APPENDIX A Correspondence, Consultation, and...

San Francisco International Airport A-1 ESA / 120832 14 CFR Part 150 Study Update Noise Compatibility Program May 2017 (DRAFT)

APPENDIX A Correspondence, Consultation, and Briefings

A.1 Correspondence and Consultation This appendix contains copies of correspondence letters between the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) San Francisco Airports District Office (ADO) and San Francisco International Airport and a copy of a Letter of Agreement between the Northern California TRACON and the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at San Francisco International Airport. The following are provided in this appendix:

• August 15, 2015 letter from John L. Martin (Airport Director, San Francisco International Airport) to Mark A. McClardy (Division Manager, FAA Western-Pacific Region) submitting the Final 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 Study Update Noise Exposure Map Report for San Francisco International Airport.

• February 2, 2016 letter from James W. Lomen (FAA San Francisco Airports District Office) to John L. Martin (Airport Director, San Francisco International Airport) accepting the 2014 and 2019 Noise Exposure Maps for San Francisco International Airport.

• Letter of Agreement between Northern California TRACON and the San Francisco International Airport ATCT.

• September 7, 1983 letter from H.C. McClure (FAA San Francisco Airports District Office) to Louis A. Turpen (Airport Director, San Francisco International Airport) transmitting the Record of Approval for the Noise Compatibility Program for San Francisco International Airport.

A.2 Briefings The public involvement program for the NCP update included an emailed e-News to members of the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable from the Roundtable Coordinator on November 10, 2015, a coordination meeting with FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) staff on June 15, 2016, a coordination meeting with FAA Northern California Terminal Radar Approach Control (NORCAL TRACON) staff on June 22, 2016, and a briefing to SFO airlines representatives and the Airline Liaison Office on August 16, 2016. The purpose of these meetings and briefings was to provide information, answer questions, encourage participation, and consider stakeholder input for inclusion in the NCP update. The presentation slides that were developed for these briefings are provided at the end of this appendix.

A. Correspondence, Consultation and Briefings

San Francisco International Airport A-2 ESA / 120832 14 CFR Part 150 Study Update Noise Compatibility Program May 2017 (DRAFT)

This page intentionally left blank

"VHVTU��MFUUFS�GSPN�+PIO�-��.BSUJO�"JSQPSU�%JSFDUPS�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM� "JSQPSU�UP�.BSL�"��.D$MBSEZ�%JWJTJPO�.BOBHFS�'""�8FTUFSO�1BDJGJD�3FHJPO�TVCNJUUJOH�UIF� 'JOBM��$PEF�PG�'FEFSBM�3FHVMBUJPOT�1BSU��4UVEZ�6QEBUF�/PJTF�&YQPTVSF�.BQ�3FQPSU�GPS�4BO� 'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM�"JSQPSU��

San Francisco International Airport August 13, 2015

Mark A. McClardy, Division Manager Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region (A WP-600) P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, California 90009

Subject: Final 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 Stut(V Update -Noise Exposure Map Report, San Francisco International Airport, Ci(v and Counry of San Francisco

Dear Mr. McClardy:

The City and County of San Francisco by and through the San Francisco Airport Commission has completed a comprehensive update of the 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 Sh1dy Update - Noise Exposure Map Report for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and will subsequently be preparing the 14 CFR Pait 150 Sh1dy Update - Noise Compatibility Program for the Airport. The enclosed Noise Exposure Map Repo1t for SFO replaces the 200 I Noise Exposure Map Update Report accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 17, 2002.

The updated Noise Exposure Maps contained herein represent the noise exposure from aircraft operations at SFO in 2014 and in 2019 and have been prepared with the best available information and are hereby certified as true. The data used to develop the 2014 Noise Exposure Map are also representative of existing conditions (2015) and the data used to develop the 2019 Noise Exposure Map are representative of the five-year forecast condition (2020). Full size Noise Exposure Maps and the FAA 's Noise Exposure Map Checklist - Part 1 are also provided in accordance with 14 CFR Part 150. SFO respectfully requests that the FAA accept the enclosed 14 CFR Part 150 Update 2014 and 2019 Noise Exposure Maps.

The Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation including description of consultation and opportunity for public involvement, for San Francisco International Airport are submitted in accordance with 14 CFR Part 150, and are hereby certified as true and complete under penalty of 18 U.S.C. 1001. It is hereby certified that interested persons were afforded adequate opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft noise exposure lliap and description of forecast aircraft operations. It is further certified that the 2014 and 2019 Noise Exposure Maps and supporting data are fair and reasonable representations of existing conditions at the Airport and the five year future forecast condition.

If you have any questions or need any clarification with regard to the Airport's submittal, please contact John Bergener, Planning Director, at (650) 821-7867 or at [email protected].

Enclosure (seven copies)

cc: Jim Lomen, FAA SF ADO (with two copies)

Al llPORT COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

EDWIN M. LEE LARRY MAZZOLA LINDA 5. CRAYTON ELEANOR JOHNS RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME PETER A. STERN JOHN L. MARTIN

MAYOR PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT AIRPORT DIRECTOR

Post Office Box 8097 San Francisco, California 94128 ·Tel 650. 821.5000 Fax 650. 821.5005 www.flysfo.com A-3

http:www.flysfo.commailto:[email protected]

'FCSVBSZ��MFUUFS�GSPN�+BNFT�8��-PNFO�'""�4BO�'SBODJTDP�"JSQPSUT�%JTUSJDU� 0GGJDF�UP�+PIO�-��.BSUJO�"JSQPSU�%JSFDUPS�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM�"JSQPSU� BDDFQUJOH�UIF��BOE��/PJTF�&YQPTVSF�.BQT�GPS�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM� "JSQPSU��

0 U.S. Department of Transportation

Western-Pacific Region San Francisco Airports District Office

1000 Marina Blvd., Suite 220 Brisbane, CA 94005-1835

Federal Aviation Administration

February 2, 2016

John L. Martin Airport Director City and County of San Francisco San Francisco International Airport P. 0. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128

Subject: San Francisco International Airport - FAA Acceptance ofNoise Exposure Map Updates

Dear Mr. Martin:

This letter is to notify you that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has evaluated and accepted the Noise Exposure Maps and supporting documentation dated August 13, 2015 for the San Francisco International Airport. In accordance with 49 United States Code (USC) Section 47503 (formerly the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979), as amended, we have determined that:

1. The 2014 noise contours and supporting documentation meet the requirements for the current Noise Exposure Map as of the date of submission as set forth in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Section 150.21 , and are accordingly accepted under this Part.

2. The projected aircraft operations, the 2019 noise contours and supporting documentation are accepted as the description of the future conditions as set forth in Part 150, and are accordingly accepted under this Part.

3. The documentation provides sufficient evidence consultation was accomplished in accordance with section 150.21(b).

FAA's acceptance of the Noise Exposure Maps on January 29, 2016 is limited to the determination that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such acceptance does not constitute approval ofyour data, information, or plans.

The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the acceptance of the Noise Exposure Maps for San Francisco International Airport. The F AA's acceptance of these Noise Exposure Maps under Part 150 in no way approves or endorses a Noise Compatibility Program, potential related federal funding of projects identified in such a program, or any related operating restrictions at the subject airport.

A-4

2

Should any questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on the Noise Exposure Maps, you should note that the FAA will not be involved in any way in the determination of relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provision of 49 USC 47506. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through F AA's acceptance ofyour Noise Exposure Maps Update. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise contours onto the maps depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with you the airport operator, or those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under 49 USC 47503. The FAA relies on the certification by you under 150.21 of 14 CFR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished. (14 CFR 150.5)

Your notice of this determination, and the availability of the Noise Exposure Maps, which when published at least three (3) times in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the affected properties are located, will satisfy the requirements of 49 USC 47506 of the Act. A sample publication announcement has been enclosed for your use.

Your attention is called to the requirements of Section 150.2 l(d) of Part 150, involving the prompt preparation and submission ofrevisions to these maps, if any actual or proposed change in the operation of the subject airport might create any substantial, new noncompatible land use in any areas depicted on the maps, or if there would be a significant reduction in noise over existing incompatible land uses that is not reflected in either map now on file with the FAA.

Thank you for your continued interest in noise compatibility planning.

Sincerely,

ri::w.Lo ~n Manager, San Francisco Airports District Office

Enclosure

cc:

John Bergener, San Francisco International Airport

A-5

http:ri::w.Lo

SAMPLE

NOISE EXPOSURE MAP ACCEPTANCE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

IN LOCAL NEWSPAPER - TO BE PUBLISHED THREE TIMES

Pursuant to Title 49, United States Code, Section 47506(a) and (b) of the Airport

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, as amended, notice is hereby given

that on January 29, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration completed its

evaluation of, and has formally accepted the Noise Exposure Maps for San

Francisco International Airport, located in San Francisco, California that were

prepared pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 150 (14 CFR

Part 150). These maps and supporting documentation are available for public

review at San Francisco International Airport, Bureau of Planning and

Environmental Affairs, Attention: Audrey Park, 710 North McDonnell Road,

3rd Floor, San Francisco, California 94128.

A-6

-FUUFS�PG�"HSFFNFOU�CFUXFFO�/PSUIFSO�$BMJGPSOJB�53"$0/�BOE�UIF�4BO�'SBODJTDP� *OUFSOBUJPOBM�"JSQPSU�"5$5��

Northern California TRACON and San Francisco International ATCT

LETTER OF AGREEMENT

EFFECTIVE: May 26, 2016

SUBJECT: Coordination and Control Procedures.

1. PURPOSE. This agreement outlines standard air traffic control procedures for operations between Northern California TRACON (NCT) and San Francisco International Air Traffic Control Tower (Tower).

2. CANCELLATION. This agreement cancels the Northern California TRACON and San Francisco Tower Letter of Agreement, subject: Coordination and Control Procedures, dated February 26, 2015.

3. SCOPE. This agreement delineates responsibilities and prescribes procedures for the coordination of air traffic between NCT and Tower.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES. Each party to this agreement is responsible for compliance by personnel under their authority with the provisions contained herein. Training, both initial and recurrent, of involved personnel is also the responsibility of the signatories.

5. AIRSPACE. NCT sub-delegates to San Francisco International Air Traffic Control Tower airspace described in this agreement for the purposes of providing radar services.

6. GENERAL. a. Shoreline Procedures consist of SHOR and TRUKN DPs.

b. Quiet Procedures consist of the CUIT and NIITE DPS.

7. PROCEDURES. a. NCT must advise the Tower of pertinent changes in equipment status.

b. Tower must advise NCT of pertinent changes in:

(1) ATIS/weather information via the ASOS Controller Equipment - Integrated display System (ACE-IDS) or interphone as appropriate.

(2) Field conditions.

(3) Equipment status.

(4) Runways in use.

(5) Wake Turbulence Mitigation for Departures (WTMD) by:

(a) Coordinating with NCT when WTMD is enabled by identifying the first reduced separation pair; or

A-7


(b) Coordinating with NCT when WTMD is terminated by identifying the last reduced separation pair; and

(c) Updating the weather sequence on the ACE IDS to include or delete “WTMD” in the remarks.

c. The automated point out feature may be used to reduce verbal coordination.

8. FLIGHT DATA.

a. Computer-generated departure strips constitute Oakland Center (ZOA) / NCT clearance.

b. Tower must:

(1) Issue the standard Departure Procedure (DP) or heading appropriate to traffic flow and exit fix/landing complex, as listed in this agreement and appropriate Tower Enroute Control (TEC); or ZOA issued route including any Adapted Departure Routes (+ADR+). When a standard DP or heading cannot be issued, coordinate with CI-1 for the DP or heading to issue.

(2) Coordinate swap routes and ZOA requested routes that are not issued to the aircraft.

(3) Assign routes and altitudes in accordance with this agreement.

(4) In the event of a NAVAID outage affecting the initial routing of an IFR departure (i.e. PYE, SAC), issue the appropriate departure heading or DP, and instruct non RNAV aircraft to expect vectors to the next usable fix/airway beyond the NAVAID not in service.

(5) When ZOA is operating in the En-route Back-Up Surveillance System (EBUS) mode, obtain appropriate clearance from ZOA, enter the call sign, type, and first fix of all departures via the Tower Radar Display keyboard.

9. DEPARTURES.

a. NCT must:

(1) Have control for turns after the departure leaves 1,600’ MSL.

(2) Control VFR jet departures in accordance with this agreement.

2

A-8


b. Tower must:

(1) Separate successive IFR departures using RECAT separation except:

(a) Separate aircraft on the same initial exit fix by at least 7 miles if performance will cause decreasing separation and the RECAT separation is 7 miles or less.

(b) Separate aircraft not on the same initial exit fix by RECAT separation or, if

coordinated prior to the second aircraft getting airborne; pilot to pilot visual

separation.

(2) Use the Electronic Flight Strip Transfer System (EFSTS) to reduce verbal coordination as follows:

(a) Generate a departure strip at NCT for all departures in the general order the aircraft will depart. Scan the strip at least 1 minute prior to the departure commencing takeoff roll. For departures that require verbal coordination, scan the departure strip prior to initiating coordination.

(b) Use a pre-scan in accordance with this agreement to advise when:

1) An aircraft is departing a non-advertised runway consistent with the current traffic flow. The strip must be scanned at least 2 minutes prior to take-off roll.

Note: Take-off clearance should be accomplished within 10 minutes of scan.

Note: Verbally coordinate if unable to use the pre-scan to effect coordination.

2) An aircraft is issued the SFO DP/SNTNA DP when Shoreline procedures are in effect.

3) An aircraft is requesting a Bay tour.

(c) Advise NCT when a scanned departure is unable to depart, and force a new

departure strip via an EFSTS pre-scan prior to scanning in accordance with this

agreement.

(3) Verbally coordinate for release, using the CID, as follows:

(a) All CIITY DPs.

(b) All departures from a runway not consistent with the current traffic flow, and Runway 1 departures when OAK is landing Runway 12.

Note: The preferred runway configuration for SFO when OAK is landing Runway 12 is SFO L28/D28 SO.

(c) IFR departures landing at OAK or HWD during SFOW operations unless the

aircraft is departing Runway 28 on the SFO DP/SNTNA.

3

A-9


(d) All departures landing HWD or the San Jose Complex (CX) during SFOE operations.

(e) CUIT/NIITE, GAPP (RWYS 01) and REBAS/AFIVA DPs when Quiet procedures are in effect, and all departures between 0100L and 0600L.

(4) Advise NCT when a departure does not auto acquire within 2 miles of the departure runway.

(5) Advise NCT when Shoreline or Quiet procedures are initiated or terminated.

10. ARRIVALS.

a. NCT must:

(1) Utilize RECAT or visual separation between successive arrivals.

Note: An aircraft’s RECAT category is displayed in Field 5 of the datablock.

(2) Sequence arrivals for the primary runway(s) advertised on the ATIS and coordinate for arrivals for other than the primary runway in use.

(3) Sequence aircraft primarily to Runway 28R, traffic permitting, during Runways 28 arrival operations.

(4) Assign the landing runway and designate the assigned runway in accordance with this agreement.

(5) Ensure that transfer of communications occurs within the Tower Quick-Look Region and prior to 6 flying miles from the airport (SOIA N/A).

Note: SOIA Transfer of communications occurs at NEPIC/DARNE.

(6) Modify scratch pad area prior to transfer of communications and control.

(7) Ensure that arriving aircraft do not turn base leg any closer than 5 miles from the landing runway threshold, unless otherwise coordinated (automated handoff qualifies as coordination).

(8) Ensure that an arriving emergency aircraft is isolated from other arrivals by at least three miles (with no aircraft landing side-by-side), and that any succeeding aircraft (to the same runway) follow by no less than 10 miles. SFO Tower will advise NCT if any additional spacing is needed.

4

A-10


b. Tower must:

(1) Utilize RECAT or visual separation between successive arrivals.

Note: An aircraft’s RECAT category is displayed in Field 5 of the datablock.

(2) Coordinate with NCT as soon as practical if increased arrival separation is required.

(3) Assume separation responsibility of aircraft at 6 flying miles from the airport. This is considered the transfer of control point.

(4) Separate arrivals from departures and departures from missed approaches.

(5) Not change the assigned runway outside the transfer of control point unless otherwise coordinated.

(6) Modify the scratch pad area only after transfer of communication has occurred.

(7) Coordinate all missed approach instructions with NCT.

c. Tower may clear aircraft for a visual approach.

11. SOIA/PRM APPROACHES.

a. SOIA/PRM approaches are not authorized until NCT and Tower complete all applicable checklists and agree to implement SOIA procedures in accordance with this agreement.

b. SOIA/PRM approaches must only be conducted by aircraft having dual VHF

communication capability and an operating transponder with Mode C.

c. The ATIS broadcast must advise that simultaneous PRM RWY 28L and PRM RWY 28R approaches are in use and that pilots are to expect to contact SFO Tower at NEPIC/DARNE.

d. All non-participating aircraft must be assigned the ILS or RNAV Runway 28L approach.

e. All foreign-based aircraft are SOIA/PRM participants and must be assigned the PRM Runway 28L lead, straight-in approach.

f. In the event that an aircraft is taken off the final approach course for any reason, the controller that gives the control instructions is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate coordination and handoff is made to the receiving controller.

g. Tower must:

(1) Assume separation responsibility of aircraft at NEPIC and DARNE. These are considered the transfer of control points.

(2) Amend and transmit a new SOIA/PRM ATIS when advised by the NCT TMU.

5 A-11


(3) Inform NCT of any weather developments that may preclude SOIA/PRM procedures.

(4) Instruct any arrival aircraft that contacts the SFO Tower prior to NEPIC/DARNE to return to the appropriate NCT final control frequency, unless visual separation is being applied between the pair.

h. NCT TMU must:

(1) Advise Tower when to transmit SOIA/PRM ATIS.

(2) Inform Tower OS/CIC of the first and last aircraft that are conducting SOIA/PRM approaches.

12. PARALLEL DEPENDENT APPROACHES.

a. NCT is authorized to conduct 1.5 Nautical Mile Dependent Approaches to San Francisco International Airport Runways 28L and 28R in accordance with FAA JO 7110.308.

b. In the event of a missed approach, the preferred control instructions for the lead aircraft are, “Turn left heading 265, climb and maintain 3,100.”

c. The lead aircraft of the dependent separation pair must not be a Category A, B, C or B757.

13. OPPOSITE DIRECTION OPERATIONS (ODO). Operations conducted to the same or parallel runway where an aircraft is operating in a reciprocal direction of another aircraft arriving, departing or conducting an approach. IFR includes VFR practice approaches receiving IFR separation services.

a. Both facilities must utilize an appropriate memory aid when conducting ODO.

b. When determining if ODO procedures are required, Tower must consider arrivals in the Quick-Look Region and NCT must consider departures already released.

c. If the cutoff points listed in the cutoff points table are not met, action must be taken to ensure control instructions are issued to protect the integrity of the cutoff points.

d. The following procedures and separation standards apply when 2 aircraft are conducting ODO to the same or parallel runway.

(1) Coordinate on a recorded line and include the aircraft call sign, type, runway and the phrase “opposite direction”.

(a) The FLM/CIC at Tower is responsible to coordinate departures.

(b) The FLM/CIC/CPC at NCT is responsible to coordinate arrivals.

(2) Issue traffic advisories to both aircraft.

6 A-12


(3) Arrival-Departure. Tower must ensure the opposite direction departure begins its takeoff roll before the opposite direction arrival reaches 25 NM from the airport and is airborne and turned to avoid all conflicts prior to the arrival reaching 10 NM from the airport.

(4) Arrival-Arrival. NCT must ensure the first arrival has landed prior to the second arrival reaching the cutoff point identified in the Cutoff Points Table.

(5) Visual separation is not authorized for ODO to the same or parallel runway.

(6) When Tower’s Radar Display is out of service, NCT is responsible to ensure all cutoff points are met.

Cutoff Points Table:

Cutoff Points

All Aircraft

25 NM from the Airport

Note: Restrict opposite direction same runway operations with opposing traffic inside the applicable cutoff point unless an emergency situation exists.

Traffic Advisory Phraseology Table:

“(Call sign), opposite direction traffic, (distance), (type aircraft).”

“(Call sign), opposite direction traffic landing/departing Runway (number), (type aircraft).”

14. SINGLE PERSON MIDNIGHT OPERATIONS.

a. Each facility must advise when going to a single person midnight operation.

b. Except during periods of increased traffic between 0000L and 0500L, all aircraft must be coordinated using one of the following methods:

(1) VFR departures and all arrivals: An automated handoff that is manually initiated and accepted prior to transferring communication.

(2) IFR departures: A call for release.

c. If a controller is unresponsive, immediately take all necessary steps until communication is established.

7 A-13


15. FDIO and EFSTS OUTAGES.

a. During an SFO FDIO outage, Tower must:

(1) Input VFR, Tower Enroute, and VFR-On-Top flight plans through the Tower Display Keyboard.

(2) Obtain other IFR clearances from Oakland Center.

(3) Forward all VFR Jet and IFR flight plans to NCT Area D Flight Data.

(4) Enter VFR Jet and IFR flight information into Sutro’s Tab List between 2200 and 0700 local time.

b. During an EFSTS outage, Tower must:

(1) Between 0600 and 2200 local time, relay via interphone to NCT Area D Flight Data the computer identification (CID) number, including revision number when appropriate, or aircraft identification/beacon code (if FDIO is inoperative) of all VFR Jet and IFR aircraft issued a clearance.

(2) Relay via interphone to the appropriate NCT departure position the computer identification (CID) number, including revision number when appropriate, or aircraft identification/beacon code (if FDIO is inoperative), at least 1 minute prior to the aircraft commencing takeoff roll, in the general order the aircraft will depart.

16. TOWER RADAR DISPLAY OR RADAR OUTAGE. The following procedures will be utilized whenever the tower display is out of service, or Fusion is insufficient for the transfer of radar identification. In the event of a complete RADAR outage, NCT and Tower will comply with procedures identified in the applicable contingency plan.

a. NCT must:

(1) Forward an estimate to the FAF for an instrument approach at least 5 minutes prior to the FAF or an estimate to the airport for a visual approach at least 5 minutes prior to the airport.

(2) Assume separation responsibility for arrivals.

b. Tower must:

(1) Suspend IFR departures when an arrival is over the FAF inbound, unless the Tower can provide visual separation

(2) Apply RECAT Non-RADAR separation to successive departures.

(3) Verbally coordinate SVFR operations.

8 A-14


17. ATTACHMENTS.

a. Attachment 1 - Definitions and Abbreviations.

b. Attachment 2 - Scratch Pad Use.

c. Attachment 3 - Interim Altitudes.

d. Attachment 4 - Conventional DPs, Headings, and Frequencies.

e. Attachment 5 - RNAV DPs, Headings and Frequencies.

f. Attachment 6 - SFO VOR Outage Procedures.

g. Attachment 7 - Delegated Airspace.

h. Attachment 8 - NCT Hand-Off Boundaries and Quick-Look Region.

i. Attachment 9 - Wake RECAT Minima.

9 A-15

California TRACON and San Francisco Jnternational ATCT

Dona d 1-1 . Kirby Air Traffic Manager Northern California TRACON

If {

Acting Air Traffic Manager San Francisco Tower

A-16


ATTACHMENT 1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIRPORT COMPLEXES. Assign routes and altitudes to aircraft based on the following complexes:

Napa CX APC, DVO, STS, O69

Mather CX MHR, AUN, BAB, LHM, MCC, MYV, OVE, PVF, GOO

Modesto CX MOD, LSN, MCE, MER, F34

Monterey CX MRY, SNS, WVI, CVH, OAR

Oakland CX OAK, HWD

Sacramento CX SMF, SAC, O88

San Francisco CX SFO, HAF, SQL

San Jose CX SJC, NUQ, PAO, RHV

Stockton CX SCK, LVK, TCY, C83, O27, 1O3

Travis CX SUU, CCR, VCB, O41, EDU, DWA

2. AIRCRAFT TYPES.

Assign routes and altitudes based on the following aircraft definitions:

Piston/Prop (P) Non-Jet Aircraft (cruise speed 179 knots or less)

Turbo Prop (T) Non-Jet Aircraft (cruise speed 180 knots or greater)

Jet (J) Jet Aircraft and 4-Engine Turbo Props

3. TRAFFIC FLOW DESCRIPTION.

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION SFOW West plan flow has 5 configurations as follows:

L01/D01 Landing and Departing Runways 01 L28/D01 Landing Runways 28, Departing Runways 01 L28/D28 SL Landing and Departing Runways 28 L28/D28 SO Landing and Departing Runways 28

L28/D10 Landing Runways 28, Departing Runways 10 (quiet/ noise abatement)

1-1

A-17


ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION SFOE Southeast plan flow has 3 configurations as follows:

L10/D10 Landing and Departing Runways 10 L19/D10 Landing Runways 19, Departing Runways 10 L19/D19 Landing and Departing Runways 19

4. FREQUENCIES.

BOULDER 133.95 / 317.6 SFO LOCAL 120.5 / 269.1 DIABLO 127.00 / 298.95 NILES 134.50 / 338.20 FOSTER 120.35 / 251.05 RICHMOND 120.90 / 323.20 GROVE 135.40 / 354.10 SUTRO 135.10 / 307.20 MULFORD 124.40 / 351.80 WOODSIDE 135.65 / 310.80

5. POSITION SYMBOLS.

POSITION SYMBOL BOULDER 2B FOSTER 2F GROVE 3G MULFORD 3M NILES 2N DIABLO 4D RICHMOND 4R SUTRO 4U WOODSIDE 2W SFOW 2V SFOE 2Y OAK LC1 3O HWD 3E SQL 2S

1-2

A-18


6. EFSTS PRE-SCAN COORDINATION.

ABB MEANING

SL Departing Runways 28 on the SHOR/TRUKN or REBAS/AFIVA when Runways 1 are advertised. 2ER Aircraft requesting a “Bay Tour”. 01 Departing Runways 1 when Runways 28 are advertised. 10 Departing Runways 10 when Runways 19 are advertised. 19 Departing Runways 19 when Runways 10 are advertised.

28 Departing straight-out on Runways 28 when Runways 1 are advertised, or departing on the SFO DP/SNTNA when Shoreline procedures are in effect.

1-3

A-19

LFT Arrival to the left runway

RGT Arrival to the right runway


ATTACHMENT 2 DATA BLOCK USE

1. THE PRIMARY SCRATCH PAD FIELD.

a. Must contain the three-letter destination airport identifier for both IFR and VFR aircraft landing NCT airspace, or the appropriate exit fix outside of NCT’s airspace.

Note: SFO and SF1 indicate landing San Francisco Airport.

b. Must be modified to reflect the appropriate three-letter destination airport identifier when an IFR or VFR aircraft changes destination.

c. The following entries can be entered into the scratch pad of VFR aircraft to reduce verbal coordination:

2ER Bay Tour PIX Photo Mission

BJJ San Mateo Bridge RTA Route Alpha

CTN Landing Seton Hospital SMB San Mateo Bridge

FPT Fullers Point STK Candlestick Point

GGB Golden Gate Bridge TFC Traffic Watch

GNT Where the Giants play TOW Banner Tow

HPT Hunters Point USG Benioff Children’s Hospital

LCL No specific destination

2. THE SECONDARY SCRATCH PAD FIELD. NCT must designate the assigned runway during all arrival operations as follows:

2-1

A-20


3. FIELD 4 DESIGNATOR.

The Field 4 designator indicates the following:

R IFR aircraft executing multiple instrument approaches

S VFR aircraft executing a practice instrument approach that have been authorized to execute the published missed approach procedure

T VFR aircraft executing a practice instrument approach

V VFR aircraft

X Aircraft issued a Class Bravo clearance

P VFR On-Top Aircraft

2-2

A-21

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ACFT ALT All Departure Procedures J 15,000 All Departure Procedures P, T 5,000

LANDING AIRPORT / COMPLEX ACFT ALT Napa CX, Mather CX, Modesto CX, Monterey CX, Sacramento CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX J 5,000

San Francisco CX, OAK, NUQ, PAO, RHV P, T, J 4,000 HWD, SJC P, T, J 3,000


ATTACHMENT 3 INTERIM ALTITUDES

Tower must issue altitudes as specified below unless the correct Top of Climb (TOC) is published. When instructed by NCT to issue a non-standard interim altitude, advise the aircraft to expect filed altitude 3 minutes after departure.

1. SFOW ALTITUDES.

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE ACFT ALT All Departure Procedures (except as noted below) J 10,000 All Departure Procedures (except as noted below) P, T 5,000 RWY 28 IFR Departures issued straight out DP’s and headings, including Landing Complex airport departures J, T, P 3,000

VFR Jet Departures J 3,000 LANDING COMPLEX / AIRPORT ACFT ALT

Napa CX, Mather CX, Modesto CX, Monterey CX, Sacramento CX, San Francisco CX, San Jose CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX J 5,000

San Jose CX, San Francisco CX P 4,000 OAK, HWD P, T, J 3,000

Note: Landing Complex altitudes take precedence over Departure Procedure altitudes. Landing Complex RWY 28 departures straight out altitude is 3,000 feet.

2. SFOE ALTITUDES.

Note: Landing Airport / Complex altitudes take precedence over Departure Procedure altitudes.

3-1

A-22


ATTACHMENT 4 CONVENTIONAL DPS, DEPARTURE HEADINGS AND FREQUENCIES

1. SFOW (EXCEPT DURING QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES).

EXIT FIX LANDING COMPLEX / AIRPORT

RUNWAY ACFT DP/HEADING FREQ REMARKS

AVE, CZQ, FLW, PXN, WAGES 01 or 28 J PORTE 135.1

GVO, RZS, SXC, MCKEY 01 or 28 J OFFSH 135.1

CCR, LIN, OAK, SAC, Landing Mather CX, Modesto CX, Sacramento CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX

01 or 28 SO P, T, J SFO 120.9

28 SL P, T, J SHOR REBAS, RBL, SGD

01 or 28 SO J SFO

120.9 28 SL J SHOR 01 or 28 SL P, T REBAS

28 SO P*, T GAPP..SGD *After SGD, SFO will issue route to simulate REBAS transitions. MOLEN

28 P, T, J MOLEN 135.1 Oceanic Fixes, OSI, VFR-ON-TOP, Landing San Francisco CX, San Jose CX

01 / 28 P, T, J GAPP 135.1 SABLO, SAU, Landing Napa CX

01 / 28 J GAPP

120.901 / 28 SO P, T 28 SL P, T SHOR 350q

BSR, SNS, Landing Monterey CX 01 / 28 P, T, J EUGEN 135.1 J – only Landing Monterey CX

4-1

A-23


Landing Oakland CX 01 P, T, J 050q

125.35 STR 28 SL P, T, J SHOR 055q 28 SO P, T, J SFO 120.9

VFR-ON-TOP Departure 28 P, T, J GAPP.NORMM 135.1

VFR Departure 28 J 280q 135.1 STR– Subject NCT Release

2. SFOE (EXCEPT DURING QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES).

EXIT FIX / LANDING COMPLEX / AIRPORT


AVE, CZQ, FLW, PXN, WAGES 10 / 19 J PORTE 135.1

Landing OAK or Monterey CX, San Francisco CX, San Jose CX

10 / 19 J 090q

135.1 STR – Landing SJC CX P, T LUVVE

Landing HWD or Modesto CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX

10 / 19 J 090q

120.9 STR – Landing HWD

P, T 065q STR LIN, OAK, RBL, SAC, Landing Mather CX, Sacramento CX

10 / 19 J DUMB

120.9P, T 065q STR

SGD

10 / 19 J DUMB 120.9

P, T LUVVE 135.1 MOLEN, OSI, REBAS, STINS, Landing Napa CX

10 / 19 J MOLEN

135.1P, T LUVVE

Oceanic Fixes, VFR on Top

10 / 19 J GAPP

135.1P, T LUVVE

4-2

A-24


3. VFR DEPARTURES.

VFR Departures

10 / 19 J 090q 135.1 STR – Landing HWD, San Jose CX STR – Subject NCT Release

4. QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT TIMES: 2200L – 0700L (0800L on Sundays). LOCAL TIMES

RUNWAYS ACFT DP / HEADING DP / HEADING REPLACED

2200 – 0100 0600 – End

01 / 28 SL J CUIT -STR San Francisco and Shoreline

0100 – 0600 All STR

01 / 28 SL J CUIT Dumbarton / San Francisco to RBL, SGD; and Gap, Molen 10 / 19 J 340° q

01 / 10 / 19 P, T, J

050q All except: Dumbarton / San Francisco to RBL, SGD; and Gap, Molen, Rebas 28 SL SHOR 055q

STR – Subject NCT Release Note: If an aircraft is unable to accommodate Quiet Procedures, issue the standard DP or heading as appropriate for the current traffic flow.

4-3

A-25


ATTACHMENT 5 RNAV DPS, DEPARTURE HEADINGS AND FREQUENCIES

1. SFOW (EXCEPT DURING QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES). EXIT FIX LANDING COMPLEX / AIRPORT


EBAYE, CISKO, LOSHN, NTELL, RGOOD, YYUNG 01 J SSTIK 135.1 28 J WESLA 135.1

DEDHD, GRTFL, HRNER, MOGEE, ORRCA, TIPRE, SYRAH Landing Mather CX, Modesto CX, Sacramento CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX

01 P, T, J TRUKN 120.928 SL P, T, J TRUKN

28 P, T, J SNTNA AFIVA

01 / 28 T AFIVA 120.9

28 SO T GAPP.NORMM. JAYKK..GRTFL/DEDHD 120.9

Oceanic Fixes, ALANN, ALCOA, ALLBE, AMAKR, BAART 28 P, T, J GNNRR 135.1

STR– Subject NCT Release

2. SFOE (EXCEPT DURING QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES). EXIT FIX / LANDING COMPLEX / AIRPORT


CISKO, EBAYE, LOSHN, NTELL, RGOOD 10 / 19 J SAHEY 135.1

DEDHD, GRTFL, MOGEE, ORRCA, TIPRE, SYRAH Landing Mather CX, Modesto CX, Sacramento CX, Stockton CX, Travis CX

10/ 19 J FOGGG/ CIITY-STR 120.9

STR – Subject NCT Release

5-1

A-26


3. QUIET/NOISE ABATEMENT: 2200L – 0700L (0800L on Sundays). LOCAL TIMES

RUNWAYS ACFT DP / HEADING DP / HEADING REPLACED

2200 – 0100 0600 – End

01 / 28 SL J NIITE CUIT, SFO, SHOR

0100 – 0600 All STR

01 / 28 SL 10 / 19

J NIITE CUIT, SFO, DUMB, GAPP, MOLEN STR – Subject NCT Release Note: If an aircraft is unable to accommodate Quiet Procedures, issue the standard DP or heading as appropriate for the current traffic flow.

5-2

A-27


ATTACHMENT 6 SFO VOR OUTAGE PROCEDURES

In the event of SFO VOR/DME failure, Tower must assign non-RNAV aircraft headings according to this agreement; if aircraft would have been issued a DP, instructions must also be issued to resume the appropriate DP.

1. RUNWAY 1.

DP DEPARTURE INSTRUCTIONS

EUGEN Left turn heading 350° for vector to SAU R168°

GAPP Left turn heading 350° for vector to assigned route/fix

OFFSH Left turn heading 350° for vector to PYE R151°

PORTE Left turn heading 350° for vector to PYE R135°

CUIT Runway heading for vector to REBAS

REBAS Left turn heading 350° for vector to REBAS

2. RUNWAY 10 or 19.


DUMB Left turn heading 090° to intercept OSI R028°

PORTE Left turn heading 090° to intercept OAK R135°

MOLEN Left turn heading 090° for vector to PYE R144°

LUVVE Right/Left turn heading 120° for vector to assigned route/fix

GAPP Left turn heading 090° to intercept OSI R028°

3. RUNWAY 28.


EUGEN Runway heading for vector to SAU R168°

GAPP Runway heading for vector to assigned route/fix

MOLEN Runway heading for vector to STINS

OFFSH Runway heading for vector to PYE R151°

PORTE Runway heading for vector to PYE R135°

CUIT Right turn heading 030° for vector to REBAS

REBAS Right turn heading 350° for vector to REBAS

6-1

A-28

/ lsFO 342° Rad~I~ I\ .

- - ---.....__ I ~ . --.....__ I --.....__ r ~ --.....__ I I

I\ I\ I

[ I

-\-_ - - -


ATTACHMENT 7 DELEGATED AIRSPACE

NCT delegates the airspace within the San Francisco Class B Airspace (depicted in graphic below) from the surface up to and including 2,000’ MSL.

Note: From 2200-0700 Local, Tower releases to NCT; the airspace from the SFO VOR 342° clockwise to the SFO VOR 075° radial above 700 feet.

7-1

A-29

'-0 0

(

X

I\

;,J- I\

®

- --®

~'ci~A,, /

I I / /

i ~ \ ®

0

V

-+-

....,

r -\

/\ -\-D - ~ /\

><

"i \-r-/ ® ' ~ I " " \ > //

\ ® I I I;

Directly Behind - RECA T 1.5 Separ,aUon

Tr,ailing Aircr,aft

A B C D NO

CATEGORY

A 5 6 7 7 8 10

,t:'. B 4 5 5 5 10 m I.. C 3 . .5 3,.5 5 10 u I..

4: D 4 10 bO C: 10

'"C m 10 di

...J

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Ap,pr,o,ach RECAT 1.5 Sep,ar,aUon

Tr,ailing Air,cr,aft

A B C D NO

CATEGORY

A 5 6 7 7 8 10

,t:'. B 4 5 5 7 10

m C 3.5 3 . .5 6 10 I.. u I..

D 4 10 4: bO 10 C:

'"C 10 m QJ

...J NO

CATEGORY 10 10 10 10 10 10 10


ATTACHMENT 9 WAKE RECAT MINIMA

Wake RECAT Minima are depicted in the tables below.

a. Directly Behind / Departures.

b. On Approach (5 NM from FAF or 10 NM from the airport for visual approaches).

9-1

A-32

4FQUFNCFS��MFUUFS�GSPN�)�$��.D$MVSF�'""�4BO�'SBODJTDP�"JSQPSUT�%JTUSJDU�0GGJDF�UP� -PVJT�"��5VSQFO�"JSQPSU�%JSFDUPS�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM�"JSQPSU�USBOTNJUUJOH�UIF� 3FDPSE�PG�"QQSPWBM�GPS�UIF�/PJTF�$PNQBUJCJMJUZ�1SPHSBN�GPS�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM� "JSQPSU��

u!', ()(.'f}O, ,.,..... ,: QI lrO~OIIOltQ(\

Federal Aviation Administration

... _,

SEP 7 198'.1 Sf.P l 2 '83

Mr. Lou1s A. Turpen

Director of A1rports

San Francisco International Airport

San Franctsco. C111forn11 94128

Dear Mr. Turpen:

The F.ederal Avfation Adiafn1strat1on (FM) has evaluated the nofse compatfbtl1ty program for San Francisco International Airport (SFO) contifned in the •Joint Land Use Study M Final Technical Report• and related documents.su~nftted to thisoffice under the prov1stons-of Section 104(1) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (the Act). t am pleased to inform yuu. that Adfll1nistrator Helms gave overall approval to many portfons of the SFO noise compat1b111ty program on July 22, 1983. A majority of the specific noise mitigation action elements were approved. while others were either d1sapproved or will requirefurther study. The specific action on each noise compattbfltty program element is set forth in the enclosed Record of Approval.

Twenty-four of the proposed action elements were approved. Some of these have already been implemented by the cognizant authorities, while others require onlyadministrative actions by the implementing agencies. Those actions which require investments for capital improvements or one-time Implementation costs are now eligible for grant-in-aid funding by the FM under the provisions of the Airport J1uprovement Program, subject to the application of an eligible sponsor . and compHance with applicable furutfng requirements. This approval. however, does not re1,1resent a .c01111itmcnt by the FM to support or financially assist tn the impletlll8ntatJ~!I of the:progra111 nor does it direct any implementationaction. ,ltequest f~f subsequent' Fecferal asst stance to faaplement specific' noise compatibilit.)' 11111asu~s .ay.re~u1.l'.'e envir~n111ent1l studies for the proposed action.

. '. . pursu~nt to

' . . tpplfcable

~ >

2

.. .. ,,·' .

Two ftems were dtsapproved because they were determlned to have the effect of a de facto curfew during certain ntghtttme hours and would·be a arbf· trary'"'Tn their reach and impact.

Ffnally, two measures whfch relate to the use of fl1qht procedures for noise 111ft1gatfon have been determined to require further FAA evaluation. The Act provides that such measures are not subject to the 180-day review periodapplfcable to all other proposed acttons.

The FM wfll publf$h a nottce 1n the Federal Register announcing approval of the SFO noise compattb11 fty program, You are not requf red to ghe local · official notice. although you may ,do so ff you wtsh.

Thank you for your continuing interest In airport noise abatement and noise compatibility planning.

Sincerely,

, Di rector ~&~

Enclosure

•

\ ... . •

..I

A-34

. ..' RECORD OF APPROVAL

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM

ACTION ELEMENT· ON•AIRPORT ACTIONS

A. A1 rport Noise Mon\ tori ng and Management Program

A.1 · Establtsh~nohe abatement as a priority function w1thtn the [Airport] Director's offfce 1ncludfng staff and resources to monitor· the noise mftfgatfon plan and recoomend corrective actions.

Approved. This action is a matter of local adm1n1strat1on and management-not subject to Federal concurrence. This action was 1mpleniented locally during 1980.

'A,2a Develop noise performance monitoring system, A,2b Install noise performance monitoring system and refine noise

mftfgation plan based on results.

Approved. The recommended system was developed and installed in : 1981 with local funds. The system improvements provide a personalized typewritten re,ponse to noise complaints. it also tabulates the location and frequency of c001plalnts for subsequent management analysis an.d helps to highlight the effectiveness of mlt1gat1on actions. The system 1s not used to cite fndividual operator violations, assess monetary penalties, nor to infringe on FAA prerogatives with regard to •trspace management.

A,3a Expand airport's rules and regulations to include actions fn noise mtti.91tion plan. • . ,. · . ·

App. ro.ved. wit.. h respect. o.·nly Jo elements spec1. fkally approved tn this • Record of Approval. flemenis dt sapproved herein are al so dis•

approved for tbts purpos•, and any actions that 111y be part of the a1rp9rt's •noise 1111tfgat1on plan• but are not included in the notse coapat1b1\1ty program are disapproved for purposes of Part 150 pending formal submfss1on to FAA under Part 150. ·

Develop a col1l1!unity 1nfonnat1on program, fncludtng corrmun1cat1ons link with cftfes. ·

Approved. This 1s an adiuinhtrative action 1mp1e111ented locally1n 1981 and includes, tn add1tfon to an expanded public information function, the' A1rport/Coumun1ty Roundtable which aeets periodically to provide a public. forum for discussion of progress 1n noise 111ttigat1on. -··

A-35

2

8. Flight Procedure Changes

B.la Establish Runway 10 as the voluntary preferential noise abatement departure runway frorn l a .m. to 6 a .m.

Approved. This action modified the SFO informal runway use program (defined by Order 8400,9) by designating Runway 10 as the preferreddeparture runway to mitigate noise between l a,m, ind 6 1,m, when favorable meteorol ogica,1 condition~ occur. This preferred runway use w1s fully coordlnated'wlth air traffic, aircraft operators and airport unagement representatives. The voluntary runway use, tnttlated during 1980, reduces noise impact on residential areas of San Bruno and South San Francisco, Aircrews may decline use of the preferential runway if they consider It undesirable. There is no consideration of a mandatory use program at this time. ·

B.lb Study the use of instrument landing system (lLS) for Runway 19 arrivals, fn cooperation with East Bay con,nuni ties.

Approved. Studies were initiated during 1982 to determine the ! · feasibiltty of providing precision Instrument landing systems (ILS and eventually MLS) for the Rullway 19 parallels, to facilitate greater departure use of Runway 10, Representatives from Air Traffic, Flight Standards and Airway Facilities are closely involved with study preparation.

D,lc Use tBlcrowave landing system (MLS) for Runway 19 arrhal s, 1f feasible.

Thfs rel1t~s to fl1ght.,fl'1>cedures for the purpose of Section 104(b) of the Afi.tton Safe\1;.fJj'.d Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and w111 receive fui1her FAA revt1wt1efore approval or disapproval.

• •' •)::,tlff;, •_:c•:' • , . ._aJ,c:

3

8.3a

B.3b

Study the feu1b111ty of Increasing the mln11111.111 crossln_g altitude over northern San Fr1nclsco Peninsula ind Foster City, Continue the fncreased mfn1mum crossing altitude over northern San Francisco Peninsula and Foster C1ty, if feasible,

Approved. Studi'es were done to detenn1ne the feasibfltty of modifying arrival routes· and altitude profiles above the San Francisco Penfnsula and the Foster City residenthl area southeast of'the airport, As a result of Input provided by Air Traffic and Flight Standards representatives, the studies determined that minor adjustment coµld be made to provide overflight noise reduction. The. mutually agreed upon procedures recoamended by the studies were fnit1ated dur1ng 1982,

B.4a Continue to encourage use of the quiet br1dge approach (visual).

Approved, Thts actlOft defines a specific visual approach route procedure for arrivals Oft Runway 28R which mitigates overflight noise at Foster City, The procedure uses a visual llndmark (thehfgh span of the San Niteo Bridge) to position aircraft east of the residential area. This procedure has been encouraged, promoted, and employed by air traffic procedures sfnce 1980, but 1s not mandatory.

8.4c

•

Use MLS curved precision approaches to avofd Foster City, ff feasible.

This relates to f1fgh~ procedures for the purpose of Section 104(b) of·the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, and will receive f4rther FAA review before approval or disapproval, This reconmended action will explore the use of a new approach to the Runway 28R for ad~1Uoul noise reduction at Foster Cfty. Any study1nit1ated by the a1rport:.c,perator on this subject will requireextims1ve .dt,alogue wltb ltr .Traffic and F11ght Standards res>rfi~!lll,yt,. to analyze airspace ut1Hzatton tssues and . forn.t1t~J ....,c~eptab1e arrival procedures required for MLS use. 'The plan re,.nds thfs action for the years subsequent to 1986. SFO has. ~ver, requested an early MLS 1nstallat1on and, should that be approved,. the procecture could be considered pr1or to that date.

B.Sa . '

Conttnue-tmproved procedures for avoiding overflights of Foster City. . · ,

Approved. This actfOft pertains to arrival procedures for. Runway 28L and tts influence on foster City over•fl1ght nofse. The sequencingand a1rcraft•posftfon, wl'!en approach clearance ts given by afr traffic (Bay TRACON) controllers, governs the number and frequencyof overflights generated by Runway 28L arrivals. An 1nvest1gatfonof these features culminated 1n a Bay TRACON procedural change 1n 1980 to reduce overflight effects.

A-37

_,

4

B.6a Continue to use noise abatement climb power reduction following FAAprocedures.

Approved, The noise reduction derived from emp1oyfng the noiseabatement departure profiles contained in FM Advisory Circular 91•53 was subjected to computer analysis and found -beneficial forRunway 28 departures over the San Bruno Gap. Subsequent to numerous~eetings between aircraft operators, air traffic, flight standardsand airport representatives, the air carrier operators voluntarilybegan using the FAA recOllllllended engine thrust and flap retractionprocedures during 1979, The reconrnended action 1s based on FAA1pprove6>procedures, and therefore, assures that FAA prerogativeswith respect to airspace management and. flight safety are ·protected, •

C. Atrport Noise Limits, Use Restrictions And Economic Incentives.

C.la(l) Continue a maximum noise limit of 102 dBA for aircraft using SanFrancisco Airport.

Approved. Based on a suggestion by the FAA General Counsel,reference to noise levels contained tn Advisory Circular 36-3(current version 36-30), and examination of the aircraft fleetut111z1ng the airport, an acceptable noise level (102 d8A} wasestablished by the Airport. Comissfoo 1n 1981. C.la(2) Develop procedures for enforcing a lower maximum noise

1h11 t for nf ght hours.C.lb Reduce 1111ximum noise limit. Establish a lower maximum noise limitfor nighttime hours.C.lc Further reduce maxi1num no1se limit. Reduce maximum noise limit for· nighttime hours

Disapproved pending s,ubm1ssion to FM under Part 150 of programdetans·suff1cfent to permit an informed analysts under Section • ... 104 ..··"'.··.bd... ·.·.o..f.. th•.............. Av1.•t.1on. en•: Slf.ety and Noise 11Jf9raJlton Abatement Act ts fu_rnhhed of 1979. beyond Notthe general concept oflowering lhe maifinum noise limit. .

c.21(1) Continue to prohibit ·unnecessary nighttime engine runups, D1s1pproved pencling submission to FAA under Part f50 of progr1mdetails sufficient to permit an tnfonned analysis under Section104(b) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979,No fnfomat1on fs furnished on exactly what the prohfbttton 1s,what -•unnecessary" means, or what 1110re stringent actions lllllY beneeded. Th~s does not imply any FAA judgement on the currentprohfb1t1on~

C.2a(2) Investigate use of noise suppressors for engine runups. Approved. \

A-38

. 5

C.Ja Develop a noise allocation and banking system consistent with the noise allocation established for San Francisco International Airport in the Regional Transportation Plan.

C.Jb Implement a noise allocation and banking system.

Disapproved pending submission to FAA under Part lSQ of a specificnoise allocation .and banking system in sufficient detail to permit an informed analysis under Section 104(b) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. No information is furnished on what such a

C.4b Prohibit ,,1 system may entail.

aircraft operations over residential areas adjacent to the airport during night ~ours (between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.).

C.4c Prohibit all aircraft operations over residential areas adjacent to the airport during night hours (between midnight and 6 a .m.). .

Disapproved. Based on the runway use analysis in the report, these recon1nendations would have the effect of a total curfew of all aircraft types approxi11ately ten percent of the time.· This has the necessary effect of preventing all scheduling of air carrier services into SFO during the specified hours. This in turn has the effect of a de facto curfew far broader than its ten percent application would suggest. As such, this restriction would, therefore, be overbroad in its scope, would not account for noise reduction technology employed in quieter aircraft, and would accordingly be arbitrary in its reach and impact.

c.sa Devel op economic incentives to encourage airlines to reduce noise. C.Sb Implement economic incentives, ff feasible.

Disapproved pending_submission to FAA under Part 150 of programdetails sufficient to pennlt an informed analysis under Section •04(b) of the Aviation Safety_ and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. No. information 1s furnished beyond a general concept and possible noise pricing formula. No specific incentives are disclosed •

,

• Off-AIRPORT ACTIONS

•

D. Noise lnsulation/Avigation Easements

D.la Develop and impleme~t a .voluntary noise insulation/avigation ·. easement demonstration program for.existing homes and schools within the 70-75 CNEL. Expand _program, ff effective.

Approved. Action D.la developed procedures for implementing a noise insulat1on/avfgation easement program for existing homes and schools located within the 70 to 75 CNEL contour, These specifics were

.defined fn 1980. A request for Federal funds to implement the noise insulat1on/avigatfon easement program has been submitted by the City of South San Francisco for funding in fiscal year 1903. Action D.lb expands the program 1n subsequent years. ·

A-39

6

E. Ne.fghborhood Improvement Program

E,la Evalu1te Airport/Community cooperation fn improving Airport impactedneighborhoods as an alternative or supplement to the noise insulation/avfgatfon easement program.

Approved. In 1981, a public involvement program known as the Airport/~onvnunfty Roundtable, composed of civic, homeowner (neighborhood) and-airport management representatives, was formed to discuss specific detaJls for fmplementf~g, monitoring, and evaluating results of noise compatibility projects, All jurisdictions having noncompatfble areas within the 65 CHEL contour are elfgfble for group discussions. The FAA and aviation industry representatives attend Roundtable meetings to 1110nitor proceedingsand provide advisory services,

E.lb Implement neighborhood planning and improvement ~rogram, if needed.

Disapproved pending submission to FM under Part 150 of programdetails sufficient to permit an informed analysis under Section 104(b) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. No specific neighborhood planning and improveinent program has been · presented for review; only a general concept 1s provided,

F. Preventative Land Use Planning

, F, la Continue to prohfbft new or redeveloped noise sensitive land uses within the 70-75 CNEL.

Approved. This action prohibits new or redeveloped noise sensitive land uses within the 20 CNEL contour.

' . - '

F.2a • Require •de(jljate. soun,t fnsullltfon and avigatlon .easements in all new sensitive land uses within the 65-70 CNEL.

Approved. Thh action element addresses new and replacement Ian~ uses bet•en tbe 65 an.d 7Q C,NEL contour. Proposed noncompattbleuses within these contours' ~uld be required to 1neorporate adequate noise 1nsuht1on provisions and 11cknowledge exterior noise eitposure

. ; by accepting avigatfon easement conditions. Approximately 7,200dwellings an.d eight schools located 1n six cities are pre.sentlywithin the subject contours. Each ctty, subject to San Mateo County~LUC advisory guidance, is responsible for administration of this action element.

-

'

A-40

7 _,

F,3a Continue to require acoustical studies for noise sehsftfve land uses fn areas exposed to 60 CNEL and above.

Approved, This action requires that all affected jurisdictions must amend their building code 11nd land use permit process to conform with Title 25 of the Cal.ifornfa Adm1n1strative Code, which requiresthat 111 proposed multiple and single family dwellings within the 60 CNEL contour must be acoustically analyzed to demonstrate how design

·1nd constrvctfon features of the structure will reduce exterior noise exposure to an interior level of 45 CNEL. The progress and promotion of thfs element was initiated by the San Mateo County ALUC during 1981. .

f.4a Prepare a final airport land use plan to Include Joint Land Use Study findings and recOl11llendations.

Approved. This element produced a final airport land use plan for the San Mateo County ALUC, which incorporates all SFO noise co,npatibf11ty prpgram elements adopted by the Joint Power$ Board and Airport C0111nission, The plan serves as universal guidance to 111 jurisdictions who fflUSt evaluate and exercise discretionary authority 1n permitting development within areas affected by airport noise. The plan was adopted by th~ ALUC during 1982 in order to satisfy the requirements of the California Public: Ut111t1es Code,

F,Sa Update noise element of cities and county plans to include Joint Land Use Study findings and reconf!lendat1ons. .

Approved w1th respect to portions of the airport noise compatibility progr1111 approved in this Record of Approval.

F.6a Encciura!Je ~~rd1~~ed Jand use planning between environs • COlllllt.!itftf!tf.:AlUC.j~"cl the Atrport. concerning nohe, shielding,

bu11dtns height, iccess, 1ir quality and the west of Bayshorelands. · · · · ·

Approv~. ;Jn J>rder to foster and encourage a cooperative and conststent.:pla!lnlng •.ffort among all affected jurisdictions, th1s el1111ent e~t1bl1shesa c1*111nicat1ons/coordtnation network for sharing. planning 1nfomat10ll within the airport environs area. A group w1tb1n the fr,11mewor1t of thl! A1rport/Comun1ty Roundj".ableperforms tli\'s function. · Continued consultation between . jurisdictions w111 play a vital role 1n the effective implementation of all no1se,compat1bi11ty program projects.

. .

\

A-41

FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING

SAil FRANclsco rnfERNATloNAC AIRPORT

• Evaluation Narrativ1 3. Noise Compatib11 ity Program (NCP) Reference Yes No Item Number

1. Current FAA accepted noise exposure ups incl1.1ded. 150.23(d) (1) X 1.

2.(,ccp was prepared pursuant to FAR Part 150, Appendix B. 150.23(b) X 2.

3. Consultation and results. a. Oescription of consultation. 150.23(d~{4) x 3. b. Adequate opportunity for interested persons to submit views, 150.23(c X 4.

data and coanents. .. .· . c. Consultation with local jurisdfct1ons, agencies and citizens

located withfn the 65 Ldn .contour. 150.23(b) X 5. d. Consultation with air:carrlirs, FBDs,.and other airport tenants 150.23(b~ X 6. e•.Consultation with fAA and other interested Federal agencies, 150.23(b X 7. f. Summary of_comients and material submitted; operator's response 150.23(d)(7) X 8.

and disposition of c011111ents and matertals.

4. Alternatives. a. Description and analysis of recommend and rejected options. 1so. 23 ( d ){ 2) X 9. b. RecOlllllt!nded NCP. 150.23(d)(3) X 10. c. Relative and overall effectiveness of NCP options. 1S0.23(d)(J) X 11. d. Anticipated noise reduction based on NCP implementation. 1S0.23(d)(S) X 12. e. Critical government actions and NCP funding. 150.23(d}(8) X 13.

s. Responsible parties. a. Persons and entities responsible for NCP implementation. 150.23(d)(8) X 14. b. Options available .to airport operators. B150.7(a)(l) X 15. c. Options available to local jurisdictions/agencies. B150~7(a) (2) X 16. d. Options requiring FAA review and concurrence. B150.7.(a)(3) X · 17.

6. Effect of proposed action on airport layout plan, master plan 150.23(d}(6) X 18. and systl!ffl plan.

7. Tfmfng. a. Time period covered by the·NcP. 150.23fdH8~ X 19. b. Implementation schedule. 150.23 d 8 X 20. c. Periodic NCP update. 1S0.23(d}(9) X. 21.

A-42

EVALUATION NARRATIVE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM (HCP) --·

1, Noi$e Exposure Map. Accepted. The SFO noise exposure maps were acceptedby the FAA on January 25, 1983,

2. Conformance with FAR Part.150, Appendix B, Accebted, The issues and alternatives addressed in Section B150,S and 815 ,1 were thoroughlyconsidered during plan formulation and feasible measures were incorporated a.s elements of the NCP, Refer to the Joint Action Plan, pages 7 and 8, 11 through 22, and 27 through 29. ·

3. Description of Consultation. Accepted. A co,nprehensive consultation mechanism composed of fifteen separate groups was organized and chargedwith the task of defining problems, soliciting mitigation options, plan formulation and implementation. These efforts were chann4:!led through a Joint Powers Board co11111osed of elected representatives frOlll governingjurisdfctfonl within the airport environs boundary, A detailed description of the mechanism begf!ls on Page IB-1 of the Ffnal Technical Report (FTR).

4. Adequate Opportunity for Interested Persons to Submit Vfews, Data and Comments. Accected. A nuinber of publ k meet Ings and workshops were publicized and eld to Inform the public of the purpose, scope and progress of the stuc:ly, and to Induce public participation 1n planformulation. A final community forum and public hearing was held by the Joint Powers Board prior to approval of the final report which afforded ample opportunity for public comment on the Draft Final Technical Report,

s. Consultation with local ·Agencies and Citizens. Accefted. Extensive local input was obtained through the mechanism descr bed above. Homeowner-and con,nunfty groups were full participants in the study and continue ,to participate 1n .the 111eettngs of the Airport/Co-nitylloundtable, a ..v.roup estabHshed to provide a· for1111 for continuing discussion of noise mitfgat1on progress.

6. Cf>nsul~Jtton wl~h Af ~,,~tfJ11rs, JQOs, and Other At rport Tenants. Acceyted •. Represent•t'lvt.S.{fr~ the Air Transport Association, Air,Carr er and Air cargo. Association, as well as other related 1vfatfon industries. parth:fpated ln the. study and provided technical asst stance to th.e Joint Po111ers Bpard. Refer to fTR page IB-5.

1. Consul tai16rt. wft;li the( FAA onlOther Federa1 Agencies. A~cepted. Lf n~s of communication l)etween ~he Deportment of Housing and Urban Development,Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard and FAA were established to provide guidance and evaluation of HCP 1lte'rnatives and recOIMlendatfons. Refer to FTR page lB-4.

8. S1111111ary of Consultation Coments 1nd Operator's Responses. Acce,ted. Documentation generated by all sixteen groups and minutes of pubic 111eetfngs held by the Joint Powers Board provide an adequate sunmary of consultation COIMlents. The Final Technical Report incorporates such c01m1ents as textual changes fn the substance of the Report. The Joint

A-43

2

Powers Board also held numerous public workshops to gather and respond to issues presented by interested individuals living within the airportenvirons. Panelists who conducted these workshops recorded, evaluated and offered responses to all issues voiced by the participants. Valid issues leading to possible noise mitigation measures were subjected to detailed analysis, and, if found beneficial, were made a part of the noise compatibflfty program. All responses to and disposft ions of publ le input were adequately documented by workshop and Joint Powers Board proceedings • .. A SU11111ary, ~ .!!.• was not included 1n the Final Technical Report because of the voluniTnous minutes generated by the various · conrnittees contributing to the study, The conments received during each phase of the study were evaluated by the consultant team and those deemed feasible were incorporated into working papers and the final Technical Report. This ts described 1n supplemental documents transmitted by the SFO Noise Abatement Office. ·

9. Discussion of Recoimiended and Rejected Options. Accepted. Feasible options were defined by an evalu~tion matrix of airside and landside alternatives in Section Ill of the Final Technical Report. Rejectedoptions are addressed 1n Chapter IV Section 8, which holds the following measures fn abeyance until warrant~d: liilltt or reduce aircraft operations, construct new runway, extend existing runways and acquisition of nofse impacted homes and schools. Refer to pages 1118-1 throughlllb-24 and lVB-114 through . . lVB-124 of the Final Report.

10. Recon111ended NCI'. Accepted.. The HCP rec0111nendat tons were conciselysu111narlzed tn a brief narrative describing each element's purpose, time frame. fmple111entatfon procedure, environmental /economic/social benefits and lnstftutlonal resporisibilfty. Refer to FTR pages lVB-7 throughIVB-tl3. .

11. Rel,1the and .Overall Effectiveness of HCP Options. ~ccrpted, This aspect of thctJICP.1s t~nye1ed through a discussion o tie implementationpriorities .,et.forth by 1:~e .plan. 'fhe 1110st .effective elements deal dir,ctl,v ,tJ,i,1,\rci:,t.fJ. ~l!frJtf®S arid airpof"t utili;at1cm (under FM and

ttrport llil!lJl.llt. J9rfsd1ctton). These e1e.ments rece1vetd the highest mplement1111!11J>rfo17tt,y., : Secondary prtor1Jfes were deffried · 1.s offaf rport ae1sures wllfch c;quld reduce. the residual nohe exPQsure throughsoundproofin9. i911in9. _ea.sement .and butld1ng code requirements.Refer to FIR pages 111.8•1 through lI IB-7.

12, Antfcfpated .Noise lted11ctton Based on. Implementation of Reco11111endattons, Accepted. TIie ,:ecOlml!lnded program ant1ctpates a 51 percent reduction in the nU111ber of clwe111ngs fmpa~ted by atrport·notse by the.year 1987 and beyond ff NCP act.tons are actively implemented. Refer to FTR pagesIVB-7 and Appendix ff 1 pages H-1 through H-3.

13, Critical 6over11111ent Actions and HCP Funding. Accepted. The transition from plan adoption to 1mplementat1on is being pursued by the Jofnt Powers Board lmpleaientatton Task Force whfch rosters, monttors and assists local resolutton Qf fmplement.atton problems, The Task Force 1s a vftal groupwhich st111111lates action by airport management, FM and local government.entities. Refer to FTR pages VA-6 through VA-11 and Section llI B.

A-44

http:tJ,i,1,\rci:,t.fJhttp:thctJICP.1s

3

•

14. Persons/Entities Responsible for NCP Implementation, Accepted. HCP implementation responsibilities a~e clearly identified on page YA-6, of the Final Technical Report, Table YA-1 states the authority charged with implementing on-airport as well as off-airport mitigation 111easures specified by the HCP.

15. Options Available to the Airport Operator. Accepted, The SFO NCP includes the following elements under airport control: Airport noise monitoring program/public Information expansion, modification of run~ayutilization. partial curfews, Part 36 aircraft use restrictions, maximum noise capacity and economic incentives. Refer to-pages IVB-7 throughlW-75 of the Final Report.

16. Options Available to local Jurisdlctlons/Agencfes. Acceyted, IICP elements under local control Include: soundproofing, av gationeasements, land use zoning ordinances and building code requlrPM!nts.Refer to pages lVB-75 through IVB-114 of the Fin~l Re~ort.

17. Options. Requiring FAA' Review and Concurrence. Accepted, NCP elements requiring FAA concurrence Include: runway utl11zat1on procedures, aircraft operations procedures, terminal air traffic routes and profiles,and use of HLS and llS landing aids. Refer to pages IVB-25 throughIYB-45 1nd IYB-67 through IVB-70 of the Final Report.

...... 18. Effect of Reco11111ended Actions on'the Airport layout Plan, Airport Master Plan and System Plan. Accejted. A number of airside conf1gur1tions{proposed to mitigate noise were evaluated and found envirot'llllentallyundesirable ·and cost prohibitive at the present time. New 1irsfde .features which could eventually affect the ALP, AMP, and Syste• Plan include a new runway, extension of existing runways, air carrier aircraft operations H1111ts, and fee simple acquisition of nohe impacted h0111es and schools. Those measures were deferred for later consideration subsequent to assesslng·the effectiveness of all HCP elements taplemented by afrs1de and landsicJe .a1,1tl'lor1ties. Refer to FTR pages IYB-115 through

. IVB-124,

. . ·· . · · ·

,, . -' - ·, ,. - \ - . 19. Tilll4! Period Cov,ered by the NCP.

'

Accepted. Action to Implement the NCP began dur1.ng 1980 and wi\ 1 extend beyond 1981. Refer to Jofot Action Plan,. page l2.

20. I111plementat(on Schedule. Accepted. three periods htiort. medh11,and long range) are envisioned by the NCP. Mitigation elements were placed in each time frame based on ease ol' enactment, economic c0111111tment and nohe reduction benefits, The short range period extended through1981 and included expansion al' the noise monitoring program, aircraft route and profile revisions, and runway utilization practices. Off- _ airp~rt elements include means to preclude new noncompatible land uses from occurring, ·

The medium range period (from 1982 through 1986) specifies ell!llelltS requiring considerable effort to establish 1n implementation mechanism. These 11.!)clude ILS approaches over the Bay to Runway 19, arrival route

A-45

~·.. .... '

4

altitude revisions, night noise lilnits, monetary incentives for aircarrier flight rescheduling, off-airport sound proofing and avfgationeasement programs,

The long. range period (1987 and beyond) contains ute of curved MLSprecision approach navaids, nighttime noise limits, and prohibition ofresidential area overflights during night hours. Refer to the Joint• Action Plan, pages., 27 through 29•

21, Periodic NCP Update, Accepted, The Joint Powers Board and StaffImplementation Taslc Force mon'itors HCP progress, defines and reconmendssolutions to implementation problems, reconwnends NCP modificationsand entertains new mitigation proposals, The task force known as theAirport/Community Roundtable is composed of two separate groups (theCoordinating Cor1111ittee and the Integrative Group) staffed byrepresentatives of local Jurisdictions, aviation industry, FAA andairport management. Refer to FTR pages VA-10, 11 and Memorandum ofUnderstanding dated May 11, 1981,

•

..

A-46

/PWFNCFS��&�/FXT�UP�NFNCFST�PG�UIF�4'0�"JSQPSU�$PNNVOJUZ�3PVOEUBCMF

l ~ l l

SFO Roundtable News and Announcements, 11/10/2015 Page 1 of 3

SubscribeSubscribeSubscribe ShShShareareare PaPaPast Isst Isst Issuessuessues TransTransTrans

News and announcements from the SFO Airport/Community View this email in your browser Roundtable

This is a periodic general news and announcements email from the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable. This is designed to give Roundtable representatives and interested individuals updates between the Roundtable's meetings, as well as share the latest in aviation noise related news locally and from around the world. You are receiving this because you are either a Roundtable representative, staff, interested party, or expressed interest in receiving updates from the Roundtable.

Announcements Next Departures & Arrivals Technical Working Group Meetings

The next round of Departures and Arrivals Technical Working Groups meetings is currently be coordinated, and is slated for mid-December. Tentative location will possibly be San Francisco International Airport for the Departures Group, and the San Mateo County Planning Department in Redwood City for the Arrivals Group. More details regarding the exact date, time, and final location will be forth coming in the next couple of weeks, so make sure to check the Roundtable's website for more information, and a notification will be sent out no later than 10-days in advance of the meeting.

Next Roundtable Meetings

A-47 http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=043ab04648b9161d5ec85e41e&id=a5f784ea31&e... 8/17/2016

http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=043ab04648b9161d5ec85e41e&id=a5f784ea31&e


The next Roundtable regular meeting is on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:00pm. Be on the look out for the agenda and meeting packet on our website the week of November 23rd, as well as our meeting announcement email.

SFO Noise Compatibility Study Update, Forthcoming Coming Workshops

SFO has been in the process of updating their Part 150 Study in order to maintain grant eligibility for ongoing residential sound insulation programs. The update is currently on the second and final part – the Noise Compatibility Program, which includes descriptions and an evaluation of noise abatement, as well as noise mitigation options within and around the 65 CNEL noise contours. SFO anticipates hosting a public workshop on this second part and formal public hearing by December 2015. For more information, click here to visit the project website.

(Please note this Part 150 Study is distinct and separate from the Northern California Metroplex

Environmental Assessment, which was completed by FAA Air Traffic Organization division, while the Part

150 Study and associated grants is the purview of the FAA Airports division.)

Aviation Noise News Eshoo's bills aim to lower volume on aircraft noise

Responding to an upswell of concern from local residents about increasing airplane noise, U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo on Nov. 6 unveiled a pair of bills that she said she hopes will restore some peace to local skies.- via The Almanac - November 9, 2015

Airport noise rattles Pacificans

Residence report increased noise from more airplanes flying over Pacifica. - via Pacifica Tribune - October 28, 2015

Regional efforts flying high to address increased airplane noise over Los Altos




Lawmakers at the local and national levels continue to push the FAA to address concerns about increased aircraft noise in Los Altos and other areas of Santa Clara County.. - via Los Altos Town Crier - October 14, 2015

Culver City residents say noise from LAX flights is on the rise

Culver City residents report on an increase in low-flying, noisy aircraft over their neighborhood. - via LA Times - October 25, 2015

unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences



.BUFSJBMT�GSPN�+VOF��DPPSEJOBUJPO�NFFUJOH�XJUI�'""�"JSQPSU�5SBGGJD�$POUSPM� 5PXFS�"5$5�TUBGG�CBTFE�BU�4BO�'SBODJTDP�*OUFSOBUJPOBM�"JSQPSU�

Agenda Page 1 of 1

DATE: June 15, 2016 TIME: 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. BY: Audrey Park

D Telephone Conversation C8l Meeting o Other

SUBJECT: SFO 14 CFR PART 150 UPDATE- NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM (NCP) REPORT

PARTICIPANTS:

Count Name Or anization Email

1 Paulus, Mark FAA SF ATCT [email protected]

2 Jones, Adrian ESA [email protected]

3 Escobar, Peter FAA SF ATCT [email protected]

4 Ong, Dave SFO Noise Abatement [email protected]

5 Garibaldi, Camille FAA SF ADO [email protected]

6 Park, Audrey SFO Planning aud [email protected]

* * * AGENDA:

I. Introductions (Audrey)

II. Study Background, Schedule, and Purpose of Meeting (Audrey)

Ill. Presentation (Adrian)

IV. Questions/ Comments

Please contact Bert Ganoung, Aircraft Noise Abatement (650-821-5117) or Audrey Park, Planning and Environmental Affairs (650-821-7844) with further questions.

X:15000 Airport Planning\505114 CFR Part 150 Study\4 NCP (2015)17 Outreach\2016-0615 ATCT Briefing\agenda & sign-in-sheet.docx

A-50

14 CFR PART 150 STUDY UPDATE NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM for SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Presented to SFO ATCT personnel June 15, 2016

San Francisco International ESA Airports Airport .....J

Presentation Outline

• 14 CFR Part 150 Overview • 14 CFR Part 150 Terminology • Noise Exposure Map Update for SFO • Noise Compatibility Program Update for SFO

• Noise Abatement Measures • Noise Mitigation Measures

A-51 1



SAN faAllCISCO IN':UNArlON"L

ESA Airports ....4

I ,- =-~- =--..:-;a:=~

ESA Airports ....4

14 CFR Part 150 Overview • 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (commonly referred to as

FAR Part 150) establishes the parameters of the Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility Planning process.

• Voluntary program established to allow airports to become eligible for grant funds for approved airport noise programs.

• Sets forth the methodology and procedures to be followed when preparing aircraft noise exposure maps and developing land use compatibility programs.

• Deems noise levels below 65 dB CNEL (in California) to be compatible with all land uses.

• Identifies measures to reduce aircraft noise (noise abatement) and limit its impacts (noise mitigation).

• Outlines a program for implementation of noise abatement and mitigation

measures.

• Allows FAA-approved measures to be eligible for FAA funding.

, __ , _.,,o,..,."7,·r,. • .:

14 CFR Part 150 Overview Who can regulate noise?

FAA Airport Proprietor State and Local Governments Controls aircraft while in flight Limited authority to adopt

local restrictions Promote compatible land use through zoning

Responsible for controlling noise at its source (i.e., aircraft engines)

Responsible for capital improvement projects and infrastructure

Require real estate disclosure

Certifies aircraft and pilots Mandate sound-insulating building materials

Who are the Stakeholders? • FAA • Airport Proprietor • Aircraft operators • Representatives of neighborhoods and communities affected by aircraft noise • Local planning agencies • The general public

A-52 2

San Francisco Airports International ESA Airport ....4

14 CFR Part 150 Terminology

Noise Exposure Map Report (Volume 1 of Study) • Contains detailed information regarding existing and future aircraft noise

levels for a specific airport facility. • Status: The FAA Airports Division accepted the Noise Exposure Map

Report on January 29, 2016.

Noise Compatibility Program (Volume 2 of Study) • Explores operational, land use, and administrative measures to minimize

aircraft noise exposure within the FAA-accepted Noise Exposure Map. • Includes descriptions and a detailed evaluation of noise abatement and

noise mitigation options applicable to an Airport. • Status: In progress and purpose of this briefing.


14 CFR Part 150 Terminology: Noise Compatibility Program

Noise Abatement Options • Are intended to reduce actual aircraft noise levels in noise-sensitive

areas by either reducing aircraft noise at the source by using quieter

aircraft, shielding noise sensitive areas, or by instituting operational

measures, such as changes in aircraft flight tracks or in approach or

departure flight profiles.

• Must demonstrate a noise benefit within areas exposed to CNEL 65 dB and higher (i.e., noise reductions within areas developed with incompatible land uses) if the airport sponsor wishes the FAA to consider the measure for approval in a 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program.

, __ SAN faAllCISCO IN':UNArlON"L

, _.,,o,..,."7,·r,. • .: I ,- =-~- =--..:-;a:=~

A-53 3

\:~-..·. \ •.

~ .. , i

I . 0 ... I

6 ~ ---)

San Francisco I ESA Airports nternational Airport ....4

14 CFR Part 150 Terminology: Noise Compatibility Program

Noise Mitigation Options • Are intended to reduce the effects of aircraft noise on the receiver. • May include outright property acquisition, acoustical treatment or

soundproofing programs, purchase of avigation easements, and land use control measures.

• Types of noise mitigation: • Remedial mitigation – intended to improve the compatibility of

existing land uses (for instance sound insulation) • Preventive mitigation – intended to discourage the development of

new incompatible land uses (e.g., zoning regulations, preparing and/or amending comprehensive plan documents, etc.)


ESA Airports ....4

_.,. .,,M ............ to .. llPI

- AH



ESA Airports ....4

__ ............... 1,1 .... ... , _ ... , .. ~ ..... , ...... , _ ..................... , 110

San Francisco International ESA Airports Airport ....4

SFO’s Goals for Noise Compatibility Program Update Airport Commission’s Goal

The goals for this NCP Update are to: (1) Efficiently and cost effectively update the 1983 NCP for SFO; (2) Obtain FAA Airport Division’s approval of the updated NCP; and (3) Ensure that ongoing 14 CFR Part 150 noise mitigation programs in

the SFO environs (i.e., the residential sound insulation program) will continue to be eligible to receive FAA funding in the future.


Noise Compatibility Program Update for SFO

Must consider the following types of measures: • Property acquisition and avigation easements • Noise barriers and acoustical shielding • Preferential runway system • Noise abatement flight procedures and flight tracks • Mandatory noise rules • Other actions to control or abate noise • Other actions recommended for airport-specific analysis by the FAA

SAN faAllC I SCO IN':UNArlON"L

A-56 6


Noise Compatibility Program Update for SFO

Standard evaluation criteria for noise abatement measures • Level of noise reduction • Effects on airfield capacity and aircraft delay • Effects on airspace/air traffic control procedures • Consistency with FAA safety and other standards • Other environmental effects (e.g., air quality) • Operational effects and costs • Financial feasibility • Consistency with policies adopted by Airport Operator


2016 NCP Update: Noise Abatement Measures Analyzed

SAN faAllC I SCO IN':UNArlON"L

A-57 7

CATEGORY ABATEMENT MEASURE PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

Airfield Changes Extend runways Cost prohibitive and significant environmental impacts.

Construct new runways Cost prohibitive and significant environmental impacts.

Decommission existing runways Detrimental to NAS.

Relocate runway thresholds Runway thresholds already displaced through RSA Project; Runway 1L-19R shortened.

Flight Track Changes

Fanning dep

Date post:	27-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX A Correspondence, Consultation, and...

Documents