5504 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Northwest Mountain Region, Airports 

Division, Denver Airports District 

Office, 26805 E. 68th Ave., Suite 224, 

Denver, Colorado 80249. 

The request to release property may 

be reviewed in person at this same 

location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

invites public comment on the request 

to release property at the Pueblo 

Memorial Airport under the provisions 

of the AIR 21. On December 17, 2004, 

the FAA determined that the request to 

release property at the Pueblo Memorial 

Airport submitted by the City of Pueblo 

met the procedural requirements of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 155. 

The FAA may approve the request, in 

whole or in part, no later than April 29, 

2005. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

The Pueblo Memorial Airport requests 

the release of 6.02 acres of nonaeronautical airport property to the City 

of Pueblo, Colorado. The purpose of this 

release is to allow the City of Pueblo to 

sell the subject land that was conveyed 

to the City by the United States acting 

through the War Assets Administration 

by Quit Claim Deed dated July 20, 1948. 

The sale of this parcel will provide 

funds for airport improvements. 

Any person may inspect the request 

by appointment at the FAA office listed 

above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, inspect 

the application, notice and other 

documents germane to the application 

in person at Pueblo Memorial Airport 

31201 Bryan Circle, Pueblo, CO 81001.

Issued in Denver, Colorado, on January 12, 

2005. 

Craig Sparks, 

Manager, Denver Airports District Office.

[FR Doc. 05–1917 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

Approval of Noise Compatibility 

Program; Fort Lauderdale Executive 

Airport; Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

findings on the noise compatibility 

program submitted by the City of Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act, 

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act’’) and 

14 CFR part 150. These findings are 

made in recognition of the description 

of Federal and nonfederal 

responsibilities in Senate Report No. 

96–52 (1980). On February 19, 2004, the 

FAA determined that the noise exposure 

maps submitted by the City of Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida under part 150 were 

in compliance with applicable 

requirements. On January 14, 2005, the 

FAA approved the Fort Lauderdale 

Executive Airport noise compatibility 

program. Most of the recommendations 

of the program were approved.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the 

FAA’s approval of the Fort Lauderdale 

Executive Airport noise compatibility 

program is January 14, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Bonnie Baskin, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Orlando Airports 

District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 

Dr., Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, 

(407) 812–6331, Extension 130. 

Documents reflecting this FAA action 

may be reviewed at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA has 

given its overall approval to the noise 

compatibility program for the Fort 

Lauderdale Executive Airport, effective 

January 14, 2005. 

Under section 47504 of the Act, an 

airport operator who has previously 

submitted a noise exposure map may 

submit to the FAA a noise compatibility 

program which sets forth the measures 

taken or proposed by the airport 

operator for the reduction of existing 

noncompatible land uses and 

prevention of additional noncompatible 

land uses within the area covered by the 

noise exposure maps. The Act requires 

such programs to be developed in 

consultation with interested and 

affected parties including local 

communities, government agencies, 

airport users, and FAA personnel.

Each airport noise compatibility 

program developed in accordance with 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 

150 is a local program, not a Federal 

Program. The FAA does not substitute 

its judgment for that of the airport 

proprietor with respect to which 

measures should be recommended for 

action. The FAA’s approval or 

disapproval of FAR Part 150 program 

recommendations is measured 

according to the standards expressed in 

Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to 

the following determinations: 

a. The noise compatibility program 

was developed in accordance with the 

provisions and procedures of FAR Part 

150; 

b. Program measures are reasonably 

consistent with achieving the goals of 

reducing existing noncompatible land 

uses around the airport and preventing 

the introduction of additional 

noncompatible land uses; 

c. Program measures would not create 

an undue burden on interstate or foreign 

commerce, unjustly discriminate against 

types or classes of aeronautical uses, 

violate the terms of airport grant 

agreements, or intrude into areas 

preempted by the Federal government; 

and 

d. Program measures relating to the 

use of flight procedures can be 

implemented within the period covered 

by the program without derogating 

safety, adversely affecting the efficient 

use and management of the navigable 

airspace and air traffic control systems, 

or adversely affecting other powers and 

responsibilities of the Administrator 

prescribed by law. 

Specific limitations with respect to 

FAA’s approval of an airport noise 

compatibility program are delineated in 

FAR Part 150, Section 150.5. Approval 

is not a determination concerning the 

acceptability of land uses under Federal, 

state, or local law. Approval does not by 

itself constitute an FAA implementing 

action. A request for Federal action or 

approval to implement specific noise 

compatibility measures may be 

required, and an FAA decision on the 

request may require an environmental 

assessment of the proposed action. 

Approval does not constitute a 

commitment by the FAA to financially 

assist in the implementation of the 

program nor a determination that all 

measures covered by the program are 

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the 

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, 

requests for project grants must be 

submitted to the FAA Airports District 

Office in Orlando, Florida. 

The City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

submitted to the FAA on February 4, 

2004, the noise exposure maps, 

descriptions, and other documentation 

produced during the noise compatibility 

planning study conducted from 

September 2000, through December 

2002. The Fort Lauderdale Executive 

Airport exposure maps were determined 

by FAA to be in compliance with 

applicable requirements on February 19, 

2004. Notice of this determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 19, 2004.

The Fort Lauderdale Executive 

Airport study contains a proposed noise 

compatibility program comprised of 

actions designed for phased 

implementation by airport management 

and adjacent jurisdictions from the date 

of study completion, 2002, beyond the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 5505

year 2007. It was requested that FAA 

evaluate and approve this material as a 

noise compatibility program as 

described in Section 47504 of the Act. 

The FAA began its review of the 

program on July 20, 2004, and was 

required by a provision of the Act to 

approve or disapprove the program 

within 180 days (other than the use of 

new or modified flight procedures for 

noise control). Failure to approve or 

disapprove such program within the 

180-day period shall be deemed to be an 

approval of such program. 

The submitted program contained 

twenty-seven (27) proposed actions for 

noise mitigation on and off the airport. 

The FAA completed its review and 

determined that the procedural and 

substantive requirements of the Act and 

FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The 

overall program, therefore, was 

approved by the FAA effective January 

14, 2005. 

Our right approval was granted for 

fifteen (15) of the twenty-seven (27) 

specific program elements. Seven (7) 

elements were disapproved for the 

purposes of part 150, four (4) elements 

were partially approved, and one (1) 

required no action. The approval/

disapproval action was for the following 

program measures:

Operational Measures 

1. Restriction of Jet Use of Runway 13/

31

The City requests that the FAA amend 

the existing voluntary limitation of jet 

use of Runway 13/31 to implement it as 

a formal preferential runway program 

element. This program element is 

appropriate because there are residential 

areas closer to the ends of this runway 

than to the ends of Runway 08/26. 

Formalizing the procedure is expected 

to reduce jet use on Runways 13 and 31 

by an additional 2 to 3 percent for both 

daytime and nighttime hours. (NCP, 

pages 63, 98, 123, 175, and Table 22) 

FAA Action: Disapproved as to 

Formalizing the Procedure; 

Continuation of the Current Procedure 

on a Voluntary Basis Is Approved 

The recommendation to formalize the 

restriction is disapproved because 

Runway 13/31 would have to be 

available for operations should Runway 

8/26 be closed. Also, it is not clear from 

the NCP just how much of the noise 

benefit, described in Table 22 for a 

combination of three proposed formal 

preferential procedures, is derived from 

formalizing this measure. 

This procedure may continue on a 

voluntary basis as traffic, weather, and 

airspace safety and efficiency permit. 

The previous part 150 study and Record 

of Approval summarized this measure’s 

benefits, when implemented as 

voluntary, as follows: ‘‘The elimination 

of this measure would dramatically 

increase direct jet overflights of the 

close-in residential areas under the 

extended centerlines of runways at the 

airport, in areas where jet operations 

currently are rare. Increased jet use 

would almost certainly result in a 

vigorous community reaction.’’

2. Extension of Upwind Leg for Runway 

31 Departures out to the Turnpike 

The City will continue to request that 

pilots delay turns to crosswind or on 

course until crossing this visual 

reference. There is no change proposed 

to the measure approved by the FAA in 

1997. (NCP, pages 64, 176) 

FAA Action: Disapproved 

The FAA objects to this measure 

because it may impact aircraft 

operational safety and efficiency. VFR 

aircraft in the traffic pattern for Runway 

31 must be able to turn crosswind before 

reaching the Turnpike in order to run a 

safe and efficient traffic pattern. In 

addition, continuation of this existing 

measure is disapproved due to 

significant increase in air traffic in the 

area from many airports. The air traffic 

controllers need to be able to run 

aircraft as soon as possible and cannot 

be required to place aircraft in a 

prescribed flight path with the 

significant increase in air traffic around 

FXE.

3. Voluntary Use of Turbojet Noise 

Abatement Departure Profiles 

The City will continue to request that 

pilots use National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA) and manufacturers’

turbojet noise abatement departure 

profiles. This program element must be 

voluntary, because the pilot in 

command of the aircraft has the ultimate 

responsibility for safe aircraft operation. 

No third party (including the FAA or 

the City) can dictate cockpit procedures. 

(NCP, pages 64, 147–148, 176; Figure 

50) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Voluntary Measure 

4. Runway 26 Departure Heading 

Pilots currently are requested to 

initiate a turn to 310° after crossing NW 

31st Avenue (visual conditions) or after 

passing the Runway 8 middle marker 

(instrument conditions). The City 

requests that FAA amend this procedure 

to implement it on a formal basis, so 

that it applies to all non-emergency 

operations (wind, weather, and traffic 

permitting). The FAA is 

decommissioning the middle marker. 

Therefore, the City also requests that the 

FAA continue the operation of the 

middle marker as an electronic 

reference or ‘‘turn marker’’. (NCP, pages 

64, 103; Figure 38) 

FAA Action: Disapproved as to 

Formalizing the Procedure; 

Continuation of the Current Procedure 

on a Voluntary Basis Is Approved, for 

VFR Traffic Only, as Traffic, Weather, 

and Airspace Safety and Efficiency 

Permit 

Formalizing this procedure is 

disapproved because there is no 

instrument approach to Runway 26, and 

aircraft are required to fly an ILS 

approach to Runway 8. This opposite 

direction operation requires that 

departing aircraft on Runway 26 turn as 

soon as possible for safety purposes. For 

clarification purposes, the Runway 26 

departure heading was changed to 315°

due to magnetic variation and the 

opposite-direction departure separation 

requirement of 45°. The FAA does not 

currently initiate a turn after crossing 

NW 31st Avenue/Runway 8 middle 

marker. Adherence to this procedure is 

voluntary on the part of the pilot. The 

Part 150 study approved in 1997 stated, 

‘‘This measure reduces the population 

within the 65 dB Ldn noise contour by 

631 people.’’

The FAA will not continue to use the 

middle marker as an electronic 

reference. As an alternative to using the 

MM, the airport sponsor may contact 

the FAA to determine whether the use 

of Distance Measuring Equipment 

(DME) may be an appropriate substitute 

for the electronic reference. 

5. Evening and Night (8 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

Implementation of ‘‘Quiet One’’

Departure Procedure on a Formal Basis

Pilots of eastbound and southbound 

aircraft currently are requested to use 

the ‘‘Quiet One’’ departure procedure (a 

climbing left 360° turn to a heading of 

090°) on a voluntary basis at night (10 

p.m. to 7 a.m.) in visual conditions. The 

City requests that the FAA amend this 

procedure to implement it on a formal 

basis, and to extend the effective hours 

to run from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. This 

procedure is implemented at pilot 

request only, with ATCT approval. No 

change is proposed. (NCP, pages 64, 

103, 176) 

5506 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

FAA Action: Disapproved as to 

Formalizing the Procedure and 

Continuation of the Current Procedure 

on a Voluntary Basis, as It Allows for 

Uncontrolled Turns in IFR Airspace in 

a Very Congested Area 

This measure was previously 

approved as voluntary in 1997 for the 

nighttime timeframe. It is being 

disapproved at this time because of the 

significant increase in air traffic in the 

area. The concern is that the controllers 

need to be able to turn aircraft as soon 

as possible to get them out of the way. 

(See Measure 10, below, for a similar 

operational procedure, approved as 

voluntary.) 

6. Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

Implementation of ‘‘Quiet One’’

Departure Procedure on a Formal Basis 

If the FAA disapproves the preceding 

formal implementation of the ‘‘Quiet 

One’’ procedure with hours extended to 

run from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., the City 

requests that the FAA approve the 

procedure on a formal basis effective 

from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. in visual 

conditions. (NCP, pages 64, 103, 176) 

FAA Action: Disapproved as to 

Formalizing the Procedure and 

Continuation of the Current Procedure 

on a Voluntary Basis, as It Allows for 

Uncontrolled Turns in IFR Airspace in 

a Very Congested Area 

This measure was previously 

approved as voluntary in 1997 for the 

nighttime timeframe. It is being 

disapproved at this time because of the 

significant increase in air traffic in the 

area. The concern is that the controllers 

need to be able to turn aircraft as soon 

as possible to get them out of the way. 

(See Measure 10, below, for a similar 

operational procedure, approved as 

voluntary.) Formalizing the turn could 

place a large number of VFR flights into 

congested IFR airspace. 

7. Support of Airport Perimeter 

Development as a Noise Barrier 

This measure is a continuation of a 

measure approved by the FAA in 1997. 

It calls for the City to continue to work 

with airport tenants to implement this 

measure as part of any proposed 

development on the airport perimeter. 

The structures would be placed in such 

a manner that they can act as noise 

barriers addressing aircraft taxi 

operations for neighboring residences. 

(NCP, pages 65, 148, 177) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

The airport sponsor has included this 

recommendation in past NCP studies. 

The intent of the measure is to promote 

good placement of facilities built on 

airport property in a manner that would 

use the building as a buffer to minimize 

airport ground-based noise on nearby 

residences. Any building construction 

on the airport would be required to 

comply with applicable Federal 

requirements. 

8. Restriction of Maintenance Runups 7 

p.m. Through 7 a.m. at the Runup Pad 

The existing NCP includes a 

restriction that is formally codified in 

the Aviation section of the Fort 

Lauderdale City Code. This ordinance 

restricts the time and location of 

maintenance runups. No maintenance 

runups are allowed between 7:00 p.m. 

and 7:00 a.m. All maintenance runups 

are limited to a location designated by 

the ATCT. The designated runup pad is 

at the decommissioned compass rose 

located near the southeast corner of the 

intersection of Runways 8/26 and 13/31. 

(NCP, pages 65, 151, 177) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

This measure has been approved by 

the FAA in past NCPs and has 

eliminated complaints from nearby 

residences about ground runup noise. 

Figure 53 shows that placement of the 

runup area is close to land uses 

designated as manufacturing and 

production.

9. Nighttime Preference for Runway 26 

Departures and Runway 08 Arrivals, for 

All Aircraft 

This measure maximizes operations 

over the less developed areas west of the 

airport. This bi-directional runway use 

is feasible at night because winds are 

calmer, operations levels are lower at 

night, and the ATCT is open all night, 

ensuring the safe and optimal use of the 

procedure. The city makes an annual 

payment out of airport funds to staff the 

ATCT at night to permit implementation 

of this measure and to maximize the 

effectiveness of other nighttime 

measures. The City requests that the 

FAA amend this measure to implement 

it as a formal preferential runway 

program element. (NCP, pages 63, 98, 

122, 178; and Table 22) 

FAA Action: Disapproved as a 

Mandatory Formalized Procedure; 

Continuing This Measure on a 

Voluntary Basis, When Wind Weather, 

and Airspace Safety and Efficiency 

permit Is Approved 

Formal implementation of this 

procedure is disapproved. The noise 

abatement flight path is infrequently 

used, and initiated only upon pilot 

request. This opposite direction 

operation requires that departing aircraft 

on Runway 26 turn as soon as possible 

for safety purposes. Opposite direction 

operations on the same runway lower 

the margin of safety. 

The current NCP shows that Runway 

26 nighttime departures are carried out 

about 55 percent of the time by jet 

aircraft, and 35 percent of the time for 

propeller aircraft. Runway 8 nighttime 

arrivals by jets occur approximately 70 

percent of the time and approximately 

60 percent of the time by propeller 

aircraft. The present nighttime 

departure rate is an improvement over 

the base case runway use reported when 

the measure was originally 

recommended in the mid-1980’s (20 

percent for all operations). The 1997 

NCP stated: ‘‘This measure results in a 

reduction of 31 people within the 65 dB 

Ldn noise contour and operates in 

conjunction with the noise abatement 

flight path for Runway 26 departures 

(turn to a heading of 310 degrees).’’ (See

Measure 4 in this Record of Approval.) 

10. Runway 08 Departure Heading 

Presently turbojets with destinations 

other than eastbound are assigned 

heading 330 degrees, and noneastbound propeller aircraft are assigned 

300 degrees, with instructions to initiate 

turns abeam of I–95. All eastbound 

departures are assigned heading 090. 

The City requests that the FAA amend 

the existing I–95 turn as a mandatory, 

formal instrument procedure under 

FAA radar control, applicable to all 

aircraft, wind, weather, and traffic 

permitting. A 90 degree heading would 

be assigned when required to avoid 

potentially unsafe traffic conflicts. 

(NCP, pages 64, 103, 111, 117–118, 178; 

Figure 43; and Tables 18, and 33) 

FAA Action: Disapproved as a 

Mandatory, Formal Instrument 

Procedure; Approved as a Continuation 

of an Existing Voluntary Measure When 

Traffic, Weather, and Airspace Safety 

and Efficiency Permit Between the 

Hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. 

This measure is disapproved as a 

mandatory, formal instrument 

procedure. Air traffic has significantly 

increased in this corridor since the 1997 

approval of the voluntary procedure. 

Formalizing this departure procedure by 

turning all turbojet aircraft on this 

heading creates a safety issue due to the 

air traffic congestion in the south 

Florida area when traffic is other than 

light.

The Letter of Agreement between the 

Miami ATCT and FXE ATCT was 

revised August 1, 2004, to require that 

ATCT assign a heading of 330° to all 

turbojet aircraft departing Runway 8 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 5507

between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. 

(this excludes emergency Lifeguard 

flights). The measure may be extended 

at the discretion of ATCT to 8 a.m. if 

traffic, weather, and airspace safety and 

efficiency permit. The 1997 NCP stated: 

‘‘The elimination of this procedure 

would approximately double the 

population within the 65 dB Ldn 

contour.’’ The FAA approved the 

measure in 1997 as voluntary. This NCP 

states that without the existing measure 

in place, ‘‘the population within the 

contours more than doubles from 730 to 

1801, clearly indicating the 

effectiveness of this existing measure.’’

The VFR turn abeam I–95 is voluntary 

on the part of the pilot and ATCT does 

not issue turns abeam I–95. 

11. Restriction of Night, Weekend, and 

Holiday Touch-and-Go Operations and 

Practice Approaches on a Voluntary 

Basis 

Expand the existing voluntary night 

(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) touch-and-go 

restriction to encompass touch-and-go 

and practice-approach training 

operations at night, and on a 24-hour 

basis on weekends and City holidays. 

This measure is predicted to reduce the 

number of people within the 65 DNL 

noise contour from 730 to 700. (NCP, 

pages 65, 127–131, 178; Figure 46; 

Tables 25, 26, and Table 33) 

FAA Action: Approved as a voluntary 

measure 

12. Raise the Approach Slope on All 

Runway Ends to 3.5°

This measure calls for raising the 

Runway 8 approach slope to 3.5°. It also 

requires the City to raise the PAPI 

angles to 3.5 degrees on all runway 

ends, with FAA approval. The city 

would publicize these changes. It 

should be noted that a glide slope angle 

above 3 degrees on a runway with an 

ILS such as Runway 8, is considered 

exceptional and requires special FAA 

approval. Figure 48 presents the 

resulting contours, which show contour 

shrinkage immediately under the 

extended runway centerlines. The 

population within the contours falls by 

an estimated 74 residents. (NCP, pages 

139, 179; Figure 48, and Tables 28, 29, 

and 33) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for Purposes 

of FAR Part 150

FAA has not raised the approach 

slope for other than safety reasons, to 

maintain cockpit proficiency. Further, at 

FXE, if the approach minimums were 

raised it would prohibit access to the 

aircraft by Category D aircraft due to the 

airport’s runway length. 

13. Future Use Restriction if 

Implementation of Operational 

Measures Does Not Meet Objectives

The City will monitor the jet fleet 

mix, and implementation and 

effectiveness of noise abatement 

measures, to determine whether the 

projected retirement of non-Stage 3 jets, 

combined with operational measures, 

accomplishes two objectives: (1) 

Eliminating residential and other 

potentially non-compatible land uses 

within the 65 DNL contour, and (2) 

eliminating all Runway 08 straight-out 

(090° heading) jet departures, with the 

exception of those required by 

emergency or safety conditions. If these 

objectives are not met, the City will 

initiate the analysis of use restriction 

options that might provide similar noise 

benefit. The scope of the study will 

include, but not be limited to: (1) 

Restriction of Stage 1, or Stage 1 and 2 

operations; (2) single event noise level 

limits; (3) night operating restrictions; 

and (4) feasible enforcement 

mechanisms and penalties for 

violations. (NCP, pages 143–147; Figure 

49; and Tables 30, 31, and 33). 

FAA Action: Approved for Further 

Study 

Recommendations in this NCP for 

formalizing measures have not been 

approved due to potential impacts on 

efficient use and management of the 

navigable airspace and potential 

reduction in the level of aviation safety 

presently provided. Predicted 

reductions of impacts on the noise 

contour by formalizing these measures 

will, therefore, not be fully realized. 

There is no forecast year NEM without 

these formalized measures in place, so 

the population within the 2007 noise 

contour is not known (the forecast case 

2007 noise contours include the noise 

abatement elements of the ‘‘operational 

composite case’’). Implementing the 

approved measures within this ROA 

appears to provide a benefit by 

removing the DNL 65 dB noise contour 

from about 30 to 70 people (see Table 

33, page 157). The 2002 base case shows 

that a total of 730 people reside within 

the DNL 65 dB noise contour. It should 

be noted that FAA will not accept as 

justification for an airport noise or 

access restriction new noncompatible 

development that occurs within the 

airport’s published NEM contours. 

Land Use Measures 

Based on the projection that there will 

be no noncompatible land uses within 

the DNL 65 dB noise contour in 2007, 

with implementation of the noise 

abatement elements of this revised NCP, 

no new land use measures are 

recommended. It is recommended that 

the revised NCP continue to include the 

existing compatible land use measures 

to prevent development of new 

noncompatible uses to the extent 

feasible. (NCP, page 167). 

1. Rezoning Noncompatible Property as 

Opportunity Arises 

City staff members continue to 

monitor areas within existing and 

forecast NEM to identify opportunities 

for rezoning. The very limited 

noncompatible areas of land within the 

contours and the highly developed 

nature of those areas limit 

opportunities. (NCP, pages 65, 167). 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure

2. Local Jurisdictions To Incorporate 

Noise Requirements Into Development 

Control 

The City has requested that local 

jurisdictions adopt the noise 

requirements on a case-by-case basis 

(NCP, pages 65, 167, 180) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

3. Voluntary Fair Disclosure by Real 

Estate Agents 

This measure is an informal 

educational effort. Information is 

disseminated through newsletters and 

presentations to all the local 

governments in the ares as well as 

realtors, other businessmen and 

residents. The community Advisory 

Committee also serves as an ongoing 

conduit of revised noise-related 

information. (NCP, pages 65, 167, 180) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

4. Monitor Noise To Determine Exact 

Extent of Contour Into Residential Area 

The City installed permanent noise 

monitor number 6 in Village Park 

Mobile Home Park (NCP, pages 66, 167, 

180; Figure 54) 

FAA Action: No Action Required 

This measure was approved by the 

FAA in the 1997 NCP, and the City has 

implemented the action. 

5. Noise Abatement Advisory Committee 

The City will continue to implement 

this program element through the 

monthly meetings of the Aviation 

Advisory Board (AAB). The AAB; 

receives a report on the NCP 

implementation and status and statistics 

on compliance with noise abatement 

measures. (NCP, page 66, 169, 180) 

5508 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

6. Noise Abatement Officer 

Supplement part-time responsibilities 

of the FXE Airports Program Manager 

and Airports Programs Aide with 

addition of a dedicated ‘‘Noise 

Abatement Technician’’, to focus on 

day-to-day and month-to-month 

responsibilities, and assist the more 

senior staff on specialized program 

requirements. This is a dedicated staff 

position for which the city will be 

responsible for the cost. (NCP pages 66, 

161, 181) 

FAA Action: Approved

7. Permanent Noise and Operations 

Monitoring System 

The City proposes to implement 

enhancements to the existing ANOMS 

installation to ensure the system 

continues to provide appropriate 

monitoring coverage in a state-of-the-art 

fashion. The enhancements will include 

five additional permanent noise 

monitors, upgraded central computer 

hardware and software, and 

enhancements to the flight tracking and 

identification system to provide more 

specific aircraft identification through 

monitoring of Mode C transponder 

transmissions. The expanded 

geographic coverage and age of the 

system installation also justify an 

upgrade to the central ANOMS 

hardware and software. The current 

system is based on UNIX operating 

platform; modern systems are Windowsbased. (NCP, page 66, 171, 181) 

FAA Action: Disapproved Pending 

Submission of Additional Information 

Other than the location of one of the 

five proposed new monitors (under the 

Runway 13/31 extended centerline and 

identified as ‘‘B’’ in the 2002 NEM 

Figure 53), the documentation does not 

show where these new monitors will be 

located within the official NEM noise 

contours. Measures submitted in a NCP 

for approval must be located within the 

sponsor’s NEM contour (14 CFR part 

150, section 150.23(e), and 49 U.S.C. 

47504(a)(2)) and must otherwise be 

shown to satisfy part 150 approval 

requirements. 

8. Public Information Program 

The FXE staff and other City staff 

provide regular reports to the AAB, and 

ad hoc reports to other interested groups 

as requested. (NCP, pages 66, 172, 181) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

9. Airfield Noise Abatement Advisory 

Signs 

The City has installed noise 

abatement signage at key locations on 

the airfield, notifying pilots of major 

noise abatement concerns. No 

additional or modified signage is 

required at this time. However, any such 

new or modified signage would be 

eligible for up to 90 percent FAA and 

5 percent FDOT grants. (NCP, pages 67, 

172, 182) 

FAA Action: Disapproved 

The NCP states that no additional or 

modified signs are required at this time, 

so this measure is not a necessary 

element of this NCP. Signs must not be 

construed as mandatory air traffic 

procedures. The content and location of 

airfield signs are subject to specific 

approval by appropriate FAA officials 

outside of the FAR Part 150 process and 

are not approved in advance by this 

determination.

10. Pilot Manual Noise Abatement Insert 

The City prepares and distributes a 

revised pilot noise abatement handout 

in a format that is compatible with a 

Jeppessen-sanderson manual. Following 

the FAA’s review and approval of this 

NCP, the City should revise the existing 

insert to reflect program changes and 

redistribute it to pilots, FBOs, and other 

operators. (NCP, pages 67, 172, 182) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

Language in revised inserts should 

accurately reflect FAA actions on this 

revised NCP. Inserts must not be 

construed as mandatory air traffic 

procedures. The content of the inserts 

are subject to specific approval by 

appropriate FAA officials outside of the 

FAR Part 150 process and are not 

approved in advance by this 

determination. 

11. NEM/NCP Review and Revision 

The City will continue existing NEM 

and NCP review and revision practices, 

as necessary. The City will also update 

the NCP, if made necessary by NEM 

revision. The city utilizes information 

from a variety of sources to monitor the 

accuracy of the NEMs and the 

effectiveness of the NCP, including: 

ANOMS monitoring, citizen reports, 

FAA ATCT traffic counts. The city uses 

these sources to determine if operations 

have changed sufficiently to require an 

NEM update (e.g., difference of more 

than 15 percent in operations, or if new 

noncompatible uses due to changes in 

operations, or if the NCP requires a 

revision). (NCP, pages 67, 172, 182) 

FAA Action: Approved 

12. ATIS Noise Abatement Advisory 

The City will continue to request 

incorporation of noise abatement 

advisory information on the ATIS 

recording. (NCP, pages 67, 173, 182) 

FAA Action: Disapproved 

Revised Order 7110.65, Air Traffic 

Control, no longer provides for noise 

abatement advisories. Noise abatement 

advisories may be published in the 

Airport Facilities Directory and pilot 

handouts. 

13. Achievements in Community 

Excellence (ACE) Awards 

The City will continue to provide 

Achievement in Community Excellence 

(ACE) awards program to encourage 

aircraft operators, through a program of 

positive recognition, to comply with the 

NCP noise abatement elements to the 

maximum feasible extent. The city has 

provided ACE awards to ten different 

companies since 1998. (NCP, pages 67, 

173, 183) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

14. Pilot Noise Abatement Workshops 

The City will continue to hold these 

sessions, as another mechanism for 

publicizing noise abatement measures, 

goals, and implementation status, and 

for educating pilots. The city has 

organized and conducted several 

workshops, two or three times a year. 

(NCP, pages 67, 173, 183) 

FAA Action: Approved as a Continuing 

Measure 

These determination are set forth in 

detail in a Record of Approval signed by 

the FAA on January 14, 2005. The 

Record of Approval, as well as other 

evaluation materials and the documents 

comprising the submittal, are available 

for review at the FAA office listed above 

and at the administrative office of the 

City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The 

Record of Approval also will be 

available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/

arp/environmental/14cfr150/

index14.cfm.

Issued in Orlando, Florida, on January 5, 

2005. 

Bart Vernace, 

Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District 

Office.

[FR Doc. 05–1921 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M