[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5504-5508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1921]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Fort Lauderdale 
Executive Airport; Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its 
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the City of 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the 
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as 
``the Act'') and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in 
recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal 
responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52 (1980). On February 19, 
2004, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by the 
City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida under part 150 were in compliance with 
applicable requirements. On January 14, 2005, the FAA approved the Fort 
Lauderdale Executive Airport noise compatibility program. Most of the 
recommendations of the program were approved.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the Fort 
Lauderdale Executive Airport noise compatibility program is January 14, 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bonnie Baskin, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine 
National Dr., Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, (407) 812-6331, 
Extension 130. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at 
this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given 
its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for the Fort 
Lauderdale Executive Airport, effective January 14, 2005.
    Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has 
previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise 
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed 
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing noncompatible 
land uses and prevention of additional noncompatible land uses within 
the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such 
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected 
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport 
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance 
with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 is a local program, 
not a Federal Program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for 
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be 
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part 
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards 
expressed in Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following 
determinations:
    a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with 
the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the 
goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport 
and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate 
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of 
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or 
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be 
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating 
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the 
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely 
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator 
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport 
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, Section 
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of 
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by 
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal 
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures 
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an 
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not 
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the 
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures 
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the 
FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must 
be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Orlando, Florida.
    The City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida submitted to the FAA on 
February 4, 2004, the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other 
documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study 
conducted from September 2000, through December 2002. The Fort 
Lauderdale Executive Airport exposure maps were determined by FAA to be 
in compliance with applicable requirements on February 19, 2004. Notice 
of this determination was published in the Federal Register on February 
19, 2004.
    The Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport study contains a proposed 
noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased 
implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from 
the date of study completion, 2002, beyond the

[[Page 5505]]

year 2007. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this material 
as a noise compatibility program as described in Section 47504 of the 
Act. The FAA began its review of the program on July 20, 2004, and was 
required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program 
within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight 
procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such 
program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of 
such program.
    The submitted program contained twenty-seven (27) proposed actions 
for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its 
review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements 
of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, 
therefore, was approved by the FAA effective January 14, 2005.
    Our right approval was granted for fifteen (15) of the twenty-seven 
(27) specific program elements. Seven (7) elements were disapproved for 
the purposes of part 150, four (4) elements were partially approved, 
and one (1) required no action. The approval/disapproval action was for 
the following program measures:

Operational Measures

1. Restriction of Jet Use of Runway 13/31

    The City requests that the FAA amend the existing voluntary 
limitation of jet use of Runway 13/31 to implement it as a formal 
preferential runway program element. This program element is 
appropriate because there are residential areas closer to the ends of 
this runway than to the ends of Runway 08/26. Formalizing the procedure 
is expected to reduce jet use on Runways 13 and 31 by an additional 2 
to 3 percent for both daytime and nighttime hours. (NCP, pages 63, 98, 
123, 175, and Table 22)
FAA Action: Disapproved as to Formalizing the Procedure; Continuation 
of the Current Procedure on a Voluntary Basis Is Approved
    The recommendation to formalize the restriction is disapproved 
because Runway 13/31 would have to be available for operations should 
Runway 8/26 be closed. Also, it is not clear from the NCP just how much 
of the noise benefit, described in Table 22 for a combination of three 
proposed formal preferential procedures, is derived from formalizing 
this measure.
    This procedure may continue on a voluntary basis as traffic, 
weather, and airspace safety and efficiency permit. The previous part 
150 study and Record of Approval summarized this measure's benefits, 
when implemented as voluntary, as follows: ``The elimination of this 
measure would dramatically increase direct jet overflights of the 
close-in residential areas under the extended centerlines of runways at 
the airport, in areas where jet operations currently are rare. 
Increased jet use would almost certainly result in a vigorous community 
reaction.''

2. Extension of Upwind Leg for Runway 31 Departures out to the Turnpike

    The City will continue to request that pilots delay turns to 
crosswind or on course until crossing this visual reference. There is 
no change proposed to the measure approved by the FAA in 1997. (NCP, 
pages 64, 176)
FAA Action: Disapproved
    The FAA objects to this measure because it may impact aircraft 
operational safety and efficiency. VFR aircraft in the traffic pattern 
for Runway 31 must be able to turn crosswind before reaching the 
Turnpike in order to run a safe and efficient traffic pattern. In 
addition, continuation of this existing measure is disapproved due to 
significant increase in air traffic in the area from many airports. The 
air traffic controllers need to be able to run aircraft as soon as 
possible and cannot be required to place aircraft in a prescribed 
flight path with the significant increase in air traffic around FXE.

3. Voluntary Use of Turbojet Noise Abatement Departure Profiles

    The City will continue to request that pilots use National Business 
Aviation Association (NBAA) and manufacturers' turbojet noise abatement 
departure profiles. This program element must be voluntary, because the 
pilot in command of the aircraft has the ultimate responsibility for 
safe aircraft operation. No third party (including the FAA or the City) 
can dictate cockpit procedures. (NCP, pages 64, 147-148, 176; Figure 
50)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Voluntary Measure

4. Runway 26 Departure Heading

    Pilots currently are requested to initiate a turn to 310[deg] after 
crossing NW 31st Avenue (visual conditions) or after passing the Runway 
8 middle marker (instrument conditions). The City requests that FAA 
amend this procedure to implement it on a formal basis, so that it 
applies to all non-emergency operations (wind, weather, and traffic 
permitting). The FAA is decommissioning the middle marker. Therefore, 
the City also requests that the FAA continue the operation of the 
middle marker as an electronic reference or ``turn marker''. (NCP, 
pages 64, 103; Figure 38)
FAA Action: Disapproved as to Formalizing the Procedure; Continuation 
of the Current Procedure on a Voluntary Basis Is Approved, for VFR 
Traffic Only, as Traffic, Weather, and Airspace Safety and Efficiency 
Permit
    Formalizing this procedure is disapproved because there is no 
instrument approach to Runway 26, and aircraft are required to fly an 
ILS approach to Runway 8. This opposite direction operation requires 
that departing aircraft on Runway 26 turn as soon as possible for 
safety purposes. For clarification purposes, the Runway 26 departure 
heading was changed to 315[deg] due to magnetic variation and the 
opposite-direction departure separation requirement of 45[deg]. The FAA 
does not currently initiate a turn after crossing NW 31st Avenue/Runway 
8 middle marker. Adherence to this procedure is voluntary on the part 
of the pilot. The Part 150 study approved in 1997 stated, ``This 
measure reduces the population within the 65 dB Ldn noise contour by 
631 people.''
    The FAA will not continue to use the middle marker as an electronic 
reference. As an alternative to using the MM, the airport sponsor may 
contact the FAA to determine whether the use of Distance Measuring 
Equipment (DME) may be an appropriate substitute for the electronic 
reference.

5. Evening and Night (8 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Implementation of ``Quiet One'' 
Departure Procedure on a Formal Basis

    Pilots of eastbound and southbound aircraft currently are requested 
to use the ``Quiet One'' departure procedure (a climbing left 360[deg] 
turn to a heading of 090[deg]) on a voluntary basis at night (10 p.m. 
to 7 a.m.) in visual conditions. The City requests that the FAA amend 
this procedure to implement it on a formal basis, and to extend the 
effective hours to run from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. This procedure is 
implemented at pilot request only, with ATCT approval. No change is 
proposed. (NCP, pages 64, 103, 176)

[[Page 5506]]

FAA Action: Disapproved as to Formalizing the Procedure and 
Continuation of the Current Procedure on a Voluntary Basis, as It 
Allows for Uncontrolled Turns in IFR Airspace in a Very Congested Area
    This measure was previously approved as voluntary in 1997 for the 
nighttime timeframe. It is being disapproved at this time because of 
the significant increase in air traffic in the area. The concern is 
that the controllers need to be able to turn aircraft as soon as 
possible to get them out of the way. (See Measure 10, below, for a 
similar operational procedure, approved as voluntary.)

6. Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Implementation of ``Quiet One'' Departure 
Procedure on a Formal Basis

    If the FAA disapproves the preceding formal implementation of the 
``Quiet One'' procedure with hours extended to run from 8 p.m. to 7 
a.m., the City requests that the FAA approve the procedure on a formal 
basis effective from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. in visual conditions. (NCP, 
pages 64, 103, 176)
FAA Action: Disapproved as to Formalizing the Procedure and 
Continuation of the Current Procedure on a Voluntary Basis, as It 
Allows for Uncontrolled Turns in IFR Airspace in a Very Congested Area
    This measure was previously approved as voluntary in 1997 for the 
nighttime timeframe. It is being disapproved at this time because of 
the significant increase in air traffic in the area. The concern is 
that the controllers need to be able to turn aircraft as soon as 
possible to get them out of the way. (See Measure 10, below, for a 
similar operational procedure, approved as voluntary.) Formalizing the 
turn could place a large number of VFR flights into congested IFR 
airspace.

7. Support of Airport Perimeter Development as a Noise Barrier

    This measure is a continuation of a measure approved by the FAA in 
1997. It calls for the City to continue to work with airport tenants to 
implement this measure as part of any proposed development on the 
airport perimeter. The structures would be placed in such a manner that 
they can act as noise barriers addressing aircraft taxi operations for 
neighboring residences. (NCP, pages 65, 148, 177)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure
    The airport sponsor has included this recommendation in past NCP 
studies. The intent of the measure is to promote good placement of 
facilities built on airport property in a manner that would use the 
building as a buffer to minimize airport ground-based noise on nearby 
residences. Any building construction on the airport would be required 
to comply with applicable Federal requirements.

8. Restriction of Maintenance Runups 7 p.m. Through 7 a.m. at the Runup 
Pad

    The existing NCP includes a restriction that is formally codified 
in the Aviation section of the Fort Lauderdale City Code. This 
ordinance restricts the time and location of maintenance runups. No 
maintenance runups are allowed between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. All 
maintenance runups are limited to a location designated by the ATCT. 
The designated runup pad is at the decommissioned compass rose located 
near the southeast corner of the intersection of Runways 8/26 and 13/
31. (NCP, pages 65, 151, 177)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure
    This measure has been approved by the FAA in past NCPs and has 
eliminated complaints from nearby residences about ground runup noise. 
Figure 53 shows that placement of the runup area is close to land uses 
designated as manufacturing and production.

9. Nighttime Preference for Runway 26 Departures and Runway 08 
Arrivals, for All Aircraft

    This measure maximizes operations over the less developed areas 
west of the airport. This bi-directional runway use is feasible at 
night because winds are calmer, operations levels are lower at night, 
and the ATCT is open all night, ensuring the safe and optimal use of 
the procedure. The city makes an annual payment out of airport funds to 
staff the ATCT at night to permit implementation of this measure and to 
maximize the effectiveness of other nighttime measures. The City 
requests that the FAA amend this measure to implement it as a formal 
preferential runway program element. (NCP, pages 63, 98, 122, 178; and 
Table 22)
FAA Action: Disapproved as a Mandatory Formalized Procedure; Continuing 
This Measure on a Voluntary Basis, When Wind Weather, and Airspace 
Safety and Efficiency permit Is Approved
    Formal implementation of this procedure is disapproved. The noise 
abatement flight path is infrequently used, and initiated only upon 
pilot request. This opposite direction operation requires that 
departing aircraft on Runway 26 turn as soon as possible for safety 
purposes. Opposite direction operations on the same runway lower the 
margin of safety.
    The current NCP shows that Runway 26 nighttime departures are 
carried out about 55 percent of the time by jet aircraft, and 35 
percent of the time for propeller aircraft. Runway 8 nighttime arrivals 
by jets occur approximately 70 percent of the time and approximately 60 
percent of the time by propeller aircraft. The present nighttime 
departure rate is an improvement over the base case runway use reported 
when the measure was originally recommended in the mid-1980's (20 
percent for all operations). The 1997 NCP stated: ``This measure 
results in a reduction of 31 people within the 65 dB Ldn noise contour 
and operates in conjunction with the noise abatement flight path for 
Runway 26 departures (turn to a heading of 310 degrees).'' (See Measure 
4 in this Record of Approval.)

10. Runway 08 Departure Heading

    Presently turbojets with destinations other than eastbound are 
assigned heading 330 degrees, and non-eastbound propeller aircraft are 
assigned 300 degrees, with instructions to initiate turns abeam of I-
95. All eastbound departures are assigned heading 090. The City 
requests that the FAA amend the existing I-95 turn as a mandatory, 
formal instrument procedure under FAA radar control, applicable to all 
aircraft, wind, weather, and traffic permitting. A 90 degree heading 
would be assigned when required to avoid potentially unsafe traffic 
conflicts. (NCP, pages 64, 103, 111, 117-118, 178; Figure 43; and 
Tables 18, and 33)
FAA Action: Disapproved as a Mandatory, Formal Instrument Procedure; 
Approved as a Continuation of an Existing Voluntary Measure When 
Traffic, Weather, and Airspace Safety and Efficiency Permit Between the 
Hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
    This measure is disapproved as a mandatory, formal instrument 
procedure. Air traffic has significantly increased in this corridor 
since the 1997 approval of the voluntary procedure. Formalizing this 
departure procedure by turning all turbojet aircraft on this heading 
creates a safety issue due to the air traffic congestion in the south 
Florida area when traffic is other than light.
    The Letter of Agreement between the Miami ATCT and FXE ATCT was 
revised August 1, 2004, to require that ATCT assign a heading of 
330[deg] to all turbojet aircraft departing Runway 8

[[Page 5507]]

between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. (this excludes emergency 
Lifeguard flights). The measure may be extended at the discretion of 
ATCT to 8 a.m. if traffic, weather, and airspace safety and efficiency 
permit. The 1997 NCP stated: ``The elimination of this procedure would 
approximately double the population within the 65 dB Ldn contour.'' The 
FAA approved the measure in 1997 as voluntary. This NCP states that 
without the existing measure in place, ``the population within the 
contours more than doubles from 730 to 1801, clearly indicating the 
effectiveness of this existing measure.'' The VFR turn abeam I-95 is 
voluntary on the part of the pilot and ATCT does not issue turns abeam 
I-95.

11. Restriction of Night, Weekend, and Holiday Touch-and-Go Operations 
and Practice Approaches on a Voluntary Basis

    Expand the existing voluntary night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) touch-and-
go restriction to encompass touch-and-go and practice-approach training 
operations at night, and on a 24-hour basis on weekends and City 
holidays. This measure is predicted to reduce the number of people 
within the 65 DNL noise contour from 730 to 700. (NCP, pages 65, 127-
131, 178; Figure 46; Tables 25, 26, and Table 33)
FAA Action: Approved as a voluntary measure

12. Raise the Approach Slope on All Runway Ends to 3.5[deg]

    This measure calls for raising the Runway 8 approach slope to 
3.5[deg]. It also requires the City to raise the PAPI angles to 3.5 
degrees on all runway ends, with FAA approval. The city would publicize 
these changes. It should be noted that a glide slope angle above 3 
degrees on a runway with an ILS such as Runway 8, is considered 
exceptional and requires special FAA approval. Figure 48 presents the 
resulting contours, which show contour shrinkage immediately under the 
extended runway centerlines. The population within the contours falls 
by an estimated 74 residents. (NCP, pages 139, 179; Figure 48, and 
Tables 28, 29, and 33)
FAA Action: Disapproved for Purposes of FAR Part 150
    FAA has not raised the approach slope for other than safety 
reasons, to maintain cockpit proficiency. Further, at FXE, if the 
approach minimums were raised it would prohibit access to the aircraft 
by Category D aircraft due to the airport's runway length.

13. Future Use Restriction if Implementation of Operational Measures 
Does Not Meet Objectives

    The City will monitor the jet fleet mix, and implementation and 
effectiveness of noise abatement measures, to determine whether the 
projected retirement of non-Stage 3 jets, combined with operational 
measures, accomplishes two objectives: (1) Eliminating residential and 
other potentially non-compatible land uses within the 65 DNL contour, 
and (2) eliminating all Runway 08 straight-out (090[deg] heading) jet 
departures, with the exception of those required by emergency or safety 
conditions. If these objectives are not met, the City will initiate the 
analysis of use restriction options that might provide similar noise 
benefit. The scope of the study will include, but not be limited to: 
(1) Restriction of Stage 1, or Stage 1 and 2 operations; (2) single 
event noise level limits; (3) night operating restrictions; and (4) 
feasible enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations. (NCP, 
pages 143-147; Figure 49; and Tables 30, 31, and 33).
FAA Action: Approved for Further Study
    Recommendations in this NCP for formalizing measures have not been 
approved due to potential impacts on efficient use and management of 
the navigable airspace and potential reduction in the level of aviation 
safety presently provided. Predicted reductions of impacts on the noise 
contour by formalizing these measures will, therefore, not be fully 
realized. There is no forecast year NEM without these formalized 
measures in place, so the population within the 2007 noise contour is 
not known (the forecast case 2007 noise contours include the noise 
abatement elements of the ``operational composite case''). Implementing 
the approved measures within this ROA appears to provide a benefit by 
removing the DNL 65 dB noise contour from about 30 to 70 people (see 
Table 33, page 157). The 2002 base case shows that a total of 730 
people reside within the DNL 65 dB noise contour. It should be noted 
that FAA will not accept as justification for an airport noise or 
access restriction new noncompatible development that occurs within the 
airport's published NEM contours.

Land Use Measures

    Based on the projection that there will be no noncompatible land 
uses within the DNL 65 dB noise contour in 2007, with implementation of 
the noise abatement elements of this revised NCP, no new land use 
measures are recommended. It is recommended that the revised NCP 
continue to include the existing compatible land use measures to 
prevent development of new noncompatible uses to the extent feasible. 
(NCP, page 167).

1. Rezoning Noncompatible Property as Opportunity Arises

    City staff members continue to monitor areas within existing and 
forecast NEM to identify opportunities for rezoning. The very limited 
noncompatible areas of land within the contours and the highly 
developed nature of those areas limit opportunities. (NCP, pages 65, 
167).
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

2. Local Jurisdictions To Incorporate Noise Requirements Into 
Development Control

    The City has requested that local jurisdictions adopt the noise 
requirements on a case-by-case basis (NCP, pages 65, 167, 180)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

3. Voluntary Fair Disclosure by Real Estate Agents

    This measure is an informal educational effort. Information is 
disseminated through newsletters and presentations to all the local 
governments in the ares as well as realtors, other businessmen and 
residents. The community Advisory Committee also serves as an ongoing 
conduit of revised noise-related information. (NCP, pages 65, 167, 180)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

4. Monitor Noise To Determine Exact Extent of Contour Into Residential 
Area

    The City installed permanent noise monitor number 6 in Village Park 
Mobile Home Park (NCP, pages 66, 167, 180; Figure 54)
FAA Action: No Action Required
    This measure was approved by the FAA in the 1997 NCP, and the City 
has implemented the action.

5. Noise Abatement Advisory Committee

    The City will continue to implement this program element through 
the monthly meetings of the Aviation Advisory Board (AAB). The AAB; 
receives a report on the NCP implementation and status and statistics 
on compliance with noise abatement measures. (NCP, page 66, 169, 180)

[[Page 5508]]

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

6. Noise Abatement Officer

    Supplement part-time responsibilities of the FXE Airports Program 
Manager and Airports Programs Aide with addition of a dedicated ``Noise 
Abatement Technician'', to focus on day-to-day and month-to-month 
responsibilities, and assist the more senior staff on specialized 
program requirements. This is a dedicated staff position for which the 
city will be responsible for the cost. (NCP pages 66, 161, 181)
FAA Action: Approved

7. Permanent Noise and Operations Monitoring System

    The City proposes to implement enhancements to the existing ANOMS 
installation to ensure the system continues to provide appropriate 
monitoring coverage in a state-of-the-art fashion. The enhancements 
will include five additional permanent noise monitors, upgraded central 
computer hardware and software, and enhancements to the flight tracking 
and identification system to provide more specific aircraft 
identification through monitoring of Mode C transponder transmissions. 
The expanded geographic coverage and age of the system installation 
also justify an upgrade to the central ANOMS hardware and software. The 
current system is based on UNIX operating platform; modern systems are 
Windows-based. (NCP, page 66, 171, 181)
FAA Action: Disapproved Pending Submission of Additional Information
    Other than the location of one of the five proposed new monitors 
(under the Runway 13/31 extended centerline and identified as ``B'' in 
the 2002 NEM Figure 53), the documentation does not show where these 
new monitors will be located within the official NEM noise contours. 
Measures submitted in a NCP for approval must be located within the 
sponsor's NEM contour (14 CFR part 150, section 150.23(e), and 49 
U.S.C. 47504(a)(2)) and must otherwise be shown to satisfy part 150 
approval requirements.

8. Public Information Program

    The FXE staff and other City staff provide regular reports to the 
AAB, and ad hoc reports to other interested groups as requested. (NCP, 
pages 66, 172, 181)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

9. Airfield Noise Abatement Advisory Signs

    The City has installed noise abatement signage at key locations on 
the airfield, notifying pilots of major noise abatement concerns. No 
additional or modified signage is required at this time. However, any 
such new or modified signage would be eligible for up to 90 percent FAA 
and 5 percent FDOT grants. (NCP, pages 67, 172, 182)
FAA Action: Disapproved
    The NCP states that no additional or modified signs are required at 
this time, so this measure is not a necessary element of this NCP. 
Signs must not be construed as mandatory air traffic procedures. The 
content and location of airfield signs are subject to specific approval 
by appropriate FAA officials outside of the FAR Part 150 process and 
are not approved in advance by this determination.

10. Pilot Manual Noise Abatement Insert

    The City prepares and distributes a revised pilot noise abatement 
handout in a format that is compatible with a Jeppessen-sanderson 
manual. Following the FAA's review and approval of this NCP, the City 
should revise the existing insert to reflect program changes and 
redistribute it to pilots, FBOs, and other operators. (NCP, pages 67, 
172, 182)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure
    Language in revised inserts should accurately reflect FAA actions 
on this revised NCP. Inserts must not be construed as mandatory air 
traffic procedures. The content of the inserts are subject to specific 
approval by appropriate FAA officials outside of the FAR Part 150 
process and are not approved in advance by this determination.

11. NEM/NCP Review and Revision

    The City will continue existing NEM and NCP review and revision 
practices, as necessary. The City will also update the NCP, if made 
necessary by NEM revision. The city utilizes information from a variety 
of sources to monitor the accuracy of the NEMs and the effectiveness of 
the NCP, including: ANOMS monitoring, citizen reports, FAA ATCT traffic 
counts. The city uses these sources to determine if operations have 
changed sufficiently to require an NEM update (e.g., difference of more 
than 15 percent in operations, or if new noncompatible uses due to 
changes in operations, or if the NCP requires a revision). (NCP, pages 
67, 172, 182)
FAA Action: Approved

12. ATIS Noise Abatement Advisory

    The City will continue to request incorporation of noise abatement 
advisory information on the ATIS recording. (NCP, pages 67, 173, 182)
FAA Action: Disapproved
    Revised Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, no longer provides for 
noise abatement advisories. Noise abatement advisories may be published 
in the Airport Facilities Directory and pilot handouts.

13. Achievements in Community Excellence (ACE) Awards

    The City will continue to provide Achievement in Community 
Excellence (ACE) awards program to encourage aircraft operators, 
through a program of positive recognition, to comply with the NCP noise 
abatement elements to the maximum feasible extent. The city has 
provided ACE awards to ten different companies since 1998. (NCP, pages 
67, 173, 183)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure

14. Pilot Noise Abatement Workshops

    The City will continue to hold these sessions, as another mechanism 
for publicizing noise abatement measures, goals, and implementation 
status, and for educating pilots. The city has organized and conducted 
several workshops, two or three times a year. (NCP, pages 67, 173, 183)
FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing Measure
    These determination are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval 
signed by the FAA on January 14, 2005. The Record of Approval, as well 
as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the 
submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and 
at the administrative office of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 
The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on January 5, 2005.
Bart Vernace,
Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 05-1921 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M