Minutes Exhibit D
Minutes Exhibit D Port Commission Special Meeting of April 10, 2018 @433? Northwest Mountain Region 163' Lmd Avenue. s. w. _ F U S Department A Colorado, Idaho. Montana newton Washington 98055-4050 of Transyoooflon' ' Oregon. Utah. Washington Federal Aviation Wyoming Administration December 13, 1995 Mrs. Debi L. DesMarais 24322 22nd Ave. 5. Des Moines, WA 98198 Dear Mrs. DesMarais: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995. I will address your questions in the order asked. as part of 1. This is the type of question that should have been asked to answer your cements on the draft EIS. I believe it would be improper this question since the draft EIS cement period has long since closed. time, would be viewed by many as Addressing this type of question, at this preferential treatment or selectively re-opening the comment period. The following 2. through 5: Are general technical questions about EDMS. and Energy in our answers have been provided by the Office of Environment Washington, D. C. Headquarters office: EPA? If not, were previous rates Have the emission rates contained within the model been approved by approved? When? Is the EDMS model approved by EPA? EDMS as a "Preferred On July 20, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formally accepted Guideline" model for use at civil airports and military air bases. The emission rates contained within EDMS the FAA Engine Emission come from EPA's AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission factors and Database (FAEED). 4 who exempted aircraft engine mantg'acturers [f the emission rates come from manufacturers speczcations, exist? Are from estimating particulate matter (smoke number)? IfFAA arempted, do manufacturers estimates they availablefor viewing? Wilcox at EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan. rates? Ifso, can those rates Does FAA update emission data periodically with newer aircraft engine emission be substantiated with appropriate documentation? " "Expect Excellence EDMS rates, emission rates and today FAA the 1985 EPA AP42 engine Since there is such disparity between 2/3 be substantiated? in C0 and HC by approximately can the reduction how f Ms DeMarais can specify look at the cause of any calculate the emission rate, then we would be willing to she used the EDMS model to disparities. Diana Liang at 2022673494. contact for EDMS questions is Ms A further Sincerely, 0441M: [Q/w/M/ Dennis Ossenkop Environmental Protection Specialist W As indicated on page D38, a separate analysis also conrmed that even if the average annual eet (i.e., all aircraft types in use) and the highest peak hour level of departures, maximized peak hour minimal. departure queue time could occur at the same time, the change in pollutant levels would be This analysis was also conducted for the future annual aircraft eet. Except at South 154th Street, all pollutant concentrations would still be below the AAQS. The test case analysis indicated that increased departure queue time would result in increased CO levels, while increased aircraft departures would result in increased NO; levels. However, as observed by historic FAA data, peak hour departures and peak hour queuing are mutually exclusive and do not occur at the same time. Nonetheless, the analysis indicates that all concentrations except at South 154th Street would be below the AAQS. Comment 14: Commenter questioned the time-in-mode/taxi and requested a clarication of these assumptions. Response: Appendix D, page D-5 discusses the determination of taxi-in and taxi-out times. Actual eld observations were used to estimate the amount of time an aircraft spends in different modes, such as apron idling, taxiing, and idling at the end of the runway. Taxi-in and taxi-out times were based on a determination of existing aireld taxi distances and aircraft speed for seven different points on the aireld. The addition of the South Aviation Support Area (SASA) and the proposed terminal improvements were modeled in combination with the proposed third parallel runway. The rture runway end use based on average taxi distance was then calculated by applying the existing or a constant aircra taxi speed of 15 knots. The use ofthe proposed new parallel runway for departures is expected to be limited for the reasons discussed in the Final EIS. Accordingly, taxi times are not expected to be substantially di'erent over existing conditions (i.e., taxi times take into consideration runway use). For the existing conditions, each aircraft operation is expected to experience approximately 8.11 minutes of taxi-time (for both arrival and departure operations). Comment 15: Commenter stated that the EDMS writeup in the EIS should have noted that all particulate data for jet aircra had been removed. Response: As stated in the EIS in Appendix R, response to comment R-10-2,W l Comment 16: Requested an explanation ofwhy the aircraft emissions in the Final EIS are less than those presented in the Draft EIS. As noted in Appendix D, page D-34, in reevaluating the air quality analysis, all input Response: assumptions used in preparation of the Draft EIS were re-examined. As part of that review, the were revised hourly aircraft temporal factors used in the Final EIS analysis for the existing condition The revised to reect hourly departure activity based on the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Study. A'ppendix'B" an" AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES 0R TOTAL GSE EMISSION PER LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE Geomode 1 - Takeoff Aircraft (kg/hr/eng) AIRCFT 747 Geomode 2am Geographic mode (kg/hr/eng) GEOMODE "Geomode 3 - Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out Fuel (kg/hr/eng) FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 Grnd supp equip Number of engines (kg/LTD) ENG.NUM 4 Geomode 6 - Test (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 7 - Climb (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 8 - Approach (kg/hr/eng) Time in mode TIMEMOD m Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours Aircraft engine emissions per unit time (kg/hr/eng) or emissions from all ground support equipment per aircraft LTO (kg/LTD) co 42.575443 HC 20.499287 ' NOX 2.444146 SOx .425754 . Part .000000 AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES OR TOTAL GSE EMISSION . PER LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE Geomode 1 - Takeoff Aircraft (kg/hr/eng) AIRCFT 747 Geomode 2 - Runway Queue Geographic mode (kg/hr/eng) GEOMODE .Geomode 3 Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 4 -M(kg/hr/eng) Fuel FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 - Grnd supp equip (kg/LTD) Number of engines ENG.NUM 4 Geomode 6 - Test (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 7 - Climb (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 8 - Approach (kg/hr/eng) Time in mode TIMEMOD M Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours Aircraft engine emissions per unit time (kg/hr/eng) or emissions from all ground support equipment per aircraft LTO (kg/LTD) C0 42.575443 HC 20.499287 NOx 2.444146 SOx .425754 Part .000000 AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS RATES 0R TOTAL GSE EMISSION PER LANDING/TAKEOFF CYCLE Geomode 1 - Takeoff Aircraft (kg/hr/eng) AIRCFT 757 Geomode 2 - Runway Queue (kg/hr/eng) Geographic mode GEOMODE 2 Geomode 3 - Touch & Go (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out (kg/hr/eng) Fuel FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 5 - Grnd supp equip (kg/LTD) Number of engines ENG.NUM 2 Geomode 6 - Test (kg/hr/eng) Geomode 7 - Climb (kg/hr/eng) t Geomode 8 - Approach (kg/hr/eng) 'Time in mode TIMEMOD 2.89 minutes Sum of GSE costs per LTO GSE .00 dollars/hours le/IL,/ I KG), , I Plan Update Dra EIS lSea-TacAimort Master " mum. _ QW' .0 / 7% PageZon M ' / J' .1; - D . {may V Envrronmental Impact Statement .,W("I g} b/ . .3 Master Plan Update We. ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY AIRSIDE SCREENING 690/541 Ma_s_tr Plan Updarg Airside 0m_ns_ 4A 4c .5 6 .m. .13 3 , Air Inventory (tons per day in year 2020) 5.86 4.86 4" 13.86 13.86 10.18 6.82 6.82 Carbon Monoxide 6.02 6.82 6.49 6.19 6.19 6.11 Oxides 6.82 _ p 0.33 o 28 o 23 023 012 o 33 Sulfur Omdes 5.4 27.7 0 0 4.2 5.4 5.0 Wetland Impacts (acres) l 7 2 7 30 0 0 loo-Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) 2,760 2,970 12,240 0 0 2,760 2,970 Stream Relomtion (linear feet) 17 28 0 0 12 17 13 Earth Impacts (million cubic yards) Construction Impact (units displaced): ' 420 700 p; 400 0 0 330 410 Properties 300 320 500 0 0 260 330 Homes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Parks 1 1 1 3 0 0 1 Historic/Culnual sites 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools Aswasnotedin Impactspreeentedinthismblewaeprepueduapmofapmlhninmysqemmgbasedoninialdataoollection. laterupdatedbythisEnvironmentalhnpact Statement. the baseinformationwas presentingthisdata inJuly 1994, units using 1990 census. and Gambrell Urban - Population and dwelling Source: Landmm & Brown, Shapiro & Associates, Option IAIB - Do-Nothing its similarity to Option 3. this option was not evaluated due to Option 2 - Commuter Close Spaced - Option 3 Commuter Dependent Chapter II - - 11.373 "3 Purpose & Need and Alternatives "0' TABLE D-3 Page 1 of 4 Seattle - Tacoma International Airport Environmental Impact Statement EMISSION INVENTORY 1994 EXISTING CONDITIONS TONS/YEAR I904 "ii-Nothing S(.)lJ|{(.SlS CO VOC'S N0); 8.011 PM") TOTAL .._-._ 16,676.00 1,402.50 2,163.70 1.37 9.12 Roadways N 20,252.69 / / , 502 \ 37A ' '0' 14.07 23-"3 12.30 '34 /\ "5' 4 ,'\ 175.78 0.01 - 0.05 202.21 ':\\ 'cM" 5 Parking Lots Healing Plants 5 3 (.9 3.25 52:77 0.53 .010 13.00 .0133) 0.06 :3 71 0.28 17.12 . 42.72 24.48 0.32 9.79 0.08 77.38 Training Fires Surf. Coating 0.00 3.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.58 Tank Farms 0.00 .001." 27.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.51 Gmd. Sup. Equip/ 548.35 120.78 105.85 2.30 - 6.67 783.95 ' Aircraft at z 1,365.10 11"740639 181/ 1,378.30- 10.1 54.67 v~ 1 " .371" 3,205.19 [I'CI' TOTALS 18,81 1.20 2,000.34 3,673.47 68.20 I6 42 74,569 m ' Source: Emission Dispersion Modeling Syslcm (EDMS) Version 944 l.11111l1111111\'z llmwn I111: , Mulch. 1005 ['t'ix EDMS .E;, $71M) 7" Various Air Pollution Sources in King County 30.000 _ E Carbon Monoxide D NOxl 25.000 ear 20.000 Tons/Y 5'oOO Metric o!' 009 Mr? so": Vec'" V699" ac 563;: 03'" L"? we?" Pollutant Source In". ld ta Dwain-It d Inky PIGURBZ constitute a small source compared to motor vehicle and aircraft emissions. The boiler, which is powered with natural gas, is also a minor source. The rest of the figures pertaining to emissions will include only the major sources: aircraft and motor vehicles. TABLE 1. AIR POLLUTION SOURCES AT SEA-TAG AIRPORT a, % -. .-'. Source TSP Tank Farms-" 0 0.006 0 Motor' 502 37.2 0.018 0.118 Vehicles, Aircraft? 3121 1874 162 Boiler 3.36 0.012 0.003 0.371 Totalf 3628 1897 163 62 Units - metric tons per , - - I {AUTUI'B ALKUEAET nL:>LUN: Geo'nodc 1 m ' z 1'10 Geomode 2 - Runway Queue AIRCFT 747 Aircraft_ Geomode 3 Touch 0 co GEOHODE i Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out Geographic mode 'parxin - Aircraft - Geomode s 13 Fuel FUEL.CD Geomode s - Engine Testing ruc.uun 4 - Aircraft Climb Number of engines Geomode 7 - Aircraft Approa .70 minutes Geonode a Time in mode Trurnoo in the runway screen) in mode, Geomode 2, are entered (NOTE: Queueing Times for (it has meaning only Takeoff speed TOSPEED .00 meters/sec geomode #1, it is ignored otherwzr Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine) CO 1.470000 "c W NOX . 50x 7.320000 Part Geomode 1 - Takeoff ' Geomode2 - . AIRCFT 747 Aircraft. Geomode 3 Touch A Go 0205002 2 Geographic mode Geomode 4 - Taxi in/out ' ParkinGeomode5 - Aircraft Fuel FUEL.CD l3 Geomode 6 Engine Testing ' ENG.NUH 4 Climb Number of engines Geomode 7 - Aircraft mGeomode 8 - Aircraft Approa Time in mode Tmrnon in the runway screen) ' Geomode2, are entered for (NOTE: Queueing Times in mode. .00 meters/sec (it has meaning only Takeoff speed TOSPEED geomode 31. it is ignored otherwis Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine) co 00 . "mN0: sox .raaeeee' a.000000""' Part Geomode 1 - Takeoff Geomode 2 - Runway Queue , AIRCFT 747 Aircraft Geomode 3 - Touch 5 Go GEOMODE 3 Geographic mode Geomode 4 - TaXi in/out Parking Geomode 5 - Aircraft FUEL.C0 13 Testing F051 Geomode 6 - Engine EHG.NUH A Climb Geonode 7 - Aircraft Number of engines Geomode 8 - Aircraft Approach TIHEMOD 2.00 minutes screen) Time in mode in the runway in mode, Geomode 2, are entered only for (NOTE: Queueing Times (it has meaning TOSPEED .00 meters/sec Takeoff speed geomode 01, it is ignored otherwise) Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine) CO 64.590000 KC 24.990000 "Ox 2.600000 50x .340000 Part 1.000000 Geomode 1 - Takeoff Queue Geomode 2 - Runway AIRCFT 747 0 Go 3 - Touch Aircraft Geonode 4 Grouoor Geomode 4 Geographic node - . Geomode 5 - Aircraft Parking FUEL.CD 13 Geomode 6 - Engine Testing Fuel ENG.NUH 4 Climb Geomode 7 - Aircraft Number of engines a mGeomode Aircraft Approach TIHEHOD screen: Time in mode in the runway Geomode 2. are entered for in mode. only (NOTE: Queueing Times (it has meaning TOSPEED .00 meters/sec Takeoff speed geomode #1, it is ignored otherwise) Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine) ad!!!UUUE' 00 HC NO! SOx Part Geomode 1 - Takeoff Queue Geomode 2 Runway AIRCET 747 & Go - Touch Aircraft Geomode 3 GEOMODE 5 in/out Geomode 4 - TaXi Geographic mode _ Geomode 5 Aircraft Parking FUEL.CD 13 Testing 6 - Engine FUE1 Geomode 4 climb ENG.NUH Geonode 7 - Aircraft Number of engines Approach Geomode a - Aircraft TIHZHOD 3.00 minutes screen) in the runway Time in node in node, Geomode 2. are entered meaning only for (noon: Queueing Timon (it has otherwise) TOSPEED .00 meters/sec T313011 SPBBd ll, it is ignored geomode Emission rates in kg/hr (per engine) co 64.590000 A1-8 24.990000 ac '- :nnnnn III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Results and Conclusions EDMS calculated emission rates for all the criteria pollutants plus hydrocarbons for Sea-Tao Airport's typical activity on an annual basis. Those emission reported in figures 2 through 8 and in Appendix 4. After calculating emission rates, EDMS was used to calculate ambient concentrations during peak-hour activity. This dispersion output was contoured with an interpolating and plotting package called SURFER. The interpolating technique used was Krigning. The results obtained from the plotting exercise are shown in figures 9 through 22 found in Appendix 5, and, although they serve the purpose of providing a graphical illustration of the results, they must be used with caution. Because of the low density of points in certain data sets, some contours were not completed. Other contours contain waves and other artifacts that are not a true reflection of the data, but rather reflect weaknesses of the interpolating algorithm in handling the steep gradients in regions with few data points. Practical considerations relating to computer run time precluded using more calculation points. 2. The emission inventory obtained for Sea-Tao Airport shows that the boilers, tank farms, and training fire are minor, even insignificant, sources compared to aircraft and motor vehicles which together comprise 99.9% of the emissions. Refer to Table l and Figure 3. Note that Figure 3 depicts the airport's hydrocarbon emissions in a logarithmic scale. Appendix 4 contains Sea- Tac's emission inventory in more detail. The tank farms contribute only hydrocarbons from evaporation loses. The training fires take place quarterly, at night, and 15 19 ppm NO2 in a particular run EDMSI predicted a concentration of receptor location right on 154th street. With the wind blowing directly \-_ . from the north (0 degrees) the Tyee Golf Course can be getting as much ___-..... -___--..._.'--\.. _ -....--- as-12 ppm N02 one--hour average during worst-~case conditions. 6. Predicted maximum one-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide during worst-case conditions are about 20 ppm in the terminal area, due almost entirely to traffic, and range up to 59 ppm at the runway, rapidly decreasing to about 15 ppm one kilometer downwind of the maximum concentration. In the case where the wind direction is zero degrees, the plume spreads out around the queuing area, and 1 km south of the queue the impact is still about 10 ppm. In figure 9 an island of zero concentration is located next to the 2 ppm contour. As expected, due to the meteorology chosen and the nature of the source, there is a steep gradient in the east-west direction and a more moderate one along the north-south axis. In the 345 degree case illustrated in figure 11, a one-hour average contribution to the housing development immediately east of the Tyee Golf Course, Angle Lake School and Seattle Christian School of approximately 9-5 ppm was predicted. The one-hour standard for CO is 35 ppm. It is predicted that the maximum one-hour concentration of CO due to aircraft alone is about 20 ppm, or 57% of the standard, in an area of public access during a peak hour and low-dispersive meteorological conditions. degree case illustrated in figure 22. Note that 154th. Street is located at the hot spot. At approximately 1 km north of the runway, the +1 CM\U.X15. Measurements have shown that all of the $6". W particulate matter from aircraft exhaust can be classified as fine, ranging in diameter from 0.03 to 0.1 micrometers.l7 8. The airport is also a significant source of hydrocarbons contriburing _"__#~.______ '_' up to 5 ppm worst--case, ground- level concentrations. The housing itself may development around Seattle Christian School and the school. ."_..~_._.___..__. H... _ as illustrated in figure 14, the 345 get around 4 ppm of hydrocarbons 20 degree case. From a toxics standpoint that may be quite significant deig"on the actual composition of the hydrocarbons. For example, assuming that 4% (based on the Radian estimates) of the hydrocarbon emissions are benzene, the benzene contribution to the hourly average from the airport would be of about 0.16 parts per million (or 24000 parts per trillion annual average). As a point of reference, the acceptable source impact level (ASIL) for new sources proposed in WAC 173-460 is 0.063 parts per trillion. 9. The contribution of traffic to sulfur oxide pollution is minimal. A high of 0.5 ppm 502 was predicted on the runway in the 0 degree case on figure 18 decreasing to 0.1 ppm 1 km south of the queuing area, in the vicinity of 200th Street. A one-hour average national standard for 502 does not exist, Washington's one-hour average standard is 0.4 ppm. 10. It is important to mention the conclusions that the FAA/EPA team reached in their 1980 report Impact of Aircraft Emissions on Air Quality in the Vicinity of Airports mentioned earlier. This report compiled both monitoring and modeling analyses of airports throughout the country: Washington National, Los Angeles International, Dulles International, Lakeland, John F. Kennedy, and Chicago O'Hare. They summarized their conclusions in the following manner: " * Maximum hourly average CO concentrations from aircraft are unlikely to exceed 5 ppm in areas of public exposure and are thus small in comparison to the NAAQS of 35 ppm. * Maximum hourly HC concentrations from aircraft can exceed 0.25 ppm over an area several times the size of the airport. * While annual average NOZ concentrations from aircraft are estimated to contribute only 10 to 20 percent of the NAAQS limit level, these concentrations, when averaged over a one hour time period are estimated to produce concentrations as high as 0.5 ppm if one assumes that all engine produced NO is converted to NO2 by the time these emissions reach public exposure. This value is at the upper end of the concentration range being considered for the short term NO2 standard presently under review and cannot be ignored." The above excerpt identifies nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons as two pollutants to be concerned about at airports; however,w 5mg- 21 TABLE II- I-7 (CON'l'lNUEI)) 08/3 c Total "C NO . CO I .. Fuel R010 ... 04/1" 113/1" '. Mode . lb/hr 115/11: 113/11: kg/hr ' Model-Sede- 1111/11: 0.10" '3 b b lb/hr 0.455 56.51 1.01 0.46 . Mtg. Typo 1.01 114.6 4.51 0.15 3.1 63.01 1.13 9.96 140.0 51.34 4.90 1.16 0.5 3.9 1013 459.5 4.06 116.4 0.19 3.11 11116 4516 0.96 35.65 3.10 1.49 11313-1 9956 1.06 10.6 3.00 1.40 _'0.0 _3_.6__ Takeou 15.56 6.40 1.94 0.167h 9610 111' , 0100 3114 1.41 . 0.36'3-h (1111110601 60.14 11.10 16.35 "Ln-("6.6T 1.15 0.51 3004 1399 10.10 4.50 3.1 1.1 Approach 11.14 3.91 1.11 0.111 9.90 4.53 3', 511.6 39.10 91.90 .50 1.1 1150 3.59 1.6 K 1016 6.99 3.11 101.6 0.101 1.91 .40 1.5 0.60 3100-11 4511 113.4 55.91 9900 3.59 0.640 1.01 1.10 Takeoff 1.91 0.00 1.41 puw 1'5" 1910 3500 ml 'w D'\ Cllmbout 10.13 9.10 19.39 "(J1 .130 1010 1115 1,05 "3' 55.10 f 3.15 1.1 1.31 u: -.. 3'; '1:- 2,'-1'1 Appronch 5.13 '? 16.14 141.4 q 0.01 61 . 4.0 1.0 h 15.3 K 1049 030.1 1. 414.6 0.599 13.19 5.90 __ 1010 3.13 1.31 1.0 11913-1 . 1311 110.0 4.65 1.11 1.3 101.3 ': 5 Takeou 16141 6.60 1.99 16.44 4.65 1.11 Puw TF ., c11mbou1 13193 5904 10.14 36.15 0.01 'b 44.61 1.00 :. VIM41:10 4640 1100 0.55 :1 1.61 11.14 0.19 "., ~ ~0F' Approach 11.16 5.16 3191' 1.31 19.30 E 1000 016.5 61.10 600.0 111.5 1.91 1.15 (3"""' ; 1016 3.00 1.16 1.40 1.09 15.90 :15) . 31913-10 19300 0191 306.1 115.4 5.05 1.65 1.11 1.19 3;.'4 K6 11* Takeon 4.19 11.50 1.63 _ MW 1140 1;; 41.39 Cllmboul 15900 1.61 3.45 0.11 0.10 l..- 1654 339 , g Approach ___050 0.54 0.145 1.40 064 t:- ____" 19.46 0.03 0 0 1.41 ' E' 115 91.51 6.44 1.15 0.51 1010 631.3 1.41 0.640 14.19 5.15 0 0 0.11 7; 31150-1 11.35 0.40 __ Taken" 1405 565.6 1.15 0.561 1.11 1.59 0.111 k ch 151 1.45 E. c11m1aou1 1141 5.19 0.05 401 110.1 11.45 0.11 5.11 1.6 1 : Approach 0.10 0.111 0.43, 0.19 51.16 1.36 3.34 0 0 1.51 0.10 - F11 115 3.31 0.40 0.43 0.195 0 0 121611-11 1016 415 191.0 1.00 1.11 0.11 0.10 = le60" 0.40 0.110 0.41 0113 '1; PM: TP 0.016 '13. cumbom 400 101.4 1.14 100 4.95 0.01 ' 91.51 14.94 6.10 0.15 115 = Approuch 0.19 0.131 1.69 0.404 0.51 0.13 ~. 66.63 16.95 1.05 0.09 1'41 1.10 4.01 0.435 0.41 0.11 {' PTbA- Idle 131.3 1.60 3.50 1.61 0.96 510 0.11 0.11 Takeo '114.6 3.01 1.39 WHO 111 1.11 0.516 6.10 zg_1_ 413 :: (2111116601 4.31 113.0 9.50 43.5 0.91 0.41 :3 113 06.0 0.1 1.60 .. Approach 1.6 5.13 03.1 31.1 13.4 if 415 109.1 49.5 19.5 i 915 1.1 4.60 1.11 \ 555.15l 101. 6.5 3.0 31.1 2.5 Spay 5134 1600 60.1 0.19 Takoou 0.0 0.0 14.3 6.5 1.14 . 1111111 4611 1111 4.6 0.011 Q Cllmbout 34.0 15.0 10.1 0.95 0.43 0.11 1144 191 00.03 36.30 16.0 1.3 Approach 0.105 0.356 1.06 3.10 6.34 Q 104.4 41.36 13.91 10.0 4.5 946 419.1 156.1 11.00 5.15 1.61 MKSHE" 1111. 16.16 1.33 0.0 0.0 0.60 511w 1051 3101 Taken" 00 116.0 51.90 9.33 1.10 1.00 1._ 1111111 0.0 1.16 10 56 \L Cllmbout 5151 1609 12.09 16.00 40.11 513 0.31 0.11 ',(/._L/u.'~ 999.1 11.53 Approach 1104 0611 0.101 15.13 3.59 1.61 55.63 14.66 0. 0 0.316 366 166.0 3.16 31.31 3.16 1.43 104511.01I 1016 1.10 0.101 1610 15.10 11.41 0.632 3590 4.30 3.00 1.01 0.40 1111 (1311161611 Tnkeo 9.40 6.61 3160 1433 3.51 1.61 Cllmboul 53.56 24.19 _. _ T!" _ __1061 404.0 Approach _.. H __ H ._._ 1 51'v1:'\~7.\';-:. . T' h.' W] o.\,._-\,\.? C LTO CYCLES TYPICAL DURAIION FOR CIVIL able 1113. AIRPORTSa CONGESTED METROPOLITAN AT LARGE /. Mode Total EEEEEEE Climbout Approach Taxi] Taxi/ Takeoff Idle in Idle out / ommercial carrier Jumbo, long ' 32.9 and medium 4.0 0.7 2.2 jetb " range 4.5 7.0 33.5 0.5 2.5 Turbopropc 19.0 ; 6.5 23.2 Transport 5.0 4.6 6.5 0.6 piston General aviation 1.6 6.5 15.5 6.5 0.4 0.5 Business jet 7.0 33.5 0.5 2. 4.5 Turbopropc 19.0 27.3 5.0 6.0 4.0 Pistond 12.0 0.3 ' 6.5 3.5 20.0 6.5 -' 3.5 Helicopter minutes 3. Data given in Table 11-1-5). :Reference T3 and T4 (Note b, Classes T2 times as EPA Table II-lrS). CSame P2 (Note b, Classes T1 and times as EPA dSame Table II- l-S).. Class Pl (Note b, Same times as EPA '11- l-S Snurm's lnlc-rmil (:()l11bll.~lil)ll Enuim' 22/80
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.