FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study

Louisville International Airport

CATEGORY/ Measure	Description	Potential noise benefits	Conformance with study goals	Effect on Airport or ATC operations	Effect on Airport users	Cost	Safety	Legal factors	Applicability/feasibility	Recommendations
1. RUNWAY USE PROGRAMS
1.1 Preferential Runway Use	Runway use program intended to emphasize the use of selected runways to avoid noise sensitive land uses.	Reduces noise levels in noise sensitive areas by concentrating activity on runways that direct aircraft operations toward more compatible areas.	Yes	Increased ATCT workload. Reduced ATC flexibility in accommodating demand leading to reduced Airport capacity.	Potential increase in delay and flight time.	Operational costs associated with increased delay and flight time.	No significant issues likely.	Runway assignment is an FAA ATCT responsibility. FAA must retain adequate safety margins and ensure efficient use of airspace. Pilots are not required to accept assigned runways if, in the pilot's judgement, safety of flight would be compromised. Changes in established priorities would require preparation of an EA or EIS.	Adherence would be voluntary; requires the cooperation of FAA and Airport users. Preliminary analysis of noise exposure indicates that modifications to existing runway use priorities could reduce significant noise exposure north of the Airport.	Continue as a noise abatement strategy. Amended preferential runway uses are recommended for further consideration.	•
1.2 Contraflow	Runway use program that places both departures and arrivals over the same area by directing aircraft to fly reciprocal headings. Normally used when noise sensitive land uses are located at one runway end, but not the other.	Reduces noise levels in noise sensitive areas by concentrating activity on runway ends affecting nonsensitive areas.	Yes	Increased ATCT workload compared to conventional runway use strategies. Significant loss of ATC flexibility. Potential significant reduction in Airport capacity (on the order of 50%).	Potential increase in delay. Increased flight time for arrivals from the north and departures to the north. Increased taxiing time for aircraft based in the southern portion of the Airport.	Operational costs associated with increased delay, flight time, and taxiing time.	FAA ATCT imposes aircraft separation standards to maintain acceptable safety margins. For Contraflow operations, the necessary separation results in a substantial decrease in Airport capacity.	Same as Measure 1.1 above.	Adherence would be voluntary; requires the cooperation of FAA and Airport users. Changes in existing program would require preparation of an EA or EIS.	Continue as a noise abatement strategy. Extension and enhancement of Contraflow program are recommended for further consideration.	•
1.3 Rotational Runway Use	Program intended to achieve an equitable distribution of aircraft noise.	Similar to Measure 1.2 above. May reduce noise levels in some areas while increasing noise levels in others.	No, would likely result in a net increase in noise exposure.	Increased ATCT workload associated with changing runway use configurations. Potential reduction in ATC flexibility in accommodating demand leading to reduction in Airport capacity.	Minimal	Minimal	FAA ATCT would issue holding instructions as necessary to maintain adequate safety margins during runway use configuration changes.	Same as Measure 1.1 above.	Adherence would be voluntary; requires the cooperation of FAA and Airport users. Changes in existing runway use priorities would require preparation of an EA or EIS.	Not recommended for further consideration due to conflicts with study goals and minimal potential noise benefits.
2. FLIGHT TRACK MANAGEMENT
2.1 Noise Abatement Flight Tracks	New flight tracks or flight track modifications to concentrate aircraft overflights over areas with relatively few noise sensitive land uses.	Reduces noise levels in noise sensitive areas by concentrating overflights over non-sensitive areas. If noise tolerant corridors exist, this technique can significantly reduce aircraft noise exposure. Because aircraft generate high levels of noise on takeoff, noise abatement flight tracks for departures can be particularly effective.	Yes	Reduced ATC flexibility leading to increased departure delays for Airport users. Parallel departure flight tracks on parallel runways would limit departure capacity. Converging flight tracks would significantly reduce capacity and increase controller workload.	Potentially significant departure delay. Potential increase in flight times due to circuitous routing: increased flight time for southbound departures on Runways 35R and 35L; and for northbound departures on Runways 17R and 17L.	Operational costs associated with aircraft delay. Significant departure delays could affect UPS ability to meet schedule.	FAA ATCT would increase aircraft separation requirements to maintain acceptable safety margins. Implementation should be coordinated with aircraft operators to ensure procedures do not create unacceptable increases in pilot workload.	Assignment of departure and arrival flight tracks is an FAA ATCT responsibility. FAA must retain adequate safety margins and ensure efficient use of airspace. Changes from existing noise abatement flight tracks would likely require preparation of an EA or EIS.	To reduce significant noise impacts, noise abatement flight tracks must occur within 3 - 5 miles of runway ends, limiting use for approaches. Conformance will vary with wind conditions and pilot technique (see Navigation Technology). Noise abatement flight tracks must follow relatively wide (about 1 mile) corridors of compatible land use to avoid significant impacts. No additional sufficiently sized corridors exist within the future DNL 65 noise exposure area.	Continue as a noise abatement strategy. Measures to enhance conformance with existing noise abatement flight tracks are recommended for further consideration.	•
2.2 Dispersed or Fanned Out Departure Flight Tracks	Successive departing aircraft are given different headings to spread noise over a broad area, rather than concentrating aircraft along single flight tracks.	Dispersal of flight tracks tends to decrease the length of noise exposure areas, but increase the width. Could reduce intensity of noise exposure for some residents while increasing exposure for others.	No, would likely increase noise levels in some areas.	Would only apply to departures. Minimal adverse effect on ATC flexibility and Airport capacity.	Minimal adverse effects.	Minimal	No significant issues likely.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Compatible land use corridors are concentrated along the extended runway centerlines. Dispersal of flight tracks would likely increase noise exposure.	Not recommended for further consideration due to conflicts with study goals and minimal potential noise benefits.
2.3 Standard Instrument Departure Procedures	Procedure that requires aircraft to follow a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) in all weather conditions, including VFR conditions. SIDs normally include departure headings and altitudes to be followed.	Provides a means of implementing noise abatement flight tracks for departures.	Yes	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Increased flight time for southbound departures on Runways 35R and 35L and for northbound departures on Runways 17R and 17L.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above. Also, a SID is typically issued to provide an initial clearance for departing aircraft to ensure adequate separation from other aircraft. Assignment of a SID does not ensure that aircraft will follow the SID as published. Typically, pilots receive instructions altering routing prior to completion of the SID.	Recommended for further consideration to enhance conformance with existing noise abatement flight tracks and adherence to any new noise abatement measures.	•
3. APPROACH PROCEDURES
3.1 Higher Holding and Maneuver Altitudes	Arriving aircraft maintain higher than normal approach altitudes on the downwind and base legs segments of the approach, and intercept the approach glide slope from a higher altitude.	Would reduce noise exposure caused by arriving aircraft in areas far from the Airport. Assuming that aircraft thrust settings remain constant, a doubling of altitude could result in a 6 dB reduction in noise directly beneath the aircraft. The benefits of this measure decrease as the distance from the aircraft flight path increases. May not affect the DNL 65 noise exposure area.	Yes	May decrease ATC flexibility and capacity and cause potential airspace conflicts.	Potential increases in flight times and associated costs.	Minimal cost due to extended downwind and final approach legs required to accommodate higher altitudes prior to approach.	FAA ATCT would increase separation as necessary to resolve potential airspace conflicts.	RAA could not require compliance with the measure, but could encourage voluntary use.	Requires the cooperation of FAA ATCT and Airport users. Increased maneuvering altitudes for arrivals would require an extension of the downwind leg and final approach to allow aircraft to descend for landing.	Not recommended for further consideration due to safety and ATC concerns, and minimal noise benefits within the DNL 65 noise exposure area.
3.2 Steeper ILS Glide Slope Approaches	Raise the ILS glide slope angle for instrument approaches. The existing glide slope angles at the Airport are set at 3 degrees. The maximum FAA-approved glide slope angle is 3.5 degrees.	Relatively small change in glide slope angle would not result in a perceptible reduction in aircraft noise. Use of the maximum standard glide slope angle would only reduce noise levels by about 1 dB within the DNL 65 noise exposure area.	No, would not provide a perceptible benefit.	Minimal	Minimal	None	Glide slope angles in excess of 3.5 degrees are nonstandard. Safety issues associated with nonstandard approach procedures include the need to arrest high rates of descent by application of higher thrust close-in to the Airport and increased pilot workload at a critical phase in landing.	None	Implementation would require FAA to revise the approach procedures for all affected runways, and could reduce the approach minima.	Not recommended for further consideration given minimal noise benefits within the DNL 65 noise exposure area.
3.3 Two-Stage Approach Procedures	Arriving aircraft maintain an increased altitude in the downwind stages of an approaches, initiate a descent at a rate steeper than normal, and intercept the standard glide slope at a low altitude nearby the Airport.	Would not benefit areas exposed to significant noise levels. Since higher power applications would be required to arrest the higher rate of descent resulting from steeper approach angles, areas at the outer limits of the DNL 65 noise exposure area could experience increases in noise.	Yes	Minimal	Would increase pilot workload at a critical point in the landing procedure.	None	Steep approach angles nonstandard operating procedures. Safety issues associated with nonstandard approach procedures include the need to arrest high rates of descent by application of higher thrust close-in to the Airport and increased pilot workload at a critical phase in landing.	RAA could not require compliance with the measure, but could encourage voluntary use.	A two stage approach would require a minimum 3 mile stabilized final approach. Accordingly, aircraft would be established on the glide slope within the DNL 65 noise exposure area. Therefore, no reduction in significant noise levels would occur. Implementation would require the cooperation of FAA ATCT and Airport users.	Not recommended for further consideration given minimal noise benefits within the DNL 65 noise exposure area and potential safety issues.
3.4 Delayed Flap and Gear Extension Approaches	Arriving aircraft delay lowering flaps and landing gear until closer to the Airport.	Lower thrust settings used for the portion of the approach beyond 3 miles from the Airport would reduce single-event noise levels by 2 - 4 dBA.	Yes	None	Procedure is currently used by some operators to reduce fuel consumption and noise. Small increase in pilot workload.	None	Minimal. Procedure would still provide a 3 mile final approach. Would not be required in conditions of reduced visibility.	RAA could not require compliance with the measure, but could encourage voluntary use.	This type of procedure would be voluntary and conformance difficult to monitor. Would require the cooperation of FAA ATCT and Airport users.	Recommended for further consideration as a voluntary approach procedure for all air carrier and air cargo operators.	•
3.5 Visual Approaches	Approaches involving turns relatively close to an airport over noise-compatible areas may be issued by FAA ATCT during VFR conditions.	Visual approaches could reduce noise exposure if compatible land use corridors near the runway ends were not aligned with the runway centerlines. The pattern of land use around the Airport does not provide opportunities for the use of this technique.	No. Aircraft overflights associated with visual approaches have been cited as major source of annoyance.	Positive effect. Would increase Airport capacity and decrease ATCT workload.	Procedure is currently used by some operators to reduce flight times.	None	None. Could not be used during inclement weather conditions.	None	Compatible use corridors must clearly be visible from the air for adherence. In order to ensure that visual approaches conform to compatible land use corridors, implementation would require development of charted visual approaches and acceptance of such approaches by pilots.	Not recommended for further consideration because no suitable approach corridors exist.
3.6 Restrictions on Visual Approaches	Restrictions on the use of visual approaches during VFR conditions.	Limitations on visual approaches may reduce community annoyance by concentrating low altitude aircraft overflights in compatible land use corridors along the runway centerlines. Such restrictions are not likely to result in a discernible change in the DNL 65 noise exposure area.	Yes	Would reduce ATC flexibility and decrease effective runway arrival capacity.	Increased flight time for aircraft operators currently using visual approaches; could increase arrival delay.	Operational costs associated with increased delay and flight time.	None	None	Visual approaches can be issued by FAA ATCT or requested by pilots. Implementation would require development of an FAA ATCT policy not to issue or accept requests for visual approaches. FAA would likely require flexibility to issue visual approaches when necessary to accommodate high levels of arrival demand efficiently.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
3.7 Reverse Thrust Restrictions or Limitations	Restrictions on the use of reverse thrust to slow aircraft immediately after touchdown.	Little benefit. Reverse thrust noise levels are substantially less than start of takeoff noise levels affecting the same areas. Consequently, reduction of reverse thrust would not reduce the DNL 65.	Yes	Would increase runway occupancy times and delay during peak periods.	Increased costs associated with delay. Additional taxiing distance for some Airport users.	None	Reverse thrust is a necessary safety option exercised at pilot discretion.	RAA could not legally prohibit the use of reverse thrust, since the pilot is responsible for safety. RAA could encourage voluntary compliance.	This type of procedure would be voluntary and compliance would be difficult to achieve.	Not recommended for further consideration. Safety and operational concerns offset minimal noise benefits.
4. DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
4.1 Close-in Noise Abatement Departure Procedure	Departing aircraft climb under takeoff power to an altitude of at least 800 feet AGL. Thrust is then reduced to no less than that needed to maintain the required one engine climb out gradient prior to the initiation of flaps and slat retraction. Upon reaching 3,000 feet AGL, the aircraft resumes normal climb through the reapplication of thrust, acceleration, and the completion of flap retraction.	May provide significant noise reductions for noise sensitive areas 2 - 4 miles north of the Airport. Use of close-in procedure would increase noise levels at greater distances from the Airport - beyond about 4 miles from the runway ends.	Yes	Minimal	Varies. Some operators have already developed close-in departure procedures in accordance with FAA AC 91-53. Use of close-in procedures entails an increase in pilot workload.	Operator cost of developing, disseminating and implementing close-in procedure.	No significant issues. FAA AC 91-53 provides for operator development of standard procedures providing adequate safety margins.	RAA could not legally require the use of this type of procedure since the pilot is responsible for operation of the aircraft. RAA could encourage voluntary compliance.	This measure is currently recommended for departures to the north. Implementation requires the cooperation of Airport users. Close-in departure procedures developed by users vary among operators and aircraft types. Accordingly, actual performance is difficult to predict and monitor.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
4.2 Distant Noise Abatement Departure Procedure	Departing aircraft climb to at least 800 feet AGL; the pitch of the aircraft is then decreased and the aircraft accelerates to a speed adequate to maintain flight with zero flaps (nominally 210 knots). Flaps are then retracted and thrust is reduced to a level not less than that necessary to maintain required climb. Upon reaching 3,000 feet AGL, the aircraft resumes normal climb.	Reduced noise within the area of potentially significant noise exposure, but beyond the area benefited by the close-in procedure (see Measure 4.1).	Yes	Slight decrease in Airport capacity.	Minimal. Some operators have already integrated this procedure into their standard operating procedures. Slight increase in pilot workload.	None	None	RAA could not legally require the use of this type of procedure since the pilot is responsible for operation of the aircraft. RAA could encourage voluntary compliance.	This measure is currently recommended for departures to the south. Implementation requires the cooperation of Airport users. Distant departure procedures developed by users vary among operators and aircraft types. Accordingly, actual performance is difficult to predict and monitor.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
5. NAVIGATION TECHNOLOGY
5.1 Precision Approach Systems	Require all aircraft to conduct ILS approaches during all weather conditions.	Provides a means of implementing noise abatement arrival flight tracks.	Yes	Potential significant decrease in Airport capacity and ATC flexibility. Likely increase in delays.	Increased costs associated with delay. Additional taxiing distance for some operators.	None. All primary runways at the Airport include ILS approaches.	None	RAA could not legally require any operator to conform to specific approach procedure.	ILS already in place on all four primary runways.	Not recommended for further consideration given the negative implications in Airport capacity and less restrictive benefits that can be achieved with Measure 3.6.
5.2 Other Radio Navigation Aids	Use of radio-based NAVAIDS to define parameters of noise abatement procedures. Provides a means of implementing noise abatement flight tracks (Measure 2.1). Already used to implement current departure headings.	Provides a means of implementing noise abatement flight tracks (Measure 2.1). Louisville VORTAC already used to implement current departure headings.	Yes	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	None	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Currently in use.	Continue as a noise abatement strategy.	•
5.3 Radar Headings or Vectors	Use of FAA ATC headings to direct aircraft away from noise sensitive areas.	Provides a means of implementing noise abatement flight tracks (Measure 2.1). Already used to implement current departure headings.	Yes	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	None	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Currently in use.	Additional use of radar headings or vectors not recommended given limited opportunities for noise abatement in areas far from the Airport.
5.4 FMS/GPS Applications	Use of sophisticated on-board equipment that integrates signals from a variety of ground based and satellite systems to provide a visual course reference (vertical and horizontal information) for pilots to navigate along predetermined flight tracks.	Provides a means of implementing noise abatement flight tracks (Measure 2.1). Benefit depends upon the accuracy of the NAVAIDS used and each aircraft's on-board equipment.	Yes. Increased use of navigation technology cited as a Study Group goal.	Potential positive effects. May reduce the separation required between aircraft, which could increase the volume of traffic accommodated on a single noise abatement flight track.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above. Also, significant capital costs would be incurred by Airport users for on-board equipment.	None	Same as Measure 2.1 above. Also, RAA could not require users to install the necessary equipment.	Adherence would be limited to those operators with suitable on-board equipment. Implementation would require FAA development of published procedures.	Recommended for further consideration in conjunction with Measure 2.1.	•
5.5 ADS-B	Use of the most precise on-board position sensing equipment (LAAS/WAAS, GPS, or inertial reference systems) to broadcast aircraft position information to other aircraft, and to ground-based systems that retransmit aircraft identification information over a wide area. ATCT receives this information for enhancing collaborative navigation decision-making.	May assist in concentrating noise exposure over compatible land uses.	No. Timely implementation of recommendations cited as a Study Group issue. Implementation of ADS-B technology will require at least 5-10 years.	Same as Measure 5.4 above.	Same as Measure 2.1 above.	Significant capital costs would be incurred by Airport users for on-board equipment.	None	Same as Measure 2.1 above. Also, RAA could not require users to install the necessary equipment.	Same as Measure 5.4 above.	Not recommended for further consideration given the uncertainty of when such systems will be implemented by the FAA.
6. CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF AIRPORT FACILITIES
6.1 New Runway	Construction of new runway(s).	Reduces the amount of aircraft operations on runways surrounded by noise sensitive land uses, or redirects aircraft operations toward more noise compatible land uses.	No. Conflicts with Study Group issues and concerns regarding Airport expansion.	Positive effect on Airport capacity and ATC flexibility.	None	Significant. Construction of new runways is extremely expensive.	None	Construction of a new air carrier runway would typically require preparation of an EIS.	Would not meet FAA benefit/cost investment criteria as a noise abatement measure.	Not recommended for noise abatement purposes due to the limited benefit and substantial costs.
6.2 Runway Extension	Construction of runway extension(s).	Runway extensions to the south would permit aircraft departing to the north to reach higher altitudes over noise sensitive uses. Generally, for every 1,000 feet of runway extension, an aircraft’s altitude would increase approximately 140 feet (assuming an 8 degree climb angle).	Yes. May reduce noise exposure and provide operational benefits for Airport users.	Minimal	May provide operational benefits to some Airport users.	Significant. Construction of a runway extension is expensive.	None	Construction of a major air carrier runway extension would typically require preparation of an EA or EIS.	Unlikely to meet FAA benefit/cost investment criteria as a noise abatement measure.	No recommended as noise abatement revenue. Future runway lengths will be coordinated with Master Plan recommendations and modeled in the INM.
6.3 Displaced Thresholds	Relocation of the arrival threshold of a runway so that arriving aircraft touch down at a point further down the runway. The takeoff point would remain unchanged.	Reduces noise exposure in areas beneath the approach path. For areas primarily affected by approach noise, the reduction in the extent of the noise exposure area would be proportional to the amount of the displacement. Assuming an average descent along a 3 degree glide slope, for every 1,000 feet of displaced runway threshold, the aircraft altitude would increase approximately 50 feet.	Yes. Consistent with study goal to balance noise benefits with costs.	Reductions in arrival runway length may decrease ATC flexibility.	Minimal. May prohibit the use of certain runways for some large, heavy aircraft.	None	Sufficient landing runway length must remain to safely accommodate all aircraft anticipated to use the Airport.	None	Areas north of the Airport that are primarily affected by arrivals noise could benefit from displaced landing thresholds on Runways 17R and 17L. Runway 17L, at 8,500 feet, is too short to permit a significant displacement of the landing threshold. Runway 17R, at 10,000 feet, is long enough to permit displacement.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
6.4 Noise Barriers	Construction of acoustical barriers, such as noise walls, earth berms, or vegetative barriers to help attenuate noise caused by Airport operations.	Only useful for attenuating noise from aircraft activity on the ground. Effectiveness decreases as the distance of the noise source or the receiver increases.	Yes. Ground noise cited as Study Group issue.	None	None	Planning and construction costs could be significant depending on the size of the barrier.	None	None	Analysis of potential noise barrier indicates that a 4 to 6 dBA reduction of individual events might be realized at closest residential areas, but that attenuation of low frequency noise would be minimal.	Recommended for further consideration. Effectiveness will be considered in conjunction with recommended noise mitigation measures during subsequent phases of this study.	•
6.5 High-Speed Exit Taxiways	Construction of high-speed exit taxiways (approximate 30-degree angle to the runway) at strategic locations along a runway to decrease the need for reverse thrust to slow arriving aircraft, and/or eliminate the need to add power to exit a runway via perpendicular taxiways.	Minor reductions in single-event noise levels in areas within runway line-of-sight associated with reduced need for reverse thrust.	Yes	Positive effect on Airport capacity and ATC flexibility due to reduced runway occupancy time.	None	Planning and construction costs.	None	None	Would not meet necessary cost/benefit criteria given limited noise reduction.	Since both primary runways include high-speed exit taxiways, construction of additional facilities is not recommended for further consideration.
6.6 Facility Relocation	Relocation of Airport facilities, such as terminals, aircraft parking aprons, etc.	Minor since noise from localized ground sources does not cause a significant contribution to DNL.	No. Noise from localized ground sources such as the terminal and/or UPS ramps not cited as a Study Group issue.	None	May require additional taxiing time and decrease operational flexibility.	Significant capital cost of construction for new Airport facilities.	None	None	Would not meet necessary cost/benefit criteria given limited noise reduction.	Not recommended for further consideration due to lack of potential noise benefits.
7. AIRPORT USE RESTRICTIONS
7.1 Restriction on Aircraft Not Meeting Federal Standards	Prohibition of operations of aircraft not meeting federal noise standards established under FAR Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification.	Very limited benefits because FAR Part 36 Stage 3 limits are mandatory for aircraft heavier than 75,000 pounds as of December 31, 1999.	Yes	None	None	None	None	Imposition of access restrictions of this type would require successful completion of a benefit/cost analysis under the provisions of FAR Part 161. Further, restrictions could be challenged on a number of legal grounds, including federal preemption, unjust discrimination, and undue burden on interstate commerce.	Under FAR Part 161, user costs must be balanced by the monetary benefits of reductions in significant noise levels. Significant noise levels, defined by the DNL 65 noise exposure area are forecast to affect 4,123 people and 1,890 dwelling units in 2005. The elimination of these impacts would not likely balance the costs of the restrictions required to produce perceptible noise benefits.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.2 Capacity Limitations (Noise or Operations)	Maximum allowable cumulative noise impact that could not be exceeded, such as the total area of the DNL 75 noise exposure area or total number of annual aircraft operations.	Varies depending upon the limit established. A 50% reduction in aircraft activity would be required to produce a DNL 3 dB reduction in noise.	No. Perceptible reduction in noise would require unacceptable loss of air service.	None	Limitations required to provide perceptible noise reduction would impose substantial adverse impacts on commercial carriers.	Loss of operator revenue from curtailed activity, loss of Airport revenue, and adverse impacts on local economy.	None	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.3 Operational Fees Based on Noise	Differential airport user fee based on aircraft noise levels and/or time of day of operation. Such a measure would mean higher rates for aircraft that make the largest contribution to the overall noise exposure or that operate during noise sensitive periods.	Encourages use of quieter aircraft or operations during less sensitive periods. Fees collected could be used to fund noise compatibility initiatives. Resultant noise reductions would vary with level of fee and operator reaction to fee structure.	No. Direct impact on air service. Possible increase in travel costs.	None	Since landing fees represent less than 5% of total air carrier operating expense, fees would have to be significant to affect air carriers. May adversely impact some smaller or general aviation operators.	Varies with fee structure. Increased operator costs would likely be passed on to the passenger/ customer.	None	May conflict with rate setting mechanisms permitted for establishing landing fees. In order to discourage operations by noisier aircraft, fees would need to be high enough to make service unprofitable. High landing fees may be challenged as confiscatory and not cost based.	Implementation would require renegotiation of use agreements. Accordingly, cooperation of Airport users would be required.	Not recommended for further consideration due to potential conflicts with rate setting mechanisms and potential air service impacts.
7.4 Partial or Complete Curfews	Local regulation that prohibits aircraft operations or restricts the types of aircraft permitted to operate at the Airport during certain nighttime hours.	Elimination or substantial reduction of nighttime activity could significantly reduce the size of the DNL 65 noise exposure area.	No. Significant adverse effect on existing operators. Would adversely affect air service.	None	Decreased operator schedule flexibility; would essentially preclude air cargo operations.	Loss of operator revenue from curtailed activity, loss of Airport revenue, and adverse impacts on local economy.	None	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.5 Operational Quotas or Fleet Mix Rule	Requirements on operations and/or aircraft types. Quotas can be set on the number of hourly, daily, or annual aircraft operations through slot allocations or lease agreements. Airfield quotas can be set on the total number of operations on a given runway.	Quotas would require operators to use quieter aircraft than would otherwise be used to provide a noise benefit. Accordingly, the benefits would vary depending upon the target aircraft noise level and the schedule established for compliance with the aircraft noise target. Most likely application would be to eliminate "marginal" Stage 3 aircraft.	No. Potentially significant impact on air service.	None	Potential fleet planning problems. May create significant constraints on the efficient and profitable allocation and scheduling of aircraft. Impacts would vary with target noise levels and compliance schedule, and with the fleet mix and aircraft purchase plans of individual carriers.	Operational costs of inefficient aircraft scheduling. Potentially substantial cost of aircraft acquisition.	None	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.6 Voluntary Fleet Mix Goals	Agreement whereby Airport users voluntary establish goals and a timetable/schedule for increasing the percentage of quieter aircraft in the Airport fleet mix.	Provides a voluntary program intended to produce benefits similar to Measure 7.5 above.	Yes	None	Similar to Measure 7.5; voluntary nature of goals would likely mitigate impacts to Airport users.	Similar to Measure 7.5; voluntary nature of this measure would likely reduce operator costs.	None	Voluntary nature of this measure would avoid requirement to demonstrate positive benefit/cost ratio under FAR Part 161.	Implementation would be voluntary and would require cooperation of Airport users.	Recommended for coordination with Airport users and potential consideration in the NCP.	•
7.7 Noise Budget	Restriction intended to reduce total noise exposure by establishing a noise goal for the Airport and allocating this goal total into shares, or budgets, for individual users. Individual operators could meet their budgets by using quieter aircraft, consolidating flights, and/or operating during less noise sensitive periods.	Varies depending upon the overall budget established. Budgets could be met by reducing operations, using quieter aircraft, or limiting nighttime activity.	No. Noise reduction would entail probable adverse impact to air service and cargo operations.	None	Similar to Measure 7.5. Although noise budgets provide flexibility in meeting noise reduction requirement, certain operators would have few realistic options. For example, air cargo operators with modern fleets that require nighttime operations could not improve fleet mix or reduce nighttime activity.	Increased capital cost for acquisition of quieter aircraft. Opportunity costs associated with cancelled service.	None	Same as Measure 7.1 above. Also, provisions would need to be made for new entrants.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.8 Average Noise per Landing/ Takeoff Cycle	Local regulation that establishes an average noise limit per landing and takeoff cycle for all Airport users.	Benefits similar to those of Measure 7.5 would be achieved by limiting aircraft departure and/or approach noise levels. Degree of reduction depends upon limit and timetable established.	Yes	None	Constrains aircraft scheduling. May affect competition among carriers due to fleet mix variations among airlines.	Increased airline capital and maintenance costs.	None	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
7.9 Single-Event Noise Limits	Restriction that establishes a maximum single-event noise limit based on either certificated noise levels or upon monitored levels at specific measurement point(s) of particular sensitivity or importance.	Benefits would depend upon limits set. Noise reduction may be limited to areas in vicinity of monitoring locations.	No. May cause a shift in noise exposure from one area to another if pilots attempt to minimize noise at noise monitors.	Because limits would apply to actual noise monitored at a specific point, pilots may have incentive to modify flight procedures to reduce noise at the monitoring location, or "beat the box."	May prohibit some small air carriers and general aviation operators from using the Airport.	Requires sophisticated noise monitoring equipment. Increased RAA administrative costs.	May foster less than optimal flight procedures to avoid noise monitors.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Same as Measure 7.1 above.	Not recommended for further consideration because noise benefits would not justify restriction under FAR Part 161.
8. AIRPORT REGULATIONS
8.1 Engine Run-up Restrictions	Regulation restricting aircraft engine run-ups to certain hours, minimizing or prohibiting nighttime run-ups, restricting engine power settings to specific levels, and/or reducing the length of run-up times at various levels.	Current noise abatement run-up restrictions regulate time and location for engine run-ups. Modifications to the policy would not provide quantifiable noise benefits.	Yes	None	Occasional delay in completing maintenance.	Additional operator maintenance costs due to delay when run-ups required as part of routine maintenance.	None	None	Currently in use.	Continue as a noise abatement strategy. Current measure limits adverse effects of nighttime engine run-ups.	•
8.2 Flight Training Restrictions	Regulation banning or restricting local training operations to certain hours.	Because relatively few local operations are conducted at the Airport, no quantifiable noise benefits would result.	Yes	None. Elimination of flight training simplifies ATC functions.	Positive. Reduces demand for airfield capacity.	None	None	May be challenged as being unjustly discriminatory if such restrictions do not result in actual noise benefits.	Implementation would require FAA ATCT adoption of a policy restricting approval of requests for touch and go activity.	Not recommended given the limited number of local operations.
9. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
9.1 Noise Compatibility Staff	Would enhance conformance to adopted noise abatement measures.	Would enhance conformance to adopted noise abatement measures.	Yes. Need for community participation in noise abatement decisions and better dissemination of information cited as a primary Study Group issue.	None	None	Increased RAA payroll and administrative costs.	None	None	Feasible and could be implemented in the near term.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
9.2 Noise Advisory Committee	Would enhance operator understanding of community noise concerns and increase community understanding of constraints on Airport users and operators.	Would enhance operator understanding of community noise concerns and increase community understanding of constraints on Airport users and operators.	Yes. Need for community participation in noise abatement decisions and better dissemination of information cited as a primary Study Group issue.	None	None	Increased RAA payroll and administrative costs.	None	None	Feasible and could be implemented in the near term.	Recommended for further consideration.	•
9.3 Noise Monitoring Equipment	Equipment used to monitor and record aircraft noise levels.	Noise monitoring equipment including monitoring and recording capabilities; could be used to enhance conformance to adopted noise abatement measures.	Yes. Adherence to existing noise abatement measures cited as a primary Study Group issue.	None	None	Requires costly and sophisticated equipment - costs would be eligible for FAA grant assistance or PFC funding. Increased RAA administrative costs.	Minimal, pilot efforts to "beat the box" are not typically experienced at airports with permanent noise monitoring systems.	None	Feasible and could be implemented in the near term.	Recommended for further consideration with Measure 9.4, Flight Tracking Systems.	•
9.4 Conformity to Published Departure Procedures Monitoring (Flight Tracking Systems)	Equipment that monitors aircraft operations and correlates data with FAA ARTS radar data. Used to establish a regular program of monitoring and reporting conformance with recommended noise abatement procedures.	Conformance to previously recommended departure procedures is uncertain at present. Benefits of departure procedures can not be assured without monitoring.	Yes. Adherence to existing noise abatement measures cited as a primary Study Group issue.	None	None	Requires costly and sophisticated equipment - costs would be eligible for FAA grant assistance or PFC funding. Increased RAA administrative costs associated with obtaining and evaluating ARTS flight track data.	None	RAA can not legally require any operator to comply with voluntary procedures.	Compliance to individual procedures can be achieved through consultation and coordination with aircraft operators. Publication of conformance statistics can also be used to encourage conformance.	Recommended for further consideration in conjunction with Measure 9.3, Noise Monitoring Equipment.	•