TagANCA(28)

The Airport Compliance Program ensures airport sponsors' compliance with their federal obligations in the form of grant assurances, surplus and nonsurplus obligations, or other applicable federal law. The Airport Compliance Program is administered by the FAA headquarters Airport Compliance Division (ACO-100) based in Washington, DC. This handbook provides guidance to FAA personnel on interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments airport sponsors make to the U.S. Government when they accept grants of federal funds or federal property for airport purposes. The handbook (i) analyzes the various federal obligations set forth in legislatively mandated airport sponsor assurances, (ii) addresses the nature of the assurances and the application of the assurances in the operation of public use airports, and (iii) facilitates interpretation of the assurances by FAA personnel. This manual was designed to provide guidance to FAA personnel pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Compliance Program. Randall S. Fiertz Director Airport Compliance and Field Operations Division (ACO-1)

2.1 Study Scope and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Organization . . 2.3 Sponsors. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2·5 Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Introduction. • • • • • • • • . • . •••• 3.2 Airport Facilities. • • • • • . . • ••••• 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.2.1 Runway and Taxiway System •••••••• 3. 2. 2 Passenger Terminal Facilities • • • • • • . • • • • 3.2.3 General Aviation Facilities • 3.2.4 Air Cargo Facilities. • • ••••• Aircraft Operations • • • 3.3.1 Fleet Mix ••••••••••• 3.3.2 Runway and Flight Track Utilization 3.3.3 Aircraft Fleet Noise Compliance •• Noise Monitoring System • • • • • • • • • • • • 3.4.1 Permanent Airport Noise Monitoring System 3.4.2 Portable Noise Meter ••••••••••• 3.4.3 Noise Monitoring Programs at Other Airports • Environment • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Noise 3. 5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 Climate 3. 6.1 3.6.2 Aircraft Noise Description Methodologies •• Aircraft Noise Levels • • • • • Ambient Noise Levels Maintenance Runup Noise Levels •• Taxiing Noise Levels ••.•.•••. Total Noise Environment • Meteorological Records…

FORECASTS OF PEAK HOUR AND ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION SEA-TAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: 1980-2000 Peak hour 1 averase da~ 1 Eeak month Annual Aircraft Classifications VFR oEerations IFR conditions OEerations 1980** 1985 1990 2000 1980** 1985 1990 2000 1980** 1985 1990 2000 Air Carrier/Air Taxi Class* A B 13 11 11 12 13 11 11 12 51,611 42,090 44,730 54,830 c 26 23 22 19 26 23 22 19 100,472 85,210 87.010 80,750 D 8 13 15 20 8 13 15 20 31 1615 47 1 130 54 1310 83 900 Total 4'f 4'f ""48 51 4'f 4'f ""48 51 183,698 174,430 186,050 218,870 General Aviation-Itinerant Class* A 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 9,139 9,370 10,270 10,850 B 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 14,400- 15,240 17,110 21,710 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3,323 3,810 4,240 6,430 D Rotorcraft 831 880 980 1 1210 Total -7 -7 -7 8 -5 -5 -5 -6 27,693 29,300 32,600 40,200 General Aviation-Local Class* A 166 150 140 120 B 420 330 330 280 c 818 660 540 380 D 258 360 390 420 Total 0 -0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 1,662 -"T,Soo -r;4<io 1,200 Military Class* A B c 367 370 370 370 D Rotorcraft 184 180 180 180 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 551 550 --sso 550 .!2!.!!. 54 54 55 59 52 52 53 57 213,604 205,780 220,600 260,820 *Aircraft classifications defined in Exhibit 1. **1980…

On Tuesday, December 8th, 1981, the following members of the Technical Advi- sory Committee for the Sea-Tac International Airoort Noise Exoosure Uodate met to discuss certain concerns regarding the final draft of the Noise Exposure Update. Bill Holstine, Riverton Heights Community Bob Nelson, City of Des Moines Virginia Dana, Zone III Committee Jim Chalupnik, Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Program Marian MacKenzie, Citizen Peter Breysee, Department of Environmental Health, U of W Marsha Huebner, City of Des Moines The product of that meeting was an acknowledgement of concerns pertinent to the Noise Exposure Update which we maintain warrant attention. Firstly, the document does not define the problem which the study was designed to address, that is, the effects of aircraft noise on the Sea-Tac Commun- ities. The study was undertaken in order to provide a statistical foundation for the development of an overall strategy for alleviating conflicts bet- ween the airport and its neighbors, conflicts which bear upon property values and individual reactions to aircraft noise. The purpose stated in the report is to update noise exposure data for the Sea-Tac Communities Plan. However, the update is an element of the solution, not a statement of the problem. We find a statement of the problem critical to fosterinq a layman 1 S under- standing of the study and in providing a starti"g point from which to ev~l­ uate its efficacy. As the Port of Seattle will be reappraising noise remedy programs in light of this report, we find the results distressing.…

On Tuesday, December 8th the following members of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Sea-Tac International Airport Noise Exposure Update met to discuss certain concerns regarding the final draft of the Noise Expo- sure Update. Bill Holstine, Riverton Heights Community Bob Nelson, City of Des Moines Virginia Dana, Zone III Committee Jim Chalupnik, Environmental Protection Agency, Noise Program Marian McKenzie, Citizen Peter Breysee, Departmentof Environmental Health, U of W Marsha Huebner, City of Des Moines The product of that meeting was an acknolwedgement of concerns pertinent to the Noise Exposure Update which we maintain warrant attention. Firstly, the document does not define the problem which the study was designed to address, that is, the effects of aircraft noise on the Sea- , Tac Commu nities. The study was undertaken ir. order to provide a statis- tical foundation for the development of an overall strategy for alleviating conflicts between the airport and its neighbors, conflicts which bear upon property values and individual reactions to aircraft noise. The purpose stated in the report is to update noise exposure data for the Sea-Tac Communities Plan. However, the update is an element of the solution, not a statement of the problem. We find a statement of the problem illiciting ~ the study critical to fostering a layman's understanding of the noise exposure update and in providing a starting point from which to evaluate its efficacy. As the Port of Seattle will be reappra1s1ng noise remedy programs in light of this report, we find the…

We believe the following record to be an· accurate summary of the meeting's discussions. ole will -appreciate notification of exceptions to this record within days of its receipt. Failing such notification we will consider this a state- ment of fact in which you con'cur. TO: Technical Advisory Committee ..... FROM: Study Staff SUBJECT: Sea-Tac Noise Exposure Forecast Update Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Attending: ,~ TAC Members Bob Nelson, P.A.C. Jerry Patterson, Harbor Airlines Paul Bray, Highline Public Schools Virginia Dana, P.A.C. James McLaughlin, Air Line Pilots Association Bill Holstine, Riverton Heights Marian MacKenzie, Zone 3 Pete Breysse, Dept. of Environmental Health, U of W Marsha Huebner, City of Des Moines Noel Peart, The Boeing Company Robert Jones, Washington Pilots Association George Saito, F.A.A. Port of Seattle Staff Oris Dunham Dawson Alexander Joe Sims Ed Parks •Jody Yamanaka Bob Wells Others ..., ... Hugh Parry, The Parry Company Joan Parry, The Parry Company Georgette Valle, State Representative Kevin Patterson, Highline Times - Dennis Ossenkop, F.A.A. Ed Parks, Study Manager for the Noise / Exposure Forecast Update, opened the meeting at 7:10 P.M. He described the background of the study, the scope of work, the study team, organization, and the responsibilities of the Technical Advisory Committee. Total costs of the study were estimated to be approximately $80,000, of which $55,000 will come from the Federal Aviation Administration, Planning Grant Program. A preliminary schedule was presented which indicated completiun of the study by July, 1981. Study progress was summarized by Jody Yamanaka. The…

1. Long-t e: r m won i torin r, .:-mel overv iew of Se a-Tac Plan impl c::-.c.1t,nt:i ·cn :.:. __ ,,. '.: 2. Deal with speci al i ss~ c s aDd proLlemG 3. PAC mske s recom.TTien da. t i ons to Kin g Coun ::y Executive · and t he Council, Execat ::.vc Director and the Port o f Sea ttle Corr.mi ss ion 4. PAC should he able to initiate ac tior.s/recom;:;endations r ~;- : ca pi tal pro gr aF:S Composil i.o;; of the Fol i c •,.; lldvi.su r·: Comr;;itte e Repre s 0ntativ0 fro~ K~ng Cou~ ty Representativ e selected by Board o f P.J .C. Rep resent a tive s f r o!" the Po1:: of Se at tle (Av j,ation a n d Flan~ing a~J Research Departmen ts) Rep re s ~ nt a t ive f ran loca l bus jn e s~ * - ------· .. - ---· ~- 978 ~ -: - ----- --- ~ ;.---·· --·- ~-------~--:-- ~---- (rep r es~nting Buri e.:;t Cha:::-,:--er of Con:Dt. rc .-:; , De s Hoine f: C o f C an d "th(;. s L.r i.~ " ) ~should live i n area and s hould be selected by a . gra up cee ting Repre sen t ai: ive from the P.i;h line School Distr ic t Represen t a t ive fr o:-:1 loc a.l goYe rnrr,c nt * (rcpreser.ting De s !·k·ine s, Tuh.'i l a ,…