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