaningfully engage communities and the NOC prior to considering any noise policy or operational changes at MSP Airport. On behalf of the Eagan City Council and Airport Relations Commission, thank you for your efforts to complete and communicate the survey findings. We look forward to working with the FAA so that together we can find balanced solutions to promote the successful operation of MSP International Airport while minimizing the burden of aircraft noise on our community. Sincerely, Mike Maguire Mayor IM Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Monthly OpeSummary R e $o . Ut 20k 18k 16k 14k 12k 10k 8k 6k 4k 2k 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 11 2019 N 2020 E jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 11 2019 in 2020 Arriva Is >THER 3 5 9 Departures Calm or variable: 10.08% N W ■ 1-5 MPH 5-10 MPH 10-15 MPH 1.5-20 MPH r >20 MPH E S REGIONAL NARROW -BOD WIDE-BODY w" 11 E170 CRJ2 CRJ9 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8739 B738 A321j��� 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 MD111 i A300 B763 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ❑ Three Year Monthly Average E Current Month DNL Above Three Year Monthly Average Below Three Year Monthly Average itrue er: [ Leaflet' DAY (6AM - 11 PM) ZI j. PMuL p m 20 FN3�+Yt C6tt,3ge Grove ':.. Operations•a 0 31-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-2,000 2001+ Leaflet DAY (6AM - 11 PM) ZI Z O m O m �0 n O Z m m is ZZ D �v n m N rD z 0 0 (D 0 SZ3 LO o u, o Ul o Lrii o Ln o cu T (D crs N rD z 0 0 (D 0 SZ3 rtr) C) o 0 0 rD rD Ln =r. F o CL) —h rD =3 (D Ln o (D (D r -t. r) ,t OrQ -a (D r+ M (D V) rD 0 -i i =$ :3 Cl) I R (D't CL CL FD' CU rt rt rD M 00 (D 00 =s r0j CL rD =3 LD rL =5 0 0 :3 0 -�j FQ, i 0 V) r)—H 0) I 't < < -0(D — (D 0) Ln —h (D = C) + 0 - -n - (D (D 17 — - 6 > v+, m N C7, r%j 0 Uj 0 0 r) (D Ln o Lrl 8 LO KZ71 uj 9 E� 8 (.n VI CD 4ctp Aug. Cally Departures January fig} E February I March • i M x « April WON may T � f ;t II M June 0 � i F M July I 3 f A d a e M. August CL a • i s September ti October m i November M December 3 M Co y -4 4ctp 4rkPo ««, 2018-2020 ANNUAL COMPLAINTS AND HOUSEHOLDS 2020 HOUSEHOLDS FILING COMPLAINTS 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 0 J O 800 r Lu 600 0 u- 400 0 crw m 200 z 2018-2020 TOTAL COMPLAINTS 2018 - 2020 TOTAL COMPLAINTS Z 0 N Q W Z Q J G. 0 V m W r z a J CL r> 0 V O N O N 0 N 00 o o W U J U J LU Ln LuF Lu F- 3: CL Q Ln w O r -I z w w x > O c ? w z z z M Z N F - w x O z 0 ONOLL O z 00 = W W O 00 -mac) 0 U z z a LL 0 a W H O U Q N PSI W w a x N '^ w N � � w N - =a ~z O 3 1 J W Q U CC z �Q � CO U = D n F (A 0 0 X03 moo H F J J a r v z LU0 Or ir LL LU > w Lu o U z x W C)` W W 1W � M W U O iz CL O W Z O T W cc O z ULI U W 00 LLJ O Z LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0) m Lr) 00 LL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 I 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 00 r- LO Lr) Wlt CY) (14 r -i rn r -q LU C) rn 0 r -i r,4 N N r-4 N M z t7 00 00 00 N Lu uj r-4 m srn 3: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 N 0 I 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 00 r- LO Lr) Wlt CY) (14 r -i LU i 00 � (Z LU > = (D kD r. > 0 to i r, z (D 2:LU - z < r- 00 0 < Ln m to LU N rq V) —i m'—rn < a) 4 a) uj z 00 0) 0 r -i r,4 N N r-4 fl- 0 to Ln Lo ro LU LU LU LL 0 00 00 oo r, cr- 00 r- cn Lr) CY) O cn N m d r -I O O co --- LU LU -j 00 00 ro m H w Lij LLI > (D > o N M Z rq cr LLJ (D M 0 to Ln Lo ro LU LU LU LL 0 00 00 oo r, cr- 00 r- cn Lr) CY) 2020 COMPLAINTS FILED BY CITY 2019 TO 2020 COMPARISON - HOUSEHOLDS FILING COMPLAINTS BY CITY '3� 2020 HOUSEHOLDS FILING COMPLAINTS BY HOME PURCHASE DATE 45% w Q 40% U w 35% m ❑ O 0 30% LU N 25% z --� g ON 20% O LL 15% O LU Q 10% z w U W 5% LU a 0% 50% 0 45% O V) 0 40% U w 35% m 30% O LU 0 25% LL 0 20% W z 15% LU U Of 10% 5% 0% 41% 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 2020 Note: single-family owner -occupied households only based on county parcel data (2020). NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOME PURCHASE DATE 47% 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2019 2020 Note: single-family owner -occupied households within 21.75 miles of MSP with sale date information available only based on county parcel data (2020). "35 2018-2020 COMPLAINTS AND OPERATIONS BY TIME OPERATIONS BY TIME PERIOD MORNING NDAY NIEVENING _NIGHT COMPLAINTS BY TIME PERIOD MORNING NDAY MEVENING ONIGHT 2018 2019 2020 Note: 2018 2019 2020 Morning: 6:00 AM — 7:30 AM Day: 7:30 AM — 9:00 PM Evening: 9:00 PM —10:30 PM Night: 10:30 PM — 6:00 AM •36 100,000 90,000 50,000 70,000 60,000 z 50,000 a J CL 40,000 O u 30,000 20,000 10,000 2020 COMPLAINTS BY AIRCRAFT CATEGORY TOTAL COMPLAINTS X TOTAL OPERATIONS COMMERCIAL PROPELLER TURBOPROP JET UNKNOWN HELICOPTER MODIFIED JET ENGINE 250,000 200,000 N 150,000 z O F -- Q Lu 100,000 p 50,000 !,'7 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 CL 2i 0 U LL 8,000 0 rf, LU co 6,000 4,000 2,000 2020 COMPLAINTS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE t- TOTAL COMPLAINTS )f TOTAL OPERATIONS 2020 TOP 10 FLIGHTS THAT GENERATED COMPLAINTS 45,000 40,000 35,000 Ln z 0 30,000 U.j 0- 25,000 0 LL 0 cjc� 20,000 U-1 :D 15,000 z 10,000 5,000 ol n ` C CJS � N Cf Ln 0 o N� C? tY'1 OR tD M 0 0 n ` C CJS � N Cf Ln 0 c C? c N tD 0 l0 ONO ri n N M 0 Vol e^i 4"1 M Ln e-1 010, °` 00 o M 00\0 0 0 oe e-1 0 n ` C C N r� �-I c c tD 0 l0 ol N n h 0 0 e^i 4"1 M N e-1 0 ` C c h N a O) N h 0 4"1 N N 00 M 0 e-1 o d' � N � 0 25,000 20,000 V) z 15,000 a O u 10,000 5,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 z J a O 10,000 v 5,000 0 OVERCAST MOSTLY A FEW PARTLY FAIR FOG/MIST LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT CLOUDY CLOUDS CLOUDY SNOW RAIN SNOW DRIZZLE FOG/MIST FOG/MIST 2020 COMPLAINTS BY TEMPERATURE <-10 -10--1 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 OBSERVED TEMPERATURE (°F) 2020 COMPLAINTS BY WEATHER FMMCOMPLA X FREQUENCY WEATHER OBSERVED 2,500 2,000 z O H a 1,500 °u Ln m O 1,000 = F -- a Lu 500 O D QOLIS S A l4r; a + A y A jRpo% pql 2020 ANNUAL MSP FLEET MIX AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT MSP FLEET MIX REPORT _. Monthly Carrier Jet Counts by Type 2 - _ _ Widebody Jet Activity _. 3 _ . Narrowbod Jet Activit _ _ _----- __. _ 4 Regional Jet Activity 5 AveragePassengers per Flight 6 MSP Carrier Jet Usage with Cumulative Certificated Noise Levels 7 Average Altitude for Aircraft Arriving to MSP by Category _ _ ti 8 Average Altitude for Aircraft Departing from MSP by Category 9 MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT Average Daily Nighttime Operations 10 Nighttime Operations by Runway 11 Nighttime Operations by Runway Map12 Nighttime Operations by Airline 13 Nighttime Operations by Origin and Destination 15 Nighttime Operations'by Hour 16 Scheduled Versus Actual Operations 17 "9Z W H m � o z O CO O "' 0- O o LU V � x I— � W LU w W>- J LL — p a- O V) pC m � a � V p J aC = a z z 0 N N N SONvsnOHl 00 lD d N O 00 t.0 Cr rl rl e -i ri c -i SN0UVIJ3dO dSW N OZ-AON OZ-d3S OZ-lnr OZ-AVA OZ-2Ivvq OZ-NVF 6Z-AON 6Z-d3S 6Z-lnr oo 0 6Z-AVA o N 6Z-21b'W oo 6Z-NVF 0 N g 8i -no N N M 8Z-d3S 0 8i-inr N N 81-AVA n 8Z-UVA o 00 8Z-NVF LZ-nON o N LZ-d3S Q w { Li-inr co LZ-A`dW Y Ll-bdW D LZ-NVf 9Z-nON 9-d3S 9Z-lnr 91-AVA 9Z-N`dW 9Z-NVF O Ln rq MSP FLEET MIX REPORT WIDEBODY JET ACTIVITY TYPE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 A124 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% A300 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%0.2% 0.4% A310 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% A330 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% A340 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% A350 0.0% 0.0%': 0.0% 00% A380 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B742 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B744 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B748 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B7620.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B763 0.9% 0.5% ' 0.8% ` 1.1% 1.1% B764 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% B767 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B777 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% B7878 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% DC10 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% MD11 0.6% 0.151%11,111110.3% 0.2% 0.4% TOTAL 3.0% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0% 2.6% X44 MSP FLEET MIX REPORT NARROWBODY JET ACTIVITY TYPE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 A220 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0.3% 0.9% A319 7.2%, 6.7% 6.4% ' 6.7% 7.0% A320 9.9% 7.1% 6.6% 7.4% 5.5% A320neo 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% A321 0.5%0.5% 2.2% 6.6% 9.6% B717 2.4% 5.2% 5.9% 78% 2.4% B72Q 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B733 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B734 0.0%0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% B135 0.0% 0.0%' 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B7377 4.8% 5.0% 4.7% 3.8% 2.6% B738 7.8% 9.8% ` 10.1% 11.3% 10.8% B739 3.8% 5.0% 7.5% 8.1% 8.0% B38M 0.0% 0.0% :0.1%,, 0.0°/u -0.0% B73Q 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B757,111--' 5.8%`1 5.9% 6.1% ' S:1% 5.0% DC8Q 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DC9Q 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MD80 3.6% 2.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% MD90 7.6% 8.81/o 6.8% 0.6% 0.0% TOTAL 54.1% 57.3% 57.0% 58.7% 52.4% "y5 MSP FLEET MIX REPORT REGIONAL JET ACTIVITY TYPE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 BA46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CRJ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%-" 00% CRA 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CRJ2 17.2% 16.2% 14.3% 12.9% 10.8% CRJ7 2.7% 4.8% 7.0% 3.9% 2.9% CRJ9 13.7% 11.3% 13.0%' 13.8% 20.2% E135 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% E145 0.2% 0.1% 04% E170 8.7% 7.1% 5.5% 7.3% 10.6% E1750.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% E190 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% J328 0.0% 0.0%' 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL 42.9% 40.0% 40.2% 38.3% 45.0% MSP FLEET MIX REPORT AVERAGE PASSENGERS PER FLIGHT 130 110 90 70 50 30 2019 93.3 99.1 105.1 100.7 103.3 108.6 108.3 106.7 102.4 102.8 99.6 103.7 -0-2020 96.7 100.1 63.4 14.1 36.6 57.7 57.1 56.0 56.7 58.3 50.5 SOURCE: MSP MONTHLY OPERATONS REPORTS W W _I %.b. LLI O %0'1 z %T'i p %0'1 LLJ Q %0*( V %0'( %0'( V LJJ > %0'C F- F- %0' C o %0'S LU %0'9 %S -OT Lu V %9.z U_ %0'0 a F- %Z'o %0'0 W %tb' Z (' %0'0 N %9'6 %S'0 %S'S uj %0./ pC %6'0 w %Z•o ol %9 -OT Q -v-o V %0.0 %Z'oZ %6' Z p %S*OT N N o '1' o 'n No N o Ln M M (9aNd3) 9 3E)ViS M0139 13n31 3SION C]31d:)IJIi 13:) 3AI1d1nAn:) q M d- Un LU w w Ia- Fa- F5 LO cn cn W o � � O z Q m � Z LU Q o LIn v ■ o W v .0 Q a J � Z � CL LiCc O W Z Q o m a v z Q Li O �- W Ln LLA o W o 0 LLI � z a i J F- Q LLjw oLLJ � Q �jz Z j O _OLLJ W Q w �LL. � o W o � d- v O N MSP FLEET MIX REPORT Q w —r 1,250 Lu Ln 1n 1n Ln Ln Ln W W cD Lo"o Lo r- r,� r,� r, r, r, 00 00 00 00 00 00 m m rn rn rn 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 rl rl c i r -I rl rl c i rl r -I r -I r -I r -I r -I rl i—I e -i r-1 r-1 r - rl �—I rl r- r- rl r— r v 'IV 1—I N N N N N N I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I' z OC >- n. > z a > Z a > Z -' a > Z a > Z -J a > o a a a w o a a a D w o a a a w o a a a D w o 1§1T. LOWM" Nautical Miles Him Lb 35 ez I zo n r �L /Qf CJQ( O ln4C} l t Omw(g 3 cam MEASUREMENT GATE IS FIVE NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE ARRIVAL RUNWAY MSP FLEET MIX REPORT AVERAGE ALTITUDE FOR AIRCRAFT DEPARTING FROM MSP NARROWBODY REGIONAL JET --0 WIDEBODY Nautical Mlles giv, wt l [SAM& IQI?Ipt I I j -- Wa? 134. X PA Quo 00 0 I I � �I Q d � m oQW069 4 i�tI QC a4& 99 I t I MEASUREMENT GATE IS AN ARC FIVE NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE START OF TAKEOFF ROLL w LO (3) Ln r -I Ln L--- O N CY) C N 00 0 04 C) N C-4 Ln H O N H C14 M O N O N H O N cn N (A z 0 0 oG 0 ui CL a- uj cr- 0 Z 0 ui F— ui CL 3: 0 o Z < C) r (D z V) CL ui m uj > w LO (3) Ln r -I Ln L--- O N CY) C N 00 0 04 C) N C-4 Ln H O N H C14 M O N O N H O N cn N I- d W N 0 Q LU 0 cW G z CL V) z O a W CL O cW G F- 2 C7 psw 0 2 CL O O TT N ca �, � Lo mo �; 00 N o 00N uiri N cin . o " C7 Q OC W > d, 01 J OaC -- F-. `' d mm o N. N w �` o d Cfi o �-, , w ko O r-iLLj0 O -.6D 'rH O t0 O rn00 N Ln p d r-1 O d O N N h z h e-1 O � N CL J Q Q 00 d N T -i0)0 0 00 cV M N 0)0 O �� tp Ln'N co r H h ko N z O co o "o "CNO,, c o O M" M, p �? C l NC 0 0 o \ c o 0iz 0 M c -I M O' er N O p.rm-I d l� I� Ow! N N' p" M r -I w a QJ N oo o N�" r-, N o �o M N O- o : 0 M o N ;Q o c�i n p p 0 m r -i ' N o r -i r4 o 00 M o a - z a J O a I" O. co m. p M 00 M = O N N O N M H" O M M N M ri oa N z z,�� oo 0LLJ LU w H Imo— cc V U z ¢ CC Vv W Z V'a;C7'�7 a V a'� Q)� Q oC O �'w W"C7 ¢ p w w - J ¢ oz°z°�aa'az QQa�000° zozz¢ = J��W=ooO m z _3 = F- O O o W Uj z \ J J C� Q �" N J Vr 0 '�- m Z O J LL. O O Z= 0- a c z Z w w Z a= Z Z C7 0 "J --� z: O O_ H H W W a. G J ¢¢LU �� > \ w w _z w d.. > uzz LU <zz0 O _ o°CC Q �ZZ0MZ;Z ¢ ¢ o W a �QQm W ��--'�zZ m �' O O w w V) w w W W V) `n — cn cn — — OC C. ococ L3.! CC W oc C7 W W W W W W < < a¢¢ ¢azo W W< 0 0 0 0 0 0 o z z �- J Q a a 0 N epi N p M O N N"� N JO M I"' F- oC MO m m 0 0 H TT N rr, A T ii Ln N MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRLINE (TOP 15 BY COUNT) *AIRLINE OPERATIONS OCCURRING AT NIGHT REPRSENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPECTIVE AIRLINE SCHEDULE THAT OCCURS AT NIGHT *CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL IS RESPECTIVE AIRLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OVERALL MSP NIGHT OPERATIONS F sy PERCENT OF AIRLINE PERCENT OF AIRLINE ID COUNT OPERATIONS' CONTRIBUTION TO OCCURRING AT NIGHT NIGHTTIME TOTAL DELTA DAL 2,688 3.60% 21.67% SUN COUNTRY SCX 2,355 16.00% 18.99% UPS UPS 1,359 38.80% 10.96% SKYWEST AIRLINES ` SKW 1,203 2'.20%' 9.70% FEDEX FDX 725 23.80% 5.85% o SOUTHWEST SWA 577 6.90% ' 4.65% N AMERICAN AAL 572 8.70% 4.61% SPIRIT--NKS RPA 492 -14.10% 8.50% 3.97% GULF & CARIBBEAN CARGO TSU 366 95.80% 2.95% REPUBLIC AIRLINES RPA 355 7.20% 2.86% ALASKA ASA 239 18.00% 1.93% ATLAS AIR (USA) GTI 223 76.60% 1.80% FRONTIER AIRLINES FFT 220 17.80% 1.77% UNITED UAL 191 6.40% 1:54% ENDEAVOR AIR EDV 130 0.40% 1.05% *AIRLINE OPERATIONS OCCURRING AT NIGHT REPRSENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPECTIVE AIRLINE SCHEDULE THAT OCCURS AT NIGHT *CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL IS RESPECTIVE AIRLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OVERALL MSP NIGHT OPERATIONS F sy PERCENT OF AIRLINE PERCENT OF AIRLINE ID COUNT OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTION TO OCCURRING AT NIGHT NIGHTTIME TOTAL DELTA DAL 8,370 5.60% 28.63% SKYWEST AIRLINES SKW 41541 4.70% 15;5.3% SUN COUNTRY SCX 3,781 17.80% 12.93% SOUTHWEST SWA 1,958 12.50%,6.70% AMERICAN AAL 1,640 11.80% 5.61% UPS UPS 1,254 37.20% 4.29 N SPIRIT NKS 1,093 14.20% 3.74% REPUBLIC AIRLINES RPA 899 8.50% 3.07% UNITED UAL 859 12.20% 2.94% FEDEX FDX 855 27.30% ATLAS AIR (USA) GTI 590 77.00% 2.02% JETBLUE AIRWAYS JBU 533 26.50% 1.82% FRONTIER AIRLINES FFT 511 16.10% 1.75% ENDEAVOR AIR EDV 487 1.80% 1.67% GULF & CARIBBEAN CARGO TSU 377 98.20% 1.29% *AIRLINE OPERATIONS OCCURRING AT NIGHT REPRSENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPECTIVE AIRLINE SCHEDULE THAT OCCURS AT NIGHT *CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL IS RESPECTIVE AIRLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OVERALL MSP NIGHT OPERATIONS F sy MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT 2020 NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT (TOP 15 BY COUNT) AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVEL CODE DESCRIPTION COUNT CERTIFICATION (EPNdB BELOW STAGE 3) B738 BOEING 737-800 21890 11.3 -17.1 B757 BOEING 757-200 1,825 11.1-22.1 A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 1,243 12.17 21.2 A321 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A321 919 6.4-17 CRJ2 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-200 858 26.5 - 30.6 B739 BOEING 737-900 769 10.9-16.1 E170 EMBRAER 170 620 ' 92 - 16.8 CRJ9 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-900 551 14.5-17.6 13763 BOEING 767-300 515 ' , 4.4 = 22.6 B7377 BOEING 737-700 422 11.6-19.8 A300 `: AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300 358 4.3-:17.7 A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319 341 12.9-22.2 MD11' MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD11 233 12.8 -17.9 CRJ7 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-700 159 14.5-17.6 B717 BOEING 717 ` 94 19.27 23 NOISE CERTIFICATION DATA SOURCE: EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS REPRESENTED AS A RANGE BELOW STAGE 3 NOISE LEVELS TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION VARIABLES (WEIGHT, MODEL, ENGINE TYPE, AIRFRAME CONFIGURATION, ETC) 2455 MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT 2020 NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY ORIGIN AND DESTINATION (TOP 15 BY COUNT) AIRPORT CODE ORIGIN AIRPORT COUNT PHX PHOENIX 613 LAX LOS ANGELES 504 LAS LAS VEGAS 503 SEA SEATTLE 494 DEN DENVER 449 SDF LOUISVILLE 419 MEM MEMPHIS 399 ATL ATLANTA 386 DFW -DALLAS FORT WORTH 376.:- IND INDIANAPOLIS 321 SFOSAN FRANCISCO 285 PHL PHILADELPHIA 266 MIA ` MIAMI 235 RFD ROCKFORD 225 MCO, ORLANDO 208 AIRPORT CODE DESTINATION AIRPORT COUNT ATL ATLANTA 232 TVF THEIF RIVER FALLS REGIONAL170 CVG CINCINNATI 165 FLL FT. LAUDERDALE 126 PHX PHOENIX 122 FAR FARGO 115 MIAMIAMI 109 ONT ONTARIO 102 DEN DENVER 96 ORD CHICAGO O'HARE 88 YWG WINNIPEG 85 BJI BEMIDGI REGIONAL 79 ABR ABERDEEN 77 MSN MADISON 75 RST ROCHESTER MN 75 " 5 b MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY HOUR 2020 3 -YEAR HISTORICAL 0:00 ml:00 2:00 03:00 AVERAGE 4:00 5:00 0 22:30 m 23:00 is 0:00 0 1:00 m 2:00 m 3:00 4:00 M 5:00 0 22:30 N 23:00 N 5� MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT SCHEDULED VERSUS ACTUAL OPERATIONS (AVERAGE BY HOUR) DAILY SCHEDULED NIGHT OPERATIONS 4:00 r, 5:00 M 22:30 ® 23:00 DAILY ACTUAL NIGHT OPERATIONS 0:00 IN 1:00 M 2:00 0 3:00 4:00 Ll 5:00 0 22:30 N 23:00 GENERAL AVIATION AND CHARTER AIRCRAFT OPERATORS DO NOT REPORT SCHEDULED OPERATIONS