TagANCA(37)

This FAA document (Order 5190.6B), effective September 30, 2009, is the FAA Airport Compliance Manual, which guides FAA personnel on how to interpret and enforce the federal obligations that airport sponsors assume when they accept federal grant funds or federally owned property. It covers the rules and assurances airports must follow to remain in compliance with federal law, including how properties can be used and what commitments sponsors make to the U.S. government. The manual is administered by the FAA Airport Compliance Division in Washington, DC.

This guide, produced by law firm Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell and noise consulting firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, explains the rules and regulations governing airport noise and aircraft use restrictions at publicly owned airports. It covers who is responsible for regulating airports and aircraft, what tools airports have to manage noise, and the requirements of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. The guide is designed for airport managers, elected officials, consultants, and community groups seeking to understand how noise disputes are handled and resolved.

A July 9, 1984 letter from Port of Seattle to United Airlines Vice President Captain M. E. Volz outlines the noise abatement procedures in use at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The procedures include FAA-established Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routes using the Seattle VOR 158 and 338 radials to minimize noise over surrounding communities, a Visual Bay Approach for south flow arrivals, and a Run-Up Curfew with designated engine run-up locations. The letter also notes that the most noise-impacted areas fall within the 65 Ldn noise contour, where the Port was pursuing land acquisition, purchase assurance, and sound insulation programs as remedies.

This document presents the Sea-Tac International Airport Noise Exposure Update prepared for the Port of Seattle, including a detailed airfield layout showing the two parallel runways (16R/16L and 34R/34L) and associated taxiways. It also includes flight track maps for both South Flow and North Flow operations, illustrating arrival and departure routes used by aircraft over the surrounding communities. The exhibits provide a geographic overview of how flight paths extend across the Seattle metropolitan area, informing noise exposure assessments for airport planning and policy purposes.

This document presents forecasts of aircraft operations at Seattle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac) International Airport and King County International Airport from 1980 to 2000, broken down by aircraft classification and flight category including air carrier, general aviation, and military. It projects that total annual operations at Sea-Tac will grow from approximately 213,600 in 1980 to over 260,800 by 2000, driven largely by increases in larger Class D air carrier aircraft. Peak hour operation estimates are provided for both Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions, offering planners a detailed basis for noise impact and capacity assessments.

In this January 1982 letter, Port of Seattle Planning Director Clifford C. Muller responds to community member Virginia Dana's concerns about the Sea-Tac Airport Noise Exposure Update Study. He addresses skepticism over the Ldn noise measurement system, defends the study's prediction that noise impact will decrease as airlines adopt quieter aircraft, and reassures Dana that shrinking noise contours do not eliminate eligibility for noise remedy programs. Muller acknowledges that the Technical Advisory Committee's input has been valuable and indicates that the upcoming Remedy Plan project will be the primary venue for addressing ongoing community concerns.

In January 1982, members of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Sea-Tac International Airport Noise Exposure Update wrote to the Port of Seattle's Director of Planning and Research to raise concerns about the final draft of the noise study. The letter argues that the report fails to clearly define the problem of aircraft noise impacts on surrounding communities, relies on optimistic assumptions about airlines adopting quieter aircraft, and uses an average noise level methodology that does not capture how residents actually experience flight disruptions. The committee also expressed frustration that their technical input and unanswered questions were largely ignored, despite their role being cited in the report as evidence of public participation.