20000846 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20060101 (7)

0
M
M
h
M
M
M
7

M
M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
In Cooperation with the:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed New Overnight Express
Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility,
and Associated Developments
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina
This FEIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle I; Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other
applicable laws.
A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998.
This FEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for
Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this FEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated
developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting,
navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, air cargo sort/distribution facility,
tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and a new interchange for Old Oak
Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard. The Federal Highway Administration is a cooperating agency for this FEIS.
VOLUME 5: APPENDIX O
NOVEMBER 2001
(PART 2OF2)
For further information:
PIEDMONT
TRIAD Ms. Donna M. Meyer
Department of Transportation
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT`' Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
1 404/305-7150
10
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
In Cooperation with the:
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Runway 5L/23R, Proposed New Overnight Express

Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution Facility,
and Associated Developments
PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
City of Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina
r
This FEIS is submitted for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 49 USC 47106; Section 303(c) of the US Code, Subtitle I; Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act; and E.O. 11990, E.O. 11998, E.O. 12898, and other
applicable laws.
A Notice of Intent to prepare this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1998.
This FEIS addresses the environmental impacts anticipated by the proposed projects identified in the 1994 Master Plan for
Piedmont Triad International Airport. Specifically, this FEIS includes the evaluation of the following projects and associated
developments proposed by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority. Acquisition of land, new runway, taxiways, lighting,
navigational aids, air traffic procedures, associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, air cargo sort/distribution facility,
tunneling and bridging of Bryan Boulevard, relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and a new interchange for Old Oak
Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard. The Federal Highway Administration is a cooperating agency for this FEIS.
VOLUME 5: APPENDIX O
(PART 2 OF 2)
NOVEMBER 2001
PIEDMONT
`w TRIAD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
For further information:
Ms. Donna M. Meyer =
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
1701 Columbia Ave, Suite 2-260
College Park, GA 30337-2747
404/305-7150

1

0
1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Volume 2
A Agency Correspondence
B Noise Measurement Program/Supplemental Metrics
C Flight Tracks
D Aircraft Noise Overview
E Socioeconomic Data
F Air Quality Assessment Supporting Material
Volume 3
G Historic and Archaeological Resources Supporting Material
H Hazardous Substances Data
I Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum
Volume 4
J Land Use Assurance
K Water Quality
L Scoping Meeting Information
M Public Workshop Information
N Public Hearing Information
Volume 5 (Parts 1 and 2)
O Consolidated Comment Database
W:\PIEDMONT\FEIS\SEC_1 Voa.doc.doc\09/18/01
A
A
Y
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON EIS
Piedmont Triad International Airport
Environmental Impact Statement
This portion fo the appendix lists all general public comentators that provided written and oral comments on the
EIS. General public comentators are organized by last name, then first name. The associated Letter Code and
Comment Codes follow each name. Due to the volume of comments received, copies of these letters and the
transcripts have been complied into supplemental documents that are available at the FAA offices in Atlanta
and PTIA offices in Greensboro.
Supplemental Document, Volume 1
+"' Letter Codes:
SP0001 - SP0459,
PP0001 - PP0571,
PE0001 - PE0003,
PN0001 - PN0005, and
DP0001 - DP1005.
Supplemental Document, Volume 2
Letter Codes:
DP1006 - DP2383 and
DN0001 - DN0005
r
A
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Abbott Willa M. DP0183
Abbruzzi Anthony J. DPO592
Abee Dean DP0843
Adams Alfred G. DPO168
Adams Allan R. PP0032
Adams Cynthia D. DP0307
Adcock III W. Eugene DP0114
Addertion
Addertion James
Jimmy S.
G. DPO741
DP0704
Addetion Edna S. DP1744
Affeltranger John DP1869
I Agans Gary DP2070
Air Linda DP0659
Akins Jennifer DP1082
Alderson Anne W. DP1546
Alderson Anne DP1762
Alderson Raymond D. DP1412
Alexander James DP2223
Alexander K. PP0030
Allan Peter DP0363
Allen Charles DP2299
Allen Nancy S. DPO668
Allen Peter DP0004
Allgood Phyllis DPO103
Allison John DP0573
Allred David SP0054
Allred Don DP2292
Almon Jack DP2108
Almond Rob DP0279
Alt P. DP1696
Amato Carl S. DPO699
Amato Carl S. DP0699
Amburgey III Jimmy DP0513
Amendola Peter DP1018
Ames Jerry SP0365
Anderson Chris DP2220
Anderson David DP1361
Anderson Gayle N. DP0359
} Anderson Gayle SP0350
Anderson Karen DP1507
Anderson Karen PP0387
Anderson Phillip SP0326
Andersson Arne DP1104
Andrew H. Allen DP0212
Andrew H. Allen DP2252
Andrew H. Allen SP0402
Andronica Grace M DP0902
Angel Irvin G. DP1745
Angle Patricia DP0611
Anselmi Jim DP0690
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-26
2-2, 29-16, 27-4, 6-32, 6-14
2-2, 6-32, 6-14, 6-6, 5-7
2-2, 6-19,6-14,6-32,6-12
2-2.6-12,6-6,5-8
2-2,6-12,29-16
2-2,6-15,6-6
2-2, 6-72,6-12
6-72,2-2
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-6
3-2, 3-36, 3-90, 3-138, 3-16, 6-45
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-12,6-6, 5-8
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-7, 6-45, 6-86, 23-22, 6-59
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
29-56
5-2, 29-7, 23-5, 3-7, 3-1, 6-35, 9-6, 9-3, 6-43
29-112
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
29-112
6-12, 6-15,6-14,6-32
6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 5-15
2-2,1-3, 5-9
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-12
2-2,29-16
5-2, 6-43, 2-3, 29-56
2-2
5-8,6-6
2-2, 6-19, 6-12, 6-32
6-15,5-7
2-6, 30-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-5
2-3,24-1
6-15,6-6
2-2, 6-14, 5-7, 6-12, 29-16, 6-6
2-2,6-12,6-6, 5-8
7-4, 7-1, 9-31, 3-2, 5-21, 6-4, 1-2
2-3, 22-2, 1-2, 7-4, 7-6, 9-6, 30-1, 29-37
3-1, 3-7,30-1, 5-3,5-2
2-3,27-1
6-6,6-32,5-8
6-26,6-6
2-2,27-4
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,6-6,6-26
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
3-16,21-1,21-36
public names_091701.xls
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Anselmi Jim PP0166 21-13,23-16,21-13
Antonas Liza PP0179 21-6, 23-16, 2-2, 6-12, 6-32
Arhurte Fred PP0107 29-66,3-41,3-40
Arnold Dale DPO591 21-1
Arnold Dale DP1847 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 7-3, 17-1, 6-45, 3-36, 3-7
Arnold Dale SP0020 7-1, 24-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-3, 24-1
Arnold Dale SP0102 2-3,21-1,24-1,'2-11
Arnold Dale SP0103 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 21-3, 5-2, 1-4, 1-1
Arnold Herb R. DPO953 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6
Arnold Leigh Anna SP0219 5-22,2-3
Arrington Harvey DP1737 2-2,6-15 -
Arrington Phil DP1796 2-2,6-6
Ashby Carl PP0165 2-2, 6-15, 6-32, 29-11, 29-24, 24-3, 23-1, 6-6
Ashby Tracy DPO544 2-2,6-17,6-32, 5-15,6-6
Ashworth Fred DP1975 3-36, 3-7, 3-2, 3-61, 20-6
Ashworth Stephen DP0094 2-2,5-8,6-12
Atkins Sue DP0828 2-2,6-26
Atkinson G Douglas DP0035 2-2
Auls John V. DP1310 29-86, 3-1, 29-87, 7-1, 7-4
Austell Edward C. DP0726 2-2, 6-75, 6-14
Austin D. Bryan DP2004 2-3, 24-1, 22-4, 6-4, 27-1, 3-1, 1-2
Austin James PP0208 2-3,5-5,6-1
Astir, James PP0311 2-3,9-6
Austin James PP0312 27-8,2-3
Austin James PP0313 7-2,2-3
Austin James PP0314 2-3,24-1
Austin Kimberly PP0315 2-3,24-1
Austin Kimberly PP0316 7-2,2-3
Austin Kimberly PP0317 27-8,2-3
Austin Kimberly PP0318 2-3,9-6
Austin _ Pauline H. DP0636 2-3,21-1
Austin Pauline H. DP0771 2-3.21-39. 29-56. 21-40- 21-41
Austin Pauline DP2122 2-3,24-1,5-22
Austin Pauline PP0159 2-3,13-1
Austin Pauline PP0207 2-3,22-2,29-1,5-5
Austin Pauline PP0319 2-3, 5-1, 6-9, 21-17, 6-16
Austin Pauline SP0406 2-3,5-1
Austin Pauline DN0003 2-3
Austin Tammy DP1244 2-2,6-12
Avram G.A. DP2349 2-2,26-2,6-6
Ayers Lee Anne DPO903 2-2,5-9,5-7
Azarova Nadezhda DP1286 2-2,6-32,6-12,6-14
Badgett Dale DP1022 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 5-7
Badgett Richard G. DP1415 2-2,6-6
Baggett William C. DP1548 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 5-8
Bain Elizabeth E. DP0898 29-60,2-10
Bain Nancy R. PP0167 2-2
Baisden Daniel E. DP0235 2-2, 5-7, 6-15, 29-17, 6-32
Baise J. Mitchell DPO147 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17
Bakane John L. DPO442 2-2, 6-12, 5-8
Baker Angie DP1321 2-2
public names_091701.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Baker John D. DP1905 3-36,3-7,3-122,5-5
Baldwin Charles DP1485 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Baldwin Elva H. DP1486 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 9-6
Baldwin Fred DPO653 2-2,6-6,6-32
Baldwin Marie L. DP1465 2-2,6-12,6-6
Baldwin Todd DPO571 2-2, 6-77, 6-32, 26-2
Balevic Adam H. DP1554 20-6, 6-4, 9-6, 9-8, 7-4, 6-16, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 24-1
Balevic Adam DP2164 2-3, 7-2,6-57
Ball Art SP0400 2-3, 24-2, 21-4, 21-1, 5-5, 21-3, 21-9, 5-17, 21-8, 4-10
Ball Linda M. DP1179 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Ball Toni DP1389 2-2, 6-32, 6-12,6-15
Ball Jr. M. J. DPI 178 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Balsley Tom DP2336 6-12,6-32,2-2
Bangham Russ SP0026 6-2, 6-3, 3-1,21-1, 3-4
Banner Allan C. DP1041 2-2,6-6
Barber James DP2240 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-78
Barbour
Bardsley W.
Scott Earl DPI 163
DP2274 6-4, 3-7, 3-1, 3-83, 24-2
2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 7-1, 27-1, 6-22, 5-2
Barefoot Miles DP1304 2-3, 5-5, 6-45, 2-23, 6-4, 27-1, 1-1, 22-1, 7-1, 5-2, 4-17
Barger David K. DP1901 2-2, 6-14,6-15,24-3
Barker William SP0062 24-1,2-10
Barnes Larry PP0173 2-2
Barnes Lois DP1596 2-2, 6-6,26-2,5-7
Barnes Steven DP1861 2-2, 6-32, 6-6
Barnett J.L. PP0174 2-2, 6-12,6-6
Barney Mattie H. DP0264 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14
Barnhill Jr. H. Grady DP0129 6-6, 6-12,6-32, 6-15
Barnwell Brant DP2134 6-12,6-32,2-2
Barnwell Brant PP0193 6-15,5-7
Barnwell Joyce Marsh DPO410 24-3,6-14
Barnwell Joyce DP2133 2-2, 6-6, 6-12
Barnwell Jr. R. Brant DP0516 2-2,6-14,5-9,6-6
Barone Catherine S. DP2418 5-5, 3-7, 2-3, 24-2, 2-6, 2-3, 3-96, 14-14
Barr Beth DP1350 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Barr Beth DP2247 2-3,64
Barrett James L. DPO696 24-5,2-2
Barrett James PP0175 2-2, 6-6, 6-12,5-8
Barrett Thomas DP0086 2-2,6-6
Barrow Ralph DP0127 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 6-12
Barry Dennis R. DP0601 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 5-8, 5-7
Barry
Barry Dennis
Dennis R. DP1807
SP0078 2-2, 6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-6
Barton L. DP0853 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Basinger Donald PP0007 3-207,3-31
Bass Elizabeth DP1758 7-3, 3-1,24-1
Bastow Bonnie L. DP0900 2-2, 6-6,5-7

public names 091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Bates Owen PP0188
Bateski P.K. DP2029
Bateski Patricia K. DP1107
Bateski Patricia K. DP1109
Bateski Patricia K. DP1110
Bateski Patricia K. DP1111
Bateski Patricia K. DP1991
Bateski Patricia PP0010
Bateski Patricia PP0132
Bateski Patricia PP0241
Bateski Patty DP1225
Bateski Patty PP0004
Battle Richard DP1219
Battle Richard DP2094
Bauer F. Scott DP0831
Bauguess Phil DP2162
Baxter Lawrence G. DPO882
Baynes Robert G. DP0522
Baynes Robert G. DP0581
Beal Gertrude DPO640
Beane Shane PP0308
Beard Richard DPO100
Beard Richard DP2098
Beard Richard PP0303
Beard Thomas R. DPO515
Beard Thomas SP0348
Beard Jr. T. Richard DP0725
Beard Jr. T. Richard DP0725
Beasley Jr. Robert SP0025
Beaston G. Davis DPO425
Beaston G. Davis DPO439
Becher Jr. F. James DP1756
RPrk Pones no+?`?
Becker David C. DP1429
Beers David SP0379
Befus Gerry DP0829
Behel Kevin DP2019
Beier Greg DP0627
Bell Alice T. DP2346
Bell Barbara PP0057
Bell Barbara PP0218
Bell David DP1633
Bell Frank DP0068
Bell Ranlet S. DP1742
Bell Stephan D. DPO838
Bell Vicki DPO423
Bell Jr. Frank M. SP0111
Belton Barbara Claybrook DP0365
Belton Naomi DP0267
Bennett Graham DPO245
Bennett Lorrie V. DP0333
public-names-091701.4s
Comment Codes
3-1, 30-1, 2-18
27-28, 29-63
3-7,3-1
5-17,1-2
2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 27-1
5-2, 7-4,29-7
7-4,7-1
9-6,7-2
2-23, 21-4, 2-3
2-3,5-2
2-18, 3-7, 3-1, 7-4, 27-1, 5-2
9-6,7-4
7-1, 7-2, 7-31, 7-32, 7-4
20-10,7-32
6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 29-16, 6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-10, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-19, 5-7
2-2, 6-19, 5-7
2-3, 22-24, 29-56, 5-2
2-2,6-6
29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32.6-14, 6-15, 5-9
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7, 6-31
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-16, 27-4, 29-90
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-15, 6-20, 5-8, 29-17
6-90
2-2, 6-75,.6-32, 29-32
2-3, 3-1, 6-2
2-2
2-2
2-2, 5-8, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14, 6-15
L o e n
2-2, 6-15, 6-64, 6-14
2-17, 30-1, 5-44
2-2, 6-14, 29-12, 5-8
2-3, 1-22, 3-2, 7-1, 1-4, 3-36, 7-2, 9-6, 9-37, 2-89, 29-56, 29-
60
2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-32, 29-17
2-2,6-6
2-3, 1-2, 2-9, 5-27, 24-1, 22-2, 22-4, 29-63
23-16, 22-2, 17-1, 3-33, 27-8, 9-6, 21-13
3-2,17-1, 7-1,1-2
2-2,4-24,6-12,6-14
2-2, 5-8, 6-6
6-15,2-2
2-2,6-81
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-32
6-12
29-17,6-6, 2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26

D
1

1
i
E,

1
1
1

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Benninger Paul DP0822 2-2,6-26
Bennington Richard DP0767 2-3,5-34,25-91,1-2
Berlin Stephen R. DP0243 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6
Berry Lynn DP1181 2-2,6-32, 6-14
Berry Margaret DP2368 3-1, 29-122, 2-3
Berry Ray D. DP0938 2-2, 6-6, 6-15
Berry Thomas DP2118 7-4, 9-6, 20-6
Berry Tom DP2257 7-4,9-6,4-21
Betts Charles SP0116 5-8, 24-2, 6-25, 1-6, 29-32
Betts Jim SP0108 2-2,6-6, 5-8
Betts Rachel SP0455 2-2,6-32
Biggerstaff Frank L. SP0133 6-13,29-12
Biggs Larry DP0697 2-2,6-6
Billheimer Tom DP2289 2-3,19-1, 24-1,19-6,19-7
Bingham Robert DP2245 2-2,6-12
Bircher Joseph P. DP1291 2-2,6-32,6-12
Bird Ami DP0287 2-2,6-12
Birkel J. Damian DPO433 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15
Bischoff Heather DP2169 2-2, 5-7,6-12
Bischoff Heather PP0309 2-2, 23-15, 5-7
Black Bill DP2190 2-2,6-6,6-32
Black David G. DP0380 2-2, 5-8, 6-77, 24-3
Black J. Richard DP1607 29-60, 29-56
Black J. Richard DP2001 3-10, 3-96, 6-1
Black J. Richard DP2003 5-5, 3-96,2-89
Black J. Richard PP0322 2-3, 21-13, 22-2
Black J. Richard SP0109 21-20, 21-22
Black J. Richard SP0447 4-5, 5-4, 5-44,2-3
Black J. Richard SP0448 21-1,21-4,23-8
Black J. Richard SP0449 2-52,11-1
Black J. Richard SP0450 2-1, 2-53, 30-1, 2-3, 2-45
Black J. Richard SP0451 3-16, 3-9, 3-1, 2-1, 2-6, 3-10, 3-3
Black Janice DPO945 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 5-15, 5-8, 6-26
Black Jean M. DP0811 3-189,3-92,3-190
Black Jean M. DP1303 3-2,3-1, 3-91, 3-92
Black Jean M. DP1961 25-1,14-1,1-22
Black Jean M. DP2022 30-1, 4-22, 30-2, 3-1, 3-2
Black Jean M. DP2044 3-135, 3-10, 1-1, 3-8, 3-92, 2-89
Black Jean M. SP0399 2-3, 5-3, 5-5, 5-44, 4-10, 5-4, 4-5, 29-7
Black Jean M. SP0444 30-1, 30-8, 6-1, 22-1, 1-1
Black Jean DP1382 3-32
Black Jean DP2391 4-5, 4-8, 4-22, 21-3, 2-23, 4-3
Black Jean PP0025 1-13, 1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 1-2, 21-10, 21-18, 5-1
Black Jean PP0320 2-3, 30-1, 21-23, 5-5, 5-44
Black Jean PP0321 2-3, 3-32, 3-16
Black Jean SP0023 2-3, 5-3, 5-5, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5
Black John W. PP0323 2-2, 6-12, 6-6,1-6
Black John DP0923 2-2, 6-14, 6-15
Black John PP0203 2-2,6-12
Black Lynn SP0232 2-2,6-6,6-10
Black III William H. DP0756 2-2,6-14
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Blackburn Dale PP0185
Blackburn Richard DPO440
Blackburn Walt DP2259
Blackman Charles K. PP0324
Blackwell Bill DPO849
Blackwell William D. DP0206
Blackwood Dianne K. DP1542
Blackwood Dianne SP0253
Blackwood Pam SP0298
Blair Lawanda DP1313
Blair Michael DP1237
Blair Thomas SP0083
Blair Tom SP0397
Blake Asia DP1775
Blakley Jr. Bobby G. DP0706
Blakley Jr. Bobby G. DP1354
Bland Daniel A. DPO142
Bloss Eden DPO927
Bloxdorf Jerome J. DPO475
Bodenheimer Mary Fay DP0369
Boehme John M. DP0248
Bogenberger James R. DP1256
Boggs Kenneth K. SP0099
Boggs Mike DPO187
Bohen Michael PN0005
Boissonneau Debbie DP1124
Boles Katy DP0273
Boles Mickey W. DPO149
Boles Steven W. DP1526
Bolin' Karen M. DP0886
Bond Lloyd DP1272
Bond Lloyd PP0325
Bond Lloyd PP0326
Bond Lloyd PP0327
Bond Lloyd PP0328
Bondurant John B. DP0803
Bonner Douglas J. DP1911
Booher Candy DP1574
Booke Henry M. DPO524
Booth Tom PP0170
Borden T. Michael DP0372
Borenstein Cyndy DP1348
Borenstein Herb DP1349
Borugian Dennis DP0921
Comment Codes
6-51,23-16
2-2,5-8
2-3, 6-4, 6-16, 1-2, 27-1
2-2,6-6,6-12, 5-8
6-6,6-15, 2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-32, 5-7
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-33,6-6, 5-7
2-3, 21-1, 30-4, 27-1, 3-1, 24-1
6-15,6-12,6-6
6-6, 6-12,2-2
2-2,6-6
6-12, 6-6, 6-26, 6-14, 6-18, 6-15
2-3
2-2,6-10
2-2, 6-32,6-6,6-12
2-2,6-6,6-12, 5-7
6-12, 6-6, 3-14
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,29-19
2-2, 6-6,6-12
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 26-2, 6-26
2-3, 21-1, 7-2, 7-3, 9-6, 9-3, 3-33, 3-1, 27-1, 27-8, 24-1
6-15,6-26, 6-12,6-14,2-2
2-2,6-6,6-81
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14, 6-12
2-2,6-6
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73.3-74
2-2,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 22-2,29-56, 6-
4
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 27-1, 27-8, 7-3
2-3, 1-1, 2-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 6-4
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 26-2, 5-15, 29-16, 5-7, 5-8
2-3,24-1,3-7,3-2
6-32, 6-12, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 5-9
2-2,6-6, 6-32, 5-7
2-2,6-19,6-14, 6-77
2-3,5-1,1-4,3-2,1-2
2-3,5-1,1-4, 3-2,1-2
2-3, 9-15, 14-19, 14-20, 14-21, 9-8, 7-5, 7-46, 7-54, 9-37, 9-
49, 9-50, 14-22, 7-54, 9-51, 9-52, 9-53, 9-55, 9-56, 9-57, 9-58,
13-13,13-14,13-15,13-16,13-17,3-1, 3-159,3-160,3-161,
29-85, 7-4, 7-2, 29-122, 7-18, 7-53, 3-36, 3-16, 4-22

h
L

11-1

A

1

public names_091701.As

117
11
J

1

1
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Borugian Dennis DP1999 2-3, 9-15, 14-19, 14-20, 14-21, 9-8, 7-5, 7-46, 7-54, 9-37, 9-
49, 9-50, 14-22, 7-54, 9-51, 9-52, 9-53, 9-55, 9-56, 9-57, 9-58,
13-13, 13-14, 13-15, 13-16, 13-17, 3-1, 3-159, 3=160, 3-161,
29-85, 7-4, 7-2, 29-122, 7-18, 7-53, 3-36, 3-16, 4-22
Borugian Dennis SP0185 2-21, 21-61, 3-1, 5-2, 8-1, 3-22, 2-1, 2-20
Bouillard Dennis DP2229 2-3, 3-97, 6-74, 5-5, 20-6, 1-4
Bowden Ruth DP1718 6-12,2-2
Bowers Tracy PP0080 7-2, 29-63, 7-4, 6-4, 1-1, 5-2, 21-3
Bowes Major H. DP0851 2-2, 6-12,6-32, 29-16, 5-15, 29-118
Boyd Denman SP0043 19-1, 3-1, 30-1
Boyd Denman SP0165 5-2, 21-1, 2-22, 2-9
Boyd John PP0329 27-8, 6-9,10-1
Boyd Margie DP1490 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Boyle Hal DP0029 2-2,6-15
Brabo Tim SP0011 5-12,30-1,2-6
Bracey J Stephen DP0078 2-2, 5-7,5-8
Bradley Cindy DP1709 5-7,5-9
Bradley David DP2238 2-2,6-14,6-6
Brady Don SP0151 2-2,29-19,29-16
Brady Donald J. DP1731 2-2,6-14,29-10,6-6
Brady Sarah PP0330 2-2
Brady Jr. John R. DP0530 3-36
Brady Jr. John R. DP2187 3-36, 3-7, 9-54, 7-1
Braiton Marilyn PP0013 5-2,1-1, 22-1
Bralley Terry DP2242 2-2,6-15,6-6, 6-14, 27-9
Brame Jean SP0191 2-2, 2-25, 6-10, 6-14, 6-16, 29-13
Brame Michael T. DPO844 2-2, 2-87, 2-101, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6
Branch Steve PP0219 2-2, 22-7, 6-12, 6-32, 6-26, 6-6
Brandon John PP0331 2-2,6-6
Brannigan William and Wendi DP0761 3-15,6-96,7-1
Branson Jean PP0332 2-2,29-76
Branson Nancy SP0008 3-1,6-2
Braxton M.C. PP0014 9-6, 6-4,5-24
Braxton Marilyn PP0060 21-15, 30-1, 9-6, 27-8, 23-14, 2-23, 2-42, 22-2, 21-4, 5-5, 22-1
Braxton Marilyn SP0001 5-5, 21-1, 5-2, 3-3, 3-1, 30-1, 7-1, 1-1, 6-1, 12-6, 17-1, 1-1, 2-
1,2-7,21-1
Bray Charles DP2071 3-2,5-8,29-17
Bray Dean DP2334 2-2, 6-6, 6-12
Bray L. DP0607 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
Braygoad Charelle PP0400 2-2
Brazda Barbara SP0028 2-3, 1-1, 5-5, 3-1, 3-2, 6-1, 30-1, 21-3
Brazda Barbara SP0353 2-3, 5-5, 3-1, 2-18, 3-7, 3-2, 30-1, 22-1, 6-2, 6-3, 2-9
Brenner Richard A. DP0325 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
Brice Judith PP0333 2-3,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-3, 3-1, 7-2, 27-1, 27-8, 9-6, 5-21,
22-2,29-56
Brice Judith PP0334 2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7
Brice Judy DP1265 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Briggs Paul SP0419 5-8, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 5-9
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Briggs William L. DPO119
Bright Kelly DPO344
Bright Kitty C. DPO413
Bright Jr. Charles M. DPO419
Brigman Dianne SP0254
Briley Randy DP0508
Brinkley Bill DP1738
Brisotti Douglas A. DPO901
Britton Randy DP2181
Broaddus Ashton G. DP0683
Broaddus Ashton G. DPI 173
Broaddus Carolyn DP1175
Broadley Peter DP0003
Broadwell Rich DP1842
Brodsky David PP0257
Brodsky David SP0309
Brody Don SP0452
Broeker Cathi PP0099
Broeker Cathi SP0094
Broeker Raven DP1227
Broeker Raven PP0149
Broker Raven SP0377
Bromley Edmund SP0325
Brookby Robert G. DP1019
Brooke Sam L. DP1918
Brooks J Bryan DP0992
Brooks Richard DP2303
Browder Leslie DP0028
Brown Asia DP0997
Brown Blake Milner DPO874
Brown Chester SP0225
Brown Clarence PP0183
Brown Cynthia SP0098
Brown Dorothy SP0357
Brown Gale PP0086
Brown Jeff DP1771
Brown Jeff DP2232
Brown John E. DP1535
Brown Kyle DP1034
Brown Laura DP1347
Brown Lorna Milner DP1658
Brown Lynn J. DPO883
Brown P. David DP0812
Brown Rick DP2251
Brown Robert J. DP0485
Brown Thomas T. DP1430
Brown III Chester H. DP0881
Brown III Chester H. PP0335
Brown Jr. Charles H. DP0732
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6
2-2,6-6, 6-12,29-16
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-10, 5-9, 5-45
2-2.6-14
2-2,6-6
2-2.6-32,6-6
6-15, 6-6, 5-8, 29-24, 29-118, 2-2, 24-3
3-84, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
1-2,5-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15
1-5, 3-7, 3-1, 2-45, 3-4
2-3, 5-5, 5-2, 2-1
2-2,29-24,6-6
2-3
27-1, 29-1, 5-2, 2-3
2-3
2-3
29-1,4-10,27-8
1-1,1-8
2-2,5-8
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 5-9
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-15
2-3,3-2
2-3, 7-4, 5-2
2-2. 6-6. 5-9. 29-19 29-12 a-17
21-13, 21-16
2-9,5-5
6-6, 6-12, 6-20
21-6, 2-2, 6-6, 3-14
6-21,1-2
6-4,6-100
2-2, 6-32, 6-6
2-3
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 21-31, 21-32, 3-2, 7-1
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12,6-6,6-14
2-2, 6-6,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-8, 6-17, 6-32, 6-14
2-2, 6-6, 6-72
2-2, 5-7, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 24-3
2-2
2-2, 5-8,6-32
public names 091701.As

t
1
f

1
1

J
A
1

1

F
E

A
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Brown Jr. Chester H. DP1818
Brown Jr. Chester H. PP0336
Brown Jr. Royall R. DP0867
Brubaker Bill PP0337
Bruce Carole PP0172
Bruck Peter PP0338
Brugh Julianne DP1534
Brumbaugh R. Gary DPO211
Brunette Bryan L. DPO943
Bryan James W. DP0520
Bryan Kaye DP2296
Bryant Tonya DP 1185
Buccini Robert V. DP1128
Buccini Robert SP0302
Buck Andrea PP0561
Bucklen W. K. DPO448
Buehler Jennifer G. DP1814
Buffington Ann W. PP0339
Bull Stephen A. DP1858
Bullard Rod SP0290
Bullins E. Spencer DP0392
Bullock Julian S. DP0753
Bumpass Michael F. DP1739
Bumpass Mike DP2248
Bumpass Mike SP0404
Bunce Bruce DP1850
Bunch Thomas E. DP0252
Burch Louis E. DP1491
Burick Donna DP1951
Burick Donna DP1986
Burick Donna DP2363
Burke Mike DP1007
Burkette Wayne DPO455
Burkholder Alice PP0340
Burleson Teri L. DP1081
Burnet Timothy SP0340
Burnett Tim DP2269
Burnett Tim PP0237
Burnett Timothy B. DP1133
Burnett Timothy B. SP0117
Burns John DP2271
Burns Joseph V. DP0191
Burns Patrick J. DPO171
Burr Allen DP1437
Burr Allen PP0143
Burr Sandi SP0351
Burre Joyce H. PP0341
Burress III John W. DPO125
Burris James SP0194
Burton J. Frank DP1003
Comment Codes
6-76, 5-7, 6-75, 5-8, 29-16, 2-2
2-2, 5-7, 6-31, 29-24, 6-6, 29-12, 6-15, 3-59
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-20
1-6,5-9
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 23-3, 5-7
24-1, 6-3, 6-36
2-2, 29-17, 5-8
5-8, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2
2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-6, 6-14, 6-32
2-3, 3-1, 24-1, 6-45, 3-75, 3-76, 20-6
5-5, 3-1, 2-21
2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2, 6-6,1-6
6-15
2-2, 5-8, 5-7
2-2,6-19
2-2, 6-12, 3-129
2-2,26-2,6-14,29-16, 6-32
2-2, 26-2, 5-15, 6-14, 6-32, 29-16, 3-104, 6-72
2-2, 6-6, 9-7, 5-8, 6-12, 29-17
2-3, 24-1, 20-6, 29-56
2-2,5-7., 5-8,5-9
6-15,6-6, 29-90, 6-14
6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1
6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1
6-9, 2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 7-1
2-2, 6-14, 29-16
2-2, 6-15, 5-35
2-1, 2-9, 5-5
2-3,29-80
6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 29-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-9
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-2,6-12,6-14,6-6
6-10
2-3,5-21,6-100
2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-14,6-32
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
2-3, 5-2, 6-45, 17-1, 30-1, 5-17, 6-48
6-28, 6-2, 5-46, 5-17, 21-1
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17
2-2, 6-15,6-12,6-32
public names_091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Busby Ann M. DP0337
Busby Ann M. PP0342
Bush Marc R. DP1777
Bush Marc PP0281
Bush Marc SP0104
Bush Marc SP0405
Bush Mark DP2285
Bussey Bob DPO582
Butcher Vickie PP0343
Byerly Kathy DP1279
Byrd Angel DP0300
Byrum Jerry H. DP2035
Cail Julie DP0356
Calabrese Melissa DP2156
Calhoun Eric R. DP1015
Calkinay Sandra SP0027
Call James H. DP0001
Callaghan E.J. PP0084
Callaghan E.J. SP0329
Callahan Cheryl M. SP0114
Callahan Pete T. SP0158
Callahan Rance DP1288
Callcut Sue DP1215
Cameron Donald W. DP1536
Cameron Helene SP0294
Cameron Jeff PP0082
Cameron Veronica PP0344
Campbell Angela DP1115
Campbell Dennis DP0789
Canino Rev. Louis DP1271
Canner Bob PP0038
Canner raylo DpiS93
Canner Gayle PP0259
Canner Gayle SP0049
Canner Joyce PP0036
Carcaury Jr. Claude DP1281
Cardwell Garnett DP1653
Cardwell Linda DP1403
Carlson Ken DP2219
Carlson Jr. Kenneth P. DP1368
Carlton Elizabeth DP0070
Carney Laurin PP0345
Carpenter G. Scott DPO459
Carpenter Kenneth B. DPO160
Carpenter Tim DP0890
Carraway Jeanette R. DP1295
Carrick Gina SP0002
Carroll Cynatha DP2212
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 29-16, 5-7
2-2,6-12,6-6
2-2,6-6,29-90
2-2,6-32,5-8,29-11
2-2,5-9
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 29-24
2-2, 5-7, 29-90, 6-12, 6-6
2-2, 6-19, 29-16, 27-4, 27-1, 24-2
2-2,29-76
2-2,6-32,6-12
2-2,29-16
2-3, 3-36, 24-1, 7-4, 9-6, 1-2, 21-17, 2-96
2-2,6-6
6-6,3-14
6-10
21-1, 2-7,5-5,6-2
21-29,24-1, 3-123
3-7, 3-224, 3-206, 2-6, 22-1, 2-45, 3-39
2-6, 3-206, 3-224
2-2,29-15, 6-17, 5-8,6-12,6-15
2-2, 3-13, 6-10, 29-16, 29-17, 1-6, 29-20, 29-21, 5-9
2-2,6-32,6-12, 6-6
3-36; 3-7, 3-85; 3-1; 6-45 6- 9-3
2-2,6-12,6-6,6-14
2-2,29-16,2-2,5-8
2-3, 5-2, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 3-1, 3-7, 3-2, 3-16, 2-4, 6-2
2-2
2-2,5-8,29-17
6-15, 6-6, 2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74 -
2-3, 22-2, 29-7, 6-4, 5-2
`-3 v o ?c n ne nn
, v- v, I -L, L I -JJ
22-1, 22-2, 29-7, 21-4, 21-17
3-4,29-3
2-3,1-1, 3-33, 6-4, 21-1, 6-23, 22-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-6, 6-32
2-2,6-6
6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 5-9, 2-2
2-2,6-6
2-2
2-2
2-2,6-12,5-8
2-2,6-12,6-6,29-17
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
5-1, 29-1, 21-1, 6-2, 29-2
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15
1

1
1
r

1
A
1

public names_091701.As I

1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1

Last Name
Carroll
Carroll
Carroll III
Carson
Carter
Carter
Carter
Carter
Carter
Carter
Caruth
Carver
Cary Jr.
Casacchia
Case
Cash
Cashion
Cashion
Cashion
Cashion
Casstevens
Cataldo
Cataldo
Cauble
Cauble Jr.
Caudle
Caughron
Cauthen
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cavanaugh
Cawood
Cayton
Cayton
Cecil
Cecil
Cecil
Cecil
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
First Name Middle Code
Hodges C. DP1636 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Joseph F. DP1635 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Eugene DP0014 2-2
Jo Ellen DP0845 2-2,6-14,6-6,6-32
Anne H. DP1384 2-23,9-6,3-1, 5-5, 7-13,5-1
Connie DP1400 2-2
Joan DP2243 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-17
Leon DP2243 2-2,6-26
Peggy DP1540 2-2, 6-14,6-6,6-32
Ronald M. DP1095 2-3,1-2,5-5
Carmen DP2217 2-2,6-6
Mike DP0322 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8
Randolph J. DP0800 2-2, 6-6, 5-7
Alleta DP1969 3-7, 1-22, 29-60, 7-4, 29-56, 3-61
Ron PP0346 2-2,6-6
Clyde R. DPO343 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Audie DP0994 2-2,5-8,6-12
Audie DP2284 29-17,6-15,6-14,2-37
Coleman L. DP1230 2-3, 29-63, 9-25, 27-1, 22-4, 6-16, 6-4
Margie DPO669 2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
Randy S. DP1598 2-2, 6-14, 6-32
Gaetano De DP0702 24-6,6-10
Gaetano De DP0702 2-2
Karen DP1036 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32,3-101, 2-3
John DP2059 2-3, 3-7, 3-223, 24-1, 3-1, 3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 5-5, 1-2, 3-135,
3-10,29-56
David A. DP0194 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
David DP2298 2-2,6-6
Jody DPO491 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32
Karin DP1893 2-3, 5-5, 29-56, 5-22
Kathleen DP1263 2-3,1-2,3-7,3-10
Kathleen DP1352 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 3-7, 3-37
Kathleen DP1593 3-105,3-36, 3-97, 3-7
Michael J DP1195 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Michael DP2014 3-7, 3-36, 3-109, 3-1, 24-1, 2-79
William DP2009 3-16,3-1
Hobart G. DP0429 2-2
Brenda DP1654 2-2, 6-6, 6-32
Randall DP1583 2-2,6-12
Bob DP2027 2-3,1-22,3-7,1-2
Mark R. DP2036 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Mark R. DP2037 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Wendy W. DP2026 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Cecil Wendy W. DP2031
Chadwick Judy PP0053
Chadwick Tom PP0347
Chalk Ken DP0784
Chamberlin Andrew S. PP0348
Chambers Ken DP1216
Chanley Navin DP0713
Charbonneau Raymond V. DP1126
Chase Greg DPO966
Chase L. Sue PP0349
Chase Phyllis PP0350
Chasson Jeff DP0639
Cheek Rodney S. DP0931
Cheney Gay E. DP1305
Cheney Gay DP0685
Cheney Gay DP0765
Cheney Gay DP2038
Cheney Gay DP2416
Cheney Gay PP0109
Cheney Gay PP0244
Cheney Winifred N. DP1378
Chesson S. M. DP0807
Chesson S.M. DP0772
Chesson S.M. DP0773
Chesson S.M. DP1704
Chesson S.M. DP2386
Chesson Shelba J. DP0806
Chesson Shelba J. DP0808
Chesson Shelba J. DP1639
Chesson Shelba J. DP1702
Chesson Shelba J. DP1703
Chesson Shelba J. DP1821
Chesson Shelba DP1328
Chick Sr, Charles F. DP1746
Chickillo Catherine PP0151
Chickillo Catherine SP0017
Childers Don DP2182
Childress Dana DP2277
Christopher R.P. DP1553
Christopher R.P. DP2308
Chrysson Jennifer DP0963
Chudoba C. Alan DP1125
Church Gerald SP0259
Church Nancy H. DP0848
Claiborne Robert SP0156
Clapp Bernie DP0968
Clapp Harry P. DP1656
Clapp Harry PP0148
Clapp Harry SP0152
public names_091701.xis

Comment Codes I
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
23-16, 2-23, 21-13, 2-3, 22-2
21-13, 23-16, 21-23, 2-23, 22-2, 2-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
6-15, 6-6, 6-31, 1-6, 5-9
5-2,1-2
29-99,4-18
2-2, 6-32,6-6
5-15, 26-2, 5-8, 6-15, 6-6, 2-2
2-2
2-2
3-36, 3-76, 3-157, 2-3
2-2, 6-15, 6-6
21-73, 21-33, 21-71, 21-26, 9-28, 19-1, 9-3, 3-76, 3-36, 3-42, 3-
7, 20-6, 27-1, 7-1, 7-22, 7-4, 7-21, 2-23
7-21, 9-28, 3-49, 21-73
2-3, 3-130, 29-100, 7-4
21-1, 22-24, 22-2, 5-5, 1-2, 27-1, 7-4, 7-1, 72, 20-6, 2-3
7-4, 29-85, 20-6
23-16, 6-9, 5-2, 22-3, 2-3
2-3, 7-2, 9-6, 22-1, 22-3, 29-56
21-73, 21-33, 21-26, 7-17, 9-28, 19-1, 9-3, 3-76, 3-36, 3-42, 3-
7, 20-6, 27-1, 7-1, 7-22, 7-4, 7-21, 2-23
2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
2-3, 21-42, 21-37, 21-43
2-3, 6-70, 6-97
2-3, 23-5, 23-23
3-81, 3-16, 3-157,2-3
3-15, 3-64, 3-162, 3-157, 3-49, 2-3
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
2-3, 7-1, 7-4, 5-5, 7-3, 29-7
2-3.6-70
2-3,21-37,21-1
'
2-3, 23-5, 23-4
2-3,7-1,7-4,5-5,7-3
2-2,6-15
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 3-7, 5-5, 6-45
3-1, 24-1,27-1
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 29-16, 5-8, 5-9
2-2,6-32
3-7, 7-4,7-1,27-1, 2-3
20-6,5-5,2-3
2-2, 6-6,6-12,26-2, 5-15,5-7
5-7,26-2
6-6,2-2
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2, 5-9, 6-15, 6-6, 29-16, 29-17
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
1-22, 5-2,1-2, 3-36
22-2, 1-1, 1-23, 2-47, 30-9, 1-12, 22-1, 22-5, 4-4, 2-1
22-1, 1-1, 1-4, 22-5, 4-4

1

1
1
?7
1
1
11

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Clark Jeff T. DPO404
Clark Jimmy D. DP0751
Clark Robert DP0082
Clark Susan S. DP0379
Clarke Brian S. DPO645
Clayton Douglas M. DP0207
Clayton Ivan G. DP1728
Clegg Ann DP1011
Cleghom Michelle DP1247
Coan Mary B. DP0672
Coates Wayne G. DP1449
Coats Gerald SP0018
Cobb Bryan DP2021
Cobb Bryan SP0164
Cochran Jr. James B DP0999
Cockrell Tonya DP1069
Cole Howard SP0072
Cole Julie B. DPO460
Cole Maxine DP2195
Cole Sue Ann DP1966
Cole Sue W. OP0790
Cole Sue SP0287
Cole Tommy DP2194
Coleman Gail PP0051
Collins Barbara SP0330
Collins Dennis DP2270
Collins George R. DPO980
Collins George DP1611
Collins George DP2273
Collins George PP0228
Collins- Mary SP0086
Collson Laura S. DP2056
Colson Dorthy DP2235
Coltrane Shannon K. PP0351
Combs Jr. James A. DP0430
Comer Bob DP2085
Comer Bob SP0424
Comfort Stuart C. DP0934
Commerson Robert L. DP0775
Commerson Robert L. DPO956
Commerson Robert L. DPO957
Commerson Robert L. DP2325
Commerson Robert DP2087
Compton Paula DP1829
Connell Scott J. DP0866
Connell Scott Jerome DP2184
Connell Victoria L. DP0815
Connelly Sr. Roland L. DP1039
Conner Bob PP0215
Conner Gayle DP0650
Comment Codes
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-77, 5-7
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-77
2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6, 6-14, 5-7
2-2,6-12,5-9,6-15
2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 5-7, 6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 5-7, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8
1-1,2-1
2-3, 20-6, 29-7, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 27-8, 1-2, 5-5, 6-4, 6-31
2-3, 24-1, 1-1, 1-23, 29-22
2-3,9-6
2-2,6-12
6-6,2-2
2-2
2-2, 6-15, 6-12
7-4, 7-21, 7-1, 7-20, 2-3
2-2, 5-8, 29-16, 6-32
9-6,23-10
2-2,6-12
21-16, 3-34, 3-35
2-23, 1-4, 6-4, 1-2, 7-1, 6-1, 3-7, 27-1, 2-3
2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 6-26, 6-15
3-101,7-70
23-30
3-101
2-3, 3-33, 23-16, 3-43, 30-1, 9-6, 27-8, 22-3
30-1, 5-5, 5-10
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 29-16, 6-12, 6-6, 5-20
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-77
6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2
6-6, 6-12, 6-32
2-2, 6-12.5-15,6-14
2-92, 23-34, 21-44, 8-6
2-3, 3-1, 24-1, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7
2-3, 13-15, 13-3, 13-13, 12-6, 2-89
2-92,21-44,1-2
20-6, 3-1, 3-36, 7-5, 7-4, 9-23, 27-1, 6-43, 6-45, 1-2
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6,6-32
6-32, 6-12,2-2,1-3
2-2, 6-6,6-12
2-2,6-15,29-32
2-3, 5-5, 7-2, 3-15, 27-8, 9-3, 21-28
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Conner Gayle DP1229
Conner Laura DP1845
Connery Libby Katheryn DP1945
Connor Ron DP1440
Cook Brian DPO641
Cook Brian DPI 950
Cook Brian DP1956
Cook Brian DP1957
Cook Brian DP1982
Cook Brian DP1983
Cook Brian DP1985
Cook Brian DP2385
Cook Brian DP2398
Cook Dixon DP1248
Cook Dixon PP0186
Cook Joseph SP0214
Cook Lee DP0096
Cooke Caroline PP0140
Cooke Lisa PP0065
Cooke R. Cameron SP0393
Cooke Ruth W. DP2396
Cvomes James A. DPl6l2
Cooper Colleen DPI 113
Cooper Malcolm DP1264
Cooper Mimi DP2302
Copeland J. Joseph PP0352
Coram Sherri DP1661
Coran Donna C. DP0670
C' or '..
VI?/lll 1
V. 0....
ROX nnni AA
L I VTTI
Cordell A. Robert DPI 132
Coreen Carl M. DP1425
Corkman Mary PP0062
Corley Rennie DPO505
Corpening Julius DP0366
Corvey Ted DP0624
Coston Abby PP0562
Cothren Judy DP1625
Couch Betty F. DP0226
Coughlin Mike DP1166
Council Taylor SP0257
Couts Nula SP0032
Coulter Mary E. DP1547
Coviello Jim DPO748
Covington Ned SP0192
Covitz Sharon DP0055
Cowell Betty DP1421
Cox Mary DP0041
Comment Codes
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 2-
3
2-2
5-22,29-63
2-2,6-15
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23,19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23,19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2
2-3, 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
3-7, 3-1, 3-16, 7-16, 2-3
7-2
6-22, 20-6, 7-2, 6-35, 3-1, 30-2, 24-2
2-2,6-14
7-2, 7-6,2-3,24-1
2-3, 1-2, 24-1, 6-4, 29-64
2-2, 29-38, 29-10,1-3
24-1,24-7
2-2, 6-6,6-i2
3-7, 2-3,3-1,1-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-15, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
c-c
2-2,6-6
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 3-7, 9-6, 6-43, 27-8, 2-23, 21-4, 6-1, 1-2
2-2, 6-6,3-14
2-2,6-12
2-2, 5-7,6-12,6-32,29-24, 5-9, 6-15
2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12
2-2,6-6
6-69,5-2,1-2,1-14
6-22, 22-4, 24-1, 5-2, 29-39, 3-1, 30-4
6-4,27-1, 5-2,1-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-77
2-2, 6-10, 6-12, 6-20, 5-8, 6-15
2-2,6-6,6-15
2-2,6-32
2-2, 6-12, 6-14

LEI

11
r
LLI

1
1

public names_09170I.As I
Last Name
Cox
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Craft
Craft
Craig
Cramer
Cramer
Crate
Craven
Craver
Craver
Craver
Crawford
Crews
Crews
Crews
Crews
Crisco
Crocker
Cronin
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crosby
Crouch
Crsico
Cude
Cude
Cude
Cude
Cude
Cude
First Name
Scott
Daniel
David
Mark
J.
Rod
G.E.
Christine
B.
C.
Vicki
Shirley
Edna
Edna
S.
William
J.
Joseph
Barry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Jerry
Margaret
Margaret
Margaret
Margaret
Margaret
Peggy
Peggy
Peggy
Erin
Bramley
Deen
Deen
Deen
Deen
Deen
Lisa
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Middle
R.
Scott
Scott
Penn
F.
H.
H.
E.
Keith
D.
G.
G.
G.
W.
W.
Letter
Code
DP1492
SP0446
PP0002
DN0004
DP1799
PP0353
SP0189
DP0044
DP0362
DP0172
DP0317
PP0156
DP0126
DPO131
DPO407
DP2052
DP1538
DP1152
DP0064
DP1978
DP2384
DP2392
DP1921
DP1929
DP1930
DP1931
DP1932
DP0764
DP0766
DP1640
DP1701
DP1922
DP1908
DP1977
DP2143
DP0385
DP1417
DP0718
DP1854
Comment Codes
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-32,6-12,29-11
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 1-6
2-2
2-2,6-14,6-6
2-2
2-2,2-25,6-10, 6-14, 6-16,29-13
2-2,5-8,6-12
6-6,6-12, 2-2
2-2,6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26
2-11, 3-1, 24-1, 6-45, 5-1, 2-9
29-16,2-2
29-16,2-2
6-77, 6-32, 5-8, 2-2
3-7, 3-2, 3-1, 7-4, 7-21, 5-2, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 26-2
2-2, 5-8, 6-12
2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34
2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34
2-3, 3-69, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 6-45, 6-16, 5-34
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5
2-3,6-70
_
3-109, 3-22, 3-63, 3-49, 2-3
2-3, 6-70, 6-97
9-22, 9-21, 9-4, 9-23, 19-1, 9-3, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
2-3, 23-5, 23-23
2-3,7-5,7-4,7-3,29-7
29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3
29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3
29-98, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 8-1, 29-63, 30-1, 6-4, 29-56, 2-3
6-12,29-16
2-2,6-26
3-16
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-33, 23-16, 2-23, 21-4
2-3, 1-1, 21-1, 5-2, 17-1, 3-33, 27-1, 3-9, 6-43, 6-45, 30-1, 30-
4, 7-2, 9-6, 5-44, 21-1, 24-1, 2-7, 2-1, 2-19,1-2, 24-2
5-5, 22-1, 21-1, 17-1, 3-2, 5-2, 3-3, 3-75, 6-1, 29-1, 30-1, 21-1,
5-1,2-1, 5-2
2-3, 24-1, 6-45, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-
32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74
21-3, 2-23, 2-19, 5-23, 23-5, 3-15
2-2,6-14
2-2, 5-8,6-32
21-13,23-16,5-2
PP0254
PP0354
SP0009
W. DPO560
Cude Lisa PP0255
Cullen Stephen D. DP1802
Culler Stephen D. DP0120
Cummings Harold PP0355
public names_091701 xls
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Cundiff Pamela J. DP2290 2-2,6-12.6-14,6-6
Cundiff Pamela DP0076 2-2,6-14,6-32
Curri Mark S. DP0558 20-6,5-22
Currin Amanda DP1020 6-32,2-2
Curry
Curtis Eileen
Philip DP1879
DP2230 3-2,7-1,9-6,2-3,20-6
29-60, 6-45, 29-85, 2-18, 3-2
Curtis Phillip SP0369 22-2,29-1.1-2, 5-2
Curtis Jr. L. Wesley DP1276 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-32
Curtiss Philip DP1772 5-1, 5-2, 3-1, 6-45, 29-60, 2-23
Curtiss Philip PP0130 2-3, 22-4, 22-1, 29-63, 9-6, 22-2, 1-4
Curtiss Philip PP0283 22-4, 22-2, 6-53, 6-43, 6-3
Cutroneo Anthony DP1249 7-4, 7-3, 2-23
Dagenhad Kevin L. DP0145 6-19,6-6,5-9
Dahl Jr. Tyrus V. DP0657 2-2,6-6
Dallas J. S. PP0357 2-2,5-8,1-6,6-12
Dallas Keith PP0356 2-2
Dallas III John Sanders DPO199 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32
Dalton Carolyn D. DP0315 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26
Dalton Janet DP0330 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-26
Danahy J. Patrick SP0317 2-2,6-26,6-15, 6-12, 5-8
Daniel Marcia A. DP0995 2-2,29-16
Daniel Megan DP1455 2-2,6-6
Dappen Richard DP0048 2-2,6-6
DArcy Teresa DP2377 5-2,2-92
Davenport Rick DPO955 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 6-25, 29-12
Davis Doris M. DP1044 2-2,6-32
Davis Farah S. DP0595 2-2,6-14
Davis Gay DP1630 2-3, 3-1, 7-3, 27-1, 29-85, 29-7
Davis Gay PP0358 24-1, 23-29, 7-6, 9-3, 30-1, 6-9, 23-1
Davis Gay SP0170 24-1, 3-10, 3-1, 12-6, 21-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 6-1
Davis Hazel PP0360 2-2,29-76
Davis Jean E. DPO124 2-2, 6-6,29-17
Davis Linwood DP0037 2-2,6-12,6-14, 24-3

Davis
Lisa
DP1841
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15 '
Davis Martin B. DP1532 2-2,6-6
Davis Mary Jo DP1226 20-6, 3-7, 7-21, 12-6, 21-4
Davis Paula DP0859 29-37,5-44
Davis Ronald R. DP0387 2-2, 6-14,3-13
Davis Tommy PP0359 2-2,6-15
Davis III John SP0231 . 6-13,3-30,2-13, 6-10
Davis Jr. James E. DP1131 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17
Davison Jr. D. Ralph DP1787 2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-14
Dawkins Jennifer Mauldin DP1541 2-2,6-6
Dawson Bill SP0314 5-5, 3-21, 21-1, 3-223, 5-2, 3-1, 6-1, 6-9, 2-3, 6-4, 2-22
Day James A. DP1004 2-2,5-7
Dean Richard H. DP0406 2-2,6-77
,
Dean William M. DP1724 2-2,6-26
Dean III Mills DP1972 3-2
DeBottis John DP1196 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Decamp Richard SP0208 3-14,21-6,6-13
DeHart Teresa DPO241 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-32
public names_09170I.As

1

1

1

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
DeLoatch Fernell DP0912
Deloatch Femell SP0305
Deloca Paul PP0361
Deloca Paul PP0362
Deloca Paul PP0363
Deloca Paul PP0364
DeLoca Penny DP1943
Deloutch Femell PP0078
Demetriades Penny SP0085
Dennis Dave DP1308
Dennis Dave DP1835
Dennis Dave PP0289
Dennis Dave PP0366
Dennis Dave SP0426
Dennis June DP1169
Dennis June DP1259
Dennis June PP0187
Dennis June PP0365
Denton Edgar PP0367
DeNuccio Ron DP1478
Depoe Theresa SP0035
Derrico Miki SP0210
Desbien Elizabeth DP1770
Dicarlo Andrew SP0034
Dickens Jr. Arthur P. PP0368
Dickie Donna M. DP1754
Dickie Thomas DP1464
DiDonato Ron DP1029
Diering Norma PP0058
Dietrich Dietrich, PP0369
Dietrich Jody DP1280
Dietrich Jody PP0224
Dietrich Jody PP0263
Dietrich Jody PP0373
Dietrich Jody PP0374
Dietrich Jody PP0375
Dietrich Jody PP0376
Dietrich Jody SP0246
Dietrich Walt PP0370
Dietrich Walt PP0371
Dietrich Walt PP0372
Dietrich Walter DP1197
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-12, 6-17
2-2,6-10,6-30
2-3, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56
2-3,1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5
2-3, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45
2-3, 6-4,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 21-4, 22-2, 29-56
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
6-6,2-2
3-4
7-4, 7-1, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-30
7-4, 7-1, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29, 7-30
7-1, 7-11, 6-54, 7-2, 7-6, 7-3, 9-3, 2-42, 2-62, 3-50, 3-209, 2-
65, 30-11,13-1,12-1
3-3, 8-1, 6-4, 7-2, 3-16,1-1, 9-6, 22-2, 5-2, 5-44, 30-11, 30-1,
5-5, 27-8, 29-56
5-44, 2-17, 3-28, 3-1, 6-1, 7-6, 9-6,13-1
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
6-12, 6-32, 6-4, 7-2, 9-6, 29-1, 13-1, 3-1, 6-9, 5-21, 21-1, 2-23,
2-17
3-1, 3-16, 7-2,1-1, 5-2, 22-2, 5-44,13-1, 30-11, 30-1, 5-5, 27-
8,29-56
2-3, 3-15, 7-2, 27-1, 24-2, 6-45
2-3,1-22
1-1,22-1
3-1, 1-4,4-5, 5-2, 21-1, 24-1, 30-1
5-2, 6-9, 20-6
5-2, 2-4, 30-1
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-30
2-2, 6-12,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 24-3
2-2, 6-14, 29-16, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 6-32
1-2,2-3
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 7-3
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 29-7, 7-2, 9-6, 9-3, 14-1, 22-2, 29-56, 29-35, 6-4, 7-1
2-3, 5-2, 22-2, 29-56, 27-1, 6-4
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-
56,6-4
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 7-2, 27-1, 7-3, 24-1, 3-9
2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-67, 29-56
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56
2-3, 9-2, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 24-1, 6-4, 27-1, 3-3, 3-1, 3-18, 30-1, 5-
2,21-1,22-1, 29-52
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 21-4, 22-2, 29-56, 6-4
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-9, 24-1, 7-3
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
public-names-091 701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Dietterick Anne PP0092
Dietterick Anne PP0300
Dietterick Lanny PP0073
Dietterick Lanny PP0265
Dieugenio Louis PP0377
Dieugenio Louis PP0378
DiFalco Fay DP0538
Difalco Nick DP1889
DiFalco Nick DP2209
Digh Michael DP0836
Dillingham Josh DP0701
Dillingham Josh DP0701
Dixon Donald L. DPO834
Dixon John C. DP0496
Dixon Renee PP0379
Dixon Sam W. DP1668
Dixon Jr. Clarence N. DP1662
Dodson James C. DP1582
Donahey Kelly DP0282
Donohoe Charles DP1992
Dorchester Wendy PP0380
Dorchester Wnedy K. DP0950
Dorr Neil A. DP1761
Dorr Neil PP0069
Dorr Neil SP0293
Dorr Susan SP0291
Doub Julia DP0058
Doucette Holly SP0016
Dougan Tim DP1033
Dougherty Becky DP2236
Dougherty Rebecca M. DP0993
Dougherty Rebecca M. DP1597
Dougherty Rebecca SP0201
Doughton S. Mark DP1899
Doughton Thomas J. DP0378
Douglas Annette S. DP1105
Douglas III Thomas S. DP0390
Douglass Donald P. DPO346
Dowdle Hugh John DP0220
Doyal Colleen SP0212
Doyal Jim PP0158
Doyal Nickie PP0045
Doyle Cynthia SP0162
Drake Richard DP0045
Drew III Ellis B. DP0339
Druce Dianne L. DP2006
Druce Dianne L. DP2008
Druce Dianne L. DP2015
Druce Dianne L. DP2060
Druce Dianne L. DP2069
Druce Dianne PP0268
public names_091701.As
Comment Codes
2-3, 30-1,17-1, 30-8
2-3, 30-1, 3-7,17-1
2-3
2-3
2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6,11-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 7-
1,27-8
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 22-2, 5-21, 24-1
21-48, 3-109, 22-24, 21-48, 6-4, 6-106, 3-49
29-56
3-149, 3-36, 29-85
2-2, 6-6, 6-14
6-14,24-3
2-2
6-12, 6-6, 6-25, 27-9, 5-9
6-12, 6-14, 5-9, 6-15
7-2,14-1,13-1, 3-33
2-2, 5-7, 6-6
2-2, 5-7, 29-19, 29-90
2-2, 5-7, 6-14
2-2,6-6, 6-12, 5-7
7-4, 7-1, 2-3, 20-6
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 5-7
3-36, 3-93, 2-18, 5-2
2-3, 3-33, 5-2,21-4,21-1, 6-9,1-2
5-5,1-1, 2-7,6-1,21-1
22-1, 5-3,3-1,24-1
2-2, 5-7, 6-6,6-12,6-14
3-1, 17-1, 30-1, 6-2, 27-1
2-3
2-2, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8
2-2,6-6,5-8
29-17, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8, 2-2
5-8, 2-2, 29-37, 5-8, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8
2-2, 6-77, 6-14, 5-15
5-2,6-9
2-2,6-77
2-2,5-9
29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
2-3, 3-15, 22-1, 2-1, 24-1
22-2, 6-50, 3-16, 3-44, 5-17
2-3,1-1, 5-25,23-5,4-13
27-4,5-16,6-6, 5-9
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-14
2-2,6-26,6-15, 6-12
2-3,6-70
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
2-3, 23-22, 23-23
2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
21-1, 2-23, 2-3, 5-5, 3-28, 2-3
?J

1

1

f1

L?
1

I?

JII'
[1
L -j
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Druce Walt PP0093
Dry Mickey W. DP1025
Duggins Joyce B. DP0335
Duke Chirs DP0302
Duncan William H. DP0232
Dunlap Kay DP2227
Dunn Jane DP0634
Dunn Nancy W. DPO490
Dunn III John O. PN0004
Durant Paul DP2138
Durgin Wentworth SP0053
Durham Brenda DP2335
Duvall Ron DP1503
Earles S. Thomas SP0161
Early Jr. A. Doyle DP0270
Early Jr. A. Doyle PP0381
Earthman Dan DP0213
Easterling Doug DP2383
Eaton Jay DP1606
Eaton P. Diane DP1282
Eaton Sandy DP1595
Eaton W. Thomas DP2020
Eblin Steve DP2295
Edden Christopher K. DP1436
Edwards Carol DPO590
Edwards Pat DP1174
Edwards Ray W. SP0140
Edwards W. Derek DP0842
Egleston Amy M. DPO130
Egloff Fran DP1077
Elder Sherrill DP0184
Elliott Helen PP0061
Elliott Jessica DP1708
Elliott John V. DP1518
Elliott Kathy DP1719
Elliott Michle D. DP1713
Ellis Janice DP1831
Ellis Kris PP0382
Ellison Lisa DP1433
Ellison Lisa PP0383
Ellisor Elisabeth DP0293
Elluis E. DP1572
Elster J Robert DP0017
Elster Jr. John R. DPO105
Elz Lora DP0327
Emken Robert A. DP0930
Enders Jr. Robert A. DPO416
Enry Steve PP0384
Epes C. Richard SP0281
Erath George S. DPO438
Erickson Ronald W. DP1037
public names 091701.As
Comment Codes
2-3, 27-10, 2-44, 2-23, 13-1, 23-16
6-6, 29-17, 26-2, 2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26
29-24,6-15
2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 24-3
3-36,3-204
1-22
2-2,6-14,6-12, 6-6
2-2
2-3, 5-2,24-1
2-2,24-2, 5-8
2-2,6-14,6-6
6-77, 6-12, 6-32, 2-2
3-14,2-2,29-19
2-2,6-6,6-32,6-12, 6-15
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
6-141, 6-142, 6-131, 3-113, 24-1
29-89, 1-22, 6-43, 9-31, 3-1, 2-3, 6-85
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-3,20-6,3-1, 7-1
2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 27-1, 7-3, 29-56
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15
2-3,20-6
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 5-7
6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-26, 2-2
2-3, 3-1, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 29-1, 6-4, 24-1, 27-1
2-3, 5-2, 6-85
21-13,23-16
29-116,2-2
2-2, 6-15, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 5-8
2-2, 6-12, 6-26
20-6,3-2,7-1,2-3
2-2
2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15, 1-6, 3-14
2-2, 24-3, 6-15
6-6,6-12,2-2
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-6,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-14
2-2,6-12
7-76,9-8
5-8,6-14
2-2,6-6,6-14
Piedmont Triad International Airport
'
General Public
Letter Comment Codes

Last Name
First Name
Middle
Code ,
Erwin John T. DP1517 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-14, 6-6, 3-104
Evans Allison DP0754 2-2,6-14,6-32
Evans David S. DP2322 6-4, 20-6, 3-2, 6-45, 2-3
Evans Leslie SP0004 2-3,5-5, 3-1,1-1
Evans W. P. DP0826 2-2,6-6, 5-7

Evens
Cynthia
G.
DP0833
6-32,2-2,6-15,6-6 ,
Fadely Lewis DP0527 2-2,6-15,6-6
Faircloth John DP2151 6-6,2-2
Faircloth Linda DP2265 2-2,6-6
Faifield Donna R. DP0708 2-2,6-77
Falk Richard SP0289 2-2,6-10, 5-8
Falstreau Jay DP0261 6-6,2-2
Farmen P. DP0559 3-150,2-3,22-24
Farmer Peggy PP0104 29-66, 29-56, 21-68
Farmer Peggy PP0568 6-21, 6-4, 9-6, 22-2
Farmer Peggy SP0030 22-1, 29-1, 24-1, 3-1
Farthing Glenn DP1990 3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 6-48
Farthing Glenn PP0160 3-1, 24-1, 3-9, 7-2, 9-6, 22-2 ,
Farthing Glenn PP0191 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 7-2, 27-8, 9-6, 9-10, 22-1, 22-2
Farthing Glenn PP0230 2-3,3-9, 3-33,22-1
Farthing Martha PP0229 2-3,22-3
Faucette Jerry DP1753 6-6, 6-12, 2-2
Fenn Jr. O. William DP0210 2-2, 6-12, 6-26
Ferrell K. P. DP0643 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Ferrell W. D. DP1355 5-5, 3-76,3-7,5-22
Festerman

Fezento James

Chi

Sarah DP2204

DP1501 2-2,6-12

7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
'
73,3-74
Fick-Cooper Lynn DP0835 2-2,6-6, 6-12, 6-32,29-10,6-15

Fici Chris DPO299 6-15, 6-12,2-2
,
Fields Alan R. DP1422 2-2,6-12,5-7,29-90
Fields J. Carson DP1643 2-2, 6-32, 6-12
Fields Joann M. DP0360 6-6, 5-8, 2-2
Finch Bobbie DP1329 6-12, 6-6,2-2
Finch Cody DP1314 6-15,6-12,6-6
Finch Dakus J. DP1315 6-15,6-12,6-6
Finch Darlinda DP1360 2-2,6-12,6-6
Finch Jame DP1669 2-2, 6-12,6-6
Finch Kimberly J. DP1576 2-2, 6-12, 6-32
Finch Robert L. DP0197 2-2,6-6,6-12,5-7
Finley Gerald DP0067 2-2, 6-12, 6-32
Fisher Jamaal DP0631 2-2,29-16,5-15, 6-12
Fisher Lori DP2013 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32, 3-101, 2-3
Fisher Marilyn PP0095 20-6, 9-6, 5-2, 5-10
Fisher Tracy DP2048 29-60, 2-103, 6-104, 6-27, 6-113, 5-39, 26-8, 2-23, 21-52, 3-
162, 21-53, 21-54, 21-55, 21-56, 21-57
21-58

Fisher
Tracy
PP0385 ,
21-70, 6-24, 1-18, 2-73, 2-68, 1-15 ,
Fitzgibbon Susan H. DP1519 2-2, 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6
Flagagan John P. DP1504 2-2, 6-6, 24-3
'
public names 091701.x1s

Last Name
Flanagan
Flanigan
Flannigan
Flannigan
Flannigan
Flannigan
Flannigan
Flannigan
Fleming Jr
Fleming Jr
Flow
Floyd
Flynt
Flynt
Flynt
Flynt
Flynt
Flynt
Folds
Folds
Folds
Folk
Follo
Foote
Forbis
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Forester
Forrester
Fortune
Fortune
Foster
public names 091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
First Name Middle Code
Lori DP1613 5-8, 2-2, 6-6, 6-32
Steve DP2258 2-3, 29-60, 2-23
Stephen A. DP0326 7-17, 7-18,.7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-73, 3-
74
Stephen A. DPO468 3-96, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32
Stephen A. DPO534 2-3,21-17, 21-3, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-
32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74
Stephen A. DP1302 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, 8-10, 8-11, 8-12, 9-30, 8-
13, 8-14, 9-54
Trish L. DPO444 2-3, 21-23, 29-92, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-
32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74
Trish L. DP0687 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Howard W. DP2016 2-3,4-22, 3-111, 2-89, 6-5, 3-10, 3-226, 3-164, 3-7, 3-2, 3-91,
6-110, 2-18, 3-36, 22-2, 6-69,1-14, 7-4, 7-43, 20-6, 2-89
Howard W. DP2366 2-3,4-22, 3-111, 2-89, 6-5, 3-10, 3-226, 3-164, 3-7, 3-2, 3-91,
6-110, 2-18, 3-36, 22-2, 6-69, 1-14, 7-4, 7-43, 20-6, 2-89
Donald E. DP0314 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 5-7
Marlene DP0032 6-3, 7-3,19-12
Kenneth E. DP2203 2-2, 5-20, 6-6, 6-12, 24-3
Tommy DP2267 6-14, 6-6,6-32, 2-2
W. Thomas DP0258 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
W. Thomas DP1030 6-14,6-12,2-2
W. Thomas DP1363 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 29-24, 2-2
Will PP0386 2-2,6-6,6-12
C. Dean DPO409 2-2, 5-20,5-15
Charles DPO922 2-2,6-14,29-16
Charles DP2186 2-2.6-14.6-6
Rene and Tom DP2394 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21,-3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Marie SP0033 3-1,30-1
Andrew DP0292 2-2,6-12,6-6
John W. DP1463 2-2,5-8
Greg DP2286 3-16, 3-90, 3-2, 6-16, 9-6, 7-1
Jill DP1962 3-101, 3-2, 17-3, 3-211, 29-89, 6-3
Kenneth H. DP2005 3-7, 2-23, 3-36, 29-60, 29-100, 5-5, 5-34, 3-76, 1-1, 3-157, 3-
166, 3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 3-214, 3-230, 3-
215, 3-173, 3-174, 3-175, 3-211, 3-176, 3-177, 3-101, 3-178, 3-
179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182, 3-183, 1-4, 3-216, 3-184, 7-4, 19-8,
19-9, 19-10, 19-11, 19-12, 3-185, 27-39, 27-40, 17-3, 17-5, 17-
6
Kenneth H. DP2326 3-231,3-2
Kenneth SP0226 2-2, 6-6,2-17, 6-2, 6-1, 23-1, 2-35, 6-36, 3-1, 5-2, 3-2,17-1,
30-1, 22-1, 5-5,6-3, 6-31, 23-12, 21-17, 29-35
Kenneth SP0343 5-2,5-5,6-3,6-2
Gordon DP0862 7-1, 3-1,25-1, 24-1
Chuck DP1916 2-2,6-15
Chuck DP1010 2-2, 6-12,29-17
Chuck SP0247 6-14,5-8,2-2
Bill DP1617 2-3,3-69,6-45, 24-1
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Foster Mary Ann DP2033
Foster Mary Ann DP2032
Foster Melvin G. DP1785
Foster Ron DP1098
Foster Ron PP0128
Foster Ron PP0299
Foster Sally PP0067
Foster Sally PP0227
Fouts Daniel W. DP0525
Fowler Mike PP0573
Fowler Mike SP0248
Fowler Mike SP0422
Fowler Steve DP1533
Fox John C. DP0308
Fox Lisa DPO944
Fox Wayne SP0295
Fox Wayne and Marilou DP2380
Francisco Denise PP0251
Franco Valene K. DP0227
Frank Stanley SP0297
Franklin Lindsay DP1284
Frayer Mark H. DP1795
Frazier Donald R. PP0572
Freels Ed DP0311
Freeman Charles L. DP0397
Freeman John Bryan DP1837
Freeman Ladd DP0015
Freeman Michael L. DPO151
French Paige DPO463
Fricke Robert DP0633
Fricke Robert DPO642
Fricke Robert DP0810
Frind Maura DP0296
Froelich Jr. J. H. DPO962
Frost Diane DP2294
Fry Erin DP0819
Fry Erin DP2116
Frye LaVohn DP2263
Frye W E DPO998
Fuhrmann Audrey DP1664
Fulk Elizabeth DP0283
Fuller Winn W. DP0265
Fulp Matthew DP0280
Fus Elliot DP0040
Futch Nat DP1366
Gaffney Thomas G. DP0428
Gaffney Thomas DP2256
Gaffney Tom PP0163
Gaffney Tom SP0368
public names_091701.xis

Comment Codes 1
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
6-15, 6-14,24-3
5-5, 3-1, 3-76, 4-6 '
5-5, 2-6, 6-48, 2-10, 3-15, 21-4
2-3, 5-5,1-2, 2-9
2-3 '
2-3,29-56, 21-4
2-2,29-16, 6-6, 5-7
2-2,6-6
'
2-2, 29-20, 27-4, 5-14, 5-9, 29-19, 2-34
5-14, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32
2-2, 5-7, 5-9, 24-3, 6-6 '
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8
2-2,6-32, 6-6, 5-7
3-1, 2-31, 30-1

3-7,3-232 ,
2-3,24-1
2-2,6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32
2-2
2-2,6-32,6-12
2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14

2-3, 3-1, 3-81 '
2-2,6-6, 6-15
2-2
3-1,9-6,2-3,1-22 '
2-2,24-6
2-2,6-26,6-32,26-2 a
2-2,5-8
,
14-18,3-36, 7-1, 30-19, 30-20,27-8,30-21
2-3, 2-92, 27-30, 30-22, 3-163, 3-229

14-23, 3-187, 3-163, 3-188, 7-11, 30-19, 30-20, 27-8, '
7-59, 6-
108, 30 21
6-15, 29-16, 6-12
2-2,3-14
'
2-2,6-6
6-12, 29-16,2-2
2-2,29-16, 6-32 '
2-3, 3-1, 3-7, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1, 29-60, 22-2, 6-16
2-3,3-2
2-2,6-32, 6-14

2-2,6-15,6-12,6-32 '
2-2,6-6, 6-32, 6-14
2-2,6-12,6-6
2-2,6-6, 6-14,6-32
6-14,2-2
2-2, 6-77, 5-8

2-2 ,
2-2,29-11, 5-7
24-2,29-17, 6-15

' Last Name
Gainey
Gale
Gale
Gale
Gale
'
Gale
' Gale
Gale
Gale
Gale
I Gale
' Gale
Gale
Gale
' Gale
' Gale
Gallaher
Gallimon

Galloway
Gann
Gann
Gann
Gann
Gantt
Gantt
Gantt
Garber
Gardner
Garisky
Garner
Garner
Garner
Garner
Garner
public names_091701.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
First Name Middle Code
Robert DP1716 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-15
Jack DP2110 29-60, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 5-5
Jack DP2176 3-101, 3-36, 3-2
Jack SP0403 2-3, 5-4, 5-17, 21-3, 6-2, 5-1
John C. DP1563 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1,5-32.3-101,2-3
John C. PP0389 2-3, 29-56, 21-1, 21-14, 21-23, 4-8, 7-1, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3, 9-
6, 3-75,4-8, 3-33, 6-1, 2-17, 2-35,21-17, 1-
John E. DPO958 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-1, 21-33, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 2-3
John E. PP0390 2-3, 21-13, 21-14, 21-1, 29-56, 6-50, 21-23, 22-8, 1-1, 21-17,
23-27, 21-26, 23-28, 29-54,4-13, 23-17, 23-26, 23-5, 30-1, 29-
7, 7-12, 23-4, 23-6, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3, 9-6, 3-75, 4-8, 3-33, 6-
1, 2-17, 2-35, 21-17, 6-45, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 2-68, 21-13, 23-5, 5-
5
John DP1482 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 2-3
Kathleen DP0959 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5-7,
4-6,5-2
Kathleen DP1406 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5-7,
4-6,5-2
Kathleen SP0227 21-1, 24-1, 2-19, 21-4, 2-23, 21-3, 2-35, 5-5, 6-2, 5-4, 6-3, 5-
17,4-6,5-2
Kathy DP2175 2-3, 29-89, 29-56, 3-1, 3-91
Kathy PP0288 2-3,29-64, 3-16
Thomas C. DP1706 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32,3-101,2-3
Thomas C. PP0391 2-3,5-1,22-2
Peggy DP1072 2-2,6-32
Jan DP1143 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Marilyn DP1228 7-4,5-2,1-2
Dawn DP1461 2-2, 6-6, 6-32
Patrick F. DP1651 2-2,6-6,6-32
Phillip F. DP1359 2-2,6-6
Tangle DP1645 2-2, 6-6, 6-32
Melvin DP2131 6-15, 6-12,6-6
R. Scott DP0499 2-2,29-90
R. Scott SP0445 2-2,6-6,6-15
Ken DP1996 6-85, 6-4, 24-1, 2-3
Barry W. DPO106 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-12
Peggy DP0969 2-2,6-6,6-12, 26-2, 5-15,5-7
Charles DP0896 3-118,3-76,7-1,24-1
Jennings C. PP0392 2-3, 30-1, 29-7, 5-5, 22-2
Mark A. DP1231 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Mark DP0911 2-3, 5-5, 3-101, 3-176, 3-7, 29-89
Mark DP1838 3-7, 9-6, 7-4, 5-5, 29-109, 2-3
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes

Last Name
First Name
Middle
Code '
Garner Mark PP0394 2-3, 5-5,1-6,2-17,21-17,6-45,22-1, 5-5,1-2, 3-1, 3-60,29-

Garner
Mark
SP0174 63, 6-4, 21-1, 2-23, 4-13, 23-14, 21-67, 12-6, 9-6
1-1, 3-17, 12-1, 9-3, 9-4, 3-1, 7-1, 30-1, 4-5, 2-3 '
Garner Mary PP0393 2-3, 5-5, 22-1, 30-1, 3-1, 2-9
Garner Patricia PP0395 2-3, 5-5,1-6, 2-17, 21-17, 6-45,22-1, 5-5,1-2, 3-1, 3-60, 29-
63, 6-4, 21-1, 2-23, 4-13, 23-14, 21-67
Garren Robert E. DP1484 7-17,7-18,7-19,7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32,3-71,,3-72,,3-
73,3-74
Garrett Greg DP0817 2-2, 6-6,6-14, 5-7 '
Garrou John L.W. DP1537 2-2,6-6
Gassen Gail DP2174 5-5, 7-1, 7-3, 6-45
Gassen Gail PP0047 9-6

Gassen
Gail
PP0249
3-33, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 24-1, 9-15 '
Gassen Gail SP0013 3-1, 21-1, 24-1
Gassen Richard PP0048 21-6, 29-63, 2-23

Gassen
Richard
PP0216
2-3,9-1, 9-6, 29-63 '
Gates Susan S. DP0208 2-2,5-8,6-12,6-6
Gatten Florence F. DP0583 2-2, 5-7,6-14

Gegick
Charles
G.
DP1079
2-3, 3-1,7-1 '
Gegick Charles DP2415 2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 9-3, 9-23, 7-1, 6-9
Gels
Genetti Douglas
Wanda
P. PP0277
PP0396 21-6,6-6
2-3, 22-1, 5-44, 30-1, 3-1, 1-2, 24-2
Gennett Stephen P. DP1441 2-2, 6-12,29-17, 5-8, 6-14
George

George Jr. Paul

John G.

H. DPO132

DP0377 6-6,2-2

2-2,6-14
'
Geraci Betty DP1325 6-14, 6-32, 24-3, 2-2, 29-88
Geraci Betty PP0397 2-2
Gibbs Ed PP0247 7-2,7-10
'
Gibbs Natalie PP0094 6-47, 2-3, 6-9, 2-9
Gibbs Raymond J. DPO521 2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32, 5-7
Gibei An DP1293 2-2, 6-6,6-15,6-32,6-12
,
Gibson Pamela B. DP0626 2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32,29-17
Gieser Henry DP0071 2-2,4-24, 6-12,6-14
Gilbert Donna DP1798 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-14
Gilbert Mark S. DP0112 2-2,6-14,6-6
Gildea Larry PP0275 2-2, 6-12, 6-6
Gildea Lawrence D. PP0398 2-2,6-6
'
Gildea Lawrence D. SP0106 2-2,6-6
Gildea Lawrence G. DP0728 2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 5-3, 6-14, 24-3
Gill Earl SP0217 2-2,6-6,26-2

Gillespie
Ed
PP0236
6-45, 6-2, 7-2 '
Gillespie Thomas DP1021 2-2, 6-32, 6-12
Gillespie Jr. Donald SP0006 2-2,1-3
Gillis Mark PP0399 2-2, 5-8,6-6
Gilmer Sr. Paul G. DP1602 2-2, 6-12, 6-14, 29-17, 26-2, 6-32, 3-104
Gladwell Nancy DP2191 21-1, 22-2, 6-4, 6-85, 3-1, 2-3, 29-56, 7-4, 9-6, 5-5
Gladwell Nancy PP0222 2-3, 22-2, 21-1, 22-3, 24-1, 30-1, 3-33, 23-5, 1-5, 1-4, 21-23, 1- '
2
Glander
Glascoe Nancy
Dannie
F. DP0133
DP0487 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 26-2
2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-14, 5-9
'
Glass Dennis R. DP0456 2-2, 6-75
Gleason Tom SP0427 5-2
'
public-names-091701 xls

Ir--i
u

u

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Glen Mark Dulaney DP1432
Glenn J. Kirk DP1370
Glenn J. Kirk SP0239
Gletycherl John DP0665
Glover Barbara DP1973
Glover Barbara PP0027
Glover Barbara SP0046
Glover Joe DP1971
Glover Joe SP0407
Glynn Joan DP0621
Gmach John DP2233
Gmach Mary Lin DPI 157
Godfrey Brant H. DP0688
Godfus Beverly DP1815
Godwin Pamela H. DPO167
Goga Ron DP2121
Goga Ron DP2173
Goga Ronald M. DP2023
Gold Howard DP1201
Gold Howard PP0240
Gold Mary PP0205
Goldberg Jami DPO489
Goldberg Jami DP0914
Goldberg Jami SP0454
Goldman Austin D. PP0401
Goldschmidi James SP0003
Goldschmidi Jamie SP0005
Gongeli Patricia DP0937
Goodson Craig M. PP0402
Goodson Craig SP0196
Goodson Graig DP0025
Gordon Christine DP1396
Gordon Jean DP0679
Gordon Jean DP1375
Gordon Jim DP2034
Gordon Margery DP1876
Gordon Mary Jane PP0301
Gordon Thomas DP2378
Gosselin Stephan J. DP1086
Gosselin Steve SP0421
Gottlieb Richard DP0021
Gough Peg DP0022
Grady Joe SP0052
Grady Woodrow E. DP2011
Graham B. DP1881
Graham Barry PP0310
Graham Barry PP0404
Graham Barry PP0566
Graham Dorothy DPO484
Graham Douglas DPO107
Graham Emma DP0272
public names_09170I.As
Comment Codes
2-2,6-14, 5-7
2-2,6-12, 6-6,6-32
2-2,6-6,5-20
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-3,3-1, 5-5,3-76,1-2
2-3, 5-2, 22-1, 22-2, 13-1, 9-6, 5-21
1-1,2-7
2-3, 3-1, 5-5, 3-76,1-2
2-1,2-19,29-35,9-2
2-2,5-8,29-16
2-2,6-6.6-15, 29-24
29-24.6-14.2-2
27-18,7-23
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-12, 6-6
2-23, 21-1, 6-104, 21-3, 6-105
5-2, 2-23, 21-1, 6-104, 21-3, 6-105, 21-33, 3-36, 3-212
27-31, 27-32, 27-33, 27-34, 27-35, 27-36, 27-37, 27-38, 29-
100
2-3,5-2,27-1,24-1
2-3, 5-2, 9-3
2-3,5-2, 20-6
2-2,6-12,29-16
2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 29-16
2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-15, 29-12, 29-10
3-36, 3-61, 21-17, 21-13
2-3, 2-1, 6-2
30-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
5-9, 2-2, 6-6
29-11, 29-19, 5-9, 5-8, 6-10, 29-19, 6-6
2-2, 6-12, 24-3
2-2
5-17, 7-22, 9-26, 9-27, 30-14, 29-56
2-3, 5-5, 5-17, 7-4, 7-1, 9-26, 9-6, 27-1, 27-8, 29-56
7-4,20-6,27-1, 3-2
29-111
2-3, 5-1, 29-7, 22-3, 1-2
3-7, 3-2, 2-232, 2-235
6-15,2-2
2-2.5-18, 6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-12
6-6,2-10,3-5, 5-7
29-60, 1-2, 1-1, 22-2, 3-7
2-3,1-22, 20-6, 3-36
2-22, 27-1, 9-6, 5-21, 2-3
1-2, 22-1, 1-1, 3-225, 2-10
22-2, 27-1, 9-6, 5-21, 2-3
2-2,6-26
2-2
2-2,6-15
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Graham Emma SP0128 6-13,29-19,5-8
Grane Sr. W. Pearson DP2039 3-12, 6-32, 6-6, 6-14, 2-2
Graves Richard D. DP0309 2-2,6-12,6-6
Gray Patricia PP0037 2-2,23-15
Gray Sidney DPO858 2-3,2-122
Gray Sidney DP1954 2-3,24-1,1-2
Gray Sidney DP1980 2-3,24-1,1-2
Gray Sidney DP2374 2-3,24-1,1-2
Gray Tim W. DPO146 6-15,6-6, 2-2
Graz Jerry DP0662 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
Greason Murray C. DPO451 5-8, 5-15, 6-94
Greason Jr. Murray DP0077 5-8,6-12, 6-14
Greason Jr. Murry C. SP0131 2-2,6-12, 5-8,29-19
Green Debbie PP0184 23-16, 23-21
Green Eddie DP2420 6-14, 6-32,5-9
Green Margarette SP0100 2-10, 5-7, 29-5, 1-1, 2-9
Green O. Eddie DPO497 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 29-24, 5-9
Greene C. A. DP0698 6-6,2-2
Greene C.A. PP0405 2-2, 27-5, 6-6
Greene Chuck DP2237 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 6-12, 29-90, 6-37, 6-15
Greene David P. SP0155 2-2, 29-12, 29-16, 5-14, 6-13, 29-17, 24-3, 6-17
Greene Davis P. DPO743 2-2, 5-8, 6-12, 6-32, 6-75, 6-90
Greene Robert E. DPO196 6-14,6-12,6-6,2-2
Greenstein Blake J. DP1723 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-8
Greenwood Jr. Thomas J. DP0395 2-2,5-8
Greeson Evelyn DP1712 2-2
Greeson Kelly DP1552 6-6,2-2
Greeson Myrtle C. DP1562 2-3
Greeson Roy DP1714 2-2,5-9
Gregory Johnny PP0125 21-6, 3-1, 3-26,2-3
Gregory Johnny PP0272 2-3, 3-33, 3-1, 3-26, 29-7
Grene Darcy Helga DP2275 3-2, 21-48, 6-3, 5-22
Gresalfi Ann DP2063 2-3, 24-1, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-11, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3
Gresalfi Ann DP2350 2-3, 24-1, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-11, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3
Griffen Lee DP0005 6-22,22-23
Griffin Beth DPI 168 2-3,5-5,7-1,9-6,29-7
Griffin C. Ron DP1028 2-2,5-7,6-14
Griffin Dexter DP1085 6-26, 6-6, 6-12, 2-2
Griffin Keith DP0216 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
Griffin Robert G. DP0635 2-3, 24-7, 6-81
Griffin Teresa D. DP1998 2-3, 29-7, 24-1, 29-60, 20-6
Grissom Randy DP0749 2-2
Grogan John E. PP0406 2-2
Grogan John DP2091 2-37
Grogan John PP0198 6-6,6-12
Grogan Sylvia S. DP1043 2-2,6-32
Grotsky Ernest L. DP0277 2-2, 6-32, 6-6
Grubb Marykay PP0407 2-3, 22-2, 7-2, 12-1, 3-9
Gruchow H. W. DP0561 3-36,20-6
Gsell Keith PP0106 3-7, 27-8, 5-2, 9-6, 2-3, 5-10
Gulledge Charles PP0276 21-70, 30-10, 27-14

Li
I?
public names 091701.x1s

0

11

0

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Gurcne Dallas DP1688 2-2,6-14, 6-12,6-32
Gusler Jr. George W. DP2310 2-2,6-6
Gussey Maria DP1900 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32
Gwaz Paul DP0873 2-3,24-1, 7-1
Gwyn Allen Holt DPO905 2-2,6-6,6-14, 5-20
Gwynn Leigh DPO509 2-2,6-14
Haack John B. DP1632 21-1,2-3,5-34
Habegger Elizabeth C. DP0550 2-2,5-15
Hagan Chip DP0915 2-2, 5-7, 5-9, 29-24, 3-104
Hagan R. K. DP1364 2-2,6-12
Hagan III Charles T. DP0584 2-2,29-16,6-6, 5-7
Haim Geoffry DP1833 1-22,5-2,24-1
Haim Linda DP0908 2-3, 21-3, 3-76, 3-52, 5-41, 5-42, 3-193, 6-35, 29-133, 3-194
Hall Charles DP1496 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Hall Elizabeth DP1514 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Hall Jeff DP1211 3-1, 6-45, 7-1, 6-4, 24-4, 27-1, 2-3, 24-1
Hall John. Howland DP1944 5-1,3-15,7-1,1-2
Hall Kristin DP1258 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Hall Mac DP1210 3-36, 3-7, 29-28, 3-53, 24-1, 6-45, 2-3
Hall Nevolk PP0408 2-2
Hall S. Todd DP0254 2-2,29-12
Halsey Hardin G. DP1092 2-2,6-6, 6-32
Hamel Kim Paul DP1776 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12
Hamel Kim Paul PP0409 2-2,6-15,6-6, 6-12
Hamilton Rheba SP0202 2-2, 6-10, 5-9, 3-1, 6-6, 5-20
Hamlin Donna DP0506 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6
Hammett-Wegman Janice PP0217 2-3, 5-2, 21-13, 23-24
Hammett-Wegman Janis SP0091 3-218, 21-1, 2-7, 3-7, 5-2, 2-3
Hammond J. Hyatt DP0939 2-2,6-12, 6-32,26-2, 5-15, 6-14, 6-6, 29-16,3-104, 29-88, 29-
118,24-3,29-90, 5-9
Hammond Jackie DP0780 14-15, 9-46, 9-47, 29-122, 7-5, 3-68, 6-107, 6-108, 29-129, 21-
51, 23-38 29-130
Hammond Jackie DP2082 7-42, 7-4, 7-21, 7-43
Hammond Jackie DP2307 14-15, 9-46, 9-47, 29-122, 7-5, 3-68, 6-107, 6-108, 29-129, 21-
51, 23-38 29-130
Hammond Jackie PP0410 23-14, 9-6, 7-2, 9-8, 9-5, 21-69, 3-33
Hammond Jacqueline D. DP1948 6-91, 6-92, 7-42, 7-21
Hampton David M. DP1418 2-2, 6-15, 24-3, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8
Hampton Kelly DP1032 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1,5-32,3-101, 2-3
Hampton Lee DP2112 2-2, 29-16,5-9,26-2
Hampton Lee SP0409 2-2, 6-6, 6-12
Hampton Lisa DP0038 2-2,6-6,6-14
Hampton Worth DPO412 6-19,2-2
Hancock Drew SP0312 2-2, 6-14,6-13
Hancock J Andrews DP0088 2-2,6-14
Hancock John C. PP0411 3-34, 6-45, 23-16, 6-45
public names 091701.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Hancock John C. SP0095
Hand Rosemary SP0346
Hanover Jean PP0412
Hansen Charles DPO461
Hansen Charles DPO519
Hansen Kara DP1080
Hansen Laura M. DP1078
Hansen Vagn DP2096
Happel Gil SP0416
Happel Gil and Libby PP0017
Happel Paige DP1223
Happer William C. DP1327
Harbin Shirley SP0097
Hardee Roui DP1481
Hardeirch Mary DPO606
Hardison Mark C. DPO445
Hardison Patricia DPO473
Hardwick Mary DPO877
Hardy Karen DP0310
Harper Kesha DP0278
Harrell E.W. DPO625
Harrington Carole C. DP1967
Harris Annie PP0168
Harris Cece PP0169
Harris Elizabeth C. DP2314
Harris Elizabeth DP2185
Harris Frank Hams DP0846
Harris Jimm DPO742
Harris Kathy W. PP0003
Harris Liz SP0344
Harris Palmer DPO740
Harrison Brently PP0413
Harrison Brently PP0414
Harshman Scott SP0059
Harton Marie DP0604
Hartsell Mark E. DP2355
Hasenmyer Carl SP0438
Hastings Linda DP0034
Hauser Theresa A. DPO417
Hauser Timothy T. DP0703
Hawkins Darrell G. DP1316
Hawkins Kimberly DP1362
Hawley Charles DP2166
Haworth John DP0350
Hayden Meredith DP1828
Hayes Damion DP1442

Comment Codes
3-4,3-7
6-28,5-17

2-2 '
2-3,21-1
21-45, 21-46, 21-33, 9-42, 23-36, 6-101, 6-102, 29-122
3-1, 7-1, 24-1, 5-1, 2-3, 1-2 '
9-24,9-25,9-21.2-3
6-15,6-12,29-16,6-6, 5-7

2-3, 22-1, 1-4, 22-6, 5-8, 29-17, 3-1, 17-1, 30-1, 29-5, 5-2, 2- '
19,27
6-1, 22-12, 5-1, 21-17, 6-24
5-10,3-36, 3-90
2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-12, 26-2, 6-6, 29-16, 3-104, 29-88, 6-32
2-9, 2-10, 1-7, 2-6, 30-1, 1-1
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74

2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
'
2-2,6-6, 6-15
2-2,29-16

2-2, 5-7, 6-12, 6-32, 29-24, 6-15 '
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-12
'
2-2,6-15, 29-11
6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-26, 2-2

-
6-32,2-2
,
2-2, 5-7, 29-24
2-2,6-32
6-12, 29-16, 5-8, 6-6, 2-2

2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-20, 1-6 '
6-12,2-2
2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 27-
1,27-8,7-3
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 5-21, 7-3, 24-1
23-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 '
2-2,6-32, 6-66,29-32
2-35,6-1, 2-1
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
2-2,6-12
2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12
'
6-12,6-6,2-2
7-1, 9-6,6-43
2-2, 5-9,29-24
'
2-2
2-2,6-15, 24-3
public names_09170I.As

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
' Last Name First Name Middle Code
Hayes John DP2075
Hayes I I I John G. DP1048
' Hayes III John G. DP1050
Hayes III John G. DP1051
' Hayes III
Hayes III John
John G.
G. DP1052
DP1053
Hayes III John G. DP1054
Hayes III John G. DP1055
Hayes III John G. DP1056
Hayes 111 John G. DP1057
Hayes III John G. DP1058
' Hayes III John G. DP1059
Hayes III John G. DP1060
Hayes III John G. DP1061
' Hayes III John G. DP1062
Hayes III John G. DP1065
Hayes III John G. DP1164
Hayes 111 John G. DP1165
Hayes I I I John G. DP1167
Hayes III John G. DP1188
Hayes III John G. DP1189
' Hayes III John G. DP1190
Hayes III John G. DP1191
Hayes III John G. DPI 192
' Hayes 111 John G. DPI 193
Hayes III John G. DP1207
Hayes III John G. DP1208
' Hayes III John G. DP2410
Haygood Glenn DP1565
Haynes Don DP1094
' Haynes Jerry L. PP0574
Haynes Jerry SP0147
Haynes Jerry SP0163
Hearn Jr. Thomas K. DP1319
Hearon William S. DP2282
Hearon William PP0292
Heath Patsy DP0414
Heath Spencer R. DPO402
' Hedgecock Rebecca PP0415
Hedgpeth W DP0016
Heding Terry R. DP0755
Heelan Brian DPO347
Hege Rosemary DPO547
Helmick Suzanne Kincaiid DP1374
Helms Robert E. DP1603
Helms Robert E. SP0115
Helms Victoria F. DPO960
Helsabeck Linda DP0907
Henderson George DP1153
Hennings J. Barry DP1014
' Hennings Joe B. DPO141
public names 091701.x1s
--
Comment Codes
3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 3-2, 7-1, 7-21, 9-6
22-2,6-68
5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 7-3
5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 7-3
1-21
7-21
3-1, 7-3, 9-3
2-14
30-13
3-36-3-16
27-16
8-1, 7-6, 9-6
3-36
9-21
29-72,9-21
18-1,29-72
3-7, 3-81, 3-36
29-81
30-2
27-17
29-82
2-3
2-78
3-36,3-42
21-35
8-1,30-2
29-83
3-7,3-1
2-2, 6-32, 6-6
2-3, 3-15, 27-1, 9-6, 6-4
9-6, 21-4, 21-10, 5-2, 7-1, 1-1, 6-1, 22-1, 23-14, 21-11, 6-9, 23-
4
2-6, 30-1, 3-1, 5-2, 5-5
22-1, 30-1, 21-1, 5-2, 21-6
2-2, 6-32, 6-6
2-3, 20-6, 6-1, 29-60, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-101
2-3, 29-7, 6-9
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-12
2-2
2-2,6-12
2-2, 26-2, 5-7
2-2, 6-6,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32
2-2, 6-15, 6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-15, 6-15
5-8,2-2
2-2,6-32
2-2, 6-6,6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 5-7
2-2, 6-12, 6-10
2-2, 6-14, 6-12
Piedmont Triad International Airport
'
General Public
Letter Comment Codes

Last Name
First Name
Middle
Code '
Herman Todd L. DP1088 2-2,6-15, 5-9
Herring

Herrmann Kimberly

Shirley S. DP0825

DP1407 2-2,6-6

7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
,
73,3-74
Hershman Jay R. DPO193 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
Hertweck Donald DP0778 7-43,7-46
'
Hess Kathleen DP0247 6-32, 6-12, 2-2
Hess Richard DP0009 2-2
Hester Marylee B. DPO615 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 '
Hewett Ann PP0076 2-2,6-6,6-46
Heyge Loma PP0006 5-2, 24-1, 6-9
Hiatt Patricia DP0074 2-2,6-14 - '
Hickey E. G. DPO452 7-41, 3-124, 3-125, 9-37,1-4
Hickey Ed G. DP1512 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74

Hickey
Tina
DP1257
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- ,
73,3-74
Higgins Jennifer C. DPO971 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 29-17, 6-26

Higgins Jr.
John
T.
DP0891
2-2, 29-88, 5-7, 6-32, 6-14 '
Highsmith Charles DP1676 22-1, 3-2, 7-1, 5-2, 20-6, 2-3
Highsmith

Hill Ethel

Joseph

L. DP1677

DP1627 2-3,3-2,7-1,20-6

2-2, 24-3, 6-12
,
Hill Julie DP1476 2-3
Hill Loren DP0983 5-7, 6-6, 6-12

Hill
Loren
SP0337
6-6, 6-12, 2-2 '
Hill Ruby M. DP1644 2-2,5-8,29-16
Hill Skip PP0273 2-2,6-6,6-15
Hill Terry W. DP1475 2-3 '
Hill III Thomas S. PP0416 2-2,6-6
Hiller Judy P. DP1217 6-45,27-1, 6-16,3-53
Hillman Robert L. DP2316 2-2,6-6, 6-32 ,
Hilman Bob DP2337 6-12, 6-32, 2-2, 6-6
Hinds Martha Ann PP0055 2-3, 6-9, 3-37, 20-7
Hindson Renee SP0021 2-11,11-1, 3-220,5-5
'
Hinshaw Julian A. DP2054 7-4,7-1,29-89
Hinshaw Julian A. DP2061 7-4, 7-1, 29-89
Hinshaw Julian A. DP2062 7-4,7-1,29-89
'
Hinshaw Julian A. DP2417 7-4,7-1, 29-89
Hinson Doug DP0098 2-2,5-8,6-12,6-32
Hiser Dale DP1522 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-

3-74
73,3-74
Hiser Wilma DP1528 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Hixon Alice G. D131 108 2-3,5-2,1-2,21-34
Hixon Alice PP0054 3-36,3-33
Hixon Alice PP0262 2-3
Hixon Jane DPO801 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-118
Hixon Wesley F. DP1358 29-7, 24-1, 7-21, 3-2, 3-1, 1-2, 9-6, 6-21, 22-2, 1-4
Hixon Wesley F. PP0226 2-3, 3-33, 3-9, 7-2, 9-6, 27-8, 23-16, 2-46
Hixon Wesley F. SP0145 2-3,22-1,24-1
Hixon Wesley PP0056 22-1,22-10,2-45,2-46
Hoard David DP2113 2-2,6-12, 6-6, 29-16,6-15
'
public names 091701.xis

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
' Last Name First Name Middle Code
Hobbs Charles E. DP0376
Hobson
Hobson Frank
Jim W. DP1046
DP1114
Hodge Claude SP0216
Hodges Cathie DP0503
' Hodges Jr. Glenn O. DPO904
Hodgson Daryl DP1489
' Hodgson Margaret PP0417
Hodgson Margaret PP0418
Hodgson Margaret PP0419
' Hodman Doris DPO967
Hoffman Harol DP1765
Holbrook Clark SP0304
Holbrook Clark and Shari DPO769
' Holbrook Shari PP0063
Holcomb Larry PP0239
Holden Gerald E. DP1075
' Holden Gerald P120101
Holden Wilbur H. DP0358
Holder Julie Abercrombie DP0332
Holder Sam DPO178
Holland Julie DP0884
Holland Martha DPO403
' Hollingsworth Tom DP1660
Hollingsworth Tom PP0035
Hollingsworth Tom PP0042
' Hollis Linda DP2340
Holmes Sharon DP1549
Holn Gary E. DP1710
' Holt James R. DP0763
Holt Julie Anna DP0768
Holt Myratted PP0420
' Holton David L. DP0224
Homes Harold DP2305
Hondras Karen G. DP0328
' Hooper Deborah L. DPO500
Hoppe Carol DP1377
Hoppe Carol DP2266
Hoppe Carol PP0145
Hoppe Michael H. DP1679
Hoppe Michael DP0651
' Hoppe Michael DP2218
Hoppe Michael SP0456
Hoppe R.H. PP0146
Hopper Chris DP1460
' Hopper Cindy DP1459
Hopper Erika DP1569
Hopper Ingrid DP1581
' Hopper Laura DP1626
Hopper Ron D131009
' Hopper 111 C.W. DP1567
public names 091701.x1s
Comment Codes
2-2,6-12,5-8
2-2,6-32
27-1,5-5
21-1,2-3, 6-22,27-1
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-16
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-56
2-3, 1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5
2-3, 6-4, 22-2, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
29-60,23-5,5-2,27-1, 7-1, 29-108
21-1, 5-4, 5-5, 5-2, 3-1, 2-7, 1-1
2-3, 24-7, 22-24, 6-22, 3-131
2-3
23-16, 3-7, 24-1, 22-2, 30-1
3-76, 3-1, 3-77
3-36, 3-16, 24-1, 6-9, 6-16
2-2, 5-7, 6-32 -
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 29-24, 6-19
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
24-3,6-14
7-4, 7-1, 3-7, 3-1, 24-1, 29-7
2-3, 3-33, 22-1, 29-60
2-3,3-1, 3-7,7-1, 7-4
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 5-15, 6-20, 6-14, 6-15
6-6,6-15,2-2
2-2,6-12
3-7,7-1, 27-1
7-21,7-3
3-9, 3-1, 7-2, 5-44, 21-15, 9-6, 27-8, 30-1
2-2, 6-32,6-6,5-8
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-26,6-15, 6-12
2-2, 26-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-32
3-1, 5-2, 7-4, 3-7, 24-1, 2-11
3-1, 7-1, 6-16, 3-2, 27-1, 24-1
3-7, 3-33, 1-4, 21-1, 21-66, 3-1
21-1, 29-56, 23-5, 3-2, 7-1, 3-36
3-165
3-7,3-2
21-4, 2-9, 3-1, 2-6, 30-1, 4-5, 5-44, 3-2, 5-2, 24-1, 21-1
21-13, 23-22, 23-23, 21-68, 3-7, 3-1, 29-56, 1-4
2-2,6-6,6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2,5-7
2-2,6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2,5-7
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Hopper IV Cuff W. DP1405
Horn Dillon DPO446
Horn Dillon DP1447
Horn Melissa DPO443
Horn Melissa DP1428
Horn Mike DP2155
Horn Mike SP0373
Horn Ramsay DPO449
Horn Ramsay DP1438
Horn Tom DPO447
Horn Tom DP1493
Homey Jeff DPO420
Homey Jeff PP0421
Horton Alan DP2088
Hott John L. SP0121
Hough C. Royce DPO465
House Elaine PP0096
House Elaine PP0296
House Elaine PP0422
House Elaine PP0423
House Elaine PP0424
Houser Timothy T. DP0703
Houston Debbie PP0075
Howell Rosemary DP1797
Howes Bradford PP0192
Howington Richard DP0065
Hoyt George DP0268
Hubbard Bruce DP1816
Hubbard Catherine L. DP1690
Hubbard Diane PP0182
Hubbard Diane PP0260
Hubbard Diane SP0223
Hubbard Lewis DP2159
Hubbard Maury A. SP0169
Hubbard Sandra PP0425
Huber Jerry PP0388
Hubert Tom DP2072
Hudgins David PP0426
Hudgins Maribeth PP0427
Hudson Carol DP2207
Hudson David C. DP0709
Hudspeth Johnsie DP0089
Huey E.C. DP2068
public names_091701.xls

Comment Codes '
2-2,6-6
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
3-74
73,3-74
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
3-74
73,3-74
3-96, 3-97, 3-70; 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32 '
6-26,6-25,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-25, 29-10
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
3-74
73,3-74
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32 '
2-2, 6-12, 5-8
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-9
9-43, 9-44, 9-23, 9-3 '
3-221, 26-1, 3-1
2-2.6-32
5-2,17-2, 9-6, 5-21, 29-56 '
3-33,5-22
7-2, 6-9, 9-6, 7-7
1-14.2-3
'
.
3-1,3-9
6-72
2-3, 22-2, 21-1, 29-63, 9-6, 5-21, 3-16, 3-38 '
2-2, 6-32,6-6,6-14
2-2, 22-1,1-1,2-1
'
2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32
2-2,5-8,6-15
6-15
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-26
3-16, 9-6, 20-1, 5-2, 6-43 '
5-2,6-9,3-15,3-9
19-2, 6-1, 3-16, 3-26, 7-5, 30-1, 28-1, 29-48, 192-, 9-6, 1-1, 12-
'
6,5-1
2-2,6-15
5-2, 29-24, 5-2, 5-14, 29-25, 5-2, 24-1, 21-1, 1-1, 3-9, 29-26,
29-27
2-2
24-2,22-12,6-9,2-3
'
6-15,6-14
2-2
2-2
'
2-2,6-6,29-16
2-2, 6-15, 6-84, 6-78, 5-33
2-2,6-12,6-14,6-32
2-2,6-12,6-6

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
' Last Name First Name Middle Code
Huffman Trusy A. DPO494
Huger Ray DP1699
' Hughes Bob DP1480
Huitt Parker DP0217
' Hull Charles DP1266
Hull Patricia B. DPO598
Humes Mary Nell DP1647
Humphrey Dudley DP0092
Humphrey Hubert DP0080
Humpley T. DP0304
' Hunell Audrey DP0301
Hunsucker Donald B. DP1783
Hunsucker G. Bradley DP1782
' Hunt Dennis C. DPO426
Hunt Dennis SP0149
Hunt Pansy DP0570
Hunt Pansy SP0288
' Hunt Randall DP1725
Hunter R. Craig DP0118
' Hurley Keith PP0567
Hurley Richard K. DP1155
' Husted James E. DPO539
Hutchens Sylvia DP0511
Hutchins Angela W. DP0170
' Hutchins Julie DP1392
Hyatt Ricky DP1123
Hymes Addle DPO421
' lanorone Marianne DP1856
lavarone Dennis P. DP0978
' lavarone Dennis P. DPO979
lavarone Dennis P. DP1887
lavarone Dennis P. PP0155
' lavarone Dennis P. SP0177
lavarone Marianne PP0428
Ihrig Alfred PP0264
Ilsley Linda DP1118
Ingold Sharon E. DP1830
Inman Melissa PP0429
Irvin David DP0027
' Jackson Phyllis B. DP0398
Jackson Stella S. DP1159
Jackson Steve DP2317
' Jacobs Tom DP2168
Jafroodi Scot DP0542
Jakubsen Brad DP1678
' James Marcia DP1628
James Marcia DP2000
' James Marsha DP2283
public-names-091701 xls
Comment Codes
2-2,6-14
9-6, 9-35, 29-107, 29-91
27-1, 3-2, 30-14, 1-2, 29-98, 1-4
2-2, 6-12, 6-26, 6-15
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-14
2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7
2-2, 5-7, 24-3
2-2, 4-24, 6-15
2-2
2-2,6-12
5-7, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 2-2
5-7, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 2-2
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 27-5
2-2, 6-15, 6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-30
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2, 5-9, 6-12, 2-74, 2-75, 2-76, 30-12, 6-34, 29-36, 6-14, 6-
12, 6-6, 6-10, 22-21, 29-51, 2-77, 1-20, 6-12, 29-10, 20-8, 20-
9,2-2,6-31,2-10,5-9
2-2,29-17, 6-12,6-32
2-3, 9-3, 9-61, 7-58, 27-8
2-2,6-14
6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 24-3, 2-2
2-2
2-2,6-12,29-16
2-2,6-80
21-33, 3-36, 17-1, 7-1, 9-3, 20-6, 2-9
3-214, 3-217, 3-149, 3-198, 9-70, 7-73, 17-7, 17-8, 4-7, 3-121,
3-199,7-53, 9-3
3-214, 3-217, 3-149, 3-198, 9-70, 7-73, 17-7, 17-8
4-7,3-121
2-3,3-38,3-1, 6-4, 3-16,5-29
3-19, 3-222, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 4-7, 3-23, 6-24
6-65, 3-16, 2-18, 3-219, 2-3, 5-2, 5-5, 6-4, 6-61, 6-24
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 21-4, 21-23
2-2,6-14
2-2,5-7
5-2,9-6,30-1,2-1,2-3
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-32,6-14
6-15,6-32, 24-3, 5-7, 6-14,2-2
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 3-104
3-97, 3-7,24-1, 6-45,1-2
2-3, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 27-1, 6-45, 29-7, 7-3, 6-4, 2-89, 1-2
29-89,2-89, 6-48
24-1, 6-101, 3-1, 7-2, 7-21, 1-2, 5-5, 9-6, 2-89
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Jameson J. David DP2330 6-12,6-6,5-20
Janeway Richard DP0381 2-2,6-77, 6-32, 5-8
Janeway Richard SP0255 2-2,27-4,6-12,6-10
Jarman Leslie PP0284 2-3, 21-1, 3-33, 9-6, 22-2
Jarrett Tony PP0430 2-2
Jenkins Gordon W. DPO341 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Jennings Kenyatta SP0318 2-2,29-32,6-12,6-20, 6-15
Jerman Alex PP0131 2-3, 22-1, 1-1, 2-9, 9-6, 6-4
Jessup Gregory M. DP0162 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-9
Jeswilkowski Amy DP1121 2-2,6-12,6-6
Jialer Carol M. DP1527 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Jobe Jonathan C. DP2344 6-32.6-6,6-14, 6-15, 29-16,2-2
Johansson Len PP0202 3-43, 3-33,1-5, 3-16
Johansson Len SP0327 2-23, 5-5, 1-2, 3-27, 3-7, 3-224, 5-1
Johnson A. Patricia DPO101 2-2,6-6,6-32
Johnson Barry L. DP1289 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Johnson Catherine R. DP0110 2-2,6-6, 5-8
Johnson Charlene A. DP1543 2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15
Johnson Connie R. DPO483 2-2, 6-12, 5-7
Johnson Dale H. DPO163 2-2, 6-6, 6-14
Johnson Diane DP0204 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6
Johnson Duffy DP2293 2-2,6-6
Johnson Emiley S. PP0018 6-42, 6-41, 5-2, 2-3, 1-2
Johnson Emiley PP0031 3-15,6-44,2-3,1-2
Johnson Emily PP0214 3-7,24-1, 2-3
Johnson Estella PP0049 2-2,6-10,5-9,6-6
Johnson Garcia DP2154 2-2,6-6
Johnson George DP1042 2-2,6-32
Johnson Harold PP0044 1-5,2-9
Johnson Harold PP0248 2-3,24-1
Johnson Heather PP0431 2-2,6-6
Johnson Jeff DP1091 2-2,6-6
Johnson Jeff SP0434 5-17,6-12
Johnson Kevin PP0195 6-6, 5-23, 2-2
Johnson Kevin SP0383 5-9,6-25
Johnson Nelson SP0389 2-2.6-6,6-12
Johnson Peggy B. DP1687 2-3, 6-4, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1, 7-3
Johnson Peggy DP1270 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Johnson Ronald DP0824 2-2,6-32
Johnson Sammy DP0242 5-34,2-3
Johnson Steve DP1205 2-3
Johnson Steven DP0012 2-2
Johnson William DP0737 2-2, 6-14, 6-32,6-90
Johnston Alice R. DP1715 2-2,5-9, 5-7
Johnston Mary DP1250 3-1, 7-3,6-59,2-3
Johnston Mary SP0301 5-2,1-2
Johnston Paul E. DP1721 2-2
Jones Alan DP1194 2-2,6-63
Jones Billy Keith DP0667 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
public names_091701.xis
0

1

1

r
w

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Jones Del DP1631 2-3,3-1, 3-7,3-2
Jones Halbert M. DP1292 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17
Jones Joyce A. PP0432 2-2
Jones Lillie PP0153 2-3,1-1,21-1, 24-1
Jones Lillie PP0245 2-3,1-1, 2-9
Jones Nancy SP0088 3-4
Jones Peggy DP0514 2-2,6-6, 6-15
Jones Robert L. DP0599 2-2,6-6,6-14
Jones Stella DP0043 2-2,6-6,6-14
Jones Tommy PP0117 21-6, 2-3, 6-45, 3-33, 30-1
Jones Tommy PP0210 2-3, 6-2, 2-62, 24-1
Jordan Annette DP2304 2-2,6-6
Jordan Barry DP1198 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Joyce Donald DP2338 6-15,6-6,6-12
Joyner Diane PP0433 2-2
Jr. L.M. Baker DP0239 2-2,6-14,6-6
Jud Donald DP0007 2-2
Jud G. Donald SP0064 6-7
Julian Jim DP1621 29-24, 6-12, 29-12
Juren Jerry Jay DP2025 3-2, 3-7, 7-1, 24-1, 1-2, 29-60, 2-3
Juren Jerry Jay DP2049 3-2, 3-7, 7-1, 24-1, 6-4, 1-2, 29-60, 2-3
Jurney Jr. Wade Gilmer DP2216 2-2, 6-6, 29-24, 6-12
Kalish Michael J. DP1618 20-6, 3-36, 3-7, 29-60
Kalish Mike DP2268 3-7, 24-1, 3-2, 5-22, 2-3, 29-60, 6-22, 20-6
Kane Audrey DP1937 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 1-24, 1-25, 6-22
Kane Audrey DP2327 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 1-24, 1-25, 6-22
Kantor A.C. SP0197 2-2, 6-12,5-8,6-6
Kaper Kim DPO139 2-2, 6-32, 6-14
Katzenstein Alex DPO546 2-3, 18-2, 3-36, 22-26, 22-27, 18-3, 3-147, 18-4, 18-5, 7-48, 3-
28, 29-125, 3-18, 3-148, 5-37, 7-50, 7-21, 22-2, 9-3, 27-8, 5-
12, 2-100, 7-51, 24-1, 22-28
Katzenstein Alex PP0260 29-35, 3-204, 22-1
Katzenstein Alex SP0180 2-23, 3-204, 7-1, 7-6, 5-2, 3-5, 27-1, 22-1, 29-9, 22-8, 1-1, 2-
27,1-2,2-3
Kavanagh John DP0839 5-7,6-14
Kearns Johm DP1780 2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6
Keesee-Forrester Maggie DP1917 2-2,6-6
Kellett Sherry A. DPO744 2-2, 6-32,6-14, 6-12
Kelley Jim DP0793 2-2, 6-6, 5-9, 27-9, 6-14
Kelley Jim SP0179 2-2, 27-4, 5-8, 6-6
Kelley John W. DP0143 2-2, 6-6,27-4, 5-9
Kelly D.P. SP0362 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-12, 5-8, 6-20
Kelly Fay DP1269 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74,3-1,27-1,1-2
Kelly R. Eugene DP1268 7-17, 7-18, 7-19,7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72,3-
73,3-74
Kelly Robert L. DP2018 2-89, 1-22, 22-3, 7-1, 9-6, 6-4, 6-16, 6-100, 20-6, 7-4, 7-2, 7-3,
9-6,2-3
Kelly Sherry A. SP0183 9-4,9-5,9-6
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Kelly Stanhope A. DPO177
Kelly William DP1262
Kemp Jon DP0368
Kenan Renee DPO720
Kennedy Pat Wilson DPO977
Kennedy Pat DP0075
Kennedy Steven B. DP0174
Kenton Gary DP1594
Kenton Gary DP2412
Keogh Mike DPO486
Kern H. Max DP1667
Keshian Richard DP0083
Kester Bill DP0256
Key Melinda T. DPO482
Keyes Bruce A. DP2040
Keyes Bruce A. DP2042
Keys Robert C. DPO988
Keziah Jr. Richard C. DP2178
Kiger Bill DP1337
Kiger Robin DP1333
Kilgore Jr. Tony W. DP1539
Killian Douglas R. DP1848
Kincaid Amy H. PP0435
King Arnold G. DP0820
King Arnold G. DP2202
King Coella A. DP0117
King Eileen PP0436
King Josie L. DPO400
King Kelly S. DPO427
King Michael A. DP1127
King William R. DP1609
Kinnarney J.H. DP2356
Kinnarney Joe DP2137
Kirby Barbara C DP0006
Kirby Evan L. DP0361
Kirby Laura E. DPO181
Kirby Linda DP0355
Kirby T Brent DP0063
Kirk Mary P. DPO913
Kirkman Don DP2170
Kirkman Donald A. DP0353
Kirs Maureen DP1952
Kirs Maureen DP1987
Kirs Maureen DP2354
Kirven Dupont DPO563
Kiser Doris PP0133
Kitchin Hal PP0306
Kivett Lucelle M. DP1160
Comment Codes
2-2,6-6,24-3,5-8
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,29-17,3-13
24-1,2-3,6-16
2-2,6-6,6-14
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14 6-32
2-2,6-12
3-100
6-9,7-4,7-1, 20-6
2-2,6-15
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12,6-14,6-15, 6-32
2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6
2-2,6-15
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-
31,21-32
2-2, 6-6, 29-16
2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15
2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-15
2-2,6-6
5-34,29-110,5-1
2-2
2-2,6-6,5-7,6-14
2-2,6-14,6-6,5-9
2-2,6-6
6-12,6-6
2-2,6-6
2-2
2-2, 29-17, 26-2, 5-7, 6-12, 6-6
29-100
6-66, 6-14,4-23
2-2, 6-32, 6-6
2-2,24-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-2,6-12
2-2,5-8
2-2, 5-8, 6-12
2-2, 6-32,6-6, 5-15
2-2,6-104, 5-7,6-31, 29-88, 6-6,6-14
6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 2-2, 6-19, 27-4, 29-90, 29-88, 5-7
2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3
2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3
2-3, 6-70, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 9-3
3-151,3-152
21-13, 21-16, 24-1, 6-45, 2-3, 7-2
2-2,5-7,2-34
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
pub1ic_names_091701.x1s

u
r

r

t
i

I

I

1
1
H

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Klaum Thomas DP1914 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Klecka Bill SP0431 6-22,30-1,1-1,29-1
Klein Kurt PP0064 6-4, 29-7, 30-7, 2-3
Kleinman John DP1255 2-3, 24-1, 27-1, 3-2, 22-1
Klopiman William A. DP1993 7-4,7-1, 2-3
Klosterman Paul J. DP0872 2-3, 24-3, 27-8, 5-2, 3-122
Knott William DP0081 2-2,6-14
Knox Diana DP1875 29-110, 9-3, 5-5, 3-1, 7-1, 29-100, 13-1, 29-56, 24-1
Knox William E. DP1877 29-110, 29-7, 24-1, 20-6, 3-1, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6
Koch James A. DP2051 2-3, 7-4, 3-2
Kooken Ruth D. DP1846 2-2,5-7,6-6,6-12
Kopf Vicki DP0203 2-2,6-14,6-12, 6-6,29-17
Kornegay T.L. DP1473 3-7,3-1, 3-2,20-6
Kosak Philip H. DP1515 6-4, 27-1, 7-4, 5-22, 1-2, 20-6
Kowalske Connie DPO551 2-2
Kropf Arnold N. DP1700 3-2, 5-5, 5-2, 30-1, 27-1
Kropf Arnold N. DP1891 3-118,21-33, 3-36
Kropf Arnold PP0246 2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 27-8, 6-4, 3-33, 6-9
Kropf Dee DPO565 3-153, 21-33
Kropf Dee PP0285 2-17, 2-3, 21-1, 3-33, 4-2, 5-17, 8-1, 7-2, 9-6, 13-1, 2-23
Kropf Dee PP0437 2-3, 21-1, 5-5, 5-2, 2-6, 9-6, 27-8, 1-2, 23-5
Kropf Dolores D. DP1641 21-1, 6-4, 21-33, 2-18, 3-118, 9-36
Kroupa Ann Elizabeth DP0781 2-2,6-32,6-6,6-15, 29-17, 6-64, 6-17, 6-14
Kroupa Ann SP0087 6-6
Kuehn Hildegard DP1685 27-20, 9-34, 5-2, 6-4
Kuehn Hildegard PP0235 2-3, 9-3, 29-56
Kuehn Hildegard PP0307 24-1, 3-33, 3-1, 21-1, 4-2, 7-5, 7-3, 9-6, 9-3, 9-9, 27-1, 27-8,
24-1, 5-2,2-3
Kuehn Konrad W. DP1064 2-23, 6-23, 20-6, 3-42, 3-72, 3-15, 7-4, 7-5, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 9-22,
9-23, 24-1, 2-3
Kuehn Kristina DP2371 2-3, 5-2,27-1, 5-5
Kuhn Edward M. DP1448 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Kuhn Kris DP1144 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Kuhn Samantha DP1162 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 3-73, 3-
74
Kuhn Wilian DP1140 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 3-73, 3-
74
Kulka Francis P. PP0570 21-29
Kunkel Conrad DP2148 2-2,6-26, 6-32,6-6
Kurland Susan PP0576 13-1
Kuzmak Carol SP0015 5-2, 7-1, 3-1, 6-2
Kwan Mildred DP2215 3-7, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-101
Kyger David L. PP0438 6-6, 6-12, 5-8, 29-76
Lachauce Michael DP1245 2-2
Lackey Strupe DP2260 27-1, 6-4, 6-53, 3-2, 3-7
Laili Teodora DP1246 2-2,6-12
Lamar Terry K. DP1968 24-1
Lamb George L. DP1047 2-2,6-15, 6-14,5-8
Lambeth Daniel DP2381 1-22, 9-15,7-21
public names 09170I.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Lambeth Donny C. DPO109
Lambie James T. DPO518
Landau Joel DPO649
Landers Hazel F. DP0893
Landing Joe PP0266
Landing Joesph PP0090
Landing Joseph M. SP0367
Landing Joseph SP0038
Landon James PP0085
Lang Jonathan DP0850
Lang Linda SP0058
Lang Norman SP0159
Lapping Anne DP1176
LaRue Robert DP0079
Lassiter Bart DP2171
Lassiter C. Barton DP2352
Lassiter C. Barton PP0439
Lassiter Jeanne DP1488
Latham II William E. DP1729
Latimer Sue DP1101
Lauer Chuck DP0711
Lavasque Bill DPO589
Lawrence B. L. DPO528
Lawrence B.L. DPO575
Lawrence B.L. DP0576
Lawrence B.L. DP0578
Lawrence B.L. DP1555
Lawrence B.L. DP1556
Lawrence Barbara DP0474
Lawrence Barbara DP0529
Lawrence Barbara DP0586
Lawrence Barbara DP0587
Lawrence Barbara DP0588
Lawrence Barbara DP0652
Lawrence Barbara DPO682
Lawrence Barbara PP0110
Lawrence Barbara PP0111
Lawrence Barbara PP0112
Lawrence Barbara PP0113
Lawrence Barbara PP0114
Lawrence Barbara PP0115
Lawrence Barbara PP0211
Lawrence R. J. DP0566
Lawrence R. J. DP0567
Lawrence R.J. DP0680
Lawrence R.J. DP0681
Lawrence R.J. DP1561
Lawrence R.J. DP1634
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 6-6, 6-26
6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 7-1, 9-10, 9-54, 3-91
2-3, 22-2,1-1, 24-1
1-1, 22-1, 24-1
2-3,4-3, 9-2, 5-5, 21-1, 5-2
23-3,4-2,4-3,23-3
2-3, 22-2, 2-9, 3-33, 21-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-8
1-5,1-1
3-9, 3-1, 5-2, 3-24
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 5-8, 6-12
2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 5-20
2-2, 5-8, 6-32, 24-6
2-2,6-6
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-6
5-2
2-2,6-14
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3,21-37
2-3,3-36
2-3,23-35
2-3, 9-28, 9-41
2-3,6-70
_
2-3, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4
2-3, 7-1, 9-27, 9-41, 3-42, 3-76, 6-21, 21-42, 23-35
2-3,7-1, 7-2, 7-4
2-3,21-42
2-3,23-35
2-3,9-28
2-3,3-36
2-3,6-70
2-3,8-1, 30-3
2-3,17-1
2-3,9-6
2-3,3-9, 3-1, 24-1
2-3,74, 7-5, 7-2
2-3,19-1
2-3, 5-2,17-1, 22-2
2-3,21-42
2-3,3-36
2-3,6-70
2-3,7-5
2-3, 9-6, 9-28, 9-22
2-3,23-5
public names_091701.x1s

1

w

t
1

I

r
n
1

1

t

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Lawrence R.J. PP0118
Lawrence R.J. PP0119
Lawrence R.J. PP0120
Lawrence R.J. PP0121
Lawrence R.J. PP0122
Lawrence R.J. PP0123
Lawrence Rodney J. PP0212
Lawrence Rodney DP0577
Lawrence Rodney DPO677
Lawrence Rodney DP1427
Lawrence Rodney DP1557
Lawrence Rodney DP1558
Lawrence Rodney DP1559
Lawrence Rodney DP1560
Lawson Carla DPO493
Leadbetter Tim DP0069
Leak Bob SP0352
Leak Karen H. DP1732
Leak Margaret DP0929
Leak Robert DP2150
Leak Robert PP0231
Leak Jr. Robert E. DPO906
Leak Jr. Robert SP0199
Leckie Douglas E. DP0276
Ledbetter Sally DP2050
Lederhos Gilbert DP1426
Lee Bunn H. DP1502
Lee David DP0629
Lee Jerry D. DP2043
Lee Melinda DP1525
Lee Mike DP2297
Lee Myron D. DP0102
Lee Richard C. DP0770
Lee Terry L. SP0132
Lee William PP0137
Lee William PP0243
Leeds Jo Alice DPO532
Leeds Jo Alice DP1947
Leeds Jo Alice DP2319
Leeds Jo Alice DP0857
Leeds Jo Alice DP2189
Leeds Jo Alice DP2328
Lejeune Linda PP0267
Lejeune Theodore PP0291
Lejeune Theodore SP0186
Lemons Pam O. DP1254
Leonard Dianne J. DP1743
Leonard Dorothy S. DP1013
LePoint Raymond DPO854
Levenson M.J. SP0244
Comment Codes
2-3,27-8
2-3,8-1, 8-15
2-3,3-9,3-1
2-3,6-48
2-3,9-6
2-3,7-2
2-3
2-3,9-28
2-3,23-5
2-3, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-25, 3-36, 3-76, 6-4, 21-37, 23-5
2-3,21-37
2-3, 3-36, 3-76
2-3,6-70
2-3, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-32
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-25
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14
2-2
2-2, 6-25, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32, 6-6, 29-12
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-25
2-2, 6-6, 6-23, 6-16, 5-9
6-6,6-14
9-6, 9-23, 6-4, 3-137
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-12,6-32,6-14
2-3, 3-69, 24-4, 9-62
6-59, 7-4, 7-1, 3-2, 5-21, 6-4, 9-6, 3-1, 20-6
2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-15 -
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-15, 6-32, 6-14, 5-9, 5-7
2-3, 24-7, 3-49, 29-119
2-3, 6-15, 22-4, 2-3
2-3
29-7, 5-2,1-2
2-3, 3-81, 7-1, 9-27, 27-10
2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56
2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56
3-84, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6, 29-56, 29-37
4-21, 7-4, 9-6, 3-2, 7-1, 29-56, 20-6
2-3, 3-1, 7-4, 7-2, 9-6, 9-23, 27-1, 29-56
21-19,13-1
3-51, 3-34, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 4-15
2-3, 30-3, 30-2, 30-4, 3-1, 7-3, 12-1
5-2
6-6, 6-32, 2-2
2-2,6-10
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
2-3, 5-1, 6-9, 9-6, 9-8, 9-4, 9-1, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 5-2
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Levenson Mazie J. DP1100
Levenson Mazie DP2083
Levenson Mazie PP0440
Levine Heue PP0129
Levine Steve DP0863
Levine Steve SP0048
Lewis Bill DP2261
Lewis D. Slade DP1843
Lewis Darren SP0361
Lewis Gail DP1580
Lewis Gene DP2012
Lewis Hal SP0333
Lewis Rick DP2351
Lewis William R. DPO941
Lewkowicz Melissa W. DP0383
Libreri Joe DP0776
Libreri Joe PP0087
Libreri Joe PP0441
Libreri Joe PP0442
Libreri Joe SP0090
Licata John PP0443
Licata John SP0200
Ligon David T. DP1399
Ligon Jr. Roddey M. DP1691
Lincoln David DP0399
Lindley Barbara PP0052
Lindley Barbara PP0298
Lindsey Claire DP1457
Lindsley Richard SP0220
Lindsley Richard SP0457
Lineback Patsy DP0887
Lineberger Stephen L. DP1642
Lineberry Keith H. DP0899
Lineberry Jr. Al DP1008
Lineberry Jr. Al DP2253
Lineberry Jr. Al SP0110
Lingerfelt James Gary DP0869
Lingerfelt James DP2231
Link J. Jason DPO249
Linton Marie C. DP1866
Linville Mark V. DP0257
Lipscomb T. Simone DP1974
Little George DP0008
Little George DP2074
Little George DP2180
Little Michael DP1784
Little Milton DP1786
public names_091701 xls

Comment Codes
9-3, 9-6,19-4, 5-2, 7-1, 5-2
5-2, 9-6,19-1, 9-23, 9-3, 9-28
9-6, 9-15,19-4, 9-3,19-1, 6-21, 9-6
2-3,1-5
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
24-1, 2-1, 2-6, 1-1, 30-1, 2-10
2-2,6-6, 29-24, 6-32
2-2,6-12
6-2,21-1,6-3,5-5
2-2,6-32, 6-6
21-1, 29-60, 5-4, 22-2, 5-5, 5-2, 7-4, 7-1, 22-1, 29-89, 6-85, 1-
1, 1-4
9-6
2-2,6-14,5-8
2-2,6-6
2-2
3-86, 3-133, 3-134, 29-121
2-3, 5-2, 22-2, 21-13, 21-1
3-36, 3-1, 3-38, 3-62, 3-63, 3-10, 3-37, 3-16
22-6, 1-19, 6-34, 3-33, 23-16
21-1, 21-7, 23-7, 23-8, 22-6, 4-8, 4-5, 21-1, 4-6, 3-15, 3-16, 7-
5, 7-6, 8-1, 17-2, 6-22, 6-23
2-3, 3-9, 3-15, 3-1, 3-63, 3-64, 5-10, 3-58, 3-65, 3-16, 3-62, 3-
33
21-1, 22-1, 5-2, 8-15, 3-9, 3-1
2-2,6-12,6-14,6-15
2-2,6-15,5-8
2-2,6-79, 22-22,6-6
2-3,6-45
2-3,6-45
2-2,6-6,6-12, 6-15
3-4, 2-18, 29-50, 29-49
2-54,2-55
2-2,15-6
2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-26
2-2, 6-12, 6-6
2-2, 6-32, 29-16, 24-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-15
2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 29-12
29-115, 29-56, 22-1, 7-4, 7-, 6-45, 29-60
3-7, 5-22, 7-4, 7-2, 27-1, 24-1, 29-56, 22-2, 2-3, 5-1
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-32, 6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-6
2-3, 7-4, 7-1, 12-4, 9-6, 29-63, 4-21, 27-13, 22-1, 29-56, 1-2, 3-
2,7-1,9-6
2-2
6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 2-2
2-2,6-6
29-16,2-2
29-16,2-2

it

1
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Little Jr. George SP0154
Littlejohn Brian DPO541
Littlejohn Linda PP0225
Lockhart Judy DP1619
Loflin Rudy DP2028
Lomax John PP0233
Long Edith DP0215
Long G DP0010
Long Harold DP2288
Long Harold PP0108
Long Howard L. DP1615
Long William H. DP2193
Longmire Holly Doucette DP1063
Lough Catherine W. DP0176
Love Andrew DP0710
Lovell Mary Kay DP2388
Low Peggy S. DPO405
Low Robbie N. DP0373
Low Sara Heaton DPO345
Lowder Betsy B. DP1510
Lowder Nellie DP1511
Lowder William R. DP1402
Lowdermilk Tammy PP0274
Lowe Susan H. D131 122
Lower Larry DP1913
Loxein Ruby DP1817
Luecht Richard M. DPO466
Luehn Kristina I. DP1170
Lufit Larry DP1373
Luimll Dennis DP1564
Luper Kimberly F. DPI 151
Luper Sherry DP0553
Lutz Donna DP1336
Lutz Kim PP0102
Lydick Keith DP1472
Lydick Keith DP1675
Lydick Keith PP0444
Lynch Dan PP0162
Lynch Dan PP0445
Lynch Dan DN0002
Lynch Dan PN0002
Lynch Jennifer PP0161
Lynch Mitchell D. DPO180
Lynham Diane PP0446
Maas Brian E. DP0885
Mabe Marie M. DP0263
Macintosh Jeff DPO348
Mackey Robert PP0197
Macon Richard B. DP1017
Maddox Cynthia DP2103
Madison J. Charles DP0989
public names_09170I.As
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-6, 29-12
2-2,6-12,6-6.6-14.6-15
2-3,5-2,7-2,8-1
6-21, 3-2,27-1
7-21,2-3
2-2, 2-63, 6-12, 6-32, 9-19
2-2,6-15
2-2
3-154, 7-52, 3-155, 6-109, 5-38
23-16,21-14,21-13
21-74,21-75, 3-106
2-2, 24-3, 5-20, 6-6
2-3,27-8,7-4, 9-6,2-9
2-2,6-6,6-12
2-2,6-75,5-8
1-5,3-76,3-1,1-2
2-2,6-14
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6
2-2, 29-16, 24-3
2-2,6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-32,6-12
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-2,6-14,6-12
2-3, 5-5, 3-2, 3-7, 3-36, 3-86, 3-26, 7-4, 7-1, 7-26, 1-2
7-21, 3-1, 2-3
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3,5-2,5-5
6-6,2-2
2-2,6-12,6-6
2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 26-2, 6-12, 5-7
2-2, 6-6,6-12, 6-15
5-2, 27-8, 21-3,1-2
9-3, 7-33, 7-34
6-45, 30-1, 3-1, 7-1, 3-107,1-2
3-62
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15, 29-11
2-2,6-6,5-9
2-2
2-2
21-6,2-2
2-2, 3-104,29-16,6-14, 6-32,6-6
2-3,3-33,14-1,13-1
2-2,2-87,2-101,6-6
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-6,6-12
2-2,1-6
2-2, 6-15, 5-8
7-15,7-47,1-2
6-14,6-114, 26-2, 6-12, 6-32,6-15,2-2
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Madison T.E. DP0597 2-2,6-6
Maggio Elemes A. DP1500 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Magich Kent DP1806 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
Mahorney James DP0297 2-2,29-16
Mahovlich Sahdra A. DP0919 6-12,6-32,2-2
Mahovlich Stephan L. DP0231 2-2, 6-14, 6-12,6-32, 5-7
Mahovlich
Malone Steve
Drew DP0984
SP0435 6-14,5-15,2-2
5-5,2-3,3-1, 21-4
Mandicle Edward DP1411 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Maney Robert L. DPO498 2-2,5-7
Mann Kim Kelly DP0797 2-2,6-6,5-8
Mann William C. DP1183 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32
Mansfield Kim H. DPO471 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Mansfield Linda Simmons DPO469 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 21-38, 3-139, 2-20
Manuel Barbara SP0345 6-12,6-18
Manuel George SP0370 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-14, 6-25
Marbert Suzanne DP1220 21-1, 2-23, 29-56, 3-103, 3-36, 3-1, 3-17, 29-89, 6-4, 6-82, 6-
83, 2-3, 23-5, 29-93, 29-94, 29-95, 29-96
Markey Patricia DP1912 2-3, 3-7,7-1
Marks III
Marsh R.
Billie Harrison DP1524
PP0447 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17, 5-8
2-2,5-7
Marsh Carol DP1851 5-2,2-3,3-7,3-1
Marsh Carolyn DP0855 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Marsh Chester DP0695 7-17, 7-18; 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72,,3-
73,3-74
Marsh Chester DP1852 2-3, 24-1,6-4,27-1
Marsh Tina DP2213 6-15,2-2
Marshall Deborah S. DP0274 2-2,6-6, 6-32,6-14
Marshall Robert SP0081 6-6,2-2,23-2
Marshall Robert SP0375 21-1, 6-15, 6-6
Marshall W. Bowen DP1119 2-2,6-6, 6-12
Marshall Walter DP0630 2-2, 6-17, 6-14, 6-12, 26-2
Martin Damien PP0448 2-2,6-6
Martin Denise SP0012 6-2,24-1,3-1,1-2
Martin Denise SP0433 3-7, 29-1,1-4
Martin Forrest SP0241 3-1, 5-2, 29-5, 5-23
Martin Joann PP0103 4-2, 2-23,21-3,21-4
Martin Phillip DP0066 2-2,6-14
Martin Tom SP0066 3-1,30-1
Martin Tommy PP0449 2-2,6-6
Martin III O.C. DP1740 6-6,2-2
Martino Philip SP0175 5-2, 21-1, 3-1, 3-3, 3-75, 3-18, 3-17, 21-1, 7-5, 30-1, 6-22, 1-1
Mascia Frank R. DP1318 2-2,6-6, 6-12
Mascia Michael C. PP0450 5-9
Masen Dwayne PP0138 21-65, 4-14, 3-33, 6-5
Mason Steven DP0052 2-2

public names_091701 xls

J

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Massey Diane DP1344 2-2,6-6,6-12
Mather Julianne L. DP0329 2-2, 6-6,6-12.6-26
Matney Carol DP1439 2-2,29-16,6-32, 5-9
Matthews Ellen W. DP0878 2-2, 6-12,6-25
Matthews Gloria DP1663 2-2, 6-6,6-32,6-15
Matthews Julia DP0042 2-2,6-14.6-32
Matthieu Donald SP0193 24-1, 3-224, 2-6, 3-7
Matthieu Jr. Donald E. PP0451 4-3, 4-5, 3-10, 23-1, 3-16, 3-36, 3-67, 3-68, 7-14, 7-15, 7-16,
21-69,21-12
Mattinson David DP0717 6-59,5-2, 9-6,24-4
Mattinson Linda DP0716 5-34, 29-105
Mauler James D. DP1404 2-2,6-12
Maupin Levi SP0230 5-2,27-1,6-14,22-1
Mayer Ken PP0196 2-2,6-15, 6-6,5-7
Mayer Ken SP0347 2-2,6-6,5-9
Mayer Jr. Kenneth C. DP1792 6-6,6-32
Mayward Peggy DP1566 3-33,3-7
McAdams Kenneth L. DP1589 2-2,6-32,29-16
McAdams Sabrina DP1393 2-2,6-6, 6-12
Mcalister Bonnie SP0324 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-20, 6-15, 5-7
McCall G. Emmett DP0378 2-2,6-77, 6-14,5-15
McCarthy Sally H. DP0852 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
McCaslin Randy DP2255 6-6,6-12, 2-2
McCollum Stephen M. DPO976 29-136, 22-31, 20-13, 20-12, 5-43
McCombs Jr. Charles A. DPO182 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 29-16, 26-2, 6-15
McConnell Carol S. DP1495 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
McConnell Robert E. DP1494 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
McCormick James R. DPO987 2-2, 6-14, 5-20, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32
McCoy Glenn D. DP0154 2-2,5-8, 6-6
McCoy Jr. Robert S. DPO935 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15
McCraw Jerry W. DP0656 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 29-90, 5-7, 6-12, 6-32
Mccraw Jerry PP0204 2-2
Mccraw Jerry SP0316 5-9,2-2,2-26,2-1, 29-19
McCulloch Delano D. DP1398 2-2, 6-6, 5-8
McCulloch Jeanne O. DP0432 2-2,6-14, 5-8
McDaniel Jack DP1578 2-2,6-12
McDaniel Ken DP1274 2-2, 6-32, 6-12
McDaniel Jr. Thomas R. DP2192 2-2,6-6
McDavid Allen DP0233 2-2,5-7
McDermott Donna DP2010 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32,3-101,2-3
Mcdermott Donna PP0463 2-3, 5-2, 9-6,22-2,1-4
McDermott Michael DP0259 2-2,6-32
Mcdermott Paul PP0464 2-3, 29-56, 21-1, 21-14, 21-23, 4-8, 7-11, 7-4, 7-2, 29-63, 9-3,
9-6, 3-75, 4-8, 3-33, 6-1, 2-17, 2-35, 21-17, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 5-
5
Mcdonald Davis PP0466 2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 6-12, 3-13
McDonald Janice DP0925 2-2, 6-12,29-24,5-8
public names_091701.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Mcdonald Janice SP0079 2-2,6-6
McDonald Patricia SP0061 2-10,6-6
Mcdougal Rosa PP0465 2-2
McDowell Faye O. DP0157 2-2,6-12,29-16
McDowell J. Walter DP0244 2-2,6-14, 6-6, 5-8
Mcdowell J. Walter SP0233 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 26-2, 5-20, 6-10, 29-11, 6-17
McDowell Walter DP2250 6-6,5-8,2-2
McEachern D. Hector DP0234 2-2,6-6,6-14,6-12
Mceachran A. Gib SP0112 2-37
McElvogue Mary DP2249 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 26-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6, 6-32, 5-7
Mcelvogue Mary PP0467 2-2,6-32,6-26
6-6
Mcelvogue Mary SP0310 ,
2-2, 5-8, 6-10, 5-18, 24-3
McElvogue Mike DP1419 6-53,29-24
McGee Lawrence U. DP0729 2-2,6-14, 6-32,5-20
McGhin Renee DP1233 6-6,6-12
Mcgraw Sandra PP0200 2-2,2-61
Mcgroarty James M. SP0428 2-2,20-5, 6-12,6-15
McGuinn Fuller K. DPO628 27-8,6-21
Mcguinn J. William SP0205 6-6,6-10, 6-12,5-8
McHenry Russ DP1988 3-1,29-98
Mchenry Russ PP0091 21-1, 3-1, 5-17,6-16,1-5,21-4
Mclrvin Patricia DP1763 22-1,3-2, 5-2,20-6
Mclrvin Patty DP1474 3-7,20-6
McIver John J. DP0638 5-2,2-3
McKaughan William M. DP1277 2-2,6-32,6-12
McKelvy Steve DP2408 3-7,2-92
Mckenzie John L. PP0008 2-2,6-26,6-6
McLean David K. DP1251 2-3, 6-16, 7-4, 7-21, 3-2, 27-1, 7-1, 9-6, 1-2, 5-1
McLeod Jr. Harold M. DPO952 2-2,5-9,6-6
Mcleod Jr. Harold M. SP0139 2-2, 6-6, 29-12, 5-8, 6-13
McMillan Preston DP0218 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
McMillian Donald C. DP0501 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32
McMillin Dan DPO975 3-76, 3-200, 7-72, 9-3, 9-6,11-8, 29-136
McMillin Dan DP1680 9-8, 7-4, 3-76, 3-16, 23-22
McMillin Daniel DP2421 7-13, 7-32, 7-4, 29-35, 3-36, 3-16, 29-60
McNair John DP0093 2-2,6-14
McNamara Elizabeth S. DP1910 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
McNamara Elizabeth S. DP2390 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
McNamara
McNamara Elizabeth
James
J. DP1958
DP1909 3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
2-3, 23-22, 23-23
McNamara Jr. James DP1976 2-3, 23-22, 23-23
McNamara Jr. James DP2373 2-3,23-22, 23-23
McNeil Dennis DP0783 2-2,6-6,6-17
McNeill Coy PP0026 21-13, 1-11, 2-9, 22-2, 29-56, 24-1
McPeak Charles E. DPO169 6-6,6-12,6-15,2-2
McPeak Duane E. DPO175 2-2,6-12,6-6
McPeak Edith D. DP0173 6-15, 6-12,2-2
McPeak Shelly K. DP0214 2-2,6-12,6-6
McQueary Charles E. DPO552 2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-12, 29-17, 5-7, 6-14
McQueary Charles E. DP1810 6-6,6-32
Mcqueary Charles PP0011 2-2,6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17, 29-32

public names 091701.xis
11
7
1I
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Mcqueary Charles PP0180
McQueary Cheryl DP1809
McVicker Thomas DP1218
Mears Jodi DP0303
Meehi Mark DP1312
Meisner Gerald W. DP0974
Meisner Jerry DP2161
Melhem Rob DPO531
Mellis J.P. SP0338
Mellis James P. SP0107
Mellon Frank DPO122
Mellon Frank DP2211
Melson Tomi DP0382
Melvin Charles DP2278
Melvin Charles PP0234
Melvin E.S. DP0364
Melvin Jim SP0120
Melvin III J. Taylor SP0118
Melvin Jr. Charles E. DP1751
Melvin Jr. Charles E. SP0376
Memory Katherine DP0033
Menefee Chris PP0452
Meredith Fred E. DP2347
Merrell Eddie F. DPO481
Merritt Garry DP0394
Messick Mark DP0477
Messick Mark DP1857
Messick Matthew DP1278
Messick Norma S. DP0616
Metcalfe Thomas J. DP0946
Metcalfe Thomas PP0453
Meunier Jeff DP2403
Meunier Jeff DP2404
Meunier Jeff DP2405
Meyer Arlene DP1890
Meyer Todd DP1764
Meyers Sally DP0870
Michaels Tony SP0172
Mickey David DP2066
Midler J. DP1925
Midler J. DP1926
Midler J. DP1927
Midler J. DP1928
Miles Robert F. DP1414
Miller Brenda DP1878
Miller Brenda DP2281
Miller David S. DP0271
Miller David S. PP0454
Miller David S. SP0335
Miller Don DP2222
Comment Codes
5-45,6-6
6-12,6-6,29-90, 2-2
2-3,1-2, 24-1
2-2, 6-12, 6-6
6-15,6-6
29-127, 7-6, 7-51, 7-42, 7-26, 29-128,29-87
7-42, 9-3, 29-127, 29-128, 7-21, 6-110, 3-46, 3-158
3-27,21-47
29-12,2-2
29-12, 6-6, 2-2
2-2, 6-14, 6-32
2-2,6-15
2-2, 6-15, 6-78, 26-2, 29-17
6-12, 6-15, 6-6, 29-90,2-2
6-15, 6-31, 5-9
29-113
2-2,6-12, 6-14, 5-9
2-2, 6-13, 6-12, 29-16, 29-17, 5-9
2-2,6-6
2-2
2-2,6-12
2-2,29-76
2-2, 29-32, 6-6, 6-66
2-2, 6-15, 24-3
6-19,2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 3-42, 1-1, 22-2
3-7, 3-36, 3-90, 5-5, 1-1, 1-4, 6-4, 3-69
2-2,6-32,6-12,5-9
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
2-2,5-7,3-10,2-119
23-15, 2-71, 21-72, 5-9, 2-2
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
5-5, 3-1, 3-52, 7-13, 30-2
23-31,20-6,2-9
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
29-28
7-1,7-6
2-3,7-5,7-4, 7-3,29-7
2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
2-3,6-70
2-2,6-12,6-14, 5-7
2-3, 9-6, 6-4, 27-1, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1
2-3,24-1,6-16,9-6
2-2,6-32
2-2, 29-12, 6-6
6-14,6-12,6-6,2-2
3-2, 27-1, 7-1, 6-86, 6-102, 6-69
public names_09170I.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Miller G. Bruce DP0370
Miller G. Bruce SP0143
Miller Helen PP0455
Miller Helen PP0456
Miller Helen SP0176
Miller Mark S. DP0920
Miller Mark S. PP0575
Miller Mark S. SP0092
Miller Mark DP2367
Miller Mark PP0294
Miller Mark PP0457
Miller Mark PP0458
Miller Mark SP0040
Miller Mark SP0178
Miller Mark SP0339
Miller Mark SP0396
Miller Mary C. PP0459
Miller Mary PP0269
Miller Mary SP0443
Miller Richard E. DP1778
Miller Richard DP2140
Miller Ron PP0171
Miller Sidney DP1573
Miller Tammy PP0077
Miller Tammy PP0460
Miller Tammy SP0024
Miller Tammy SP0076
Miller Teresa DP2225
Miller Theresa W. PP0461
Miller Theresa DPO982
Miller Tiffany DP1575
Miller Wade C. SP0144
Millican John DP0495
Mills Robert D. DP0205
Milner-Brown Lorna DP2234
Minor Darla DP1863
Minutolo Vince DP0219
public names_091701.xis

Comment Codes I
2-2,6-32
2-2,6-6
2-3, 21-13,2-68, 7-3, 29-64,1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 5-5, 23-26, 23-
14, 23-5, 4-13, 29-54, 21-1, 21-26, 21-11, 21-4, 2
2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-7
2-17, 5-2, 4-8, 5-13, 5-11, 3-25, 2-18, 3-1, 3-26, 4-1, 4-9, 5-4,
6-4, 6-27, 6-9, 21-4, 2-19, 21-1, 21-3, 2-3, 1-2
2-3, 29-100, 29-102, 21-3, 21-51, 21-60, 21-13, 21-31 6-50, 6-
55, 21-26,21-27,21-71, 21-37, 23-27,23-28, 29-60, 5-31, 23-
26, 23-33, 2-23, 23-14, 21-17, 21-1, 29-7, 9-6, 7-2, 20-6, 7-12,
7-67, 7-71, 7-72, 7-21, 7-3, 23-4, 23-6, 23-4, 29-36, 29-121, 27-
1, 9-3, 1-15, 1-13, 2-68, 9-41, 6-118, 23-5, 3-86, 3-91, 3-195, 5-
5, 5-31, 30-25, 3-197, 9-4, 9-34, 7-1, 6-110
2-3, 21-13, 21-3, 6-50, 6-55, 21-26, 21-71, 21-37, 23-27, 23-
28, 5-31, 23-26, 2-23, 23-14, 21-17, 29-7, 9-6, 7-2, 20-6, 7-12,
23-4, 23-6, 23-4, 29-36, 27-1, 9-3,1-15, 2-68, 23-5, 5-5
23-4, 23-5, 23-6
21-29,29-112
2-3, 21-67, 23-6, 23-26, 21-17, 29-35, 29-64, 21-13
2-23, 1-1, 23-17, 3-16, 3-36
2-3, 21-13, 21-14, 21-1, 6-50, 21-23, 21-17, 23-27, 21-26, 23-
28, 23-14, 29-54, 4-13, 23-26, 23-14, 23-5, 30-1, 29-7, 7-12,
23-4, 23-6, 29-63, 9-3, 9-6, 1-14, 1-2, 1-15, 2-68, 21-13, 23-5,
5-5
4-1
29-7, 5-2, 3-1, 7-2, 7-4, 30-1, 27-1, 3-2, 17-1, 3-17, 9-1, 21-1,
20-4
3-1
29-7, 5-2, 23-5, 3-16, 3-1, 30-1, 7-2, 7-1, 23-5, 20-4
29-56, 2-23, 3-28, 3-9, 9-6, 7-2, 27-8, 6-9, 1-2
2-3, 21-13, 23-16, 5-2, 27-8
23-3,2-23
2-2,6-12,6-32,6-14
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 2-50, 6-15
6-12, 6-32, 6-6
4-13, 2-23, 5-5, 6-31, 6-3
21-13, 23-5, 3-9, 3-36, 3-16
21-2
21-1, 3-1, 5-2, 30-1, 5-5
2-2, 6-32, 5-9
2-2, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17, 3-13
6-6,6-12
2-2,6-12,6-32
29-12,6-6,29-19
2-2, 6-6, 6-12,6-14
2-2, 6-6, 6-32
2-3, 20-6, 7-1, 3-2, 7-17, 24-1, 21-31, 6-4, 1-2
2-2,6-32,6-12
29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9

11

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Mitchell Don DPI 147
Mitchell Edward C. DP1005
Mitchell Kathy DP2030
Mitchell Mabelline DP0664
Mitchell Nikkita DP2114
Mitchell Ron DP1933
Mitchell Ron DP1934
Mitchell Ron DP1935
Mitchell Ron DP1940
Mitchell Ron DP1946
Mitchell Jr. Nick W. DP1670
Moffitt Sylvia Ann DP1311
Moleska Denise SP0363
Mollison Mike DP2152
Monk Douglas T. DP0860
Monk Douglas SP0322
Monk Jean DP1000
Montgomery Catherine SP0384
Montgomery Millard DP1073
Montgomery Stephen L. DP0705
Moore Beverly SP0063
Moore E Glenn DP0062
Moore Kenny SP0410
Moore Lindsey DP1883
Moore Louis DP2135
Moore Mary Allyson DP1587
Moore Vernon DP0357
Moore W. Colon DP0179
Moores Robert SP0432
Moran Mike DP2101
Morgan Bess DP1471
Morgan James F. SP0388
Morphis Crystal DP2084
Morris Noah D. DP1865
Morris Ronnie D. DP2201
Morris Ronnie DP0774
Comment Codes
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-14
7-4,7-21,2-3,6-4,1-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
6-15, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 6-32, 24-3, 2-2
9-36, 9-22, 9-6, 9-23, 19-1, 9-54, 9-15, 8-1, 2-3
3-36, 3-15, 3-86, 5-1, 2-3
2-3, 23-22, 23-33, 23-5
2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
2-3,6-70
2-2,6-14, 6-6
29-24,6-15
2-2,24-3,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-15, 5-8
7-1, 7-19, 7-61, 6-116
5-2, 30-1, 5-3,1-1, 22-1, 6-35, 6-1, 21-3, 6-23
2-3, 3-2,7-1, 9-6,24-1
2-2,6-12,6-6,6-15
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-10
1-5, 1-1, 30-1, 21-1, 5-5
2-2, 5-8,6-12
6-25, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32
30-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 3-1
2-2,6-12,5-20
2-2
29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
1-1,29-41
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 29-32
29-12, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 6-26, 6-15, 6-6
2-2,6-32,6-12,6-15
2-3, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 24-1, 22-14, 7-49, 9-45, 5-1
3-76, 29-120, 7-43, 22-25,13-3, 7-45, 3-132, 7-44, 6-98, 6-99
Moser Clay DP1477 3-7,2-3
Moser Janet DP0061 2-2, 5-8, 6-12
Moser Kenneth DP0047 2-2, 5-8, 6-12
Moser Margaret M. DP0895 9-49, 9-37, 7-1,13-3
Moser Peter PP0290 2-3, 3-33, 7-2, 21-1
Moskowitz Jay DP2291 2-2, 6-6,29-16, 6-32
Moskowitz Jay SP0136 2-2, 6-6, 29-12
Moss Deborah DP1886 2-2, 3-1, 6-45
Moss Don DP2090 6-6, 6-12, 6-14
Moss Don SP0381 2-2,6-15
Moyer R. Charles DPO140 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7
Mueller Glen PP0126 2-3, 6-49, 6-45
Mundy Faye DP1820 2-2
public names_091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
,
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Mundy Tom DP1819 2-2
Muratone Margaret PP0462 3-33, 6-45, 24-2
Murdash Thurman DP1989 7-21, 7-4,2-3
Murdock Steve DP0723 2-2,6-6, 6-15
Murfee Jr. Donald G. DP0236 2-2, 6-14, 5-9, 29-24, 6-15
Musci Maureen DP1694 2-3, 29-56, 3-36, 9-25, 9-34
Myatt Kevin A. DP0134 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
Myers Sally DP2365 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Nadelman Martin H. DPO981 2-2,6-15
Nagy Bill DPO648 3-152
Nail Eugene DP0609 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
Nash Steven L. DPO156 2-2,6-15
Natkin Gerald DP0686 5-2
Natl La SP0071 6-3
Neal Ralph DP2160 6-6,6-15,5-8
Neas Steve DPO928 6-15
Needham Margaret DP0537 1-22
Needham Margaret SP0203 27-1, 3-227, 2-1, 1-2, 21-1
Neill David DP1623 2-2,6-6
Neiman John DP2199 5-7,2-2, 6-6,24-3
Nelles Barbara PP0164 5-1,6-31
Nelson Beverly DP2357 6-6,6-66,6-15,2-2, 6-72
Nelson Deborah Suzan DP1682 2-3, 7-4, 3-2, 27-1, 6-41, 5-2
Nelson Howell D. DP2343 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-17, 24-6
Nelson Nancy PP0144 21-6, 21-62, 6-6, 6-45, 1-5, 2-9
Nelson Vaughn Pascal DP1681 2-3, 5-2, 1-22, 3-2, 27-1, 7-1
Nesbit Susan DP1084 2-2,6-26, 5-8
Netruis Chet DP1747 2-2,6-12,6-6
Newell W. Robert DP0228 2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 26-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6
Newman Harold DPO200 29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
Newman Ronald DPO823 2-2, 6-12,6-64
Newman Ronald SP0069 6-6, 29-14, 5-3, 1-6, 29-11
Newman Timothy SP0157 2-2,6-13, 5-9
Newsome Angela D. DP1301 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
Newsome Jason DP1650 2-2,6-12,5-15
Newsome Jr. Jerry W. DP1275 2-2, 5-9,6-12,6-6,6-15
Newton T. Lawson DPO342 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Nichols Yvonne H. DPO492 2-2, 6-14, 6-32
Nickelston Roni DP1579 6-15,6-6
Nicks Ricky B. DPO166 2-2, 6-6, 27-4
Nite Mildred DP1290 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73.3-74
Noah Lloyd DP2057 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Noll Richard A. DP1446 2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32
Norm Janet Lee DPO646 2-3, 7-55, 3-76, 22-24, 6-16
Norman Heather DP0024 2-2, 6-24
Norman W. Lee SP0250 2-3, 5-21, 6-4, 22-1, 4-8, 29-42
Norwood Jr. Glenn J. DP1942 7-17,7-18,7-19,7-20,7-21,3-70,21-31,21-32,3-71,3-72,3-
73,3-74
Nrosen Pitie PP0041 21-1, 2-3,1-1
public-names-091 701.xis
77
C

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Nunn Stuart DPO135 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-10
Nussbaum Patty DP2172 2-3, 20-6, 29-7
Nussbaum Jr. V. M. DP0880 2-2, 6-6, 6-26, 29-16
Nussbaum Jr. V. M. SP0134 2-2, 29-16, 29-12
Nyswonger Fonda DP0954 6-6, 29-24, 5-20
Oakes Kristen DP2361 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
O'Brien Fred S. DP1285 2-2, 6-32, 6-12
O'Bryan Patrick SP0029 5-6,6-2
O'Conner Sandra DP2141 6-32,6-12, 5-15,5-8,29-17
O'Connor Rachelle DP1824 2-2
O'flanagan Barbarajean SP0037 30-1, 5-11,1-2, 29-5
O'Flanagan Brian DPO535 3-43,6-21, 22-24
O'Flanagan Brian DP1873 29-100
Oldenburg Betsy S. DP2320 2-3
Olson Carl W. DP0562 29-56,24-7
Olson Jean DP0556 24-7,2-9
Oma Doug DP1695 29-56,1-2,2-3
O'Neal Debroah W. DP1297 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-15
O'Neal Scott DP1154 2-2,5-7
O'Neil William DP1752 5-7,2-2
Oreilly Rick PP0468 29-56, 6-44, 7-2, 3-33, 24-2
O'Reilly Sandi DP2125 3-72, 7-26, 7-1, 9-3, 9-6, 3-95, 29-85, 6-71, 1-2, 2-3, 5-2, 3-2,
29-87,7-4
O'Reilly Sandra DP1309 7-4, 7-1, 6-45, 3-72, 7-26, 9-3, 9-6, 3-95, 29-85, 6-71, 1-2, 29-
86,2-3
Oren Carrie DP0861 2-3, 7-1, 7-61, 7-4, 9-3, 29-132
Orr Laney DP2073 2-2, 6-15, 6-12, 6-6, 5-9
Orr Laney DP2179 2-2,6-15,6-12,6-6, 5-9
Orr III Laney G. DP0152 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7
Orthel Frank DP0637 7-11,7-53
Orthel Frank DP1066 7-17 -
Orthel Frank DP2246 7-1, 7-42, 7-4, 27-28, 7-6
Orthel Frank DP2409 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Orthel S. DP0689 7-24,9-29
Osguthorpe Barbara DP1759 29-7, 3-1, 3-114, 7-3
Osguthorpe Barbara DP2167 3-1, 29-123, 29-85
Osguthorpe Barbara PP0134 2-3, 29-7, 5-2, 3-1, 1-2, 30-1
Osguthorpe Barbara PP0282 3-1, 7-4,9-6,1-2,29-7
Osguthorpe Barbara SP0007 3-1,2-1
Osguthorpe Barbara SP0341 3-1,11-2,29-7
O'Shea Bob DP1099 5-2, 2-3,30-1
Osmus Rich DP2136 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 26-2, 5-15, 6-6, 29-16, 3-104, 29-24, 29-88,
29-118
Often Sarah E. DP0752 6-75, 6-32, 6-94, 2-2
Overcash Janice DP1299 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 6-15
Owen H. James DPO990 2-2, 29-16, 6-32
Owens Dave DP1860 2-2, 6-32, 6-12
Oxendine Debbie DP1508 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Pachasa Edward S. DP1521 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
public names 091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Pachasa Virginia A. DP1520
Padgett Donna L. DP1106
Padgett Donna SP0153
Padgett J. Ronald DP0352
Palmer Charles SP0279
Palmer Martha H. DPO593
Palmer Roger PP0029
Palmer III Charles J. DP0354
Parchel William DP1320
Parker Charlotte DP1882
Parker Charlotte DP1895
Parker Charlotte DP2254
Parker Robert S. DP0209
Parker Ron PP0469
Parker Stan DP1897
Parker Zane PP0253
Parks Ann DP1604
Parks Ann SP0356
Parks Chariton DP1343
Parks Ruby DP1342
Parmele Jr. Russell B. DPO865
Paroue Keith E. DP1885
Parries Rebecca DP0073
Parrish James R. DP1735
Parrish Mary Ann DP2358
Parsons Lynne DP1825
Partners LLC Wrenn Place DP0002
Partridge Richard A. DPO454
Partridge Richard DP1853
Parus Collyn DP1717
Pashayan Annette G. DP0554
Patterson Alice Conger DP1434
Patterson James G. SP0166
Patterson John DP1306
Patterson John SP0209
Paul Richard DP1592
Pavlansky Mark DP2079
Paxale Jeremy PP0558
Payne Bill PP0238
Payne J. Stanley DPO545
Payne J. Stanley DP2379
Payne J. Stanley PP0001
Payne J. Stanley PP0016
Payne J. Stanley PP0141
Payne J. Stanley PP0470
Payne J. Stanley PP0471
Payne J. Stanley SP0148
Payne N.C. PP0142
Comment Codes
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
5-2,2-3
24-4, 9-1, 22-4, 6-16, 22-3, 5-1
2-2,6-6,6-15
2-2,5-8
2-2,6-14,6-32
2-3, 6-5, 1-2, 6-4, 21-1, 2-9
6-6, 5-8,2-2
2-2,24-3,6-12,6-32
5-5,1-2,29-98
9-6,3-2, 7-1,14-1
1-2, 7-4, 7-2, 3-2, 9-6, 27-1, 6-4, 14-1
2-2,6-26
2-3, 5-5, 30-1, 24-2, 1-2, 22-2, 3-33, 1-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-23,21-1
29-83, 3-7, 3-1, 7-21, 7-4
3-7,2-4,4-10,2-6
2-2,5-8
6-15,2-2
2-2,6-14, 5-7
7-4, 7-41, 3-36, 9-6, 2-88, 5-1, 22-2
2-2,6-14
2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2
11-4
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 5-5, 24-1
2-2,6-15
2-2,6-12,6-32,6-6
2-2,6-15
2-2, 29-19, 5-15, 29-12, 6-13
3-10, 3-36, 3-39, 3-94, 3-36, 3-228, 21-33, 21-1, 5-5, 6-16, 5-
2,22-2
2-3,30-1,2-21, 2-7
29-97
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 29-12
2-2,29-76
2-3, 9-6, 9-15, 7-1, 7-4, 22-2, 3-33, 5-5, 5-1
3-142, 3-143, 3-213, 3-144, 3-145, 21-124, 3-146, 2-18
3-167, 3-47, 23-2
3-10, 3-55, 3-56, 3-10, 24-1, 21-25, 2-10
2-67, 2-6, 3-10, 3-57, 30-1, 24-1, 3-18
3-208, 5-5, 21-1, 2-18, 3-10, 3-48, 5-30, 3-47, 1-14, 3-46
3-208, 3-205, 3-7, 21-1, 2-18, 2-6, 3-10, 3-56, 5-30, 3-47, 1-
14, 3-46, 5-5
3-51, 21-14, 3-56, 2-18, 3-33
29-19, 3-10, 3-75, 2-6, 3-7
2-3, 9-6, 9-3, 7-2, 3-9, 22-2, 4-5
public names 091701.xis

1
1

1

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Payne Stan SP0394
Payton Bebe DPO614
Peacock Jr. Clyde PP0472
Peane J. Scott DP1812
Peanie J. Scott SP0060
Pearce Chris DP0788
Pearce J. Scott DP1443
Peddycord John W. DP0155
Peddycord Milton DPO415
Peek Joe DP1684
Peek Pat DP1657
Peele Charles DP1450
Peele Charles SP0150
Peeler Chris DP2105
Peeler Chris DP2126
Peeler Christine L. DPO123
Peeler Christine L. DP0909
Peeler Christine L. DPO916
Peeler Christine L. DN0001
Peeler Christine L. PN0001
Peeler Christine L. PN0003
Peeler Christine DP2362
Peeler Christine PP0256
Peeler Christine SP0181
Peeler Christine SP0430
Peeler Christine L. DN0006
Peeler Christine DN0007
Peeler Christine DN0009
Pegram Saloman DP1516
Pegram William DP1804
Pegram Willie PP0074
Pelch Dexter DP1243
Pelligra Sam DP1213
Pelny Peter L. DP1652
Pendegraph Kathy DP1326
Pengelly Bob DP1451
Pennell G. Clifton DP0782
Pennie Michael DPO579
Pennie Michael DP1896
Pennie Michael DP1959
Pennie Michael DP1960
Pentz Jack SP0245
Perala Theresa M. DP1283
Peraldo Betty DP1356
Peraldo Betty SP0010
Peraldo Jeffery K. PP0021
Perez Arturo DP1970
Perkins Mary T. DP0251
Comment Codes
3-7, 3-205, 3-10, 3-31
2-2,6-6, 6-12,26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,26-2
2-2
2-2
2-2, 26-2, 6-6, 6-32, 27-9
2-2,6-6, 6-32
2-2, 6-6, 5-7
2-2,6-14
2-3, 24-1, 6-45, 29-56
3-36, 5-2, 3-2, 7-1, 6-45, 29-56
3-14,6-12.6-6,2-2
2-2,3-12,3-11, 5-9
3-1, 7-6, 7-14,29-7,1-2
2-92, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 29-7, 6-4, 1-2
29-112
29-112,21-51, 21-33, 21-59
29-134,3-195, 3-196, 3-197, 3-76, 29-135, 7-46, 7-67, 7-68, 7-
69
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-92, 24-1, 27-1, 9-23, 2-123, 2-124
2-3,5-5,6-28
5-2, 24-1, 21-1, 21-3, 2-17, 5-17, 5-4, 6-16, 6-22, 3-204, 7-1, 7-
3, 5-5, 30-1, 22-1, 24-1, 21-4, 29-5
5-1, 5-2, 24-1, 2-17, 5-17, 5-4, 6-4, 7-1, 7-3, 30-1, 8-15, 22-1,
24-1,29-5
2-3
2-3
2-3
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
6-15,2-10
2-2,6-18
6-15,6-6
2-3, 6-4, 29-1, 7-4
2-2, 6-6,6-32
2-2,6-6,6-12
2-2, 5-7, 29-24, 5-8, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14
2-2, 6-32, 5-7, 6-12, 6-6
2-3,3-1
27-27,27-1, 3-2
2-3, 3-2, 3-7, 3-16, 3-1, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128
2-3, 3-2,3-7,3-1
1-5,1-1,2-1, 2-15, 2-7,22-9
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
3-2, 24-1, 29-7, 6-4, 27-1, 9-6
3-1, 7-1, 5-1, 6-2, 2-1, 29-1
21-63
2-2,6-6,3-10
2-2,6-12
public names_091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Perkinson Debra PP0081
Perkinson Debra PP0271
Perkinson Debra SP0436
Perkinson Elizabeth DP1672
Perkinson Elizabeth PP0015
Perry Cathleen PP0473
Perry Nell DPO510
Perry Timothy DP0738
Peters Donna R. DP1453
Peters Tim DP0620
Peterson Bonnie L. DP1880
Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP1949
Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP1984
Petrinitz Jeffery A. DP2419
Phanthalack Laddavanh DP2306
Phelps Dave SP0014
Phifer Nancy DP0779
Philips Christine DP1146
Phillip Stephan J. DP0223
Phillips Becky DP0262
Phillips Dayle DP0085
Phillips Judy DP2047
Phillips Richard L. DP1923
Phillips Steven W. DP1307
Phillips Steven DP2372
Phipps Pauline R. PP0474
Phoenix Thomas H. DP1793
Piazza John DP1444
Picardo Judy DP0608
Pickard Deborah W. DP1391
Pickard Tom PP0475
Pickens Lavonne DPO991
Pickering Ann A. PP0476
Pickering Ann PP0213
Pickering Ann SP0313
Pickering Arthur PP0559
Pickett Michele Carrera DP0787
Pickett Michele Carrera DP1822
Pickl Linda R. DP1697
Pieny Lisa B. DP1467
Pierce Brian D. DP1531
Pierce Daniel G. DPO549
Pileggi Maureen PP0477
Pileggi Maureen PP0478
Pileggi Maureen PP0479
Pileggi Maureen PP0480
Pinedo Margaret DP1136
Pinnix Joe DP1601
Pinnix Joseph SP0105
Comment Codes
2-3, 1-1, 21-1, 22-2, 29-1, 21-68, 6-4, 3-2, 24-4, 3-15, 17-1, 6-
9
6-23, 21-66, 2-3, 20-6
2-3, 6-23, 24-1, 29-1
2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7
2-2,1-6,6-6
2-3, 6-45, 3-33, 9-6, 22-1, 2-9, 29-64
2-2,6-14
2-2,5-9
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-14, 6-12
2-3, 9-6, 27-1, 24-4, 6-4,1-2, 6-1, 7-4, 7-1
2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2
2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2
2-3, 5-34, 1-4, 5-5, 24-1, 5-1, 3-36, 3-16, 7-21, 1-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-15
1-4, 3-1, 24-4
29-122, 7-21
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7
2-2, 29-10, 6-32, 6-12, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-14
24-1, 3-7, 7-13, 9-8, 7-4, 1-4, 6-28
9-38, 9-39, 9-40
27-1, 1-4, 5-11, 5-5, 7-4, 7-1, 1-2, 20-6, 2-3
27-1, 1-4, 5-11, 5-5, 7-4, 7-1, 1-2, 20-6, 2-3
2-3, 3-7, 7-4
6-32,6-6,29-17
2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-26, 6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-17, 6-32
2-2,29-76
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 29-17, 5-8
2-2,6-6
2-2,29-76
2-2,6-6,5-9
2-2,5-9
3-36, 3-7, 29-56
2-2, 6-32, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 24-3, 6-32, 6-15
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56, 10-1, 24-1, 29-7
5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45
1-1, 22-1, 27-13.6-45,22-2,29-56, 6-4
2-3, 1-1, 29-56, 22-1, 9-6, 27-13, 6-45, 23-22, 23-5
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
6-6,5-8,2-2
public names_091701.xis
t
1
1

1

1
1

f!
D

L

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Pinnix Kay DP1184 2-2,6-32,6-14
Pinsker Jerrold B. DP0622 6-6, 6-12,6-32,2-2
Pinto Richard L. DP0786 2-2, 5-9.6-6, 6-12
Piper Bee DP1334 2-2, 6-6, 6-12,6-15
Piper Emily DP1345 2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-15
Pittman Anna B. DP1867 2-3,3-1, 3-2, 3-36,1-2
Pittman Anna B. PP0481 2-3, 7-2, 14-1, 13-1, 3-33
Pitts William DP1605 3-36, 3-90, 3-95
Placentino Peter DP1431 2-2, 6-12, 29-16, 6-32, 6-6
Pleasants C. Edward DP0623 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 29-24
Pleasants Graydon O. SP0113 2-2,6-6,6-26
Pleasants Graydon DP0039 2-2, 6-12, 6-32
Pleasants Nancy T. DP2342 2-2, 6-6, 29-24, 5-7
Plummer Lillian DP2287 2-2,6-12, 5-15,6-32
Plyer David DP2109 2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-32,6-14, 6-15
Poer O.E. DP0719 29-89,1-2
Poindexter Bonnie SP0129 2-2,5-8, 29-17
Poindexter Brad DP1083 2-2,15-12, 6-6
Poleshuk Edward S. DP1659 3-7,2-3
Polishark Edward S. PP0482 5-5, 3-3,24-2
Pollak Laura DP0663 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Pollak Laura DP1953 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Pollak Laura DP1979 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Pollak Laura DP2119 24-1, 7-1, 3-2, 3-7
Pollak Laura DP2369 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Pomper Robert and Kim DPO746 29-118,2-2
Poole Caroyln DP2058 2-3, 21-33, 21-73, 23-17, 27-29, 7-1, 7-25, 9-3, 19-1, 3-36, 3-
7, 3-1, 20-6, 27-1, 7-2, 7-4, 7-21, 2-97, 2-23
Pooley Sherry DP0312 2-2,6-6,6-15
Poore Jimmy DP1779 2-2,6-6
Popalicha Dianna DP1768 2-3, 27-1, 3-2, 6-43, 29-63, 7-3
Pope Vickie DP1826 2-2
Porter Elaine PP0483 2-2
Porter Leon DP0030 2-2,6-14, 6-15
Post Sandy DP1585 2-2,6-12, 6-14
Poston Michael DP0050 2-2,4-23,6-15,24-3
Potter Norman D. DP0275 2-2,6-6,6-32,6-14
Poucke Margaret Van PP0304 2-3, 7-4, 3-7, 27-10, 21-1, 4-9, 4-16
Poucke Margaret Van PP0543 5-5, 2-23, 21-1, 2-9, 27-1, 3-66, 3-7, 3-1, 7-4, 22-1, 24-1, 1-2,
7-2
Poucke Margaret Van PP0544 23-16, 3-66, 3-7, 2-3, 14-1, 7-2, 3-33, 1-2
Powell Carol H. DP0153 2-2,6-26,6-14,6-12
Powell Carol DP0019 2-2,6-12
Powell Mildred SP0349 2-2,6-12,24-3, 5-9
Powell Robbie DP0940 2-2, 6-6,6-32, 5-7
Powers William PP0189 7-2, 7-7, 7-8, 2-51, 29-70, 3-33, 3-16, 3-45, 3-2, 3-17, 29-70, 2-
51, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-13, 9-6, 9-14, 9-15, 9-16
Pratt William J. DP1727 6-6,2-2
public names_091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Pratto Marlene DP1919
Preslar Jr. Len B. DPO548
Preslar Jr. Len B. PP0484
Preslar Jr. Len B. SP0135
Preuss Charles DP1584
Preyer Fred L. DP1087
Preyer Fred L. SP0366
Preyer Fred SP0249
Preyer W. L. DP2129
Price Betsy DP1469
Price Edward N. DP1468
Price Gaines PP0486
Price Gaines PP0487
Price John K. SP0184
Price Leah DP0371
Price Marinanne B. DPO164
Price Rebecca S. DP0305
Price Jr. Robert E. DP1027
Pridgen Jimmy R. DP0502
Priester Ken DP0097
Prim Billy D. DP0238
Pritchard Gale DP1648
Pritchard Natlie DP1646
Probst Nancy Y. DP1067
Prongay Ruth DP0658
Provo J.W. PP0136
Provo James W. DP2064
Provo Judy PP0100
Prufer Paxton SP0096
Pruitt Donna P. PP0488
Prutan Joann PP0485
Prybylski Mark DP0026
Pryor W. L. DP1367
Puckett Monica DP0334
Pugh Alan V. DP1741
Pugh Ronnie DP0201
Pulitzer Jr. Michael DP1240
Punger Douglas S. DP1801
Purdie Barbara DP1260
Purdy John SP0387
Purser Allan W. PP0489
Purser Allen W. DP2315
Puterbaugh Helen DP1994
Pysher Lynette DP1096
Quade Jennifer DP0288
Queen Larry T. DP0714
Queen Larry T. DP2115
Queen Larry T. DP2262
Queen Larry T. PP0221
Queen Lawrence DP2323
Quinn Marjorie DP1840
public names_091701.As
Comment Codes
7-4, 7-14, 7-6, 7-30, 9-6, 9-23
2-2,6-32,6-15,6-6
2-2, 5-9, 5-8, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
2-2, 27-4, 6-10, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 29-17, 2-10
6-15.6-12,6-6
6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 29-24, 2-2
29-12,1-3
2-2, 29-11, 29-40, 27-9, 29-16, 6-12, 5-20
6-14,6-32,6-12
2-3, 3-7, 3-2, 6-45
3-33,1-1, 5-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 26-2, 6-6, 29-16, 3-6, 6-32, 24-3
6-12, 26-2, 6-32, 6-6, 29-16, 2-2
21-1, 23-3, 24-4, 23-7, 2-3, 29-1, 29-32, 21-8, 23-5, 9-4
2-2, 3-102,6-76,6-77, 29-17
2-2,6-15
2-2,6-6,6-12, 29-24
2-2,6-15, 6-6
6-15, 6-6, 24-3, 2-2
2-2,6-12, 6-14
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32
2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7
2-2, 6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 5-7
2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 3-61, 27-1, 29-56, 6-4, 1-2, 5-22
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
1-2, 4-2, 21-1, 6-43, 24-1
3-36, 3-2, 3-61, 3-109, 7-1
1-2,23-18
21-4, 21-3,1-1, 3-8, 3-218,17-1
2-2,6-6
2-2
2-2,6-12
6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2
2-2,6-26, 6-15, 6-12
6-6,6-14, 6-15,2-2
2-2,6-15,6-6
2-2,6-15,29-17,6-12, 6-6
29-24,5-9
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
29-11,6-15,2-2
2-2, 2-37, 6-6, 24-3, 29-17, 5-9
2-2,6-6
2-3, 9-6, 7-4, 7-1, 5-5, 3-2
2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 5-22, 3-1, 7-3
2-2,6-15
2-23, 29-56, 3-15, 7-4, 24-1, 6-22
20-6, 3-2, 7-4, 7-1, 6-16, 2-23, 21-23
29-60, 6-16, 7-21, 7-4, 7-1, 3-36, 29-56, 20-6, 21-3
23-25, 1-14, 2-10, 3-10, 3-75, 22-3, 6-9, 21-4
3-2, 7-1, 2-3, 20-6, 22-2, 29-60, 21-31, 21-52, 6-16
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15

r

1
1

n

J

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Qureshi Paul DP1339
Qureshi Paula DP1674
Ragland George DP0054
Raker Ann DP1346
Raker Ann DP1530
Raker Ann DP1836
Raker Don DP1834
Raker Don DP1997
Rakestraw Charles DP2183
Raley Bill DP1335
Ralston-Asmendi Andy and Jo DP2393
Rampmeier John DP1148
Rampmein John SP0320
Rankin Diane DP2017
Ranson Glen A. DP0115
Raper Ann Trueblood DP0892
Ravenel Katharine SP0307
Ray David DP1353
Ray Robin DP0049
Rayt Haywood W. DP0655
Reagan Bob DP0837
Reep Jeff SP0458
Reep Jeffrey SP0300
Reep Tammy SP0213
Rees Donald SP0453
Regan Karen L. DP1870
Rego Joseph DP2095
Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2400
Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2401
Rego Joseph and Joyce DP2402
Reichard James P. DP0313
Reichert Chadwick J. DP1864
Reichert Ronald J. DP0188
Reid Charles M. DP1416
Reid John PP0490
Reid Steve DP1939
Reid Tereasa DP1298
Rendleman Cindy DP1907
Renfro Bonnie R. DP1523
Renfro Bonnie DP2142
Resui A. Paul DP1261
Reubl Stan A. DP1202
Comment Codes
2-2,29-17,6-14,6-6
2-2,29-17,6-32,6-14
2-2,6-12.6-14
5-1, 3-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 9-8, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 21-1, 2-3
5-1, 3-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 9-8, 7-4, 7-1, 27-1, 21-1, 2-3
2-3, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 3-69, 3-7, 7-3, 21-31
2-3, 3-2, 3-36, 3-1, 6-87, 9-6, 7-4, 7-1
2-3,74, 9-6,7-1, 7-2
2-2, 6-32, 6-14
2-2
1-1, 7-1, 9-6, 3-76, 6-105, 4-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-23, 3-18, 5-2, 3-1
3-2, 7-1, 3-7, 29-63, 20-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 5-8
2-3, 24-1, 29-99
2-2, 5-8, 5-15, 6-6, 29-19
2-2,6-6
2-2, 5-7, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,6-6
2-8,2-56
3-6,2-8,2-30,2-3
3-1, 30-4,28-1, 3-27
24-1,2-1,1-5,3-1, 5-5
2-2,5-7
24-1, 27-1, 3-2.6-22, 22-25, 29-63
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
27-1, 5-2, 24-1, 22-4, 6-104, 6-100, 2-3
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 5-8, 5-9
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-19,6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-6
2-2
3-16, 5-5, 3-7, 3-15, 7-1
2-2, 6-6,6-32, 6-15
2-2, 5-7,6-6
2-2, 27-4, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 5-9
2-2,6-6,6-14,6-9, 29-118
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-12, 5-8, 5-15, 29-16, 6-26, 6-15
2-2,6-12, 5-8,6-6
3-7, 7-13, 9-6, 24-4, 27-1, 6-4, 24-1, 2-3
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Rewld Diane DP1201
Reynolds Royce O. DP0813
Reynolds Royce O. SP0146
Rice C.T. DP1212
Rice Helen T. DP1177
'
public names_091701.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Rice R. Timothy DP0759
Rich Anita SP0382
Rich Charles PP0278
Rich Charles SP0358
Richardson David DP2382
Richardson Joyce H. SP0101
Rignel Barbara DPO613
Riley John PP0020
Riley John PP0280
Riley John SP0354
Rippey Steve PP0491
Ritchie Linda DPO965
Ritter Alexander S. DP1089
Rives Jefferson H. DP0388
Roach James SP0211
Roach Jiim DP1902
Robb Frank D. DP0724
Robbins Chuck DP0758
Robbs C. Laurence DP0805
Roberson Danny W. DP1722
Roberts Jane Blair DP1568
Roberts Sandra DP1300
Roberts Stephanie DP1748
Robertshaw Ronna DP0760
Robertshore Harry DPO936
Robertson Burke DP1789
Robertson Burke PP0009
Robertson Buster DP0888
Robinson Allan PP0492
Robinson Euphrobia DP1182
Robinson Gertrude PP0493
Robinson Karl H. DP2099
Robinson Karl PP0494
Robinson Phil DP1209
Rodman Shirley DP1995
Rodwell Eleanor DP0796
Roeber William SP0204
Roeber William and Irene PP0565
Rogers Carol PP0495
Rogers Carol SP0328
Rogers Jack DP2120
Rogers Jack DP2214
Rogers John J. PP0496
Rogers Nikki DP1586
Rogers Robert SP0047
Rogers William R. DPO951
Roland Donna PP0497
Rolandell Karen PP0154
Rolandelli Karen DP0868
Rolandelli Karen SP0089
Rose Sherry DP0564
Comment Codes
2-2, 3-48, 2-37
3-7,3-1
3-33, 6-32,.3-7, 3-1, 2-6
3-7, 3-1, 24-1, 29-35
2-3, 20-6, 27-8, 7-3
12-6,2-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
4-6,5-5
5-2,2-23,21-4
2-3, 2-6, 21-1, 5-17, 30-1, 5-2
2-2
2-2,6-6,6-12,26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,6-14,6-6, 5-23
6-15,29-17,29-19
2-2,6-14,29-21,29-10
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-75
2-2,6-32, 6-25, 6-95
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
2-2, 5-7, 6-15
5-7
2-2,6-15
2-2, 6-15, 6-14
6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 2-2
6-6, 6-25, 6-12, 3-104, 29-118, 2-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
2-2,6-6,6-14,6-32
2-2,6-12 -
2-2,6-12, 6-6,29-16,6-15
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
1-2,24-1, 5-2
5-2,24-1, 2-3
6-6,2-2
9-5,21-1,2-8,2-7
23-25, 2-23, 21-1, 5-5, 24-2
7-13, 12-1, 3-9, 3-1, 3-7, 2-23
5-5, 3-1, 5-3, 2-17, 6-31, 5-2, 30-5, 23-1
6-45, 1-22, 3-2, 7-1, 1-2
7-1, 3-2, 5-22, 29-60
2-1, 3-210, 7-2, 3-16, 2-3
2-2,6-12
6-9,6-6
2-2,5-7
2-2,6-6
2-17, 3-1, 5-2, 27-8, 21-1, 5-44, 1-1, 22-1, 22-2, 29-1
1-1, 22-1, 3-36, 3-76, 6-45, 3-1, 1-2
5-2,5-5,3-75,22-1, 1-1
20-6,29-56
public-names-091701 xls

1
1

t

f1

Ll

1
1

1

!i

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Rose Stanley DP1803
Rose William C. SP0138
Rosenberg Ron DP0832
Rosenblatt Dave DP0396
Rosenblot Lori DPO676
Roslund C.L. DP1076
Ross David A. DP1871
Ross Jack H. DP0736
Rothrock Ron DP0319
Rothrock Ron DP0947
Rothrock Ron DP1622
Routh Thomas S. DP1239
Rowan Joan F. SP0160
Rowe Michael DP1340
Rowe Susan K. PP0498
Rowell Bob SP0206
Royster Barbara PP0499
Rudd Paul DP2301
Rudisill Ty DP0673
Ruffin John L. DPO165
Ruffler Ana DP0602
Rui Linda DP2370
Ruil Mark DP1332
Ruitze Jean K. DP1711
Rushing Mark DP1462
Russ Jr. Henry DP0111
Russell Bob PP0105
Rutledge Beth DP0323
Ryan Kathy DP1655
Ryan Kathy DP1767
Ryan Kathy DP1769
Ryan Kathy DP1773
Ryan Kathy DP1774
Ryan Kathy DP2197
Ryan Kathy PP0220
Ryan Kathy PP0500
Ryan Kathy PP0501
Ryan Kathy PP0502
Ryan Michael F. DP0375
Ryan Patrick J. DPO436
S. David DP0694
Saffer Christian G. PP0503
Saintsing Kay K. DP1371
Sale Kenneth SP0042
Samet Norman G. DP0970
Samet Norman G. PP0504
Samet Norman DPO972
Samet Norman DP2329
Sanchak Elisha Carol DP0295
Comment Codes
6-6, 9-6, 3-7, 3-2, 7-4, 7-1, 24-1, 20-6
6-6,29-16
2-2, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
3-78, 3-7, 2-3
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15
2-2,5-8
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 5-7,6-12, 5-20
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 5-7
2-2
29-19,5-14, 6-18, 2-2
2-2,6-15
2-2
2-3, 24-1, 3-1, 24-2
23-16, 3-33, 7-2, 9-6, 9-3, 3-17, 24-2, 2-1
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-26, 6-12, 26-2, 5-7
3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
29-24,2-2
6-6, 6-12, 6-32,2-2
6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 6-26
21-1,2-23,2-3,1-1
2-2,6-6,6-15
6-45,29-25
27-1, 7-1, 7-4, 7-35
9-6,9-15
29-89, 6-85,1-2
3-36, 3-109, 3-33
2-3, 27-1, 7-4, 7-2, 7-35, 9-6, 9-23, 3-36, 3-76, 29-60, 6-45, 6-
4,1-1
2-3, 22-2, 1-1, 22-1, 5-2, 6-4, 29-1
1-2
23-5, 2-23, 22-2, 1-1, 9-6, 9-1
29-13,5-5,30-1,4-8
6-12,2-2
2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 3-1, 3-9, 6-48, 6-31
6-10,2-2
7-1,29-1
6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 29-7, 2-2
21-6, 6-19, 6-32, 6-12, 1-6, 3-13
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 29-16, 5-20, 6-32, 3-104, 6-15
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-12, 6-15, 29-16
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6
public_nam es_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Sanders Richard D. DPO479
Sandin Emilie and Tom DP0856
Sandin Tom PP0505
Sanford Beverly S. DPO269
Sanford Beverly S. PP0005
Sanford Marlene DP2117
Sanford Wally DP2089
SanGeorge Warren DPO285
Santuccio John PP0181
Sarnoconsty Ed PP0135
Sasser L. Alan DP0731
Sattari Pari DP1760
Sawyer Teri DP1071
Saxton Tresa M. DPO942
Sayles Andy DP0830
Schane Demian A. DP2397
Schartherge Wendy DP1766
Scheer Heidi A. DP1380
Scheer Heidi A. DP2055
Scheer Heidi DP2276
Schesny Frank J. DP1638
Schexnayder Meg PP0033
Schexnider Alvin J. DP0250
Schiffman Jr. Arnold A. DP0734
Schiftan Michael PP0506
Schiller Ernest L. DP0897
Schlaeppi F. DP1964
Schlaeppi F. DP2002
Schlaeppi F. DP2045
Schlaeppi F. DP2046
Schlaeppi Fernand DP2097
Schlaeppi Femand DN0005
Schline Barry C. DP2111
Schmider Sandra DPI 186
Schneider Thomas C. DPO128
Schroder Cindy DP2311
Schue Ron DP0480
Schultz Lynn DP2104
Schultz Roger DP1006
Schwarz Ira N. DP0523
Sciandra Leslie DP1823
Scott Charles SP0074
Scott Diane DP1172
Scott John G. DP0411
Scott Lindsay PP0177
Scott Mike DP1171
Scroggins Jobe D. DP1800
Scroggins Jobe DP0255
Scroggins Jobe DP2147
Searcy Margot DP0099
public names_091701.As
Comment Codes
6-19, 6-6, 6-14, 2-2
7-60
7-2, 3-7, 3-15, 9-6, 9-3, 6-4, 6-9
6-6, 5-8, 6-12, 6-32, 2-2
2-2,1-6, 6-6, 5-8
6-6, 2-2, 5-20
6-12,6-6
2-2.6-6
2-2, 5-9, 6-12, 6-15
2-3, 2-1,29-68
6-15, 6-14, 6-32, 5-8
5-5, 6-45, 23-22, 5-2, 2-3
2-2, 6-12, 6-6
6-6, 2-2, 6-14, 29-16, 26-2
2-2, 5-20, 6-14, 6-32
21-29, 29-112
2-3, 7-1, 9-6, 3-2, 27-1, 6-16
2-3, 27-1, 7-4, 29-56, 24-1
24-1, 5-19, 5-36, 9-6, 29-120
2-3,20-6
2-3, 3-7, 3-2, 7-1, 24-1
21-64, 3-208, 2-21
2-2,6-14, 6-15, 24-3, 5-8
2-2,6-90
2-2,5-9
6-117, 3-2, 9-6, 7-1, 3-1, 9-26, 9-15, 7-4, 7-2, 2-3
6-2
3-36, 3-16, 29-66
30-18
3-136
29-63, 6-22, 3-2, 3-36, 3-16, 5-5, 1-2
2-3
2-2, 29-16, 6-94, 6-31, 5-9, 5-8
2-2, 6-32, 6-14
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 5-8, 6-15
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 5-8, 5-7
2-2, 6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-15
2-2, 6-15, 5-7, 5-9
6-6
6-6,2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-14,5-8
6-6,29-11,2-2,23-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 5-7, 24-3, 6-32
29-24, 6-19, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2, 5-9
2-2,6-12,6-6,5-7
2-2,6-6, 6-12

1i

1

1

1

1

t

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Searcy Phillip E. DPO340 2-2, 6-26,6-15,6-12
Seawell Jr. William D. DP0619 2-2,5-7
Seawell Jr. William SP0334 2-2, 6-6, 5-8
Seckar Donna J. DP1394 6-12,6-32,6-6, 2-2
See D.R. DP1413 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Seeber Sandra F. DPO464 2-2,6-6
Segall Sharon DP1955 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
Segall Sharon DP1981 2-3, 7-5, 7-4, 7-3, 29-7
Segall Sharon DP2375 2-3,7-5, 7-4, 7-3,29-7
Segeus Austin DP1324 2-2
Selar Jan PP0557 2-2,29-76
Selbea Eileen PP0517 2-3, 22-2, 9-3
Sell Becki DP1827 2-2,6-6
Sellen Dana K. DP1161 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Sellen Jeff DP1145 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Sellen Lib DP1142 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Sellers John DP1963 3-7, 3-2, 5-22, 5-1, 30-1, 30-2, 29-7, 7-1, 3-37
Sellers Jr. John DP1884 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73, 3-74, 30-2
Sells Frank DP2086 2-2, 6-32, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6
Semones Renee DP0507 2-2,6-14
Sentelle Bill SP0080 2-2,6-6
Sewell Ernest J. DP2092 6-14,6-15,6-6
Seymour William DP1466 24-3, 6-19,6-14, 6-32, 2-2, 6-6
Shackel James J. DPO692 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Shackel Karen M. DP0693 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Shackelford Nicolette N. DP0818 2-2,29-16,6-15
Shane John DPO875 2-3, 3-1, 24-14, 4-26, 7-1, 6-31
Shane John DP2127 6-4, 3-1,6-45,1-2
Shane John PP0097 2-3, 3-7, 2-9
Shane John PP0258 3-7, 3-1,6-45,2-3
Shankle Alan PP0507 2-2,29-76
Shankle Lisa PP0508 2-2,29-76
Sharpless Frederick SP0251 2-2, 29-32,5-2,21-5
Sharrard _ Jim PP0509 2-2,6-32
Shaver Fran SP0215 2-2,5-8
Shaw Linda SP0423 21-1, 1-5, 5-5, 2-7, 21-4
Shaw Mary Ellen DP1805 2-87
Shaw Mary Ellen SP0073 4-1,23-3
Sheeran Gordon H.T. DP0266 2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-14
Sheffield Jr. C. Jack DP2348 6-6, 6-32, 2-2
Shellman David W. DP0158. 2-2,6-6
Shelman Palmer PP0039 21-13,2-42, 29-61
Shelton Peggy DP1296 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Shelton Peggy DP1487 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
public names_09170I.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Shelton Peggy PP0510
Shelton Peggy PP0511
Shelton Peggy PP0569
Shelton Randy DPO674
Shelton Tammy DP0792
Sheonz Peter DP1408
Sheppard Jerry T. DP1341
Sherrill Bill PP0512
Shikenjarski Robert J. DP0678
Shikenjarski Robert J. DP0678
Shippard Brenda H. DP1590
Shirley Neil D. DP2341
Shoemaker Bill DP2149
Shoemaker W. R. DP2076
Shoemaker William R. DP1924
Shoemaker William R. PP0513
Shoemaker Wm. PP0176
Shore Marcus DP1369
Shore William A. SP0342
Shore Jr. Richard E. DP0785
Shough H. Conway DPO108
Showfety Bill DP0926
Showfety Drew DP0144
Showfety Drew DP2210
Showfety Drew PP0514
Showfety Drew SP0075
Shugart Kate DP2100
Shugart Kay B. DPO596
Shuskey Greg DP0056
Shutt Rickie DP0057
Siceloff Mark S. DP1385
Sigman Kenneth E. PP0223
Sigmon Stephanie DP1629
Sikes Mary Ann DP1287
Sikes Mary Ann PP0295
Sikes Mary Ann PP0516
Sikes Mary Ann PP0516
Sikorsky David C. DP0841
Simcox Minerva PP0518
Simeon Jim DP2339
Simmons Bill PP0209
Simmons Linda PP0116
Simmons Linda PP0199
Simmons Linda SP0319
Simmons Linda SP0372
Simmons Mignon PP0242
public names 091701.x1s

Comment Codes I
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-
56,64
2-3,1-1,22-1,27-13,6-45,7-2,27-1,27-8,7-3,10-1,24-1,29-
7
2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 7-2, 9-6, 22-2, 6-4
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
'
2-2
2-2,6-12, 6-32,6-64
3-80
3-80, 3-81, 3-82
2-2, 6-12, 29-16
2-2
6-32, 6-12, 6-6, 6-14, 29-12, 29-118, 2-2
6-6, 6-32, 27-9
2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 6-14, 29-24, 6-63, 29-16
2-2, 1-6, 6-6, 6-32, 6-25
2-2, 22-11, 6-37, 3-12, 3-13, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 27-4, 6-12, 6-14, 29-90

2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-20, 6-15, 5-8, 2-2 '
2-2,6-12, 6-6
2-2, 26-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-14, 6-12, 29-24

6-15,2-2 '
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-7
2-2, 6-6,29-118
2-2, 24-3
2-2
2-2,29-16

2-2, 6-14, 6-12
'
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32
2-2, 6-12, 6-14
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-3, 5-2, 7-2
2-3, 24-1, 3-2, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 20-6, 3-1
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 21-3, 22-2, 6-4, 3-33, 9-6, 1-2
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 5-5, 30-1, 3-1, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2, 29-
56,6-4
2-3, 21-13, 23-22, 2-72, 6-67, 29-56

2-2,6-14,6-32,5-7 '
2-2,6-12
6-6,6-12, 6-17,26-2, 29-17,2-2

2-3, 29-28, 27-8, 24-4, 29-56
,
2-3,3-7,3-9, 22-1
2-3, 3-7, 6-4, 22-2
3-7, 3-24, 3-224, 3-4, 6-28, 5-2, 6-35
3-7, 2-4, 3-1
2-3, 21-24, 5-2, 29-63, 2-9
'

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
' Last Name First Name Middle Code
Simmons Migran PP0150
Simmons Sally DP2153
' Simmons Steve DP2208
Simmons Jr. Alton W. DPO594
Simone
Simone Anthony
Anthony PP0040
SP0299

Sims Charles G. DP1074
' Sims Charles G. DP2321
Sims Charles DP2132
Sims Mac DP2123
Sinclair Bill SP0051
Sinclair III T.E. DP1479
Sintich Maureen E. DPO185
Sizemore Chastiny DP0059
Skeen H.J. DP1529
' Skelly Janice DP2364
Skenes Mary W. DP1232
Skinner Anne W. PP0519
Slane Michael PP0252
' Slane Michael SP0243
Slazyk Deborah SP0429
Slazyk Joel PP0066
Slua Mark DPI 129
Smelgrove Joyce M. DP0654
Smith Beth PP0520
Smith Betty A. DP2188
Smith Brad DP1241
' Smith Claire PP0305
Smith D. Joan DP0600
Smith Dana G. DP0986
Smith Dana G. SP0125
Smith Dixon DP0985
Smith Gary H. SP0127
Smith Jackie DP1550
Smith Jeff DP1070
Smith Jeffery DP2107
Smith Joanne DPO647
Smith Kathleen SP0391
' Smith
Smith Kellie
Ken DP0286
PP0521
Smith Kenneth SP0198
Smith Mark DP0087
' Smith Melissa and Bill DP1206
Smith Michael S. DP0318
Smith Peggy DP1294
'
public names_091701.x1s
Comment Codes
2-3, 29-69, 2-23, 27-8, 9-6, 21-68
2-3, 3-36, 3-2, 27-1, 3-1, 7-1, 9-6
3-7,29-85
2-2,6-14
3-16, 3-1, 2-43
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 2-7, 4-4, 5-5, 5-3, 30-4, 7-1, 3-1, 6-1, 22-4, 6-
10, 5-2, 24-2, 29-37
7-13,1-2
5-2,1-2, 30-1
3-2,29-60
2-2, 6-32, 5-20, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15, 5-8
6-2,2-10
2-3, 4-8, 3-1, 5-2
6-6,2-2
6-6,6-14
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
29-60, 6-103, 6-125, 6-126, 6-127, 5-47, 6-128, 6-129, 6-130,
6-131, 6-132, 6-133, 6-134, 6-135, 6-136, 6-137, 6-138, 6-139,
6-140,6-104
6-12,6-6
6-19,6-32
2-3, 5-5, 5-2, 22-2,1-1, 22-1
1-4, 22-2, 30-1, 1-1, 2-15, 1-10, 2-7, 22-7, 21-17, 22-1, 1-2, 29-
7, 24-1, 29-47, 2-23, 23-1, 23-11
22-2, 29-1, 3-1, 5-2, 3-75
21-1, 29-56, 23-17, 6-45
7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32,3-101, 2-3
5-8
2-2,29-76
2-2, 6-6,6-14, 3-10,19-1
2-2, 6-12, 6-15
2-3, 21-1, 24-1, 21-3
2-2, 6-14, 6-6
2-2, 6-14, 5-20, 6-12, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32
2-2, 6-13, 6-11, 6-6
2-2, 6-6,6-32, 29-16, 5-20, 6-15
2-2, 6-26, 5-8, 23-3
2-2,6-15
6-12,6-6
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 29-16, 6-6
1-26, 2-37, 6-75, 6-32
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-32
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 3-13, 6-32
2-2, 6-32, 6-10, 6-6
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32
6-45,6-112,6-111
2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-15, 24-3
2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-15
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Smith Rogene C. DP1023
Smith Rolf V. DP1637
Smith Rose Marie DP1372
Smith Sandra B. PP0571
Smith Sandra DPO517
Smith III George SP0228
Smits Tony DPO804
Smotherman Steve DP2224
Smotherman Steve PP0270
Smotherman Steve SP0374
Smothers Frederick W. DP0791
Snelgrove Steven C. DPO148
Sneyaer Ellen PP0523
Snider Anna Blake PP0522
Snider J. Franklin DP1242
Snipes Diane DP2241
Snipes Dianne E. DP0504
Snyder Randy DP0324
Sobh Walid M. DP0864
Somers Ann Berry DP0910
Somers Ann DP2067
Somers Ann DP2264
Somerville Jr. A Wilson DP1001
Southard Wayne D. SP0167
Southern Jerry DP1267
Spainhour James G. DPO401
Sparks Rose DP0605
Sparks Wendy C. DP2053
Spears A.W. DP1024
Spears Alex DP2145
Spears Maria DP1390
Spears Shirley DP2144
Speight Donald DP0230
Spencer Elizabeth PP0524
Spicer Brandy DP0291
Spidell Sue DP1338
Spinder Jim DP1749
Spinder Jim DP1904
Spinner Cynthia PP0525
Spring Chris DP0691
Sprock H.M. PP0526
Sreen David DP1138
Stafford Elizabeth SP0218
Stafford Mark A. DP0159
Stagg Carolyn PP0527
Stagg Geoff PP0059
Stagg Geoff PP0261
Comment Codes
2-2,6-12
2-3,3-1,3-2
2-2,6-6
21-29
6-14, 6-6, 29-88, 3-104, 2-2
2-2, 2-25, 29-38, 6-10, 6-12, 29-11
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 6-15
2-101,6-6,5-7,29-90
23-15
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 2-6, 26-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 29-16, 3-104, 29-88
2-2,6-26,6-6,6-14
1-6
2-3, 3-33, 7-2, 7-3, 27-8, 7-1, 6-22, 14-1, 9-6
6-15,6-6
2-2, 6-15,6-14
2-2,6-6,6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-32,6-14
2-2,2-87,2-101,6-6
13-4, 13-5, 13-8, 13-18, 13-7, 13-9, 13-1113-10, 13-19, 13-20,
13-21,13-22,13-12
3-2,27-1, 7-1, 7-4
13-4, 13-5, 13-6, 13-7, 13-8, 13-9, 13-10, 13-11, 13-12, 13-13,
29-100
2-3,7-1,24-1
1-1,1-8, 5-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-14,26-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
29-60, 6-4, 6-16, 7-4, 7-1, 7-21, 9-6, 3-36, 3-7, 3-1, 17-1, 24-1,
20-6,11-2, 2-3, 5-22
2-2,6-15
2-2,29-118
2-2,6-12
2-2, 29-118, 6-14, 6-32, 6-81
6-32, 6-6, 2-2
2-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-26
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-6,6-12,6-15
2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15
2-2
24-1, 27-8,6-16,29-91
2-2, 6-12, 6-32
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3,3-1
2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-32
2-2,15-6
2-2,6-12,6-45
public names_091701.xis

1

n
u'

1

f
i
J

h7

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Stagg Geoffrey PP0528 2-2,6-32
Stanfield Dennis K. DP0253 2-2, 6-14, 6-6
Stantlift Betty DP0762 3-7, 7-2, 5-2
Staples Christian DP2407 2-236, 2-237, 3-238, 3-239, 3-240
Stapleton Tom SP0364 2-2, 6-12, 6-6,1-3, 6-26, 9-7
Starkey Kelly SP0126 2-2,6-13
Starling Larry E. DP2065 2-3, 3-2, 24-1, 3-7
Starmer Jr. James E. SP0130 2-2, 6-12, 5-9, 24-3
Starner Van PP0034 21-14,2-40, 2-41, 2-3
Starner Van PP0043 2-3, 5-10, 6-24, 5-2, 21-1, 29-56
Starner Van PP0286 2-3,1-2, 5-1, 3-33
Starner Van SP0323 3-7, 21-1, 21-3, 5-2, 1-1, 2-15, 2-1, 5-5, 5-3, 6-1, 6-22, 6-35, 3-
1, 29-1, 4-3, 5-1
Staurt Suzanne DP1214 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70,21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Steele Joan and Richard DP0777 3-61, 29-56, 2-95
Steele Richard DP1112 3-1
Steele W. Fletcher DP0393 2-2,6-14
Steele W. Fletcher SP0240 6-6, 6-14, 6-12
Stefani George PP0529 9-3, 9-20, 23-16, 7-2, 22-1, 27-15, 1-1, 22-6, 4-6, 1-2, 3-16, 3-
1, 3-63, 3-23, 3-36, 5-10
Steinert Richard DP0747 2-2, 6-93, 6-6, 6-15
Stepansky Leo DP0435 2-2,6-14
Stephens Michael H. DP1424 2-2,6-6
Stephens Richard DP1224 2-3
Sterling Kay SP0380 2-3, 3-7, 2-4, 24-1, 22-1
Stern Katherine DP1591 2-2,6-6
Sternberg Meg DP1454 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6
Sterner Phil DPO949 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 29-17, 26-2, 6-25
Stewart Noral D. DP2078 29-126,3-36, 3-16, 3-133, 3-153, 22-29, 3-156, 3-157
Stewart Noral D. DP2359 3-76, 3-16, 3-242, 2-104, 2-105, 3-243, 3-244, 3-245, 3-246, 3-
247, 3-248, 3-249, 3-250, 3-251, 4-20, 3-252, 3-253, 3-25, 3-
254, 3-255, 3-256, 3-1, 6-144, 3-257, 3-258, 3-259, 3-260, 29-
33, 29-34, 6-145
Stewart R.H. DP1849 2-3
Stewart Rita DP2387 1-5, 3-76, 3-1, 1-2
Stewart Rita PP0530 2-3, 22-2, 7-2, 14-1, 13-1, 3-33, 24-2, 9-6
Stewart Rue Nell DP2205 2-2,6-32
Stewart Yvonne DP1733 2-2,6-12
Stober Paula J. DPO453 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Stober Paula J. DP1203 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-
32
Stober Paula J. DP1888 6-16, 5-2, 22-1
Stober Paula J. DP2389 7-1, 3-1, 20-6
Stober Paula PP0531 1-1, 3-15, 7-2, 24-1, 6-22, 8-1
Stockard Joel PP0071 2-44,2-9
Stockard Pam PP0068 2-44, 21-1, 2-9, 2-10
Stockton Terri L. DP0795 29-16,6-6
Stockton Jr. Ralph M. DP0434 2-2,6-77
Stogner Kimberly H. DP0222 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
Stokes Henry S. DP1726 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14,6-15
public names_091707.As '
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Stone Tom DP0924
Stone William DP1420
Stonecipher David A. DP1045
Stout Kim DP1903
Stover Joe DP1130
Stover Nelson PP0532
Stover Richard DPO457
Strand Andy DP2333
Stratton John DPO418
Strawsburg Stephen R. DP0932
Strawsburg Steve DP2221
Strayhorn Ralph DP0072
Street Penny DPI 135
Strickland Elizabeth PP0098
Strong Prudence DP1855
Strong Prudence DP2157
Stroud Jennifer DP1665
Stroup Donald E. DP1544
Sturhei Martha DP1571
Sturkie Martha DP0603
Styers Ella D. DP0617
Sukyi Ji DP0316
Sullin III John L. DP1141
Sullivan Kathleen PP0533
Sullivan Patricia A. DP0424
Supple Bev DP1757
Surber Jim DP2279
Surber Linda DP2280
Sutherlin Carolyn DP1180
Sutton Bill DP1505
Swanson Timothy L. DP1038
Swindle Dean DP0730
Swing Frances D. DP1090
Sydell Ron SP0188
Sykes Marti DP0917
Syno Matt DP1570
Talantis Jenine C. DP1357
Talantis Jenine DP0476
Talantis Jenine DP0536
Talantis Kristen DP0467
Talantis Nic DP0472
Tambuir Henry DP0684
Tamburin Henry DP0533
Tamburin Henry SP0222
Taney Jim DP0557
Taney Jim PP0089
Tarnok Stephen M. DP0700
public_names_091701. As
1
Comment Codes
6-6, 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 29-24
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-14, 6-12, 5-15, 29-16, 6-15
2-2,6-12
2-2, 6-14, 6-26, 6-12

29-56, 3-9, 27-1, 7-2, 9-6, 5-21, 22-2 '
2-2,6-32
6-12, 6-6, 6-32, 6-14

2-2 ,
6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 6-6, 29-118, 29-88, 2-2
2-101, 6-15, 5-20, 29-90
2-2, 6-14, 6-15, 6-32 ,
2-2,6-32,6-14
2-3, 7-2, 9-6, 1-1, 6-43, 1-2
2-3, 24-1, 5-2, 3-2, 7-1, 1-2
1-22, 6-4, 29-56, 21-3, 7-1, 9-6, 24-4
2-2,6-6, 6-32,6-15
6-12, 6-32,6-6,2-2
2-2,6-6, 26-2, 5-7
2-2,6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 '
2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74

2-2 ,
2-2,29-16
2-2,6-32,6-14

2-3,24-1 ,
2-3,24-1
2-2, 6-32, 6-14

2-2, 6-6, 6-32 '
2-2, 6-14, 6-6, 5-7
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 5-20

6-32, 5-15, 26-2, 6-6 '
2-2, 2-25, 6-10, 6-14, 6-16, 29-13
6-15, 24-3, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14, 3-104, 29-118
2-2,6-12 '
29-89,2-3
717, 718, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
23,21 17,21 3,717,718,719,720,721,370,21 31,21-
32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74

3-7,3-89 '
3-140
3-1, 1-1, 22-1, 3-7, 3-24, 3-4, 3-16, 5-2, 21-4

23-37,2-3 '
2-3, 5-44, 4-2, 21-1, 22-2, 7-2, 9-6, 29-1, 2-49, 6-119, 6-44
6-6,5-8

u

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Tarnok Stephen M. DP0700 2-2
Tart Johnny SP0142 2-2, 6-6, 5-9
Tate Chuck PP0083 2-3,1-2, 22-1
Tate Chuck PP0297 2-3, 30-1, 1-2
Tate David Kirk DP0757 2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 26-2
Tate Jodi DP2196 2-2,6-15
Tate LaToya DP0298 2-2,29-16
Tavernise Linda DP2414 7-3, 7-4, 7-21, 21-1, 6-9
Taylor Clif DP1734 2-2
Taylor David C. DP0192 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 5-9
Taylor Evelyn DP1351 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Taylor J. Thomas DP0618 6-64, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 2-2
Taylor J. Thomas SP0123 6-13, 5-13,6-10
Taylor Jeffery DP1736 2-2,6-6
Taylor Jim A. SP0171 6-6, 6-12,2-2
Taylor John DP1252 2-3, 3-7, 3-36, 7-3, 5-2, 7-4, 1-2
Taylor Lary PP0072 2-3, 2-23, 6-16, 6-4, 5-1, 22-1
Taylor Larry SP0036 22-2, 24-1,1-1
Taylor Nat SP0386 6-6, 6-25, 6-32
Taylor Ron PP0079 2-2, 2-47, 3-6, 6-12
Taylor Ronal L. DP0202 2-2,6-6
Taylor Jr. Daniel R. DP0189 2-2, 6-19, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
Teague Lee SP0360 5-9, 6-15, 23-1
Tedder Dewey R. DP0847 2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 3-104, 29-88, 6-15
Teichman Alan DPO540 4-25, 21-49, 3-1, 17-4, 21-50, 3-141, 7-2
Teichman Alan DP1102 3-22, 3-36, 3-16
Teichman Alan DP1103 3-36, 3-76, 3-1, 3-16
Tellman Kelli PP0537 2-2
Templin Dan PP0534 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2,
21-1, 29-56,1-2
Templin Dan PP0535 7-7, 21-13, 2-3, 3-7, 3-1, 3-15, 8-1, 5-3, 7-2, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3,
22-2,21-1,1-2
Templin Dan PP0563 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2,
21-1, 29-56,1-2
Templin Don PP0124 2-3, 5-1, 3-7, 3-1, 5-5, 8-1, 30-1, 7-1, 29-7, 7-4, 9-6, 9-3, 22-2,
21-1,29-56,1-2
Templin Kathryn DP0666 9-22, 9-59,14-8, 9-48, 9-36, 2-3
Templin Kathryn DP0809 18-7,18-8
Templin Kathy DP1068 2-3,21-1,21-33
Templin Kathy DP2077 9-41, 9-6, 9-34, 9-23, 19-1
Tennille Catherine Poag DP2413 2-3, 5-34, 3-1, 7-1, 27-1
Tergliafera Turk DPO814 6-6, 6-12, 6-25, 3-104, 29-118, 2-2
Terhune Andrew DP1673 2-2, 6-6, 6-72
Terrell Tom PP0536 2-2, 5-7, 5-9
Tester Jody SP0022 6-9, 6-2, 5-2, 2-1
Tharpe Jr. Frank M. DP0478 2-2,6-6,6-12
Theisen George PP0293 2-3
Thomas Kristin DP1409 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Thomas Lina DP1410 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
public names_09170I.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
,
General Public
Letter Comment Codes

Last Name
First Name
Middle
Code ,
Thomas Martha DP0023 2-2,6-12
Thomas Ray J. DP0391 2-2,6-26

Thomas III
John
DP0827
2-2, 6-32, 5-8, 24-3 '
Thompson Christina SP0056 5-2, 5-5, 3-5, 12-1, 29-7
Thompson David DP1395 2-2,6-6

Thompson
Deborah
DP0018
2-2,6-12 '
Thompson Mark DP0060 2-2,5-8,6-12
Thorpe Tonya DP1317 2-2

Thrift
Ashley
PP0139
21-6,23-15,21-19 ,
Thrift Julianne DP1117 2-2,5-15,6-6,29-16, 6-15
Tice

Tilley Liz

Michele SP0437

DP1397 6-2,29-1,2-3

2-2
'
Tilley Ray DP1577 2-2, 6-6,6-12
Tilley Ruby DP1234 2-2,6-6, 6-12
Tillman Jr. W. Eugene DPO879 2-2,6-12,6-6, 5-7 '
Timper Fred H. DPO161 2-2, 29-24, 24-3, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 5-9
Tipton Dan DP0351 2-2, 6-6,6-15
Tobin Susan E. DP0225 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-12, 6-15 '
Todd Bobby DP2272 2-2
Todd Bobby SP0359 2-2
Toomey Dick DP0450 29-117, 6-89, 24-1, 6-88, 29-116, 30-1, 27-8, 2-3 '
Tosr Mike DP0289 6-15,5-7
Tourtellot Peter L. PP0012 2-2, 6-6, 6-26, 27-5, 6-12
Towery Scott L. DP1139 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Townsend Charlie DP0555 6-12, 6-6, 29-12, 6-26, 24-3
Traevi Raphael M DP1545 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Travis Jr. Edward A. DP1920 3-7, 3-36,3-2,7-2, 7-1
Trexler Rachel DP1498 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74 3-74
Trexler Robert E. DP1497 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Triplett John DP2041 7-4, 14-1, 22-1, 29-56, 1-2, 24-1, 29-63, 4-21, 21-1, 27-28 '
Triplett Kay S. DP0707 2-2, 6-10,5-8
Trogdon Joey DP2300 2-2,6-6
Trogdon Nancy DP1706 6-6, 6-14,6-12,2-2
'
Trone III Oliver S. DP1445 2-2,6-14,6-12,6-6
Trore Lee PP0538 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 24-3, 6-6, 21-11
Troxler T. Wayne DP0580 6-6,6-14,2-2
'
Truman Jim M. DP1137 27-1, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-
72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-1, 3-7
Truslow Donald K. DP0384 2-2,6-10

Tuck
Michael
Ryan
PP0539
6-12, 3-13, 2-2 '
Tucker Joel E. DP1452 2-2, 6-32, 6-6
Tucker Shawn M. DPO933 2-2, 2-101, 2-87, 6-6, 5-7
Tuffin Diana C. DPO186 2-2,6-19,6-14, 6-32,6-12
Tuggle Kelly DP1388 6-12,6-6
Tuggle Sarah DP1330 6-15,6-6

Turmary
Jack
DP1149
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- '
73,3-74
Turnbull George DP1381 3-2,21-1, 6-45,2-3
'
public-names-091 701.xis

J

I?

I?
rl
i

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Turner C.K. PP0540
Turner John C. PP0541
Turner Mary E. DP1383
Turner Mary E. DP2143
Turner Remus S. DP1376
Turner Remus DP2200
Turner Remus PP0194
Turner Remus SP0311
Turner Robin DP1040
Turner III W. Harrison DP1811
Tuttle Bonnie DPO422
Tuttle Margaret DP1844
Tuttle Ronnie DP1235
Tyler Robin DPI 120
Ueland Linda DP1221
Ulp Steven R. DP1862
Unknown Daniel C. SP0190
Unknown David S. DP2395
Unknown J.C. DP1499
Unknown Kershock PP0434
Unknown Orman DP1686
Unknown Unknown DP0246
Unknown Unknown DP1236
Unknown Unknown DP1608
Unknown Unknown DP1620
Unknown Unknown DP1808
Unknown Unknown DP2318
Unknown Unknown DP2399
Unknown Unknown PP0022
Unknown Unknown PP0560
Unknown Unknown SP0031
Unknown Unknown SP0044
Unknown Unknown SP0045
Unknown Unknown SP0068
Unknown Unknown SP0242
Unknown Unknown SP0282
Unknown Unknown SP0283
Unknown, Unknown SP0284
Unknown Unknown SP0285
Unknown Unknown SP0286
Unknown Unknown SP0306
Unknown Unknown SP0331
Unknown Unknown DP1894
Unknown Unknown SP0303
Urbanski Bret A. DP0240
Urlson Julie DP1150
Urquhart Margaret M. DP0816
Vaden Barbara F. DP1649
Vader Walter L. DP1614
Comment Codes
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 1-6
2-2, 6-12,6-32
2-3, 27-1, 7-2, 3-2, 9-6, 5-5, 1-2, 6-4
2-3, 5-5, 7-1, 9-6, 27-1, 3-76, 1-2, 6-4
2-3, 24-1, 29-63, 7-4
27-1, 7-4, 24-4, 6-4, 1-2, 3-2, 7-1
6-12, 1-14, 6-9, 9-6, 29-72
29-37, 6-4, 6-16, 27-7, 22-8, 7-1, 6-29, 24-1
2-2,6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-32
6-19,2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-15
6-15,6-6
2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 5-9
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2, 2-25,6-10, 6-14, 6-16,29-13
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3,7-2
3-36, 3-1, 5-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 5-8, 29-17
6-15, 6-12,6-6
2-3, 3-2, 29-56, 6-4
3-36, 7-4, 7-1, 5-5
6-14, 6-12, 29-16
22-1
23-17,23-5.1-2, 22-2 _
2-3, 24-1, 3-33, 3-10, 2-23, 21-1, 6-1
2-3, 3-33, 24-1, 23-15, 7-2, 7-3, 9-6
1-1,2-8
6-2
5-2
6-6,29-10,1-6,2-2
21-4, 2-7, 2-23, 5-5, 24-2, 2-8
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
3-4
29-45, 29-46, 23-8, 6-40, 2-8
2-89,7-4,7-1, 5-5
2-3
6-12,6-6
2-2,6-6
2-2, 5-20, 6-12, 5-8, 6-32
2-2, 6-32, 6-12
2-2,6-6,6-12
public_names_091701. xls
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Vail Ellen W. PP0542
Vail Norma DP0610
Vale E. Merritt DP0802
Van Pouke Margaret B. DP1941
Vance Martha DP2239
Vance Martha DP2313
Vann Eugene H. SP0258
Vann Eugene DP0715
Vann Eugene DP1097
Vann Eugene PP0279
Vann Eugene PP0545
Varner William DP0727
Vaughan Michael G. DP0116
Vaughn Ann L. DP1600
Vaughn Bob DP1898
Vaughn C. Richard DP0237
Vaughn Cindy PP0546
Vaughn Cindy PP0547
Vaughn Cynthia DP1483
Vaughn Danielle DP0284
Vaughn Jon DPO918
Vaughn Jr. C. Richard DPO138
Vaughn Jr. Robert C. DP0260
Vavalides Philip SP0039
Vavalides Philip SP0071
Vavalides Philip SP0442
Veach R.S. SP0292
Venable Monty DP0036
Venters Judy O. DPO104
Venters R Vance DP0095
Verdery J.H. SP0321
Vernon Dan DP0053
Vernon James G. PP0548
Vick Frank SP0332
von Isenburg Carl DP0051
Vontsolos Betty Lou DP1588
Wade Homer S. DP0794
Wainright Lori PP0549
Wakeman Mary K. DP1915
Wakins Cathie DPO612
Walker Jim DPO113
Walker Jim DP2331
Walker Mickey DP1002
Walker Randall DP2353
Wall David DPO973
Wall Douglas DP0374
Comment Codes
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-25, 6-32, 29-17
7-4, 7-21, 14-14, 3-37, 5-5, 3-1, 30-1, 30-14, 7-1, 27-1, 9-6, 9-
23, 29-56, 22-1, 21-1, 2-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-114, 6-32
2-3, 5-17, 5-2, 30-2, 30-1
29-101, 6-5,11-2, 3-36
3-79, 1-4, 30-1, 6-52, 4-2
2-3,3-33
21-13, 1-15, 22-2, 5-2, 2-3
2-2,6-6,6-32
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-12
2-2
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-14
2-2, 6-12, 6-14
2-3, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-1, 7-4, 7-3, 27-8, 9-6, 5-21,
22-2,29-56
2-3, 21-13, 23-22,2-72, 6-67, 29-56
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-2,6-12, 6-6
2-2,6-12
27-4,6-14, 5-7
2-2,6-12,6-32,6-6
29-7, 1-1, 21-1, 6-1, 2-9, 2-5, 6-4
21-1, 6-3, 3-95
6-6, 5-5, 6-1, 22-1
2-2, 6-10, 6-14
2-2, 6-12, 6-14
2-2, 6-15, 6-6, 6-32
2-2, 6-15, 6-32
5-2, 5-5, 3-7, 3-27, 3-18, 2-1, 2-17
2-2,6-6,6-12, 6-14
2-3,5-5,24-1
27-53,27-6
2-2
2-2,5-16, 29-17,6-6
2-2,6-6,27-9,6-14
2-2,5-8,6-32,6-12
29-100, 21-33, 21-73, 2-42, 27-1, 7-1, 7-4, 9-6, 9-36, 19-2, 2-
90,3-2,3-1, 7-4, 7-1
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2,6-15
2-2,5-20, 6-15
7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-21, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1, 5-32,3-101,2-3
2-2, 6-66, 6-32, 29-32
7-14
2-2, 6-6, 29-17
public names_091701.xis
0

I
LJ

,7

1

1

fl

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Wall Jim DP0840 5-7, 6-6, 2-2
Wallace Larry E. DP0889 2-2,6-15
Wallace Vicki DP0721 29-100,29-114,29-115
Waller Angela DP0281 2-2,6-15,6-12
Waller Teresa DP1134 2-2,6-32,6-14
Wallin Desna L. DP0735 2-2,6-32
Wallin Desna SP0256 2-2, 6-6,6-12,23-10
Walls Andrea W. SP0425 2-3, 29-5, 5-5, 5-19, 21-4
Walls Thurman SP0224 29-7, 2-35, 6-2, 19-2, 6-36, 2-17, 4-5, 24-1, 3-1, 6-3
Walls III Thurman H. DPO470 19-13,7-56,19-12, 7-57,19-14, 6-115,19-15
Walser Jae P. DPO745 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-32, 29-17, 5-7
Walsh Al PP0206 2-66
Walter Laure DP0290 2-2,6-12
Walter Lloyd PP0232 6-32, 6-6, 6-25, 6-26, 2-2
Walter Jr. Lloyd G. SP0401 2-2, 6-13, 29-12, 6-12, 6-6, 6-15
Walters David DP0011 2-2
Walton Doris DP2102 7-21, 7-3,7-1, 7-2
Walton Doris DP2360 7-21,7-26
Walton Steve DP1322 2-2
Wanders Hans W. DPO526 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8, 6-15
Wannemacher Carey DPO543 2-2, 26-2, 5-15, 6-32, 24-3
Ward B. Thomas DP1788 2-2,6-6
Ware Margaret J. DPO876 3-63, 7-1, 3-128, 29-63, 22-24
Warm Stan SP0296 3-1, 30-4, 5-5, 2-1, 22-4, 1-2, 24-1
Warner Lisa J. DPO574 2-2,6-6, 6-12
Warner William J. DP0710 2-2,6-6,6-10, 6-12
Warol Linda DP1035 5-6,3-33,9-6,3-9
Warol Stan DP1031 7-4, 7-1, 9-6, 9-3, 7-20, 7-19, 3-96, 3-97, 3-70, 3-98, 3-99, 6-
73, 3-100, 6-74, 2-79, 21-31, 21-32, 21-1, 2-35, 6-45, 3-36, 3-
1,5-32,3-101, 2-3
Warren Diane B. PP0550 2-3, 23-14, 1-1, 24-1, 1-4
Warren Diane DP1872 2-3, 29-60, 3-96, 6-73, 5-34, 3-2, 17-1, 7-1, 9-6, 6-16
Warren Diane SP0417 3-1, 5-1, 3-27, 23-1, 5-2
Warren Don DP2130 2-2, 6-12, 6-14
Warren L. Don DP1093 6-14,6-32
Warren Mark L. DP0568 2-109, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112, 2-113, 2-114, 2-115, 2-116, 2-117,
3-187, 6-23, 22-30, 22-2, 23-5, 23-39
Warren Mark L. DP2324 2-17, 4-18, 3-189, 3-112, 2-111, 2-114, 2-115, 2-112, 23-14
Warren Mark L. DP2411 2-35,23-5
Warren Mark L. PP0019 29-54,4-13,23-14
Warren Mark L. PP0023 22-14, 22-15, 22-16, 22-17, 6-56, 6-57, 6-4, 6-58, 6-59, 6-60, 6-
61, 6-62,.22-18,22-19,1-16,22-1,1-17,22-20,2-69
Warren Mark L. PP0024 6-63, 22-12, 3-58, 6-1, 22-2, 6-43
Warren Mark L. PP0403 2-57, 2-19, 23-5, 21-30
Warren Mark L. PP0564 2-19, 2-57, 2-60, 2-58, 2-59, 22-13, 27-13, 22-2, 23-14, 23-5, 2-
3,2-1
Warren Mark DP2106 29-100, 6-103, 6-50, 6-23
Warren Mark DP2376 2-57,2-111,29-31
Warren Mark PP0190 2-19, 2-57, 2-60, 2-58, 2-59, 22-13, 27-13, 22-2, 23-14, 23-5, 2-
3,2-1
Warren Mark SP0093 2-7, 2-1, 2-15, 2-16, 22-6
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
'
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Warren Mark SP0195 2-7, 3-1, 9-6, 9-4, 2-1, 3-23
Warren Mark SP0418 1-9, 22-9, 22-1, 1-4, 1-1, 1-10, 22-3

Warren
Mary
P.
DP0894
2-3,5-34,29-120,6-85 '
Warren Sydney Jordan DP1730 2-2, 6-6, 5-7
Washburn Betty SP0050 5-10

Watkins
Mary
DP1720
2-2, 5-8, 6-12 '
Watkins Thomas C. DP1755 2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-15, 5-8, 5-9
Watterson
Watterson Wayne
Wayne SP0084
SP0439 2-2,6-6, 5-7
2-3, 6-15, 24-3, 29-12, 6-12, 6-6 '
Watts Anthony H. DP0221 2-2, 6-6,6-14,6-32
Watts Katherine Knapp DP0750 2-2, 6-90, 6-77

Watts
Thurman
DPO431
2-2,6-77 '
Watts Thurman DP2332 2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-32, 6-17
Waufle Alan SP0355 2-2, 5-8, 29-17, 6-6
Waugh Jr. Philip R.S. DP0739 2-2, 24-3, 6-12, 5-8, 6-32 ,
Weatherby Betty SP0229 14-1, 9-9,9-4
Weatherly Joseph E. SP0141 5-8,6-10
Weaver Harold C. DP0661 2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7 '
Weaver Mike DP1906 2-2,6-15
Webb Tom DP0437 2-2
Webster Edwina W. DP0408 2-2,5-20
,
Webster Michael T. DPO198 2-2, 6-15, 5-9
Webster Mike DP2139 2-2,6-6
Weeks James K. DP0229 2-2, 6-14, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32 '
Weeks James SP0252 2-2, 5-9, 29-19, 24-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-8
Weeks Nancy SP0065 2-2,1-3, 6-6, 5-7
Weeks Sally S. DPO961 2-2, 6-15, 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32

Weeks
Sally
S.
SP0119
2-2, 6-13.24-3, 5-8 '
Wege David DP1892 3-36, 2-4, 3-10
Wegman Charlie PP0046 2-3, 5-26, 2-44, 21-15, 21-67

Wegman
Charlie
PP0287
2-3, 22-3, 21-67, 21-66 ,
Wegman Janis PP0152 2-3, 3-9, 3-7, 3-43, 5-28
Weir John DP2080 2-3.6-100

Welch
Don
DP1832
2-45,3-116,3-36, 3-117 '
Welch Jack DP1791 2-2, 6-32,6-14
Welch Jody H. DP0336 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Welch Randy D. DP1868 6-12, 6-14, 6-32, 2-2, 6-15, 6-6
Welch Jr. Edwin L. DP1666 2-2, 6-6, 6-32, 5-8
Welker
Wells Flora
Beverly
B. DP0996
DP0386 2-125, 3-7, 7-1, 9-6, 24-1, 27-1, 3-223
2-2 '
Wells R. Michael DP0338 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Wells R. Michael SP0124 2-2, 6-13, 5-8

Wells
Richard
SP0067
2-2, 6-6, 3-6 '
Welsh Tom DP0320 3-36, 2-3, 6-45, 7-1, 27-1, 3-2
Welsh Tom DP0632 20-6
Welsh Tom DP1610 29-102,5-1
,
Welsh Tom DP2124 3-2, 7-1,22-2,5-19
Welsh Tom DP2158 29-102, 5-19, 3-2
Wennberg Roxanna DP1698 5-2, 2-3,21-61
'
Werz Kathryn DP1238 6-15,6-12,6-6
West Amy M. DP1859 2-2, 6-32, 6-12

public names 091701.xis

1

F

11
n

fl
L

Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Westmoreland Jeffery H. DP1423
Whitaker Barbara DP0084
Whitaker Lisa DP2345
Whitaker Jr. John C. DP0569
Whitaker Jr. John C. SP0137
White Jody DP1458
White Richard PP0070
White Sue D. DP1012
White Tom DP2309
White Tracy P. DPO488
Whitehead Joanne PP0147
Whiteheart Penny SP0057
Whitehouse Mark SP0082
Whitfield Tom PP0028
Whitfield Varerie PP0088
Whitley Lydia SP0070
Whitlock Phil SP0041
Whitlock Phil SP0371
Whitmine Melissa DP1323
Whitt C. Grayson DP0389
Whittington Greg DP1599
Whrig Ann DP1456
Wicker Robert A. DP1794
Wickizer Bob DP1049
Wickizer Joan DP1199
Wickizer Rebecca DP1200
Wiggs Steve DP0195
Wilburn William DP2177
Wilcox Phyllis DP0675
Wiles Paul M. DP0733
Wiles Paul M. SP0187
Wiley Richard SP0055
Wiley Steven J. DP1506
Willard Dianne DP0091
Willard Myrtle S. DP1331
Williams Ann DP2165
Williams Beth DP1551
Williams Bob DPO136
Williams Charlotte DP1158
Williams Darrly DP1689
Williams Glenn DP0013
Williams Jimmi DP1671
Williams Mark DP2163
Williams Roger DP1874
Williams Ronnie DP0585
Williams Russell H. DPO462
Williams Russell SP0221
Williams Jr. A. Tab DP0321
Williams Jr. Ralph C. DP0948
Williams Sr. Stephen T. DPO349
Comment Codes
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-32
2-2,6-14, 5-7
2-2, 6-26, 6-32, 6-6
2-2,29-12
6-6,2-2
2-3, 6-4, 5-1, 29-63, 9-6, 2-9, 21-17, 21-1
2-2,6-12
2-2,6-6
2-2, 6-15,6-14
2-3, 21-1, 21-3, 23-16, 3-36, 3-28, 3-16, 3-1, 3-42
6-6
2-2, 6-6, 5-7
22-2, 2-23, 29-56, 29-35, 3-7, 3-1, 6-9
21-1, 24-1, 2-23, 23-16, 3-16
2-2
6-8
1-5,5-5,5-2,6-3
2-2,6-12,6-14
6-14
2-2, 6-6, 6-12
2-2
2-2,6-6
3-7, 3-4, 3-1, 24-2
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
3-7,2-3,3-1
2-2,6-12, 6-6
2-2
2-2, 6-6, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
2-2, 6-14, 6-32, 5-8, 29-17
2-2, 6-6, 29-12, 29-16, 5-12
2-2, 5-8,11-3,29-9
2-2,6-6, 6-12,6-15
2-2, 6-14,4-23, 6-32
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
2-3, 3-2, 7-1, 9-6, 5-2, 6-101, 3-1
2-2,5-9
2-2,6-10, 5-8,6-14
2-2,6-32,6-14
2-2,6-12, 6-32
2-2
2-2,6-6, 5-8, 5-7
6-22, 6-4, 6-57, 20-6, 21-1, 29-56, 1-2, 5-5
6-48,1-22
2-2, 6-32, 6-6, 6-26, 29-24
2-2
6-6,29-12
2-2,6-6,6-15
2-2, 6-12, 6-6, 6-32
2-2, 6-6,6-15
public names_091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter
Last Name First Name Middle Code
Williamson Jr. Henry G. DPO512
Williard Coy DP1790
Williard Coy PP0551
Willis Jr. Ben S. DP1116
Willoughby-Ray Sean DP2406
Wilson David SP0315
Wilson Glenda PP0552
Wilson Hellen PP0553
Wilson Hellen PP0554
Wilson Maryu Lou DPO964
Wilson Ms. DP 1156
Wilson Nidra DP0294
Wilson Robin Kent DP1692
Wilson Stacie SP0207
Wilson Teresa DP0306
Wilson William DP0020
Wilson Jr. Geoff DP0660
Wilson-Oyelaran Eileen B. DP1016
Wriesett Steven D. DP1435
Winston Jerry SP0168
Witherspoon Debbie DP1401
Witherspoon Jon SP0173
Woempner Ella M. DP2206
Wolf Netta DP0046
Woly D.E. DP1707
Womble Ralph H. DP0137
Womble W. P. DP0798
Wood Martha Swain DP0671
Woodie Mary DP1750
Woodie Quincy C. DP1624
Woodruff Sarah S. DP2312
Woods Terry DP1253
Woody C. Donald DP1386
Woody Jo S. DP1387
Wooten Ruth DP1616
Worgan Steve DP0722
Worsley Calvin R. DPO190
Wozniak Brooke M. DP0821
Wright Bonnie PP0302
Wright Bonnie SP0440
Wright Karen DP1513
Wright Kenan C. DP1365
Wright William DP0031
Wysochansky Robert PP0157
Wysochansky Robert SP0019
Wysoche Joseph C. DP1509
public names_091701.x1s
0
Comment Codes 1
6-6,6-14,5-7
2-2

2-2, 6-6, 5-8, 6-32, 6-6, 24-3 '
2-2, 6-14, 5-9, 29-11
21-29

2-3,1-5, 21-1 '
2-3, 3-2, 27-1, 9-6, 21-4
2-3, 22-2, 29-56, 5-21, 9-6, 1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 3-1, 7-2, 27-
1, 7-1, 27-8, 7-3
2-3,1-1, 22-1, 27-13, 6-45, 22-2, 29-56,10-1, 24-1, 29-7
2-2, 6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7

1-5 '
2-2, 6-15, 29-16, 6-12
2-2, 6-6, 6-26
2-3, 5-5, 2-7, 4-5, 3-25, 3-1, 5-2, 30-1, 27-1, 12-6, 2-8, 22-5, 1-
1,6-3
2-2,6-6
2-2,6-12
,
2-2,6-6, 6-12, 26-2, 5-15, 5-7
6-15, 6-12,29-16, 2-2
2-2
5-9, 1-6, 29-19, 6-13, 5-2, 2-2, 6-6
2-2
2-2, 29-12, 5-8

2-2,6-12 '
2-2,5-8,6-12
5-8, 29-17, 2-2

2-2,6-6,6-12 '
2-2,6-15
2-2
2-2,6-6 '
2-2,6-12,5-8
2-2,6-6
2-3,5-2

'
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
21-1, 6-9, 7-4, 3-91, 9-6, 1-2
23-32 '
2-2, 6-12, 6-32, 6-6, 29-17
6-6, 6-32, 6-12, 6-14, 2-2
21-1, 2-3, 29-7, 29-56, 29-1, 3-1, 21-1, 21-3

6-8,24-2,29-1, 3-1 '
2-3
2-2, 6-6, 6-14, 6-64, 24-3, 6-15
2-2,6-12,6-14,6-15
2-23, 2-9, 2-1, 1-1, 1-23
29-13,2-1,22-1

7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3- '
73,3-74

Last Name
Wysochi

Yarbrough
Yeakel
Yeakel
Yeatts
Yenrick
York
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Young
Youngblood
Youngdahl
Zimmer
Zimmer
Zimmer
Zimmer
Zimmer
Zollner
Zurcher
0

I?

public names 091701.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
General Public
Letter Comment Codes
First Name Middle Code
Mary DPI 187 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 3-70, 21-31, 21-32, 3-71, 3-72, 3-
73,3-74
Julie DP0331 2-2,6-26,6-15,6-12
Skip DP1683 24-1, 3-2, 6-45, 27-1, 1-2, 9-6, 7-1, 27-1, 3-36
Skip DP2081 24-1, 5-2, 3-2, 6-45, 27-1, 1-2, 9-6, 7-1, 3-1, 3-36
Teresa D. DP1026 2-2,6-14,6-32
Christopher S. DPO458 2-2, 6-32, 6-15
Gary T. DPO572 6-14, 6-6, 6-12, 6-32, 3-104, 29-88
Charlotte DP2093 6-12,6-6,24-3,6-15
Christina SP0459 1-5, 2-9, 3-33, 6-31, 6-52, 2-10
Christine DP1839 2-2,6-6,6-12,6-15
Connie PP0555 2-2
Gary PP0127 5-5, 6-27, 1-2, 23-1, 21-69, 21-62, 2-10
Henry A.F. DP2024 21-1, 21-3, 5.40, 20-6, 6-45, 6-48, 3-2, 5-2, 29-102
Jack DP2128 3-14, 29-16, 29-88, 3-14
Robert L. DP0150 6-6, 6-17, 6-32, 2-2
Robin PP0050 2-3,1-1, 7-6, 3-33
Tanya DP0090 2-2
S. Curtis DP1936 3-7, 3-1, 3-2, 27-1, 6-16, 5-2
Bea PP0556 2-2
Patric S. DPO121 29-24, 6-19, 6-12, 6-14, 6-6, 6-32, 2-2
Patric DP1813 2-2, 5-7, 6-6
Patric PP0178 21-6,5-7,2-2
Patric PP0201 2-2, 6-12, 5-7
Patrick DP2146 2-2, 5-7,6-6
Michelle M. DP1965 2-3, 6-4, 6-16, 22-3, 3-2, 3-7, 3-1, 6-45, 5-6, 1-1
Peter DP1938 27-1, 3-2, 7-1, 9-6, 14-1, 9-3, 6-4, 3-63, 3-1, 22-1, 2-3
'
International Piedmont Triad Airport
1. Purpose and Need
1-1 Comment
Expansion is unnecessary since PTIA is not operating near its capacity.
' Response
As discussed in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS, the need for the proposed new parallel runway is not solely
based on FAA's standard methodology of calculating airfield capacity. The purpose of the proposed new
' parallel runway is to meet the operational requirements of an overnight, express air cargo hub at PTIA.
Specifically, the parallel runway is needed to provide runway redundancy in the case of adverse weather or
' runway closure due to maintenance or incident. In addition, the parallel runway is needed to allow for the
ability to conduct dual simultaneous independent operations and efficient head-to-head operations on
widely spaced parallel runways to meet the operational needs of the air cargo hub.
1-2 Comment
FedEx should go to another city, airport or less remote area.
' Response
FedEx undertook a detailed site selection study before making the determination to develop the proposed
air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA. Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS describes the process undertaken
by FedEx (to the extent revealed to the FAA) in selecting PTIA as the proposed site of its Mid-Atlantic Hub.
1-3 Comment
The new runway at PTIA will increase overall capacity, safety margins, and benefit the region.
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-1.
'
1-4 Comment
A third runway and roadway improvements should not be added for the sole benefit of a single private
' industry.
Response
The need for the proposed parallel runway is described in the response to Comment 1-1. In terms of the
roadway improvements, although they are being implemented as a result of the proposed project at PTIA,
they will provide benefits users, not just a single private industry. See Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, for
further information.
' 1-5 Comment
I do not oppose FedEx coming to Greensboro, I oppose the location of the third runway and the FedEx
hub.
' Response
Comment noted. The FEIS undertook a detailed evaluation of runway location alternatives. Please see
Section 3.3.2.2 of the FEIS.
1-6 Comment
' Plans for the third runway have been in the works well before FedEx considered moving to the area, even
before development of most residential areas surrounding PTIA.
Response
A widely-spaced parallel runway located on the west side of the existing airport facilities has been depicted
on PTIA's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) since 1968.

1-7 Comment
' There is no guarantee that FedEx will be here 10 years from today.
database 101801.xis
Response I
Comment noted. While there is no guarantee that FedEx will be at PTIA in 10 years, the long-term
commitment that they will make to the development of resources at PTIA in terms of capitol investment,
operational logistics and manpower would indicate that the company plans to operate at PTIA well into the
future.
1-8 Comment 1
What additional capacity would be provided by extending the existing second runway and when would that
capacity be exceeded?
Response '
Extending the existing cross-wind runway, Runway 14/32, would not add any additional operational
capacity to PTIA.
1-9 Comment '
The Purpose and Need prepared by the residents far exceeds that of PTIA.
Response
Review of the alternative proposal submitted by an interested citizens group during Scoping entitled "A
Common Sense Alternative Proposal for Airport Expansion at Piedmont Triad International Airport"
indicates that the purpose and need presented by the interested citizens and that stated by the PTAA are ,
essentially the same. That is, the purpose and need for the proposed project is to provide the operational
capacity required to support the development of an air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA.

1-10 Comment
Does PTIA need a third runway or is PTIA using this as an excuse to get, "that money in Washington"?
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-1.
1-11 Comment
You can tell me how much pollution I swallowed in 1998 but cannot tell me if the runway is necessary?
Response
Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the FEIS provide a detailed discussion of the purpose and need for the
proposed project at PTIA.
1-12 Comment I
It seems totally unreasonable for FedEx to demand a third parallel runway as a condition for coming to
Greensboro.
Response '
The reasons for needing a widely-spaced parallel runway at PTIA are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.3
of the FEIS. In addition, see response to Comment 1-1.

1-13 Comment
Mr. Brill stated that "..there is a need to expand the existing airport." It is my understanding that "need" or
"no need" will be shown as a result of the FAA EIS study currently being conducted by the consultant. Are
you saying that the FAA has already evaluated "need"?
Response -
After the issuance of a Notice of Intent and Scoping, the identification of a project's purpose and need is
one the first steps undertaken by the FAA in the development of an EIS document. Therefore, at the time of
the first Public Workshop for the EIS, the FAA had already determined that there was a justified need for
the Airport Sponsor's proposed project. Once the "need" for the proposed project was established, the FAA
proceeded with the next step in the EIS process, which was the development and evaluation of alternatives '
to the Airport Sponsor's proposed project.
1-14 Comment '
What is the purpose and need of the proposed project?
'
database_101801.xis

n

J
C'?
I?

1?
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-1.
1-15 Comment
Mr. Brill has stated that, "Now that FedEx has selected Greensboro, for its planned hub there is a need to
expand the existing airport". It is obvious that the FAA has already decided that its clients, PTIA and
FedEx, want this cargo hub and they are merely going to find a way to justify it.
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-13.
1-16 Comment
PTAA reported that PTIA currently averages 75 flights per day and the maximum number of operations for
a runway is 28.5 operations per hour. For two runways, that means that PTIA is currently being utilized at
11 % capacity.
Response
The analysis of existing PTIA capacity contained in the FEIS was conducted using FAA Advisory Circular
150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. As described in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS and shown on Table
2.2-3 of the FEIS, PTIA was operating at approximately 54% capacity in 1998, not 11 %.
1-17 Comment
With the excess capacity of the existing runways, why would a passenger airline need to use the new
runway?
Response
It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed new
parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, there may be
instances when the new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such as when the existing
runway is closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents.
1-18 Comment
Is there no minimum threshold for activity an airport has to meet before the FAA allows the EIS process to
begin?
Response
As described in Section 2.2.3.2 of the FEIS, FAA planning guidelines for airports specify that when annual
airport operations reach 60 percent of ASV capacity, the Airport Sponsor should initiate planning studies to
evaluate means of increasing capacity. (FAA AC 5090.313, Table 3-2). Since PTIA is nearing this 60
percent threshold (see Table 2.2-3 of the FEIS), it has initiated one of the first steps in the planning
process, which is the Federal environmental review process. In this case, the Federal environmental
review has taken the form of an EIS. The EIS process begins when the sponsor has identified a problem or
when there is a request for FAA to approve a revision to an ALP or request Federal funding assistance.
1-19 Comment
Please provide a more specific reference to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act than 49 U.S.C.
Section 47101(b).
Response
The citation as provided in the FEIS accurately directs the reader to the information summarized in Section
2.2.2.1 of the FEIS.
1-20 Comment
PQLC has calculated that currently PTIA is only used to 11 % of capacity. What they fail to tell you is that if
you apply their mach to other larger airports, you find that those airports also are not operating at capacity.
Response
Comment noted. Please see response to Comments 1-16 and 1-18.
' database 101801.x1s
1-21 Comment
For whom was this EIS produced?
Response
The EIS document was prepared by the FAA with the assistance of a team of independent, environmental ,
consultants for use by the FAA to determine the potential environmental impacts resulting from the
proposed project to aid in agency decisionmaking. In addition, the document is produced to disclose to the
public and other Federal, state, and local government agencies any potential environmental impacts '
resulting from the proposed project.
1-22 Comment
The FedEx hub and third runway is not needed.
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-1.
1-23 Comment
FedEx could operate with existing runways.
Response
Please see response to Comment 1-16 and 1-18.
1-24 Comment N
What happens if FedEx global business in Europe and South America decides to use PTIA as a departure
point with additional and larger aircraft?

Response '
If FedEx changes their operational plan to the extent that additional airfield improvements are needed at
PTIA, such as runway strengthening or lengthening to accommodate larger aircraft on longer stage-length
trips, the PTAA would have to revise their ALP, submit it to the FAA for conditional approval, and undergo
additional Federal environmental evaluation. If FedEx increases the number of flights significantly beyond
that which was analyzed in the FEIS and which will be analyzed in PTAA's upcoming FAR Part 150 study,
then possibly another EIS and FAR Part 150 Update would need to be conducted. 1
1-25 Comment I
What happens if FedEx executes its present business plan to compete with UPS and more planes arrive
and depart? Also, will the ground staging area expand?
Response I
Please see the response to Comment 1-24 for a response to the first part of this comment. In terms of the
ground staging area, it is likely that the air cargo apron area would need to be expanded if additional
aircraft were to operate at the FedEx facility. However, the FAA cannot determine how much expansion
would need to occur without the availability of specific aircraft numbers and types.
1-26 Comment
We should all be grateful that FedEx is going to give PTIA and the region the shot in the arm that it needs,
and is long overdue.
Response
Comment noted.

database 101801.xls
Piedmont Triad International Airport
2. Alternatives
2-1 Comment
Existing runways should be extended and the sort facility should be located at the south end of PTIA.
Response
This alternative is the same as Alternative X-C and/or the Citizens Scoping Alternative, which are both
evaluated in Section 3.3.3.2 of the FEIS.
2-2 Comment
I support FedEx at Piedmont Triad International Airport.
Response
Comment noted.
2-3 Comment
I am opposed to the FedEx facility at PTIA.
Response
Comment noted.
2-4 Comment
I do not want to have flights over my home or operation of a cargo facility during late evening and early
morning hours.
Response
Comment noted.
2-5 Comment
Proposed location of the runway is going to cover more space than other international airports (Atlanta,
Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Los Angeles).
Response
PTAA currently owns 3,100-acres. Total property that would be under PTAA ownership with the "ultimate"
development depicted on the ALP is 3,370 acres. This amount of property is comparable to other air carrier
airports across the nation. Numerous airports such as Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, Pittsburgh and
others exceed the acreage owned by the PTAA by as much as four times.
2-6 Comment
Location of the runway should take into consideration the flight paths not effecting existing neighborhoods
' or schools.
Response
The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The
flight paths and the number of noise sensitive sites such as residences, churches, schools and nursing
homes as well as the total number of people impacted by aircraft noise is evaluated in Section 5.1 of the
FEIS.
2-7 Comment
FAA should consider the development alternatives submitted by the citizens of Greensboro.
Response
The FAA performed a detailed evaluation of the alternative submitted by the citizens of Greensboro in
Section 3.3.2 of the FEIS. This alternative did not meet all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and
' therefore was not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS.
2-8 Comment
' The new runway should be located along W. Market Street (parallel to Runway 14/32).
database-101801AS
Response
The FAA evaluated five runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives that placed the proposed
runway along West Market Street, parallel to existing Runway 14/32. None of these five alternatives met
all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore they were not retained for further
consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS.
2-9 Comment
PTIA should look at other alternatives beside the one they are proposing.
Response
The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of
these 42 alternatives, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained for detailed
evaluation in the FEIS.

n

J
2-10 Comment
We need an alternative that will be a win-win situation for the community, the environment, and PTIA.
Response
The NEPA process under which the EIS was conducted was developed to help Federal agencies identify
alternatives to a proposed development program that would fulfill the purpose and need of the project while
at the same time avoiding and/or minimizing impacts on the environment.
2-11 Comment
I am upset to see the public, members of various committees, including the Greensboro mayor, supporting
expansion, when none of them live anywhere near PTIA and will not be effected.
Response.
The purpose of the EIS Public Involvement process was to receive comments from all parties that have an
interest in the proposed project that is under FAA consideration.
2-12 Comment
Simultaneous approaches and departures from the proposed project will allow uninterrupted operations,
minimized taxi times, and decrease delays.
Response
The operational implications of the proposed project are described in Sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3 of the
FEIS.
2-13 Comment
Without the proposed project, FedEx operations would be delayed one and a half hours each day.
Response
Please see response to Comment 2-12.
2-14 Comment
Why is Table 3.2.1-1, "Comparison of FedEx operations cost" included in your EIS. Including a
consideration of FedEx's costs is inappropriate.
ri

Response
Air carrier and air cargo delay is typically measured in terms of time and manifested in terms of the cost
associated with the delay. While Table 3.2.1-1 presents data in terms of cost, Table 3.2.1-2 presents the
data in terms time and its associated cost.
2-15 Comment
PTAA states that the citizen's of Greensboro plan is unsafe'due to perpendicular runways; however,
Dayton, Ohio airport operates a cargo sort facility with intersecting perpendicular runways.
Response
The FAA conducted an independent evaluation of the Citizens Scoping Alternative in Section 3.3.2 of the
FEIS. This alternative did not meet all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore was not
retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS. The alternative was not
eliminated from further consideration because it was considered "unsafe".

H
database 101801.xis
' 2-16 Comment
FedEx will only use the proposed third runway occasionally and other aircraft will rarely use the runway at
all.
Response
It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed new
parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, FedEx will utilize the
new runway for both arrivals and departures on a daily basis. In addition, as FedEx operations increase
from Phase 1 to Phase 2 levels, the need for the widely spaced parallel runways will be increased. In
addition, there may be instances when the new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such
as when the existing runway is closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents.
2-17 Comment
PTIA's Master Plan from 1968 called for a small runway to handle private planes and not a 9,000 to 10,000
foot runway for commercial use.
Response
FAA acknowledges that the length of the parallel runway proposed by PTAA in its' previous Master Plan
documents and associated Airport Layout Plans (ALP's) have varied over the years. This variation was
dependent on PTIA's forecasts of aviation activity, its market share, and the PTAA's plans for future
growth and development. However, the new parallel runway depicted on the PTIA ALP that was submitted
to the FAA for environmental consideration in the EIS was a 10,000 Transport Category runway.
2-18 Comment
Variations in wind and weather conditions will result in more flights landing and departing over residential
r areas.
Response
Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the
air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest-
to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. This would result in operations being
directed away from the more heavily populated noise sensitive areas to the north of PTIA.
2-19 Comment
PTAA received PGLC's plan, changed it, and submitted it to their consultants for consideration. Not
surprisingly, the consultants found it too expensive and not keeping with FedEx's mandates.
Response
PTAA did change the PQLC's plan for its evaluation because it felt it would not work as submitted.
However, FAA conducted its own independent evaluation of the Citizens Scoping Alternative, as submitted
by the concerned citizens. The FAA did not change the PQLC's plan for its evaluation in the EIS.
M
2-20 Comment
If aircraft must be routed over residences, then they should gain sufficient altitude prior to flying over
residences.
Response
' Aircraft gain altitude at a rate that is based on varying factors such as takeoff weight, engine type, thrust
and flap setting, and departure heading as directed by Air Traffic Control. However, in all cases, the rate of
climb is a safety consideration determined by the pilots flying the individual aircraft. It is true that achieving
greater height over noise sensitive residential areas would result in less noise impact perceived on the
ground. Wherever possible, PTAA would implement measures to minimize noise impacts to noise sensitive
land uses.
' 2-21 Comment
Please provide residents with exact flight paths that FedEx aircraft will take.
' database_101801.xis
Response I
Flight tracks for the existing condition at PTIA are provided on Figure 4.2.5-1 in Section 4.2.5.3 of the FEIS.
Proposed flight tracks for the five build alternatives and the future No-Action Alternative are provided on
Figures C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 and C-6 in Appendix "C of the FEIS.
2-22 Comment
Relocate the distribution facility to the south.
Response
The FAA evaluated nine runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives (including the Citizens Scoping
Alternative) that placed the proposed sorting/distribution facility to the south of PTIA, along West Market
Street. None of these nine alternatives met all of the Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore
they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS.
2-23 Comment
It is believed that the proposed project is a "done deal" where big money, secret meetings, and influential
people have brought pressure behind the scenes and negate legitimate objections.
Response
The FAA has completed a fair and independent analysis of the proposed project and the reasonable
alternatives in the EIS process.
2-24 Comment
RESERVED
Response
r
2-25 Comment
PTIA could better utilize existing facilities.
Response
The PTAA utilizes the existing facilities to their optimal capacity. However, the existing perpendicular
runway configuration at PTIA does not provide the sufficient facilities for the efficient operation of the
proposed air cargo hub of for future anticipated operational activity levels without resulting in significant
delay.
2-26 Comment _
Hush kits on all jets and locating the hub on the north end of PTIA property is what real estate brokers
suggest.
Response
Certain aircraft operating in the United States are subject to Federal requirements regarding noise
emissions levels. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations CFR Part 36, Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and
Airworthiness Certification prescribes the noise standards for aircraft certification in the United States. An
aircraft is categorized under this regulation by one of three noise standards called stages. Stage 1 is the
loudest category and Stage 3 is currently the quietest category. Title 14 CFR Part 91 § 91.873 states that
"Except as provided in § 91.873, after December 31, 1999, no person shall operate to or from any airport in
the contiguous United States any airport subject to § 91.801(c) of the subpart, unless that airplane has
been shown to comply with Stage 3 noise levels, To that end, all FedEx aircraft having maximum
operating weights in excess of 75,000 comply with this subpart.
2-27 Comment
Will they later be demanding a 4th runway?
Response
The FAA has no knowledge of any PTAA plans for a fourth runway at PTIA.
2-28 Comment
RESERVED
Response '
database 101801.x1s

2-29 Comment
RESERVED
Response

1
11

7
L
n
LJII

2-30 Comment
Runways should be used equally to prevent the aircraft from flying over the same area constantly.
Response
Runway assignment is based on numerous factors and is at the sole discretion of the FAA ATCT.
Estimated runway use percentages for each of the alternatives is discussed in Section 5.1.2.3 of the FEIS.
Regardless of the runway usage, aircraft will follow established flight tracks off each end of the runways
based on direction provided by the FAA ATCT.
2-31 Comment
Please find another viable alternative to not impact the residents in and around the James Landing
Peninsula.
Response
The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of
these 42 alternatives, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained for detailed
evaluation in the FEIS.
2-32 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-33 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-34 Comment
Without the parallel runway, FedEx will not come to the Triad.
Response
Comment noted.
2-35 Comment
The 10,000 foot runway was shortened to 9,000 feet to reduce the number of homes that would have to be
purchased.
Response
As described in Section 2.2.3.1 of the FEIS, the FAA determined that at this time, a 9,000 foot long runway
at PTIA was justified based on the runway length requirements and number of operations of the "critical"
aircraft (DC-10) anticipated to operate at PTIA. The reduction in length from 10,000 feet to 9,000 feet was
not based on the number of homes that would have to be purchased.
2-36 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-37 Comment
The silent majority welcomes FedEx.
Response
Comment noted.
database_101801.As
2-38 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-39 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-40 Comment
At the workshop, Alternative 2 indicated only 6 residential properties impacted, when clearly the mandatory
"safety" cone shown encompasses a majority of the Edinburgh community.
Response
The six residential properties were those that would have to be acquired to construct the alternative, and
did not include those that would have to be acquired within the Runway Protection Zone.
2-41 Comment
At the workshop, Alternative West 1 indicated 65 residential properties impacted, but the only area clearly
impacted is nearly all commercial property.
Response
Alternative West 1 is the alternative submitted by a group of interested citizens during Scoping for the EIS.
The number of residential properties impacted was calculated by the citizens, not FAA.
2-42 Comment
How many planes and trucks are FedEx considering?
Response
FedEx anticipates 24 aircraft (48 operations) in Phase 1 and 63 aircraft (126
ti
i
Ph
2
opera
ons)
n
ase
. In
terms of trucks, FedEx anticipates 100 to 150 trucks per day on weekends and 125 trucks per day on week
days in Phase 1 and 150 to 225 trucks per day on weekends and 188 trucks per day on week days in
Phase 2.
2-43 Comment
Serious considerations should be given to alternate locations which place the third runway at a right angle
to the existing.
Response
The FAA evaluated 42 runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Of
these 42 alternatives, ten consisted of a new runway perpendicular to existing Runway 5/23. Out of these
ten alternatives, two (Alternatives N-D and N-E) were retained for detailed consideration by the FAA in the
FEIS.
2-44 Comment
Runway options are clearly fabricated to present the false impression that other options are under
consideration.
Response
The runway alternatives were developed by the FAA to explore all feasible, practicable, prudent and
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project at PTIA.
2-45 Comment
Extend the crossing runway and forget the third runway.
Response
The FAA evaluated six runway and sorting/distribution facility alternatives (including the Citizens Scoping
Alternative) that extended the existing crosswind runway. None of these six alternatives met all of the ,
Level 1 alternatives screening criteria and therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the
FAA in subsequent chapters of the EIS.
_101801x
database

1

11

2-46 Comment
After FedEx gets their third runway, taxpayer's will be asked to extend the crossing runway.
Response
The extension of Runway 14/32 and existing Runway 5/23 are both included on PTAA's conditionally
approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). However, the PTAA has not submitted an application to the FAA at
this time to extend either of these runways. It is possible that sometime in the future, the PTAA may
determine that an extension of one or both of these runways is warranted.
2-47 Comment
Increased number of flights still will be less than what we had when Continental Airlines had a base here.
Response
FedEx anticipates 24 aircraft in Phase 1 and 63 aircraft in Phase 2. When Continental Airlines was
operating at its peak in 1995, they had a total of 84 aircraft.
2-48 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-49 Comment
What is in the Master Plan for PTIA?
Response
The most recent Master Plan for PTIA, which was published in 1994, is available for review at the PTAA
office. It contains updated forecasts of aviation activity, a discussion of facility requirements, and an
updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which depicts a 10,000 foot long parallel runway to the west of the
airport, an extension of Runway 14/32, and an extension of Runway 5/23.
2-50 Comment
Alternatives other than the proposed project will impact more homes, businesses, transportation corridors,
and a cemetery.
Response
A summary of the impacts associated with each of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis is
contained in Table 3.4-1 of the FEIS.
2-51 Comment
Any airport expansions or additional flight services should be suspended until jets are designed to work in
a more efficient manner.
Response
Comment noted. Suspension of all flights until such technology is available would result is significant social
and economic impacts on a world-wide basis.
2-52 Comment
Improve ground flow of aircraft and reduce delay and congestion during peak hours.
Response
The parallel runway associated with the proposed project is the best way to allow PTIA to improve ground
flow, and reduce delay and congestion during peak hours.
1 2-53 Comment
PTIA showed its ability for good arrival/departure operations on perpendicular runways by handling more
than double the number of daily flights of today when PTIA had the Continental hub.
I database 101801.x1s
Response I
The Continental Airlines flights in 1995 were spread out over a much greater time frame than the flights
proposed for the air cargo hub operation. Although air cargo arrivals will be spread out over a several hour
period, the critical time frame is associated with air cargo aircraft departures, which must occur within a set
time frame of approximately 70 minutes in order to meet next day delivery schedules.
2-54 Comment
Will there be a glide path for arriving and departing aircraft?
Response
The glide slope is associated with arriving aircraft. The glide slope for the proposed parallel runway is '
anticipated to be 3 degrees on both ends.
2-55 Comment I
A horizontal cone effect from the end of the runway should allow planes to arrive/depart in various
directions and not in a straight line.
Response I
Aircraft generally follow a straight-in approach to a runway for safety reasons. When no set departure
profiles are established by the airport users and the Air Traffic Control Tower, departing aircraft follow a
path determined by Air Traffic Control and the individual aircraft pilot based on weather conditions and
destination of the aircraft. When established departure profiles are set at an airport, they must be followed
by the pilots.
2-56 Comment
Have planes fly over Greensboro and not High Point.
Response
Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the
FedEx air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the
south-to-the-south, for approximately 95 percent of their operations. This operational scenario allows
FedEx to maximize its operational efficiency at the proposed hub and would result in operations being
directed away from the more heavily populated areas of Greensboro to the north of PTIA. The alignment of
existing Runway 5/23 and proposed Runway 5U23R are such that any aircraft on these runways would
overfly High Point.
2-57 Comment
The consultant has purposely misrepresented the West 1 Alternative plan, submitted by Gil Happel and
Mark Warren, in order to discredit it.
Response
The West 1 Alternative presented at the first Public Workshop for the EIS presented the Citizens Scoping
Alternative as understood by the FAA at the time of the meeting.
2-58 Comment
Alternative West 1 does allow staggered IFR operations which is perfectly safe air traffic control and
increases the work of air traffic controllers only minimally.
Response
lternative West 1 does allow for staggered arrival and departure operations. However, to meet the
operational requirements of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility, dual simultaneous independent arrival
and departure operations and efficient head-to-head operations are required, as discussed in Sections
2.2.3.2 and 3.2.1.3 of the FEIS.
2-59 Comment
Under Alternative West 1, the City of Greensboro fire station at the corner of Burgess Road and West
Market Street should remain intact, not taken as the consultant states, in its evaluation. The fire station
would be an asset to the FedEx facilities.
database_101801.xls I

n

Response
The Citizens Scoping Alternative states that the City of Greensboro Fire Station could remain in place.
However, FAA's evaluation of this alternative indicates that in order to provide a contiguous 300 acres for
development of the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility, the City of Greensboro Fire Station and
the 1.4 acre cemetery would have to be relocated.
2-60 Comment
Evaluations of taxiing distances of Alternative West 1 by the consultant are false.
Response
As presented in the first public information meeting, Alternative West 1 represented the Citizen's Scoping
Alternative. At the time of this meeting, this alternative had only been reviewed and assessed on a
preliminary basis. Taxi distances were based on the best available information at the time, and were
subsequently re-evaluated prior to the issuance of the DEIS.
2-61 Comment
I do not support any alternative that lengthens the shorter runway.
Response
Comment noted.
2-62 Comment
What happens when another company wants to come here and bring even more flights because PTIA has
a new runway? Does the EIS include permission for other companies to come here without doing another
environmental study?
Response
The EIS addresseJ the PTIA's desire to initiate airport improvements in support of the development of an
overnight, express air cargo facility and to provide airside, landside and surface transportation facilities that
allow both the airport and the hub to be operated in an efficient manner. The purpose and need,
alternatives, and potential environmental impact analysis was limited to the proposed phased development
of the air cargo facility, air cargo aircraft operations, associated ground-based operations, and cumulative
.effects of all other projected rion-FedEx aircraft operations through the year 2019. Therefore, FAA's
unconditional approval of the proposed project evaluated in this EIS does not include approval of a
significant increase in operations beyond that considered and evaluated in this FEIS.
Additional aircraft operations created by other companies relocating to Greensboro as a result of the new
runway were not considered in the EIS. Additional aircraft operations at PTIA that result from the
development of the new runway may or may not require environmental assessment. At the time such a
scenario occurs, the FAA will determine the appropriate environmental processing based on the potential
for environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
2-63 Comment
The third runway is inevitable and would have a less environmental impact today than 10 to 20 years from
now.
Response
Comment noted.
2-64 Comment
RESERVED
Response
I database_101801.xls
2-65 Comment I
Have the alternatives been presented to FedEx and what was their reply?
Response
The PTAA provided FedEx a copy of the DEIS after it was made available to the reviewing agencies and
the general public. FedEx's comments on the DEIS were provided to the FAA by the PTAA. In terms of
alternatives, FedEx expressed concern over the selection of either Alternative N-D or WE as the preferred
alternative because these alternatives would require cross wind operating conditions the majority of the
time. As expressed by FedEx, this could result in "potential restricted payloads, safety concerns and even
preclude operations entirely". No other comments with regard to alternatives were received from FedEx.
2-66 Comment
It is reassuring to see so many alternatives being evaluated and no conclusions have been made as of yet.
Response
Comment noted.
2-67 Comment
It is my understanding that the proposed runway is for emergency use only and the existing runway will be
primary focus of FedEx operations.
Response
The proposed. runway is needed to support the efficient ingress and egress of FedEx aircraft on a daily
basis. It is not anticipated in the FEIS that passenger airliners would make significant use of the proposed
new parallel runway because of its distance from the existing terminal facilities. However, as overall
operations at PTIA increase from Phase 1 to Phase 2 levels, the need for all operators, including FedEx, to
use the widely-spaced parallel runways will be increased. In addition, there may be instances when the
new parallel runway would need to be used by all aircraft, such as when either of the two existing runway
are closed for maintenance, weather considerations or aircraft incidents.
2-68 Comment
Mr. Brill made it quite clear to the people he was addressing that the cargo hub was "definitely going to be
built"
and that all the community could do was
"have some input into how we mitigate"
the situation
,
,
,
.
Response
Comment noted. The FAA has completed an independent analysis of the proposed project and the
reasonable alternatives to it in the EIS process.
2-69 Comment
Has the FAA or the consultant asked FedEx if they will still come to Greensboro if they do not get the third
runway?
Response
FedEx has publicly stated that the ability to develop a widely-spaced parallel runway was a factor in its
decision to locate the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA. Further to that end, FedEx has stated that in order to meet
its operational and package delivery service goals, the use of widely-spaced parallel runways is required,
particularly during post-sort departures to the destination cities.
2-70 Comment
RESERVED
Response

2-71 Comment
One of the identified alternatives should be chosen; any except North 2 or North 3. .
Response ,
Comment noted.
database_101801.xis I
' 2-72 Comment
What PTAA proposes constitutes a radical shift in the nature of PTIA - from a passenger airport with
daytime traffic to a cargo hub with nighttime flights as well.
Response
Comment noted.
2-73 Comment
Which other airports are being reviewed as alternative sites, Global Trans Park in Kinston or Z. Smith
Reynolds in Winston-Salem?
Response
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their
potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternative concepts
1 included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. Both Global
TransPark in Kinston, NC and Smith Reynolds in Winston Salem NC were considered. For varying
reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the
proposed project, therefore they were not retained for further consideration by the FAA.
2-74 Comment
I vigorously oppose the proposed alternative plan put forth by the coalition [PQLC plan]on the grounds of
safety, the probable loss of significant tax dollars, the probable loss of thousands of jobs, numerous
inconveniences imposed by the alternative plan, and the loss of a major attribute (i.e. parallel runway).
Response
Comment Noted.
2-75 Comment
It is not clear whether this arrangement [PQLC plan] will actually result in a more expeditious entrance and
egress into the traffic pattern since no one at this point knows precisely which routes will be flown and at
which times aircraft will converge at PTIA.
Response
The feasibility, benefits, or drawbacks of PQLC's plan to provide more expeditious ingress/egress of the
airport's traffic pattern was not analyzed in the DEIS because the alternative did not fully satisfy the stated
purpose and need for the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative was not retained for further analysis
beyond the Level 1 screening process.
2-76 Comment
Minimizing approach and departure times to and from PTIA traffic pattern does not translate into an
equivalent or better time savings scenario for FedEx because this alternative plan (PQLC plan] will clearly
result in significantly increased taxi times when compared to the original plan supported by PTAA and
FedEx.
Response
See response to Comment 2-75.
2-77 Comment
' PQLC has suggested in their literature that the FedEx facility can be built around the existing cemetery.
Encasing a cemetery around an aircraft ramp is simply unacceptable.
Response
FedEx has stated that the successful development and efficient operation of its proposed Mid-Atlantic
sorting hub would require approximately 300+/- contiguous acres within which complimentary airside,
landside and sort building facilities would be developed. Beyond the issue of developing a commercial
facility around a cemetery, the proximity, size, and shape of the cemetery would preclude the optimal
layout of facilities and reduce the overall operational efficiency of the overnight-express cargo operations.
In addition, enclosing the cemetery within the Airport Operational Area (AOA), which is a restricted area
with airfield access, would effectively isolate the cemetery such that it could not be accessed by persons
wishing to visit the cemetery.

database 101801.xis
2-78 Comment
Your differences between the alternatives are insignificant. The alternatives just shift the areas of more
pronounced negative environmental effect from one group of homes to others.
Response
Using a systematic process, the FAA evaluated and assessed a total of five potential hub development
sites, eight potential runway locations, the No-Action and the citizens scoping alternatives yielding a total of
42 unique on-airport development scenarios. By evaluating the ability -of each alternative to fully satisfy all
of the stated purpose and need criteria, five build alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were retained
for detailed evaluation in the FEIS. Each of the five retained build alternatives generated unique and
pronounced affects on the operational capacity of the airport, efficiency of FedEx operations, and
environmental impacts.
2-79 Comment
Why locate the hub at PTIA when FedEx has failed in Indianapolis where neighborhoods 4.5 miles away
have planes screaming and smoking through their backyards?
Response
Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo
movements within the eastern United States. The development of such a facility at the airport is congruent
with that of the PTAA's stated interests. Favorable attributes of the airport, local area, and region as
considered by FedEx in its selection of the airport as a potential site for the development of a sort/hub
facility to serve the eastern United States is explained in Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS.
2-80 Comment
EPA has environmental objections with the Sponsor's proposal (W2-A) as well as all of the other presented
action alternatives for the FedEx Hub. We therefore prefer the No-Action Alternative which proposes some
airport improvements but no cargo hub at PTIA. Specifically, we base our environmental objections on the
fact that we do not believe that the DEIS fully describes the proposed air cargo operations and the
associated potential noise impacts, nor the mitigation of those impacts.
Response
In response to EPA's comments, the FAA has expanded Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 5.1 of the FEIS to contain a
more detailed description of Fed Ex' anticipated operational characteristics. In addition, FAA has expanded
the evaluation contained in Section 5.1 of the FEIS to include supplemental noise analyses in terms of Leq
9, SEL sleep disturbance, highway noise, and ground noise analysis. The FAA has also provided a
recommended Mitigation Program in Section 6.3 of the FEIS which will be implemented by the PTAA to
address environmental impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative.
2-81 Comment
FAA's preferred alternative will need to be identified in the FEIS and the FAA selected alternative will need
to be identified in the Record of Decision.
Response
Comment noted.
2-82 Comment
We (EPA) suggest that the Sponsor's proposed Alternative W2-A be so designated (i.e. as the Sponsor's
proposal) in tables comparing the various alternatives and also be identified earlier in the document as the
Sponsor's selection.
Response
The Sponsor's original proposed action is described and graphically depicted in Chapter 1, Introduction, of
the DEIS and FEIS. In Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the DEIS and FEIS, the Airport Sponsor's proposed
action is clearly identified by the FAA as Alternative W2-A. After review of the DEIS, PTAA indicated that
Alternative W1-A1 was its Preferred Alternative because it resulted in less impacts to wetlands and 100-
year floodplains than its' originally proposed project (Alternative W2-A). Section 3.5 of the FEIS clearly
identifies Alternative W1-A1 as PTAA's Preferred Alternative. FAA believes that this information is
presented early enough in the document to let readers know what the original proposed action was, and
what the Sponsor's Preferred Alternative is.
database 101801.xis
' 2-83 Comment
We (EPA) believe that the proposed addition of an overnight cargo operation, which introduces a new
overnight noise, is substantially different from a general expansion of an airport for capacity, safety or other
reasons. EPA further believes that in order for an overnight air express operation to be reasonable
environmentally, it would need to be removed from areas of public development--particularly residential
communities--where the airport is surrounded by compatible land uses with minimal sensitive noise
receptors.
Response
The FAA does not completely agree that the proposed project is significantly different than other proposed
capacity enhancement projects (ie. new runways) that have been and are being implemented at other
airports across the country. FAA further does not agree with EPA's statement that in order for an overnight
express air cargo operation to be reasonable environmentally, it would need to be removed from areas of
public development. This statement by the EPA might be true if the only impacts of concern were noise
related. However, this is not the case. As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, development of a new
airport or "greenfield" site poses many significant environmental concerns in terms of wetlands, biotics,
floodplains, Section 303(c) and 106 resources, farmlands and noise than those associated with the
development of an existing facility.
In terms of noise impacts associated with the proposed project, the PTAA will 1) implement a noise
mitigation plan that will remove non-compatible land uses from those areas that would be highly impacted;
2) provide acoustical treatment for those houses that are not included in the acquisition program 3) work
with local municipalities that have land use and zoning jurisdiction to prevent the development of additional
non-compatible land uses and 4) participate in the FAR Part 150 process to determine ways to reduce
future aircraft generated noise impacts to nose sensitive land uses.
2-84 Comment
If the Sponsor's proposed Alternative W2-A is pursued at PTIA, additional mitigation would be needed to
relieve the aircraft noise impacts for all residences within the DNL 65+ dBA contours. This would include
' federal purchase ("buyouts") of impacted residences and acoustical treatment for remaining affected
residences.
Response
The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft-
generated noise impacts. The FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally
compatible with nc'se-sensitive residential land use. The PTAA has committed to the development of a
noise mitigation plan to reduce noise impacts to the area surrounding PTIA. This program includes
acquisition of residential parcels within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours as well as acoustical
treatment for residences within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for
further information.
2-85 Comment
' Runway alternatives that are oriented in a general north-south (technically northeast-southwest) direction,
i.e. the fifteen X, N and S series alternatives in Figure S-3 including N-D and N-E, should probably be
rejected unless the Greensboro area has dramatically shifting wind directions.
Response
Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1,
winds at PTIA favor the use of Runway 5/23, which has a generally north-south orientation. This orientation
would allow for the ability to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the south-to-the-south, for
approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. As suggested by the comment, the selection of either
Alternative N-D or WE as the preferred alternative would require cross wind operating conditions for the
majority of aircraft operations. This could result in potential restricted payloads, safety concerns and even
preclude operations entirely on the runways during certain weather conditions.
2-86 Comment
Of the five action alternatives evaluated, EPA believes that Alternative W1-A1, although not without
impacts, has some environmental merit.
database_101801.xls
Response
Comment noted. Alternative W1-A1 is FAA's Preferred Alternative. A Mitigation Program to reduce impacts
associated with Alternative W1-A1 is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
2-87 Comment
After reviewing the EIS, Alternative W2-A appears to be the best alternative for the airport and FedEx both
from a cost standpoint and efficiency standpoint.
Response
Each of the "W' alternatives were found to be relatively similar with Alternative W2-A having the lowest
cost of the five build alternatives. However, Alternative W1-A1 provides greater aviation operational
efficiencies, highway improvements, and less wetland impacts than all other "W" alternatives.
2-88 Comment
What other plans did the Airport Authority give to the FAA to justify spending $200 million?
Response
Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo
movements within the eastern United States. The development of an overnight-express air cargo hub at
PTIA responds to the PTAA's expectation that traditional air cargo traffic is increasing and, most
importantly, that overnight express cargo demand would continue to increase. The development of such a
facility at the airport is congruent with that of the PTAA's stated interests in on-going airport development
and expansion to meet the air service needs of the Triad and to remain a major economic generator. No
other plans beside that being evaluated in the EIS were submitted to the FAA by the PTAA.
2-89 Comment
Please choose the No Action Alternative for PTIA.
Response
Comment noted. The No-Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need or goals of the proposed
project nor rectify the problem of not being able to provide facilities to accommodate an air cargo ,
sort/distribution facility.
2-90 Comment ,
FedEx plans to increase the number of planes using PTIA. When do you plan on including the effects of
this planned increase in the air traffic in the DEIS document?
Response
The evaluation of impacts in the FEIS is based on operational information provided to FAA by the PTAA.
This information indicates that FedEx anticipates 24 daily aircraft departures (48 operations) in Phase 1
and 63 daily aircraft departures (126 operations) in Phase 2. As far as FAA is aware at this time, there are
no plans by FedEx to increase the number of operations at the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub. If, after the
issuance of FAA's ROD, FedEx increases its operations at PTIA such that additional noise impacts
beyond those accounted for in the FEIS occur, the PTAA would be required to conduct additional ,
environmental anF-K sis and potentially modify their proposed mitigation program to include additionally
impacted areas.

2-91 Comment
The location of the airport is not conducive to such a facility.
Response
Demand for the cargo hub is driven by existing and projected demand for express overnight air cargo
movements within the eastern United States. The development of such a facility at PTIA is congruent with
that of the PTAA's stated interests. Favorable attributes of PTIA, the local area, and the region as
considered by FedEx in its selection of PTIA as a potential site for the development of a sort/hub facility to
serve the eastern United States is explained in Section 2.2.2.2 of the FEIS.
database 101801.xls

F
L

[J

2-92 Comment
Why was the current Global TransPark located in Kinston, NC, not listed in the EIS? This facility was built
for such a purpose in the eastern part of NC. By using the existing Kinston Airport for the FedEx hub, the
FAA could save $200 million in Federal funds. Is FAA interested in saving American taxpayers' funds?
Response
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their
potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts
included the evalL-.:tion of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. Global TransPark in
Kinston, NC was included as one of five air carrier airports evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed
project at PTIA, the Global TransPark did not meet the purpose and need criteria. As such, the Global
TransPark was not considered by the FAA as a reasonable alternative and therefore, was not retained for
further consideration in the EIS.
2-93 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-94 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-95 Comment
Combine with other communities in finding a new site well out in the country side, building new facilities,
and sharing cost and assumed benefits -- if there are such.
Response
Please see response to Comment 2-88.
2-96 Comment
Has the FAA conducted research on airports with existing FedEx or other aviation sorting facilities? The
DEIS results are just speculation unless there is a valid follow-up on what happened historically at those
other airports.
Response
The FAA has conducted a case study analysis of FedEx facilities located in Indianapolis and Memphis.
Please see Appendix E in the FEIS for further information.
2-97 Comment
FedEx states that they will have 60 flights a night at first, but then increase to day and weekend flights
soon after. Thus, the DEIS noise, air, and water reports must be updated to include this promised increase
in flights.
Response
Please see response to Comment 2-90.
2-98 Comment
RESERVED
Response
database 101801AS
2-99 Comment
RESERVED
Response

2-100 Comment
As for the farcical representation on one of your charts that your review would include other airports
or
,
consider creating a new airport, there seems to have been no substance to that whatsoever.
Response
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their
potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts
included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. For varying
reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the
proposed project. Detailed explanations of the FAA's evaluation of potential off-site alternatives is provided
in Section 3.3 of the FEIS.

2-101 Comment
I support Alternative W1-A1.
Response
Comment Noted
2-102 Comment
The discussion of alternative airport locations in the FEIS should clearly document the rationale for
removing those alternative airports from further consideration (i.e. why they were not deemed to be
reasonable alternatives), and include sufficient information to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
associated with all reasonable alternatives. These alternative airport locations should continue to be r
considered and evaluated until sufficient justification is provided for eliminating them from further review.
Response
As part of the alternatives evaluation process, the FAA examined several off-site alternatives for their
potential to meet the purpose and need criteria for the proposed project. These alternatives concepts
included the examination of seven existing general aviation and five air carrier airports. For varying
reasons, none of the 12 existing airports were found to fully satisfy the stated purpose and need for the
proposed project. The fact that they do not meet the Purpose and Need for the proposed project is
sufficient for the FAA to not retain these alternatives for further consideration.
Please see Section 3.3 of the FEIS for more detailed information concerning FAA's treatment of these
alternatives.
2-103 Comment
One would think that some consistent and objective criteria such as current airport utilization being at some ,
percentage of capacity or some percentage of air traffic being disrupted by the current runway
configuration would have to be met before any airport expansion could even be considered.
Response
As noted by the commentor, the FAA does apply consistent and objective criteria to measure airport
capacity and determine when capacity enhancing improvements are needed. As described in Section
2.2.3.2 of the FEIS, FAA planning guidelines for airports specify that when annual airport operations reach
60 percent of ASV capacity, the Airport Sponsor should initiate planning studies to evaluate means of
increasing capacity, and when they reach 80 percent of ASV capacity, construction of improvements
should begin (FAA AC 5090.313, table 3-2). Since PTIA is nearing this 60 percent threshold (see Table 2.2-
3 of the FEIS), it has initiated one of the first steps in the planning process, which is the Federal
environmental review process. In this case, the Federal environmental review has taken the form of an
EIS.
database 10180I.As I

1

n

LF
I

11

The EIS process begins when the sponsor has identified a problem or when there is a request for FAA to
approve a revision to an ALP or request Federal funding assistance. Also as discussed in Section 2.2.3.2
of the FEIS, PTAA is anticipated to reach the 80 percent threshold by approximately 2015 without the
introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility and by approximately 2008 with the introduction of
the air cargo sorting/distribution facility.
2-104 Comment
Will pilots agree to 'and and takeoff at times with a tailwind? Is it safe not only for the pilots but for the
people on the ground? Does it subject the community to extra risk?
Response
Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5. 1, the
air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest-
to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. For the other 5 percent of FedEx
operations, aircraft would either arrive from the south and depart to the north or arrive from the north and
depart to the south. Air Traffic Control personnel would route air traffic such that arrival or departure
operations would not result in a safety problem. All aircraft operations are conducted in accordance with
Federal Aviation Regulations that prescribe the safe operations to and from the airport terminal airspace.
2-105 Comment
Will the airport actually operate during the FedEx landing period with planes going in both directions, or will
the other cargo planes takeoff during that period to the northeast?
Response
Based on the wind analysis conducted for the Master Plan and incorporated in the FEIS in Section 5.1, the
air cargo planes are anticipated to be able to operate in a head-to-head configuration, from the southwest-
to-the-southwest, for approximately 95 percent of FedEx operations. For the other 5 percent of FedEx
operations, aircraft would either arrive from the south and depart to the north or arrive from the north and
depart to the south. Air Traffic Control personnel would route air traffic such that arrival or departure
operations would i'.ot result in a safety problem. It is anticipated that if the airport is operating in a head-to-
head scenario, Air Traffic Control would direct all aircraft in the arrival or departure stream to operate under
the same scenario as FedEx air cargo aircraft. In all instances, operations currently are, and would
continue to be, conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations that prescribe the safe
operations to and from the airport terminal airspace.
2-106 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-107 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-108 Comment
RESERVED
Response
2-109 Comment
The decision to eliminate the Citizens Scoping Alternative is both arbitrary and capricious, under Title 49
USC 47106(c)(1)(c).
Response
As an alternative to the proposed project at PTIA, the Citizen's Scoping Alternative did not meet all of the
Level 1 screening criteria and therefore, was not retained for further analysis in the EIS in accordance with
CEQ regulations, 40, CFR Parts 1500-1508.
database 101801.xis
2-110 Comment
Title 49 USC 47106(c)(1)(c) requires as a condition to granting Federal funds, an analysis of "possible and
prudent" alternatives for a new runway where significant impacts will occur. By URS Greiner, Inc.'s own
admission at the Public Hearing on May 23, 2000, it eliminated the Citizens' Plan solely based on the
criteria of FedEx and not whether it was "possible and prudent". Therefore, the "Sponsor's Purpose and
Need" of the DEIS is based on specific criteria to benefit a private entity, and not for the public good. Title
49 USC 47107(a)(4)(a) requires a company providing services to the public not be given an exclusive right
to use the airport if "the right would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical".
Response
The two level alternatives screening process that was utilized in the FEIS first evaluated each alternative
for its ability to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. The use of the two-level alternatives
screening evaluation fulfilled FAA's obligations under the referenced statute in that it was used to develop
a range of alternatives that are considered "possible" (can it be done) prudent (should it be done) and
reasonable. In the case of the Citizens Scoping Alternative, yes it could be done, but no, it should not be
done because it does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project. The Citizen's Scoping
Alternative did not meet two of the 1st level screening criteria. That is, it did not provide the ability to
conduct dual-simultaneous independent operations (or efficient head-to-head operations) and it did not
meet the operational requirements of the sorting/distribution facility. Therefore, it was not retained for
further analysis. If the project goes forward, the PTAA is obligated under Federal statute to ensure that all
airport facilities are available to all users.
2-111 Comment
By URS Greiner, Inc.'s own admission, they never read the Citizens Scoping Alternative, much less any
fair evaluation.
Response
The FAA and its' consultants thoroughly reviewed and considered the Citizen's Scoping Alternative in the
EIS process. Please see Section 3.3. of the FEIS.
2-112 Comment
The Citizens Scoping Alternative would cost $120 million less than the sponsor's plan and would require
less site preparation than other alternatives because of its relatively level terrain and nearby utilities.
Thereby, elimination of full evaluation of this plan will violate Title 49 USC 40101 and Title 42 USC
4332(2)(E).
Response
Please see response to Comment 2-109.
2-113 Comment
The elimination of the Citizens Scoping Alternative is a violation of Title 49 USC 40101
give the highest priority to the public interest; it does not enhance safety and security.
Response
Please see response to Comment 2-109.
2-114 Comment
because it does not
The configuration of the runways in the Citizens Scoping Alternative is identical to the ALP and Master
Plan that PTAA adopted in 1990 and consistent with development plans that were part of the 1994 ALP
and Master Plan. There was no public hearing for either the 1994 ALP or 1999 ALP, which is a violation of
North Carolina state statutes. Therefore, it may be argued that the current PTIA ALP is actually the 1990
plan.

A

database_101801.xis i

Response
The Citizen's Scoping Alternative is not consistent with the 1994 FAA-conditionally approved Airport
Layout Plan (ALP) because the Citizen's Scoping Alternative depicts a 7,000-foot widely-spaced parallel
runway. The 1994 ALP depicts a 10,000-foot widely-spaced parallel runway. The 1999/2000 ALP also
depicts a 10,000 foot widely spaced parallel runway (initial 9,000 foot runway with a potential 1,000 foot
extension). There is no State of North Carolina requirement for public hearings of the Airport Sponsor's
(PTAA) Master Plan or ALP, or the FAA's conditional acceptance of an ALP.
2-115 Comment
The proposed cargo facility in the Citizens Scoping Alternative will not be in the RPZ of the third runway.
Response
PTIA's 1994 Airport Master Plan Update and FAA-conditionally approved Airport Layout Plan depict a new
parallel runway designated as Runway 5U23R which has a runway centerline-to-runway centerline
separation distance of 5,487.5 feet. The new runway is proposed as a transport-category runway, having a
length of 10,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. The Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) associated with the
approach to Runway 5L would be trapezoidal in shape, and starting 200 feet beyond the runway end, have
an inner width of 1,000 feet, a length of 2,500 feet, and an outer width of 1,750 feet. The RPZ would
encompass approximately 90 percent of the land area proposed for the air cargo sorting/distribution facility
in the Citizen's Scoping Alternative. As such, the proposed development of a sorting/distribution facility
within the bounds of an RPZ would not meet the FAA standards and recommendations for airport design
as prescribed in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 5, Airport Design.
Other proximity, development, and operational issues related to the geometric design standards of the
associated Runway Safety Area (RSA), Runway Object Free Area ROFA), TERPS, and the FAR Part 77
Inner-most Approach Surface to Runway 5L would serve to further reduce the available sorting/distribution
facility development area as proposed in the Citizens Alternative to less than 300 contiguous acres.
2-116 Comment
Any lost time in staggered landing operations will be recaptured in the shortened taxi times of the Citizens
Scoping Alternative.
Response
An analysis of staggered landing and departure intervals and taxi times associated with the Citizens
Scoping Alternative was not provided to the FAA by the citizens for evaluation purposes as part of either
the Scoping process or the comment process on the DEIS. Therefore, the FAA could not conduct an
evaluation of the validity of the statement made in this comment.
2-117 Comment
I Title 49 USC 47107 (a)(1) states, "The airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and
without unjust discrimination." Placement of a parallel runway in a position that will make it uneconomical
for other commercial and private aircraft to use is not reasonable and discriminatory.
Response
As a Federally funned Public Use Air Carrier Airport, all runways are available for use without
discrimination. The proposed use of widely-space parallel runways will serve to increase airport capacity,
reduce delay and provide greater airside access for certain existing and future developed areas of the
airport. Beyond the potential for additional taxi times to and from the new parallel runway for non-FedEx
aircraft identified by the TAAM analysis, no adverse economic impacts to any non-FedEx operator are
' evident or projected in the EIS.
2-118 Comment
' The proposed project at PTIA will benefit a few people at the expense of their neighbors.
Response
The economic benefits and cost of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 of the FEIS.
database 101801.xls
2-119 Comment
I support Alternative N-E.
Response
Comment noted.
i LJ
L?_
2-120 Comment
The Summary Table S-1 (same as Alternatives Table 3.3.3.1) should include the missing information listed
as "TBD".
Response
Information listed in Tables S-1 and 3.3.3.1 of the DEIS as "TBD" has been finalized and included in the
FEIS.
2-121 Comment
In Figure S-3 in the Summary Section, Alternative WE should include runway length and separation
dimensions.
Response
Comment noted. Figure S-3 in the FEIS has been modified to reflect both runway length and separation
for Alternative N-E.
r
2-122 Comment
The location of FedEx will NOT be positive for Greensboro. It should be located in Goldsboro, NC which
the Governor and State Legislature designated as a "legitimate" cargo hub.
Response
Comment noted.
2-123 Comment
Isn't it your responsibility to recommend the alternative with the least amount of human and environmental
damage? By rejecting Kinston, you have neglected that responsibility.

Response '
The role of the FAA in the EIS process is to consider and evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in
terms of potential impacts to the human environment and to render an environmental determination in the
form of a Record of Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor and local communities whether to
construct and operate the proposed improvements. The FAA's objective in this process is to enhance
environmental quality and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that might result from a
proposed Federal :action. The FAA considers numerous factors in the initial evaluation of alternatives for a
proposed project and when recommending a Preferred Alternative in the ROD. These factors include, but
are not limited to factors such as long-term operational benefit, environmental impact, and cost. The FAA
.strives to select an alternative that provides the most long-term operational benefit with the least
environmental impact and cost. Please see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS for more information.
For informational purposes, the FAA evaluated the Global TransPark at Kinston, North Carolina for its
abilities to fully meet the stated purpose and need for the proposed project. Because the Global TransPark
did not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project, it was not retained for further consideration in
the EIS.
2-124 Comment
Your rejection of the Kinston alternative is arbitrary and capricious. It demands an in-depth consideration
and should receive your support.
Response ,
See response to Comment 2-92.
H
database_101801.xis I
2-125 Comment
If it is determined ±'iat the FedEx Hub is suitable for our area, the airport should be moved to a lesser
' populated area and more convenient to the population it serves.
Response
During the calendar year 1999, PTIA served as one of the nations 70 Small Hub airport and enplaned
between 0.05 and 0.25 percent of the total enplaned passengers in the United States. Within North
Carolina, the airport serves as one of the State's 14 primary/Commercial Service Airports and was served
by eight commercial air carriers and six cargo carriers. Throughout the history of the airport, it has
successfully served to meet the growing transportation needs of travelers of scheduled air service, general
' aviation, and air cargo operators within the Triad. The FEIS did not examine existing or potential future
changes in air travel demand, aeronautical role of the airport, or the potential need to relocate PTIA.

i
LJ
i!

r
database_101801.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
3. Noise
3-1 Comment
Noise from the airplanes will interfere with sleep, telephone and general conversations, television,
children's ability to learn, and other adverse physical and psychological effects.
Response
' The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as
single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at
.night- 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were
used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at night
since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. Please see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in
the EIS for further information.
3-2 Comment
Excessive number of trucks and added aircraft operations will add additional noise to areas in and around
' PTIA.
Response
Section 5.1.3 through 5.1.6 of the FEIS addresses noise impacts that result from aircraft and non-aircraft
operations at PTIA. The additional nighttime air cargo flights will result in more people living within the
DNL 65+ dBA noise contours. In addition, the increased number of trucks and automobiles associated
with the new air cargo facility will slightly increase noise levels on roads leading to the air cargo
sorting/distribution facility. However, these noise impacts will be mitigated by the PTAA as described in
Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
3-3 Comment
' EPA's and HUD's noise goal of 55 decibels in residential areas is much lower than FAA's goal of 65
decibels.
Response
The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft
generated noise impacts. FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally compatible
with noise-sensitive residential land use.
' 3-4 Comment
Please have noise monitored at my house for impacts.
Response
Prior to the start of the noise analysis for the EIS, monitoring of the existing noise environment around
PTIA was undertaken. Measurements were undertaken at representative locations and cannot be
undertaken at all requested locations (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the EIS for further
information).
3-5 Comment
Potential growth in use of PTIA should be considered in assessing noise impacts.
Response
Forecasted growth in all aircraft activity at PTIA up to the year 2019 is accounted for in the EIS analysis
(see Section 5.1.2.2 of the FEIS for further information).
3-6 Comment
1 Aircraft noise will not effect the local homeowners north of PTIA since the addition of the third runway will
allow aircraft to take off in a southerly direction.
I database 101801.xis
Response
Since operations will occur to the south for 95% of FedEx operations, homeowners to the north of the
airport will receive overflights only 5% of FedEx operations on an annual basis. During this 5% of FedEx
operations, areas to the north of the airport will receive noise impacts similar to those experienced by areas
to the south.
3-7 Comment
Noise levels are currently unacceptable.
Response
Comment noted.
3-8 Comment
Noise complaints to PTIA will increase if the third runway is in operation.
Response
Comment noted.

3-9 Comment
Noise from planes departing PTIA at 3-5 am will be directly over our homes, which are only a few thousand
feet away.
Response
Comment noted.
3-10 Comment
A Noise Abatement Policy needs to be put into action in the surrounding area.
Response
The PTAA has committed to implementing a noise mitigation plan to reduce noise impacts to the areas
,
surrounding PTIA. For aircraft operations, this program includes the voluntary acquisition of residential
parcels within the DNL 70 to 75 dBA noise contours as well as the voluntary acoustical treatment of

residences within the DNL 65 to 70 dBA noise contour. For increased truck traffic noise, roadway noise ,
barriers were considered in several analysis areas to mitigate noise impacts. Two noise barriers were
initially considered feasible as discussed in Section 6.2 of the FEIS. However, both of these noise barriers
'
"
exceed NCDOT
s cost criterion for
reasonableness". During the final design phase of the proposed
roadway improvements, the reasonableness of these two barriers should be re-evaluated weighing the
relative benefits against the adverse effects. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information
.
3-11 Comment
Noise associated with PTIA is no different than freight railroad lines. ,
Response
Comment noted.

3-12 Comment
Noise can be blocked out of the resident's mind just as they do with anything else they want to ignore.
Response
Comment noted.
3-13 Comment
A little more noise generated by PTIA should not prevent the FedEx hub from coming to Greensboro.
Response
Comment noted.
3-14 Comment
Residents will get use to the noise generated from the FedEx planes.
Response
Comment noted.
database 101801.xis
3-15 Comment
Noise is a major concern associated with the proposed project because it is concentrated into 2-one-hour
' periods in the middle of the night.
Response
Noise associated with the FedEx facility would be spread out over a several hour period during the
nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.). Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for a detailed description of
proposed FedEx operations at PTIA.
3-16 Comment
' Single event noise levels or peak noise need to be used in deciding whether the proposed project is
compatible with existing land use in the vicinity of PTIA.
Response
The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or
SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate
additional noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's are used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts,
while the Leq(9) are used to represent the FedEx impact at night since the time would be typical of
operations at night (See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information).
3-17 Comment
Destroying heavily wooded areas will lessen the natural noise buffer we now have from PTIA.
Response
Extensive, heavily-wooded areas may reduce noise levels from aircraft on the ground, but only if the
wooded areas are sufficiently dense. The current standard for outdoor sound propagation, published by
the International Standards Organization (ISO), allows for a small amount of sound attenuation caused by
dense foliage, "but only if it is sufficiently dense to completely block the view along the propagation path"
(ISO, Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors - Part 2: A General Method of
Calculation, International Standard ISO 9613-2, Geneva, 1996). At typical speech-communication
' frequencies, the standard allows for approximately 1 dBA of attenuation for trees 10 to 20 meters thick, up
to a maximum of about 12 dBA for 200 meters of dense trees.
3-18 Comment
FedEx's hush-kilted aircraft still produce more noise than aircraft originally equipped with noise controls.
Response
Older technology aircraft are hush-kitted to meet the Stage 3 noise standards. These aircraft are typically
noisier (especially on departure) than newer technology aircraft originally built to Stage 3 standards. It
should also be noted that numerous other air cargo and air carrier operators at PTIA also use older
technology hush-kitted aircraft.
3-19 Comment
Will the EIS include noise monitoring of existing conditions?
Response
Prior to the start of the noise analysis for the EIS, noise monitoring of the existing environment was
1 undertaken (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the FEIS for further information).
3-20 Comment
Is it true that take-off thrust noise is louder behind the plane, rather than the direction it is heading to on
take-off?
Response
Noise from turbine-powered jet aircraft is noisiest at an angle of 45 degrees off the tail of the aircraft and is
somewhat less directly behind the aircraft.
3-21 Comment
Can PTAA be required to install noise measuring equipment near the subdivision so that changing
conditions can be monitored?
database 101801.xls
Response '
The PTAA cannot be required to measure noise levels. However, the PTAA has committed to a plan of
installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels around PTIA as part of the PTANs noise
mitigation program (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information). '
3-22 Comment
Since most of FedEx's takeoffs will be from 3-5 a.m. when 95% of the residents will be sleeping, will
special accommodations be made to more heavily weight the noise factor?
Response
The INM already assigns a 10 dB penalty for nighttime operations, therefore, special accommodations to
more heavily weigh the DNL analysis in the EIS was not performed. FAA did provide supplemental metrics
analysis in the FEIS to more fully disclose the impacts of nighttime noise.

3-23 Comment
Did PTIA comply with the provision of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 and the 1982
Airport Act when it changed its ALP to depict a 9,000-foot parallel runway instead of a 4,000-foot runway?
Response
PTAA complied with all required Federal guidelines in the development of their ALP and Master Plan
document. The Acts referenced by the commentor do not come into affect until such time that the airport
sponsor wishes to implement a project depicted on its ALP. The undertaking of this EIS is one of the first
steps that the airport sponsor is taking to comply with said acts.
3-24 Comment
Are noise complaint calls reviewed by the FAA and who will I be able to call about the noise generated by
FedEx?
Response
Noise complaints are not reviewed by the FAA for a particular airport. However, the PTAA has committed
to the development of a noise mitigation plan as part of the EIS for PTIA (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for i
further information). This mitigation plan could result in the establishment of an noise abatement office to
receive, record, and respond to noise complaints. The airport sponsor should be called to report noise
complaints
.
3-25 Comment
Why does the Raleigh/Durham Airport operate under 55dBA guidelines and PTIA is allowed to use 65dBA
as the norm?
Response
Raleigh-Durham International Airport uses the DNL 55 dBA noise contour to document noise levels further '
out from the airport, although there is no requirement to do so. The DNL 55 dBA contour is also used as a
basis for its real estate disclosure ordinance and is provided to local municipalities for land use planning
purposes. Raleigh-Durham does not represent the DNL 55 dBA noise contour as a level that defines noise
impact, which is still the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Upon completion of the FEIS and issuance of a
Record of Decision, local planning departments in the PTIA area have indicated to the FAA that they intend
to use the DNL 60 or 55 dBA noise contour for future land use planning in the airport area.
3-26 Comment
How will you mitigate when the FAA recognizes that 40-50dBA causes interference with sleep?
Response
The PTAA has committed to a mitigation plan that includes the sound insulation of residences within the '
DNL 65 to 70 dBA noise contours. Sound insulating homes will help minimize sleep disruption impacts.
3-27 Comment I
Southwesterly take-offs of cargo jets will create large amounts of noise for residential areas north-northeast
of the proposed runway.
database 101801.xls I
Response
The noise contours presented in the FEIS result in higher noise levels to the southwest of the airport.
' However, start-of-takeoff roll noise would be noticeable in the areas to the northeast of the airport.
3-28 Comment
Noise studies conducted at other FedEx locations should be taken into consideration.
Response
Studies that are conducted at another airport would reflect different assumptions including fleet mix,
runway use, flight tracks, operational levels, operating times, etc. and would not result in information that
would directly correlate with future conditions at PTIA.
3-29 Comment
Every effort should be made to maintain the existing 65 DNL contour line and to establish a new 65 DNL
contour line for the new runway consistent with current and projected operations.
Response
The 65 DNL noise contours are presented for both existing and future conditions using current and
3-30 Comment .
Other than increased noise, this is not a business that will increase pollution or greatly utilize water
resources.
Response
Potential impacts to other environmental categories are documented and disclosed in Chapter 5 of the
FEIS.
' 3-31 Comment
The FedEx project should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a noise minimization plan for the entire
area while accommodating FedEx within that framework.
Response
Comment Noted. Please see response to Comment 3-10.
3-32 Comment
A study should be completed on noise levels of 60 aircraft arriving and/or departing an hour at 3:00 a.m.
Response
By the year 2019 it is projected that FedEx would have 63 aircraft arriving and departing from PTIA. These
arrivals and departures would occur over an eight hour period between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It should
also be noted that 18 of these aircraft are projected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft that generate
significantly less noise than the larger air carrier type aircraft.
3-33 Comment
I am concerned about noise factors so close to residential areas.
Response
The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise metrics such as
single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at
night - 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9)) to evaluate the noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's
were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at
1 night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. The FEIS addresses the fact that
a small percentage of the population has the potential to experience sleep disturbance. The study also
addresses the proposed mitigation plan for PTIA. The airport has committed to the voluntary acquisition of
' all noise sensitive properties within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours, the voluntary sound insulation
of all property between the DNL 65 and 70 dBA noise contour, the installation of a noise and operations
monitoring system, and the development of a FAR Part 150 noise compatibility study. Please see Sections
5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 6.3 in the FEIS for further information.
projected operations. Please see Sections 4.2.5 and 5.1 respectively of the FEIS.
I database 101801.x1s

3-34 Comment
Noise monitoring locations: Why wasn't the study made to the east of PTIA?
Response
Noise monitoring locations were selected to represent specific noise-sensitive areas along the extended
runway for evaluation of the existing noise conditions in the PTIA area. No noise measurements were
undertaken in the areas to the east of the airport because the primary flow of operations at PTIA is in the
North and South directions.
3-35 Comment
Is the "high-speed taxiway" proposed East/West? If so, noise levels to the east will be unbearable for
nearby residents.
Response
The high-speed taxiway is proposed for existing Runway 5R. A normal taxiway is built 90 degrees to the
runway. Aircraft must almost stop on the runway before they can turn off onto the taxiway. A high-speed
taxiway is built at an angle less than 90 degrees to the runway. This type of taxiway allows aircraft to
depart the runway at a much higher speed reducing time on the runway and reducing arrival delays. In
reality, an aircraft that can use a high-speed taxiway would not have to use reverse thrust as long to slow
to an acceptable speed and therefore, such an arrival would result in lower noise levels in the community.
3-36 Comment
Noise models and results in the EIS study are flawed.
Response
The noise model used in the FEIS is the current accepted methodology for FAA airport noise studies. The
results as presented in the FEIS meet all current FAA environmental guidelines.
3-37
3-38
3-39
3-40
Comment
North Carolina and/or PTIA should pass a law/curfew for no air traffic between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to
reduce noise.
Response
A curfew at PTIA between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. would not fit into the operational plan for
an overnight air cargo sorting facility at PTIA.
Comment
What will be the noise level during the estimated 5% of flights to takeoff to the northeast?
Response
Maximum noise levels at specific points to the northeast are presented in Appendix B-2 in the FEIS.
Figure 5.1.3-1 presents the location of the specific points. The maximum noise levels at the specific points
would result from aircraft departures.
Comment
FedEx must have the latest quiet engines.

_
IL
I Ll

1

Response
All FedEx aircraft and all other air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA meet the latest FAA Stage
3 noise standards. All aircraft are using either the latest technology engines or are hush-kitted to meet the
standards.
Comment
Use both sound measurements and comments to evaluate impacts of noise.
Response
Noise measurements were taken and were used to help evaluate the noise impacts of the alternatives for
the proposed project. The FAA has reviewed all comments received during the EIS process and will use
them in the development of the agency's Record of Decision.

database_101801.xis ,
3-41 Comment
Have a phone operate as closely as possible to expected conditions for a whole shift to measure noise
impacts.
Response
It is not possible to develop or monitor a test for future impacts.
3-42 Comment
The noise cone maps are useless and do not reflect reality.
Response
' Please see response to Comment 3-36.
3-43 Comment
It is ground movement noise that is problematic in my neighborhood.
Response
Impacts of roadway noise, aircraft taxi, and non-aircraft (GPU) ground operations are presented in
Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 respectively of the FEIS. Mitigation for the Preferred Alternative is presented in
Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
3-44 Comment
Trucks are federally regulated for noise. They have to pass a maximum reading of 80dba.
Response
' Comment noted. An evaluation of highway noise is included in the FEIS in Section 5.1.5.
3-45 Comment

' No provision is made to calculate echo and re-echo effects in and around residential buildings.
Response
The FAA's Integrated Noise Model used in the analysis does not account for the echo or reflections
encountered around large, flat, solid structures.
3-46 Comment
Noise contours should show the entire Triad area along with the decibel levels FedEx aircraft will generate.
'
Response
FAA orders that guide the preparation of EIS's dictate that the DNL 65 dBA noise contour be presented to
show areas that could be impacted by noise. For areas outside of the DNL 65 dBA noise contours, the
specific points presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 could be used with the Lmax noise levels (See Appendix B-2)
and the SEL noise levels (See Section 5.1.3 and 5.1.4) to represent noise levels in other areas.

3-47 Comment
Shifting the location of the sorting facility and lengthening the crosswind runway is based on the concept of
simply shifting the burden of aircraft noise onto others without due consideration of that impact.
Response
' The alternatives evaluated in the EIS included possible combinations of runway and sorting/distribution
facility scenarios which had the potential to fulfill the purpose and need for the proposed project. (See
Section 3.2 of the FEIS for further information)
3-48 Comment
There are changes in simple departure procedures and departure routes that can be applied to PTIA to
lessen the impact of aircraft noise.
Response
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation program for PTIA. The mitigation
plan includes undertaking a FAR Part 150 Study, which would include a detailed evaluation of the
departure procedures and departure routes (See Section 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information).
'
database 101801.xts
3-49 Comment I
Your noise information strategy should include and acknowledge that noise will affect people outside the
noise contours but that mitigation of those impacts will not normally be available to them.
Response I
Some people residing outside of the 65 DNL noise contours have the potential to experience sleep
disturbance as a result of the proposed project. Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS discuss these
potential impacts. At this time, the PTAA has committed to a Mitigation Program (see Section 6.3 of the
FEIS) that offers mitigation only to homeowners within the 65 DNL noise contours.
3-50 Comment
What is an acceptable noise level for residential areas?
Response
FAA considers noise levels below DNL 65 dBA to be acceptable for noise-sensitive areas such as I
residences (See Appendix D in the FEIS for further information).
3-51 Comment
Noise monitoring for only nine days in the middle of January when airport activity is low is not adequate for
baseline modeling.
Response
Short-term noise measurements on the order of a few days to a few weeks are typically not representative
of average noise levels on an annual basis. However, it should be noted that the noise measurements
were used to establish baseline noise levels in selected areas, and were not used for noise modeling ,
purposes.
3-52 Comment '
Please explain how you determine noise contours and what DNL means?
Response
Detailed explanation of the noise contour development and DNL metric are provided in Sections 5.1.2,
5.1.3, and 5.1.4 of the FEIS.
3-53 Comment
Have the removal of trees affected the noise modeling? '
Response
Noise modeling is unaffected by the removal of trees. The noise model assumes soft flat ground.

3-54 Comment
The increased noise from the TIMCO facility should be known about, forecasted, and used in modeling
noise from PTIA? '
Response
Existing ground noise from the TIMCO facility was not specifically modeled in the EIS. Information
provided to the FAA indicates that FedEx is not projected to use the TIMCO facility, therefore noise
emanating from this facility would be the same regardless of whether the proposed project were
implemented or not.
3-55 Comment
Why is PTAA working with residents from the Johnson Street area and their attorneys on noise matters?
Response
PTAA staff are providing guidance for the development of the Johnson Street area. This work is not
related to the FEIS.
3-56 Comment
Why would FedEx participate in such a mammoth project without due consideration to noise abatement or
not take the initiative in seekin
communit
acce
tance?
g
y
p
database_10180I.As I

f

Response
The FAA cannot speak on why FedEx did or did not take specific actions in the site selection process or
operational configuration of their proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub. However, the FAA has provided several
opportunities for public input during the EIS process and the PTAA has committed to the development of a
noise mitigation program for PTIA as a result of implementing the Preferred Alternative.
3-57 Comment
There are several corridors of industrial, commercial, and agricultural development more suitable for late
night overflight and that the "95% agreement" itself arbitrarily diverts aircraft noise from one area to
another.
Response
The 95% from the south-to the south operational scenario proposed by FedEx provides maximum
efficiency for FedEx operations based on the prevailing winds, the orientation of the runways and the
location of the sorting/distribution facility. The 95% operational scenario is allowed due to the low or calm
winds that tend to occur during the nighttime hours. The PTAA has committed in this EIS to the
development of a noise mitigation plan for PTIA which includes the preparation of a FAR Part 150 noise
compatibility study. This plan will evaluate the possibility of placing aircraft flight corridors over non-noise
sensitive land use. See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-58 Comment
There are many examples of other airports with cargo hubs that have implemented noise mitigation
measures including the purchase of homes similar to the corridor used in this EIS.
Response
Comment noted.
' 3-59 Comment
By the time the FedEx Hub opens, technology will enable operations to be much quieter and less noxious
to our environment.
Response
Although there may be advanced technology in the future that provides for quieter aircraft, the analysis in
the FEIS is based on current technology and aircraft types that are forecast to be in operation during the
time period evaluated within the FEIS.
3-60 Comment
I was told there is a 10 DNL penalty for night flights. Does that mean only an average of 55 DNL is
The DNL noise metric applies a 10 dBA penalty to all aircraft generated noise that occurs between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. DNL levels below 65 DNL are considered acceptable for noise-sensitive
' residential areas. Ground noise issues for the Preferred Alternative are evaluated in Section 5.1.6 of the
FEIS.
' 3-61 Comment
Use FedEx loaded planes during the nighttime operating hours for a valid test.
Response
The FAA has not received any indication from either the PTAA or FedEx that actual tests of fully loaded
aircraft would be conducted.
3-62 Comment
Why do your 1998 Noise Contours differ from the Guilford County Land Use Planners Noise Cone?

acceptable? Response What about noise from the facility where the planes will be sitting all night with loud engines?
database 101801.x1s
Response
The noise contours presented in the Guilford County Comprehensive Land Use Plan reflect noise contours
based upon 1986 data. This information could include many different assumptions that would result in
different noise contours, the most important being that the majority of aircraft in 1986 were the older and
noisier Stage 2 aircraft. The noise contours in the FEIS for 1998 reflect the latest data and assumptions for
PTIA and are representative of actual conditions.

3-63 Comment
Noise events that will be generated by the proposed project are definitely not continuous or repetitive and
call for SEL rather than LDN analysis.
Response
The FEIS provides an analysis of supplemental noise metrics including single event noise levels (Sound
Exposure Levels or SEL's) to evaluate potential sleep disturbance noise impacts from the proposed
project. See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
3-64 Comment ,
What is the significance of a 1-hour DNL vs. Nighttime average? Would it be better to have two
concentrated periods of landings and takeoffs vs. operations spread out over a greater period of time?
Response
DNL is a 24-hour noise metric which is the accepted noise metric for use in FAA Environmental Impact
Statements. It is not possible to determine a 1 hour DNL. Because FedEx operations are anticipated to
occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the nighttime average noise is presented in the FEIS ,
as Leq(9), which represents the average noise for the 9-hour time period during which FedEx would
conduct its operations.
3-65 Comment
Why would the EIS not survey to determine the percentage of populations experiencing sleep disturbance
at a given DNL at existing installations adjacent to residential areas?
Response '
See response to Comment 3-63.
3-66 Comment I
PTIA held up the development of Fraizer Downs (residential area) at the corner of Gallimore Dairy Road
and Sandy Ridge Road because it would be in the noise cone. Now they are proceeding to build homes.
Response I
Comment noted. PTIA has provided information to homeowners and developers regarding its noise
contours whenever asked. The PTAA had no authority to prevent the development of Fraizer Downs, nor I
the construction of homes in the area.
3-67 Comment
The FAA should develop non-A weighted contour maps to compare with FAA's typical A-weighted maps.
Response ,
DNL noise contours are A-weighted and are the accepted noise metric used by the FAA in airport noise
studies.
3-68 Comment '
FAA's noise maps should include the 55-dBA LDN contour. The additional noise contour map will disclose
areas impacted by 55-65 dBA LDN noise levels that are not currently addressed by standard FAA policy.

database_101801.xls I

11

7

1

Response
The EIS depicts the 65 DNL noise contour because it is the FAA's Threshold of Significance with
compatible land use. FAA environmental guidelines do not require the development and presentation of 55
or 60 DNL noise exposure contours in its' environmental documents. However, after the ROD is issued by
the FAA, the PTAA can provide local planning departments with the 60 and 55 DNL noise exposure
contours for use in establishing local land use controls and zoning ordinances.
3-69 Comment
People living outside the noise contour will be impacted by noise too.
Response
Some people living outside the 65 DNL noise exposure contour would experience increased noise.
However, the increase would be below FAA's threshold of significance.
3-70 Comment
Does the FAA really believe that their first, computer generated noise study of the proposed PTIA FedEx
hub will pinpoint the full extent of the noise problems that would be created by the FedEx hub or is the
Triad destined to relive the noise problems that the families and communities in Indianapolis were forced to
live through and still do on a daily basis?
Response
FAA has undertaken a thorough analysis of anticipated noise impacts at PTIA through the year 2019 in the
FEIS. The disclosure of potential noise impacts in the FEIS is based on the best available information at
the time the document was prepared. If operational conditions unforeseen in the FEIS occur at PTIA, then
the noise environment in the PTIA area would have to be reevaluated by the PTAA.
3-71 Comment
Since the FAA has indicated that, "all of the alternatives would result in exceedances of the Threshold of
Significance, and mitigation would be considered," how does the FAA intend to deal with the noise impact
to households and communities?
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-10.
3-72 Comment
Since the noise problems in Indianapolis extend at least 5 1/2 miles southwest from the end of that airport's
runways, how does the FAA suggest that the Triad's problems will end about 3 miles from PTIA's runways?
Response
PTIA's noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations, aircraft types, and other factors that
would be present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. The FedEx facility in Indianapolis has
different operating characteristics therefore the noise contours are different.
3-73 Comment
What percentage of the FedEx cargo planes, that would be destined to land at the proposed FedEx hub at
PTIA, are still the old 737s, DC-9s and 727s that have been retrofitted with hushkits?
Response
In the year 2005, a total of 24 FedEx aircraft would be operating at PTIA. Out of the 24 aircraft, 5 are
expected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft. Of the remaining 19 jet aircraft, 10 are projected to be
larger, newer technology A-310 or DC10 aircraft and 9 would be the older technology hush-kitted 8727
aircraft. By the year 2019, a total of 63 FedEx aircraft would be operating at PTIA. Out of the 63 aircraft,
18 are expected to be single-engine turboprop aircraft. Of the remaining 45 jet aircraft, 25 are projected to
be larger newer technology A-310 or DC10 aircraft and 20 would be a combination of either the older
technology hush-kitted B727 aircraft or some newer technology aircraft represented by the B737.
database_101801.xls
3-74 Comment
Fed Ex is both a major user and seller of the hushkits, with the mufflers on 25 percent of its planes. Even
though these hushkits meet the noise laws enacted in 1990, the European Union has banned them citing
noise and air pollution, Did the FAA consider these types of FedEx cargo planes, retrofitted with
inappropriate hushkits, when determining the noise cones for the proposed FedEx hub at PTIA?
Response
All hush-kitted FedEx aircraft and all other hush-kilted air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA
meet the latest FAA Stage 3 noise standards. These aircraft are in the fleet mix that was used in
developing the noise contours at PTIA.
3-75 Comment
Many airports across the country impose restrictions on aircraft operations, but PTIA has no restrictions.
PTIA needs to have noise restrictions to be compatible with surrounding landuse.
Response
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation program for PTIA. Although
operating restrictions would not be compatible with operation of a late night air cargo sorting facility, this
type of mitigation will be evaluated in the proposed FAR Part 150 Study. Please see Section 6.3 of the
FEIS for further information.

11
3-76 Comment
The use of average noise levels (DNQ does not sufficiently take into account the environmental impact of I
instantaneous noise levels that the operational mode of FedEx will create in the early hours of the day.
Response '
Please see response to Comment 3-1.
3-77 Comment
FedEx should be required to minimize the noise impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If FedEx is not '
willing to abate nighttime noise then they should not be allowed to come to Greensboro.
Response '
Please see response to Comment 3-10.
3-78 Comment
The noise analysis is inaccurate and a broader problem because this area is hilly and there is nothing to
absorb the sound.
Response
The noise analysis in the FEIS was undertaken using accepted FAA methodologies. However, the INM '
assumed soft, flat ground in the calculation of noise contours, which presents a worse case scenario of
noise exposure.

3-79 Comment
Were noise monitors placed in strategic locations to fit your study?
Response ,
Noise measurements were undertaken at locations in the PTIA environs that represent major flight track
corridors off existing and proposed runways (See Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix B of the FEIS for further
information). '
3-80 Comment
What will be the noise level at the time of take off and landing of several planes during late night hours? '

database_101801.xis I

r

?7
1 1

Response
The analysis in the FEIS used FAA's approved DNL noise metric as well as other supplemental noise
metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq
noise levels at night -10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9) ) to evaluate noise impacts from the proposed
project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts, while the Leq(9) were used to represent
noise impact at night since the time would be typical of the air cargo operations at night. Please see
Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
3-81 Comment
Wouldn't the noise levels at [night] be more disruptive to a persons life especially in respect to sleep time?
Response
Nighttime noise is generally more disruptive than daytime noise because ambient noise levels are typically
lower at night. All noise affects different people in different ways. Some people are not bothered or only
slightly bothered by noise levels that are considered excessive by someone else. The FEIS contains an
analysis of potential Sleep Disturbance impacts in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4.
3-82 Comment
Has it been taken into account that noise levels from cargo planes is very high at take off?
Response
Noise levels from air cargo aircraft during all stages of operation have been factored into the noise model
used in the FEIS.
3-83 Comment
I propose decimal (decibel) testing that will verify the noise level in High Point during the day and night.
Response
Please see response to Comments 3-61 and 3-79. In addition, it is not possible to monitor a condition that
does not exist yet.
3-84 Comment
It was reported in the High Point Enterprise newspaper dated May 12, 2000 that 972 homes (generally a 4-
5 mile distance from the airport) have been purchased by the Indianapolis airport authority since the Fed Ex
hub began operation. What was the initial FAA EIS estimate of homes in the 4-5 mile range that would be
unsuitable for occupancy and require purchasing? What was the initial estimate of homes that would
require soundproofing? What was the original cost estimate for both of these items and the actual amount
spent?
Response
The initial estimates of homes eligible for participation in the Noise Mitigation Program for Indianapolis
International Airport were as follows: 1) Fee Simple Acquisition - 130 homes; 2) Purchase
Assurance/Sound Insulation - 359 homes, 3) Sales Assistance - 963 homes. The total cost was estimated
to be approximately $80 million. The actual cost of the program has not been determined yet because the
program is still on-going.
3-85 Comment
The DEIS does not address aircraft noise on pets.
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS addresses noise impacts on humans only.
3-86 Comment
Why doesn't the FAA also consider individual aircraft noise levels instead of an average level over a 24
hour period since it takes a single loud noise to wake people who are sleeping? It is requested that the
FAA conduct single jet aircraft noise level measurements in all the residential areas effected by the
proposed hub and consider this data in the final decision.
Response
See response to Comments 3-1, 3-6 and 3-81.
I database 101801.xls
3-87 Comment
Since the same type of aircraft used by Fed Ex in Indianapolis today will still be in operation when the PTIA
hub opens, please explain logically how the PTIA noise contours can be smaller than Indy? If hushkits and
phase three aircraft are really reducing the noise level shouldn't the noise contours be getting smaller?
Response
PTIA's noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations, aircraft types, and other factors that will
be present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. The FedEx facility in Indianapolis has different
operating characteristics therefore the noise contours are different.
3-88 Comment
Is it feasible to require all FedEx early morning aircraft heading south to turn west on take-off following
Highway 40? Maintain this heading until they are at a suitable altitude before turning south. This would
greatly reduce the engine noise for most residents in northern High Point.
Response
The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to the development and implementation of a noise mitigation
program. Possible mitigation measures are addressed in Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS and the recommended
mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. In addition, PTAA
has committed in this FEIS to undertake a FAR Part 150 Study after FAA publishes its ROD. This study will
look at other means of mitigation such as early turns and noise berms.
3-89 Comment
Are there plans to build a berm (or wall) at north end of airport to minimize ground noise?
Response. .
Please see response to Comment 3-88 and Section 5.1.6 of the FEIS.
3-90 Comment
Engines facing northeast, on a southwest takeoff, will result in a majority of the noise heard by residential
neighborhoods. Why is the EIS not showing a more accurate representation of noise impacts?
3-91
3-92
Response
Southwest departures would result in noticeable noise in areas to the northeast of PTIA. However, the
noise contours and associated analyses contained in the FEIS for each of the alternatives accurately
represent the noise exposure that would be experienced by residents to the north of the airport because it
includes noise from both arriving and departing aircraft.
Comment
Loss of sleep as a human cost is not dealt with in the DEIS.
Response
The EIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or
SEL's) to evaluate sleep disruption impacts from the proposed facility (See Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the
FEIS for further information).
Comment
The DEIS does not show any projection of total cost for noise mitigation.
Response
The PTAA has committed to a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. It is anticipated that the acquisition of up to
53 residences within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA contours would cost on the order of $4,548,531. The sound
insulation of 209 homes would cost approximately $6,300,000. A noise and operations monitoring system
would cost approximately $500,000, and a Part 150 Study would cost approximately $300,000. Therefore,
the total projected : ost of the noise mitigation program would be approximately $11,648,531. These costs
are based on impacts associated with Phase 2 of Alternative W1-A1. After completion of the Part 150
Study, additional measures may be implemented. Please see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further
information.

1

7
IL

C

database_101801.xls
' 3-93 Comment
The study used computer modeling for the noise contours instead of actually measuring noise from existing
runways.
Response
In the FEIS, noise measurements were used primarily to establish baseline noise levels in the PTIA
environs. Noise modeling and the associated noise exposure contours were developed using the FAA's
Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is the approved model for calculating aircraft generated noise
impacts.
3-94 Comment
Limited actual noise measurements were taken in January, when noise from airplanes are at their lowest.
Noise increases significantly during the summer months.
Response
Short-term noise measurements on the order of a few days to a few weeks are typically not representative
of average noise levels on an annual basis. Noise measurements were taken over a period of nine days in
the PTIA environs and were used to establish baseline noise levels in selected areas. The results were
not used for noise modeling purposes or to predict future noise levels.
3-95 Comment
Residents that are within at least the 55-decibel contour should be acquired at full market value that
existed before the announcement of expansion occurred.
' Response
Please see response to Comments 3-3, 3-10 and 3-68.
3-96 Comment
Will the Triad face the same extensive noise problems that have plagued Indianapolis?
Response
' Noise impacts from the proposed FedEx facility at PTIA are clearly documented in the FEIS. Some
residences are proposed for acquisition, while others would be offered sound insulation. Additional
mitigation will be studied. It is likely that these are many of the same issues facing Indianapolis.
' 3-97 Comment
The noise contours at Indianapolis have been revised on three separate occasions. Will the noise
contours at PTIA keep changing further and further into surrounding areas until the entire community is
' destroyed, as in Indianapolis?
Response
The noise contours at PTIA were developed for the year 2005 and 2019 using the best available
' projections of operations and aircraft fleet mixes by airport operators, including FedEx. Although it is
possible, it is unlikely that the noise levels would change within the 20-year planning period, unless the
airport or FedEx substantially change the number of operations occurring at PTIA.
3-98 Comment
In Indianapolis, why have the majority of homeowners opted for buyout rather than insulation in the
' Neighborhood Compatibility Programs?
Response
Information provided to the FAA indicates that out of the 50 homes included in the pilot program, 13
participated in the sound insulation program. Homeowners in the affected area were faced with a water
supply issue in which new water lines needed to be laid, at the cost of $5,000 per home. Indications are
that homeowners chose to participate in the purchase assurance program so as not to incur the $5,000
expense of the new water lines. The airport has since offered to pay $4,000 of the $5,000 cost per home to
provide the new water lines. Since this program was implemented, indications are that more homeowners
are interested in and participating in the Sound Insulation Program.
' 3-99 Comment
Why do neighborhoods approximately 4.5 miles from Indianapolis International Airport have a pending
noise lawsuit? This is the same distance northern High Point is from PTIA.
database ,o,so,X
Response I
Homeowners who have filed suit against the Indianapolis International Airport live in an area that is not
included in either the Purchase Assurance or Sound Insulation Noise Mitigation programs. Neither FAA nor
PTAA can speculate on why a lawsuit has been filed. Regarding the implied comparison between IND and
PTIA, noise impacts are affected by a number of variables (such as operations, type of aircraft,
topography, etc.) which differ from airport to airport. Thus, noise analyses must be airport specific, and
comparisons such as this one are not pertinent.
3-100 Comment
How do you compensate for the impact on a resident's quality of life when their home must remain sealed '
to avoid noise? How do you propose to soundproof yards and parks?
Response
Homes located between the DNL 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise contours would be offered sound insulation as
part of PTIA's noise mitigation program. This mitigation measure would reduce interior levels of aircraft
noise, although it would require the doors and windows to be closed. Sound insulation of outside spaces
such as backyards and parks is not possible. '
3-101 Comment
Planes taxiing to and from the sorting facility and waiting to be unloaded and loaded should be a part of the '
noise analysis.
Response
Impacts of aircraft taxi and non-aircraft (GPU) ground operations are presented in Section 5.1.6 of the

FEIS. '
3-102 Comment
Based on the EIS, .the noise impact is limited.
Response
Comment noted.
3-103 Comment
Who did you survey to determine 65 decibels is "tolerable"? Tolerable for how long? What age group? Day

or nighttime conditions? Under what weather conditions? ,
Response
It has long been accepted by the scientific community that the DNL metric correlates well with community
annoyance from aircraft noise. Studies show that at DNL 65 dBA, approximately 13% of the population ,
would be highly annoyed at this level of noise. DNL 65 dBA has been set and accepted by the FAA as the
level for land use compatibility.
'
3-104 Comment
Jets are to be routed over commercial, industrial, and agricultural areas therefore minimizing the impact on
residential neighborhoods.
Response
Comment noted. As part of the FAR Part 150 Study that will be undertaken by the PTAA after the FAA's
ROD is issued, detailed analysis of operational measures that have a potential to minimize overflight noise '
on noise-sensitive residential areas will be accomplished. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 in the FEIS
for further information.
3-105 Comment
Can the EPA confirm that there will be no sleep disturbance?
Response
The FEIS contains an evaluation of potential sleep disturbance impacts in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. Also,
please see responses to Comments 3-80 and 3-81.
3-106 Comment '
Please inform me of the recourses available to me because of sleep depravation now and in the future.

database_10180 1.xls

u

11
11

it
J
Response
Sound insulation would be offered to homeowners between the DNL 65 dBA and 70 dBA noise contours.
Sound insulation typically reduces interior noise levels by between 20 and 25 dBA allowing residents more
tolerable living conditions and helping to minimize sleep disruption impacts. Homeowners living outside of
the 65 DNL noise contours will not be offered sound insulation or any other type of compensation.
3-107 Comment
PTIA and local authorities have not seen fit to adopt what the FAA call the "1998 Existing Condition Noise
Contours". This would give us immediate relief to restrictions on our Fleming Road property.
Response
The 1998 existing noise contours presented in the EIS have not yet been approved. As part of the Part
150 Study that will be developed after completion of the FEIS and the issuance of FAA's ROD, the existing
noise contours would be formally accepted by the FAA and would at that point be able to be adopted by the
airport and local land use planning agencies.
3-108 Comment
In regard to noise documentation, we (EPA) believe that the DEIS does not provide a detailed description
of the proposed air cargo facility and its potential impacts, particularly from a day-to-day operational point
of view. The FEIS should disclose this operational information such as when FedEx air cargo flights would
be arriving, how long they are on the ground, and when they depart. Specific time frames should be
provided for each operation.
Response
The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA, a schedule of
proposed flight operations, an analysis to support the 95% runway use, and a general description of the
noise contours that would result from the 95% FedEx runway use. Please see Sections 2.2, 3.2 and 5.1 of
the FEIS for further information.
3-109 Comment
The additional noise situation of noisy takeoff and landing events during the sensitive nighttime period of
operation should also be better characterized. A metric more specific to this relatively short four-to-five
hour time frame should be used for this analysis to supplement the averaged metrics (DNL and Leq(9)
descriptors) used in the DEIS.
Response
The Leq(9) metric was used in the FEIS as opposed to an Leq(4) or Leq(5) because it is considered to be
more representative of the actual time that FedEx aircraft would be operational at PTIA. For both Phase 1
and Phase 2, it was determined that arrivals and departures would generally occur over an eight to nine
hour period between approximately 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 - 7:00 a.m.
3-110 Comment
EPA is concerned that the parallel runway proposal would not only increase overall airport noise, but that
new intrusive noise would be introduced almost daily due to the proposed air cargo express flight
operations during sensitive late-night and early morning periods.
' Response
The introduction of the air cargo hub at PTIA would increase the number of people in the PTIA area
impacted by aircraft noise. These impacts are fully disclosed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS. A program to
mitigate these impacts is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
3-111 Comment
EPA believes that noise mitigation was not adequately addressed in the DEIS. The proposed action does
not include adequate non-operational (land use) noise mitigation that is needed to reduce/remove non-
compatible residential land uses in the projected DNL>65dBA contours.
I database 101801.xls
Response
The PTAA has committed to the development and implementation of a noise mitigation program that
includes acquisition, acoustical treatment and undertaking a FAR Part 150 Study for PTIA. The FAR Part
150 Study will allow the PTIA to work with surrounding municipalities to establish more compatible land '
use planning and zoning in the PTIA area.
3-112 Comment
We (EPA) strongly encourage the PTAA to participate in the Part 150 Program.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-111. '
3-113 Comment
The Sponsor's airport selection criteria listed on page S-5, which were apparently best satisfied by PTIA,
include a "no unexpected or unresolvable environmental problems" criterion. The FEIS should further
discuss this concept since the overnight hub operations would result in significant noise during late-night
and early-morning hours. How do the Sponsor and Airport Authority plan to resolve the noise elevations for

residents living within the DNL>65dBA contours (or even outside the DNL 65 contour where noise impacts '
also exist)?
Response
The referenced selection criteria was a FedEx criteria, not one of either the FAA or the airport sponsor
(PTAA). Both the FAA and the PTAA acknowledge that the introduction of the air cargo sorting and
distribution facility would introduce new noise impacts to the PTIA area. However, the PTAA has

committed to implementation of a noise mitigation program that would significantly reduce impacts to ,
incompatible land uses. Homeowners living within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be offered a
buyout to move out of the high noise area. Sound insulation would be offered to homeowners between the
65 and 70 DNL noise contours. Homeowners living outside of the 65 DNL noise contours will not be offered ,
direct noise mitigation such as acquisition or sound insulation. However, additional mitigation techniques
to be studied in the FAR Part 150 process may reduce impacts on areas outside the 65 DNL noise contour.
3-114 Comment
What happens if I accept an avigation easement to compensate for lowered property values and in 10
years my child has signs and symptoms of the FedEx noise impact? Where will my family turn for help?
Response I
If a homeowner accepts sound insulation, an avigational easement is usually attached to the deed of the
property that basically gives the airport a right to fly over the property and make noise. Usually this right to
make noise is limited to a maximum dBA increase which would protect the homeowner in case of major
operational changes at an airport. If a residence is located within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contour it would
be offered sound insulation. If at a later time the noise levels increase such that the residence would be
located within the 70 DNL noise contour, it would be likely that the homeowner would be offered acquisition
by PTAA.
3-115 Comment '
We (EPA) also note that while the SEL supplemental data (Appendix B) is very useful, an explanation of
the metric does not appear until Appendix C. This section should highlight the fact that the SEL is 5-to-10
dBA above the Maximum A-weighted sound level.
Response
The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or
SEL's) to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts from the proposed facility. The SEL values in Appendix B
have been moved to the main body of the FEIS document and appropriate discussion of this metric has
been added to the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
3-116 Comment
What criteria must be met to qualify for condemnation of homes or sound proofing of homes?
database-101801-xis I

L7

1
7-
L
E database 101801AS
Response
The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to a noise mitigation program that would detail what areas would be
eligible for acquisition or sound insulation. Homes located within the 70 to 75 dBA DNL noise contour
would be eligible for acquisition, while homes between the 65 and 70 dBA DNL noise contour would be
eligible for sound insulation. Acquisition or sound insulation would be entirely voluntary on the part of the
homeowners, although acquisition would be encouraged for homes located within the 70 to 75 dBA DNL
noise contour. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-117 Comment
Please advise what dBA level inside a home would have to be met to be condemn or sound proof?
Response
Eligibility for mitigation under PTAA's mitigation program is based on the noise levels outside of a
residence. Homes located within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contour would be eligible for acquisition, while
homes between the 65 and 70 DNL noise contour would be eligible for sound insulation. Interior noise
levels should be 45 dBA or less after sound insulating. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further
information.
3-118 Comment
We (EPA) believe that the FEIS should provide wind information with a discussion to support that FedEx
can operate in this manner 95% of the time (95% of operations from the south-to the south).
Response
Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a detailed wind analysis to support the proposed 95% runway use.
3-119 Comment
We (EPA) recommend that the FEIS discuss/develop a process that the PTAA and FAA air traffic control
will use to include the public into the decision process when future runway use increases beyond those
stated in the DEIS (2.5% to 5%).
Response
The PTAA has committed to a plan of installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels
around PTIA as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation program. This system could be expanded to include
operations monitoring that would track annual runway use. As part of the Part 150 process, the public
would be able to provide input on runway use increases, changes in flight tracks, etc. Please see Section
6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-120 Comment
EPA believes that an aggressive federal buyout program is needed to compensate for noise impacts within
the DNL 65+ contours. However, we recognize that complete residential buyouts within these contours is
expensive and that current Congressional allocations may not suffice. We also recognize that worst-case
contours should be mitigated first (DNL 75 and DNL 70 contours) followed by the DNL 65. The previously
suggested participation by the airport authority (PTAA) in the FAA Part 150 Program could perhaps
supplement such federal funding limitations and allow for more complete compensation.
Response
The PTAA has committed to a noise mitigation program. This program includes undertaking a Part 150
Study, installation of monitoring equipment, property acquisition, and residential sound insulation. Homes
located within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be eligible for acquisition, while homes between
the 65 and 70 DNL noise contour would be eligible for sound insulation. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS
for further information.
3-121 Comment
As stated in Chapter 5, Section 41(b) Sponsor's Planning Process, of the Airport Environmental Handbook
(October 8, 1985) did the Airport Authority seek a grant to develop maps and programs for submission of
noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to carry out the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979?
Response
No. These grants will be used to undertake the Part 150 Study after completion of the FEIS. Please see
Section 6.2.1 in the FEIS for further information.

,
3-122 Comment
The concentration of noise over High Point is not acceptable and is not fair to the residents of High Point.

Response
With the head-to-head operational scenario proposed by FedEx, a majority of noise impacts would be
experienced by areas to the southwest of PTIA. However, PTAA has committed to the implementation of a
noise mitigation program that would greatly reduce these impacts. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for
more details.

3-123 Comment
The proposed project at°Sandy Ridge is approximately 3.5 miles from the runway and it would be
interesting to learn the altitude of takeoffs and landings at this distance. Is there information on this '
available?
Response
Aircraft altitudes would vary depending upon the type of aircraft operation (arrival/departure), the weather

conditions, aircraft loading, and aircraft type. The FEIS did not conduct an evaluation of aircraft flyover '
altitudes at specific communities in the Triad area. However, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower personnel
could give a reasonable estimate of aircraft altitude at that location. ,
3-124 Comment
How many people will be affected by aircraft noise?
Response
The summaries of people affected by aircraft noise are presented in the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.3
and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
3-125 Comment
Serious noise will affect a lot more than a few hundred people.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-124.
3-126 Comment
To determine how much the noise will be a problem, please review the airport's historical records for the
past few years and simulate where FedEx planes would have flown had the hub been in existence during
that period. _
Response
PTIA's existing condition and proposed future noise contours are based on runway use, daily operations,
aircraft types, and other factors that have been operating at PTIA in the past as well as those that would be
present at PTIA when the FedEx facility is operating. Had the hub been operational a few years ago, it
would have, in all likelihood, operated in the same manner as is analyzed in the FEIS.

3-127 Comment
The FedEx planes are supposed to have noise containment system. If the planes do not have this system,
they should not be allowed to land or take off.
Response
All FedEx aircraft and all other air carrier or air cargo aircraft operating at PTIA meet the latest FAA Stage
3 noise standards. All aircraft are using either the latest technology engines or are hush-kitted to meet the
standards.
3-128 Comment
One thing the hub will generate is more air traffic over and above the FedEx planes. Has this been taken
into account in the study? When and where will the added planes be flying? Will they be subject to the
same restrictions as FedEx? 1
database_101801.xis
Response
Increases in non-FedEx operational levels at PTIA were included in the FEIS noise analysis. This increase
is due to normal traffic growth at the airport and is not directly related to the proposed air cargo facility. In
terms of restrictions, non-FedEx aircraft will not fly the 95% from the south to the south operational
scenario. Also, these aircraft are all required to be Stage 3 compliant.
3-129 Comment
The noise problems as indicated by some living near the airport would only affect a minimum number
residences.
Response
The summaries of people affected by aircraft noise are presented in the FEIS. Please see Sections 5.1.3
and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
' 3-130 Comment
Having heard the testimony of the "Noise Expert" at the Greensboro hearing on the DEIS for the proposed
' FedEx hub at the Piedmont International Airport, I am thoroughly dismayed at the evidence of really
shoddy work by the experts hired by your administration. The real "expert" reported that he knew the
people who had written the Noise Section of the DEIS, and that he was shocked and embarrassed by the
quality of their work, what it was they tried to pull off as well researched findings.
Response
The noise analysis in the FEIS was conducted using FAA approved methodologies and accurate, timely
' data provided by FAA Air Traffic Control personnel, and representatives of the PTAA and FedEx.
3-131 Comment
We question the "Noise Cone" impact on the Cardinal Neighborhood as suggested in Plans W2-A or
' similar plans. How can the current main runway "noise contour" extend to Horsepen Creek Rd and not the
proposed runway.
Response
Operations to the northeast on the existing runway (Runway 5R-23L) would occur during both the daytime
and nighttime hours as they presently do. Operations on the proposed runway (Runway 5L-23R) to the
northeast would be limited to only 5% of the operations at night on an annual basis. The noise contours to
the northeast would be dramatically different between runways. The FEIS provides a detailed description
of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and a general description of the noise contours that would result
from the 95% FedEx runway use. Please see Section 5.1 in the FEIS for further information.
3-132 Comment
' The proposal to mitigate noise effects by changing runways is ludicrous. Moving jet engine noise from one
runway to another a few hundred yards away is doing nothing to solve the problem.
Response
The results of the analysis in the FEIS shows that moving some of the operations off of the proposed new
parallel runway and onto the existing runway would reduce the overall number of people within the 65 DNL
noise contour in the year 2005. However, this measure would not be effective after 2009 because of the
increased number of FedEx flights. A Part 150 study would examine potential measures to reduce noise
impacts for the potential FedEx operations.
3-133 Comment
Two field studies of noise-induced sleep disturbance conducted in residents' homes near two major
airports (Los Angeles and Denver) in 1995 (Fidel) et al.) concluded the LDN shows no useful association
with sleep disturbance. The research referred to above was documented in the Draft EIS for Charlotte-
Douglas International Airport two years ago. Why did the FAA exclude it from the DEIS for PTIA? The
same noise consultant prepared both studies! It is arbitrary and capricious of the FAA to exclude research
it had already deemed relevant in a previous DEIS, especially since noise-induced sleep disturbance is
such a critical issue.
database 101801.xls
Response
The DEIS presented SEL values as well as other supplemental metrics in Appendix B. For the FEIS, the
SEL data have been moved up to the main body of the document in Section 5.1, and additional discussion
on sleep disturbance has been added. Please see Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further
information.
3-134 Comment
It is interesting to iote that the FAA measures airport capacity as a one-hour peak. This is the only way it
can justify an additional runway at an airport operating substantially below capacity. Logic and fairness
require consistency in that the FAA should also measure nighttime noise as a one-hour peak. But this
DEIS sacrifices logic and fairness to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.
Response
It is accepted FAA policy to measure airport capacity in terms of Annual Service Volume (ASV) and peak- '
hour capacity. Likewise, it is standard FAA policy to evaluate noise impacts using the Integrated Noise
Model (INM) and the DNL noise metric. The DNL noise metric has also been accepted and approved by
the EPA and other Federal agencies as the best metric for determining noise impact. The FAA has
undertaken additional efforts in this EIS to disclose the potential noise impacts associated with the
proposed project by adding detailed discussions of potential sleep disturbance, ground noise and roadway
noise impacts. ,
3-135 Comment
I want to see noise mitigation measures for movement of aircraft including: noise mitigation flight tracks,
aircraft fleet mix modification, airport access restrictions / Part 161 issues, aircraft engine run-up ,
procedures, and implementation of nighttime flight corridors.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-111
'
.
3-136 Comment
The European Union adopted a curfew for all night flights in their 15 member-countries. The welfare of the
people of Europe takes priority over the welfare of the tax-paying citizens in the United States.
Response
Comment noted. '
3-137 Comment
How effective will the insulation or new windows be in reducing noise? '
Response
The sound insulation of residences will typically reduce interior noise levels between 20 and 25 dB.
,
3-138 Comment
What will be the noise effects of simultaneous takeoffs? Do any of your models take this into effect?
Response
The noise model accounts for aircraft operations whether they occur individually or simultaneously.
Supplemental SEL analysis contained in the FEIS evaluates simultaneous arrival and departure noise
impacts in terms of the potential for sleep disturbance in the area surrounding PTIA. '
3-139 Comment
In reading the report, it indicated that only 6 data points were used to correlate to the computer noise
modeling. This seems statistically low.
Response
The six data points refer to noise measurement sites selected as part of the monitoring program that was
undertaken at the beginning of the DEIS. The average measured noise levels were compared to the
modeled levels at the same location for informational purposes. There is no FAA requirement to undertake
noise measurements or to correlate the measured levels to modeled levels.
3-140 Comment
_,o,eo,.x,y doesn't the PTAA have a written SOP to address noise complaints from the community?
databe5e '
' Response
Noise complaints are presently not reviewed by the PTAA. However, the PTAA has committed to the
development of a noise mitigation program as part of the FEIS. This mitigation program will most likely
result in the establishment of a noise abatement office to receive, record, and respond to noise complaints.
Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-141 Comment
I assert that an additional development category should be specifically named for FAA cumulative (noise)
impact consideration. This would be the land area lying under the final approach glide paths, extending
about 8 miles from the ends of each runway.
Response
Comment noted.
3-142 Comment
Is it possible that t.vo northeast-bound aircraft will use the parallel runways simultaneously, blanketing
' north High Point, Adams Farm, Jamestown, Sedgefield, etc., with a double dose of overflight noise?
Response
FedEx's operational scenario does include two aircraft arriving from the south simultaneously during the
' arrival "push", and two aircraft departing to the south simultaneously, during the departure "push". This
scenario is anticipated to occur for 95% of FedEx operations at PTIA. For the other 5% of FedEx
operations, aircraft would arrive and depart either end of the existing and proposed parallel runways.
' Depending on numerous criteria such as wind, weather, and operational conditions at the
sorting/distribution facility, two aircraft could foreseeably depart to the northeast simultaneously on the
parallel runways at PTIA. In this case however, it is likely that air traffic control would diverge simultaneous
departing aircraft a minimum of 10 degrees and therefore the departure noise would not be concentrated in
a single area for long.
3-143 Comment
Will existing Runway 5/23 continue to be used exclusively for northeast-bound flights, with a flight path
taking Fed Ex aircraft across one of the fastest growing, most densely populated residential areas in this
region?
' Response
Please see response to Comment 3-131.
' 3-144 Comment
How far from the airport do current jet aircraft begin making turns? Turns now are more likely made based
on altitude, not distance, and no analysis has been done on current operations to produce any sort of
' standard for comparison. This lack of analysis of current flight tracks renders the Noise Mitigation Flight
Tracks evaluation of little value. The early turn mitigation measure was dismissed without even a
semblance of an analysis of the flight paths that would result from the early turn.
Response
Aircraft begin turns at varying distance from the airport depending upon weather conditions, aircraft
destination, aircraft type, aircraft load, air traffic control, pilot technique, etc. The initial early turn analysis
' was used to try and increase capacity and was eliminated after being considered ineffective in providing
the needed additional capacity. The PTAA is committed to the development of a noise mitigation plan for
PTIA. A detailed analysis of noise mitigation flight tracks will be considered in the Part 150 Study that the
PTAA will undertake after the FAA's ROD is issued. See Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further information.
3-145 Comment
There apparently is a 14-year discrepancy in Fed Ex fleet plans involving the noisiest aircraft in its fleet, the
hush-kitted B727.
database-101801.xls
Response
During the planning and development of operational input for the DEIS analysis, FedEx was unable at the
time to state that their B727 fleet would be completely phased out by the year 2019. Therefore, it was '
assumed that by the year 2019, FedEx would continue to operate a mix of their hushkitted B727 aircraft
and some newer, quieter aircraft that are represented for noise modeling purposes as the B737.
3-146 Comment '
There is no consideration of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, which can be critical elements of a
comprehensive noise mitigation scheme, in the DEIS.
Response '
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to a noise mitigation program including undertaking a FAR Part 150
Study for PTIA. The FAR Part 150 Study will address noise abatement departure profiles. Please see
Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-147 Comment
The peak level of noise (119 dB) would be possibly 2,200% of the Average Noise Level of 75 dBA or, even
if not quite that much but very nearly so, still a tremendously higher figure than that of the so modestly
reported and artificially produced figure of a 75 dBA Average Noise Level.
Response

Comment noted. '
3-148 Comment

It is my belief that q spite of many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of nearby homes PTIA has come '
up with far too. conservative forecasts that would indicate only about $10,000,000 worth of Noise mitigation
needed.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-92.
3-149 Comment
Why are the "W" Alternatives show a shorter noise contour at one end while "N-D" and "WE" Alternatives
show a more balanced noise contour? I am concerned that the FAA is holding back on the fact that the ,
noise will extend further than it is now.
Response
The "W" Alternatives show a shorter noise contour at the north end of the proposed runway (5U23R)
because FedEx aircraft operations will primarily occur from the south and to the south during nighttime '
operations, thereby making the noise contour " longer" to the south and "shorter "to the north.. This runway
assumes that 95% of the operations occur to the southwest away from the residential areas located to the
northeast. The existing runway (5R/23L) assumes that 95% of the FedEx operations would occur at night '
to the southeast, but that normal flight operations would occur during the daytime including operations to
the northeast. The "N" Alternatives assume that 95% runway use would occur at night on both runways
and that normal runway use would occur on both runways during the daytime. The FEIS provides a '
general description of the noise contours that would result from the 95% FedEx runway use in Sections
5.1.3 and 5.1.4.
3-150 Comment '
If the FAA had measured the decibels of East-West landings and takeoffs, they would know that as far as
Holden and eastward the noise will be "disruptive" to say the least. '
Response
The FAA measured noise levels at six sites over a period of ten days as part of the monitoring program
that was undertaken at the beginning of the DEIS. The average measured noise levels were compared to
the modeled levels at the same location for informational purposes. There is no FAA requirement to
undertake noise measurements or to correlate the measured levels to modeled levels.
3-151 Comment '
The noise contours do not take into account the "real" impact of noise as a plane flies overhead.
database 101801.x1s '
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-22.
' 3-152 Comment
Noise will become unacceptable when there are 60 to 120 flights each night.
' Response
Comment noted.
3-153 Comment
The noise cone on the second runway assumes all landings to the north and takeoffs to the south,
impacting High Point and areas to the southwest of PTIA. It seems unlikely that weather and wind
conditions would allow the-traffic depicted by the noise cones as shown.
Response
Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a wind analysis that supports the premise that the runways at PTIA can
be operated under the 95% from the south to the south scenario during FedEx's operational periods.
3-154 Comment
What models were used to predict noise pollution and how were the noise contours created?
Response
The FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) was used to develop the noise contours around PTIA. A detailed
description of the methodology to produce the noise contours is presented in Section 5.1.2 of the FEIS.
3-155 Comment
What will be the elevation of the runway? Will the elevation of the runway effect the noise contours? How?
' Response
For the existing configuration and No-Action Alternative, runway end elevation varies between
approximately 886 and 926 feet mean sea level (MSL). The runway end elevations for the build
' alternatives are as follows: Alternative W1-A1 (847 to 926 feet), Alternative W-2 (849 to 926 feet),
Alternative W-3 (849 to 926 feet, and Alternatives N-D and WE (863 to 944 feet). Runway gradient could
affect noise levels. Runways with an uphill gradient would require more power on takeoff. Runway
gradient was factored into the noise model.
3-156 Comment
The EIS provides a totally invalid noise analysis if the new runway will be used by the public and other
airlines, since it simply assumes that no other users will use it other than FedEx in the next 20 years.
Response
Due to the location of the passenger terminal and general aviation terminal it is unlikely that non-FedEx
aircraft would use the new runway under the "W' Alternatives due to the distant location of these facilities
from the new runway. See Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-157 Comment
The EIS fails to consider noise mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour even when increases are substantial
and short duration noise increase are extreme which is a factor in mitigation costs.
Response
Based on FAA guidelines, FAA participation in funding for noise mitigation is limited to noise impacted
noise-sensitive areas that are within the 65 DNL noise contours. However, once PTIA undertakes a Part
t 150 study, areas below and/or outside the 65 DNL may be considered for mitigation as areas receiving
higher levels of noise (>65 DNL) are given higher priority for receiving Federal funds. It should be noted
that Federal fundir. j may not be available.
' 3-158 Comment
The EIS should analyze appropriate temperature layer inversions which would focus noise levels at certain
levels, depending on the take-off attack angle of the planes.
database-101801.xls
Response
Noise modeling is undertaken using standard weather conditions. Unique weather conditions such as
temperature inversion layers cannot be analyzed using the Integrated Noise Model and were not included
in this study ,
.
3-159 Comment
When planes are allowed to fly at their minimum allowable altitudes over residential areas, what will be the
'
noise level of the planes used by FedEx?
Response
Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach
or departure do not have minimum altitudes. However, readers of the FEIS could use the specific points
analysis presented in Figure 5.1.3-1, along with the Lmax noise levels in Appendix B-2 and the SEL noise
levels in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS to determine noise levels in specific areas around the airport.
3-160 Comment
What will be the specific flight paths and minimum allowable altitudes for FedEx planes over North High
Point residential areas?
Response
Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach
or departure do not have minimum altitudes. Representative flight tracks for the existing condition is
presented in Figure 4.2.5-1 of the FEIS. Flight tracks for the build alternatives are presented in Appendix C
of the FEIS.
3-161 Comment
What will be the single event noise levels measured in the residential areas impacted?
Response
Single event noise levels in residential areas can be determined by reviewing the specific points analysis
locations presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 of the FEIS, along with the Lmax noise levels contained in Appendix 13-
2 of the FEIS and the SEL noise level analysis in Sections 5.1.3 and 5. 1.4 of the FEIS.
3-162 Comment
Will the FAA explain why it continues to use the standard noise impact calculations after the calculation
has been shown to underestimate the noise impact of nighttime flight operations?
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-1.
3-163 Comment
ICAO Stage 4 operations and FAR Part 161 noise rules have not been accounted for. I expect less noise
not more.
Response '
Presently no Stage 4 standard exists for aircraft noise, although ICAO is presently discussing Stage 4
standards for new production aircraft. In addition, there is no proposal for the phase-out of Stage 3 aircraft.
The PTAA has committed in this FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan including undertaking
a Part 150 Study for PTIA. The Part 150 Study will address the issues of a Part 161 Study at PTIA.
However, a Part 161 Study would not necessarily be compatible with the operations of a major nighttime
air cargo operation. Please see Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information. '
3-164 Comment
Has extending the length of Runway 51J23R been considered as a noise mitigation measure? It would

minimize the use, reducing noise impacts to the surrounding communities. '

database 101801.xis I

H

r

e

d

i
Response
The FEIS has not considered the extension of existing Runway 5U23R. The runway length is adequate for
the purposes of an air cargo hub. Extensions of the runways for noise mitigation purposes will be
considered in the Part 150 noise compatibility study. The FEIS provides a detailed description of the
proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and the need for parallel runways. Please see Section 5.1.2.1 of the
FEIS for further information.
3-165 Comment
If I can hear the pl,,nes now 2.5 miles away, wouldn't I hear 20-60 planes coming and going in the middle
of the night - despite what the noise contours show?
Response
The noise contours represent the area of high noise levels within which noise-sensitive residential areas
are considered impacted. It does not represent the area outside of which aircraft would not be audible.
3-166 Comment
Is the use of DNL, as the sole criteria for home purchases, a realistic measure of the "actual" impact on
quality of life for homes only 3,500 feet from the end of the new runway?
Response
Please see response to Comments 3-3 and 3-22.
3-167 Comment
What specific noise abatement measures will be used by the airport to protect us from the "actual" noise
created by the runway?
Response
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan which will include
specific noise abatement measures such as acquisition of homes, acoustical treatment of homes and
undertaking a Part 150 Study. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-168 Comment
Given that the FA.'; recognizes that sleep is disturbed within the 45dBA DNL, how far does the 45dBA DNL
noise contour extend on the northern side of the new runway?
Response
The FAA guidelines recommend 45 DNL as an acceptable interior noise level goal. The noise reduction
capabilities of a residence are subtracted from the exterior DNL noise levels to arrive at the interior levels.
Typical residences without sound insulation provide 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction allowing a residence
to be in a 65 to 70 DNL noise contour area and still meet the interior 45 dBA goal.
3-169 Comment
What is the FAA's projected DNL for the Cardinal Commons?
Response
Based on the DNL noise contour analysis, the DNL in the Cardinal Commons area would be less than DNL
65 dB. Single event noise levels in residential areas can be determined by reviewing the specific points
analysis locations presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 of the FEIS, along with the Lmax noise levels contained in
Appendix B-2 of the FEIS and the SEL noise level analysis in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS.
3-170 Comment
What is the FAA's actual decibel level in the Cardinal Commons, between 11:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m., when
the FedEx fleet arrives from the south and when they arrive from the north?
Response
The FEIS presents the Leq(9) or the average noise level at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Modeled noise level data specifically from 11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. is not available. FedEx could not
provide specific hourly aircraft movements, only total aircraft arrivals or departures per night. In addition,
SEL data on aircraft arriving or departing from each runway end is presented. For specific areas, please
review the specific points presented in Figure 5.1.3-1 and the SEL and Leq(9) values in Section 5.1.3 and
5.1.4 of the FEIS.
database 101801.xls
3-171 Comment
What is the FAA's actual decibel level in the Cardinal Commons, between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., when
the FedEx fleet departs to the south and when they depart to the north?
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-170.
3-172 Comment '
Was the noise vibration created at the rear of a departing aircraft and its impact on local homeowners,
considered in the FAA noise models? How will this vibration be attenuated by FedEx and the airport so
that the homes in the Cardinal Commons are not shaken apart?
Response
Noise-induced vibration was not analyzed as part of the FEIS because previous studies have shown that
noise-induced vibration from aircraft overflights do not create significant noise impacts.
3-173 Comment I
Was the 95/5 departure procedure used during the FAA noise monitoring conducted in January 1999?
Response
The 95% from the south-to the south runway use that will be used by FedEx at night was not used during
the noise measurements conducted in January 1999.
3-174 Comment
Given the 63dBA average DNL reading at the M4 monitoring station, what is the FAA's projected DNL at
this monitoring station with a 400% increase in the "late evening northbound departure window"?
Response
The FAA's analysis did not specifically address a 400% increase in operations. However, nighttime '
operations would increase as a result of the FedEx facility, and noise levels in the general vicinity of site
M4 would also increase. Also, please see response to Comment 3-170. '
3-175 Comment
What would be the northern 65 dBA average DNL contour look like if the departure ratio actually ended up
being 90/10? Or even 80/20?
Response
A runway use assumption of 90/10 or 80/20 by FedEx at night would increase noise levels to the northeast
of the airport, while decreasing levels to the southwest. However, these operational scenarios were not
analyzed in the FEIS. The FEIS provides an analysis supporting the 95% runway use in Section 5.1.
3-176 Comment I
How often will noise monitoring be conducted after the hub is operational to validate the northern 65dBA
DNL contour?
Response
The PTAA has committed to a plan of installing noise monitoring equipment to measure noise levels
around PTIA as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation plan. However, no specific plan to measure noise has
been developed at this point. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
3-177 Comment '
What specific noise abatement techniques will be used by FedEx and the airport to protect the Cardinal
Commons when the FedEx fleet is required to depart to the north? What specific noise abatement
techniques will be used by FedEx and the airport to safeguard the Cardinal Commons from rear jet blast
noise and vibration when the FedEx fleet departs to the south?
Response
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to the development of a noise mitigation plan including undertaking a '
Part 150 Study for PTIA. The Part 150 Study will evaluate means of mitigating the operational scenarios
mentioned including operational, land use, and program management measures. Please see Sections
_101801 X6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
database '
3-178 Comment
Is the noise generated from reverse thrusters upon landing included in the 65dBA average DNL
i calculations?
¦ Response
Noise from aircraft reversing thrust upon landing is not included in the DNL noise contours.
3-179 Comment
Is the volume and duration of the noise generated by the rear jet-blasts of departing aircraft accounted for
in the northern 65dBA average DNL calculations?
Response
The FAA's INM noise model does account for the "rear jet-.blasts" or the start-of-takeoff-roll noise from
departing aircraft. This noise is included in the 65 dBA DNL noise contours.
3-180 Comment
I was told by one of the representatives that this monitoring station (M4) produced an unreliable reading.
The representative also said that the 63dBA reading could easily be related to a kid standing near the
monitoring station and yelling into the recording device. Frankly, this is insane. How could the readings
from the M4 monitoring station be so easily dismissed?
Response
This site was not directly influenced by noise levels from aircraft overflights, although many of the noise
events that were measured at this site were due to aircraft start-of-takeoff roll from the existing runway.
This site was chosen to reflect an area that could potentially be influenced by aircraft overflights from the
new proposed runway that would be aligned with the existing runways. The measured results were not
necessarily comparable to the modeled levels due to the short-term nature of the measurements and the
' rolling terrain and vegetation that would influence measurement of the actual aircraft events.
3-181 Comment
Located only one mile from the current runway on a residential cul-de-sac, what other noise event's could
produce a 63dBA average DNL reading at the M4 monitoring station?
Response
Almost any noise could produce a DNL of 63 dBA. As an example, a single noisy event of approximately
112 dBA SEL could create a DNL of 63 dBA. Similarly, a total of 100 quieter daytime events (92 dBA SEL
each) could also create a DNL 63 dBA.
3-182 Comment
How would construction and use of a runway only a few thousand feet from this monitoring station not
produce a 65dBA contour when the current DNL is already 63dBA?
Response
The DNL 63 dBA refer to for site M4 is the average measured noise level during short-term noise
monitoring conducted in January 1999. The average measured noise levels over a 10-day period may not
be representative of the noise levels on an annual average basis. Please refer to Comment 3-51 or 3-94.
3-183 Comment
What is the projected increase in average DNL at the M4 monitoring station when 1 - taxiway noise, 2 -
' terminal noise, 3 - reverse thruster noise, 4 - rear jet-blast noise, 5 - a 300% more aircraft per night, and 6 -
a 400% increase in the number of nights that flights take-off to the north between 11:00 p.m. and 1:30 a.m.,
were added to the equation?
Response
The FEIS presents DNL noise levels at site M4 for the proposed alternatives. The modeled DNL noise
levels include all flight operations and start-of-takeoff roll noise. The Leq(9) or the average noise levels at
' night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. can be used to evaluate nighttime noise levels. Data specifically
from 11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. was not generated in the FEIS and is not available.
database 101801.xis
3-184 Comment
Did the DEIS noise and environmental analysis address the impact to disabled local residents covered by
the American with Disabilities Act?
Response
The FEIS addresses noise impacts to all residents within the environs of PTIA, but did not specifically
address the impacts to disabled residents.

3-185 Comment
Since the noise generated from the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and construction of the single airport
interchange are not included in the FAA's DEIS noise contours, how will this additional noise be accounted
for?
Response
Roadway noise impacts and noise impacts from non-aircraft ground operations are presented in the FEIS. I
Please see Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 respectively in the FEIS for further information.
3-186 Comment
Please monitor and protect those residential communities of North High Point by adopting comprehensive
noise remediation procedures during night hours and compensation measures to protect homes impacted
by noise levels beyond the noise contours.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-111.
3-187 Comment
Because only the noise effects of FedEx planes were studied and that early turns were not considered in
the study, it can be concluded that the noise cones in the study are inaccurate, making all of the noise
mitigation effects and data invalid in the study.
Response
The noise contours in the FEIS accounted for all aircraft operations and typical arrival/departure tracks as
determined with input from the FAA ATCT, PTAA and FedEx. The analysis in the FEIS did not account for
random events such as early turns.
3-188 Comment I
The (noise) study does not take into account different altitudes, airspeeds, and plane configurations these
FedEx jets may fly-at.
Response
The noise analysis in the FEIS takes into account standard aircraft arrival and departure profiles for the
various aircraft that FedEx is projected to fly. The departure profiles assume varying altitudes that reflect
an aircraft's weight. The aircraft performance data also reflects varying aircraft speed depending upon the
flight configuration.
3-189 Comment '
I recommend and request that a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study shall be done for full comprehensive
noise abatement measures as a condition for final approval of the Environmental Impact Statement.
Response
The PTAA has committed to undertaking a Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study after
completion of the FEIS as part of the PTAA's noise mitigation plan (See Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further
information).
3-190 Comment
In order for the FAA Administrator to make a final approval decision, all the facts must be disclosed
including total noise mitigation costs.
Response
Please see respor:,e to Comment 3-92.

0

u
database_101801.xls

i?
L_
?I

0
3-191 Comment
The preparation of the noise exposure contours for all of the alternatives considered in detail is based on a
24-hour Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) measurement. The Final EIS should evaluate in detail the
effect of the nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.) component of the DNL and the noise exposure contours resulting
from nighttime operations for all of the considered alternatives.
Response
The FEIS uses supplemental noise metrics such as peak noise levels (Leq noise levels at night - 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or 9 hours) to evaluate additional noise impacts from the proposed project. The Leq(9)
would represent the FedEx impact at night since the time would be typical of operations at night. Please
see Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 in the FEIS for further information.
3-192 Comment
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) should include the 55 DNL contour as well as the 65 DNL and 75 DNL
noise contours. The existing noise contour that is within the Guilford County Airport Overlay Zone does not
extend below the 65 DNL. Extending the APE to the 55 DNL will identify the area where sound mitigation
measures may achieve 40 DNL for affected residences or acquisition of limited avigation easements may
be necessary.
Response
The FAA recognizes the DNL 65 dBA as the threshold of compatibility for noise sensitive land uses.
Therefore, this information has been presented in the EIS document as well as to the general public
through numerous:'public meetings and opportunities for public comment. After the Record of Decision is
published and the noise contours for the Preferred Alternative have been accepted, the PTAA can provide
the 60 dBA and 55 dBA DNL noise contours to local municipalities if that is the noise level they wish to use
as the threshold for establishing local land use policies and zoning regulations.
3-193 Comment
What noise mitigation is done or available for the 65 decibel range?
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-111.
3-194 Comment
What is the current noise decibel for my area (Galimore Dairy Road and Sandy Ridge Road)?
Response
Existing (1998) noise levels in the Galimore Dairy Road and Sandy Ridge Road area were approximately
63 dB.
3-195 Comment
By failing to include a careful examination of the potential threat of noise to health, the FAA is obviously in
violation of the Noise Control Act of 1972 which was written to protect Americans from the dangers of
noise. Furthermore, the FAA is mandated to treat environmental impact seriously in evaluating proposed
projects. People live in the surrounding areas or the environment of the present proposal and the FAA
should be reminded that the word "impact' in DEIS is referring to the impact on these people.
Response
The FAA followed Federal guidelines in the preparation of the FEIS for the analysis of noise impacts
associated with aircraft generated noise levels as per FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1. A list of laws,
regulations, and orders can be found in Section 3.6 of the FEIS.
3-196 Comment
The DEIS demonstrates a serious lack of understanding how people respond to noise in general and is
written without presenting tables and figures that are clear and comprehensive. For example, in Appendix
D, Aircraft Noise Review, there is a table identifying common sounds and their sound levels. Next to the
sound levels are these terms "just audible, quiet, moderate, very loud, uncomfortable," terms that appear to
describe human reactions. "Uncomfortable" is listed as falling between 110 and 130 decibels. Even if one
were to accept this muddled listing, it should be noted that most research clearly recognizes that humans
are discomforted by sounds far less than 110 decibels.
database_101801.xis
Response
The FAA has followed all Federal guidelines in the preparation of the FEIS for the analysis of noise
impacts associated with aircraft generated noise levels. Also, the FEIS presents additional data either in
the body of the document or in the technical appendices in a clear and concise manner as recommended
in Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. The EIS uses FAA's approved DNL noise metric as
well as other supplemental noise metrics such as single event noise levels (Sound Exposure Levels or
SEL's) and average noise levels (Leq noise levels at night -10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or Leq(9)) to evaluate ,
the noise impacts from the proposed project. SEL's were used to evaluate sleep disturbance impacts,
while the Leq(9) were used to represent noise impact at night since the time would be typical of the air
cargo operations at night. The information referenced in the comment presents generalized reactions to
noise levels. Different people react differently to noise such the 110 decibels may bother some people
while it does not bother others.

3-197 Comment
Using tables and figures from resource materials published in the 1970s may not address the noise levels
as they exist in the year 2000. For example, one could ask the following questions from Figure 7: Is that
apartment in Harlem on the second floor as noisy today as it was in 1975? Similarly, does the touch down
at the Los Angeles airport generate as much, less or more noise in a home 3/4 of a mile away today as it
did in 1974? Furthermore, when trying to explain noise levels to residents in the Piedmont area, might it
not be better to cite comparative levels of noise from sources more familiar to these residents?
Response
The figure referred to is meant to present sample DNL noise levels and is not expected to present exact
noise levels for specific areas.
3-198 Comment '
Why did the area NW of the Alternatives W1-A1, W2-A, and W3-A, which has the heaviest concentration of
residential property, have the fewest "specific point analysis locations", almost half as many as the other
areas?
Response
Specific points were selected to represent noise-sensitive areas in the PTIA environs. Approximately 11
specific points are acated on the approach end to the proposed Runway 23R. Out of the 81 specific points '
analyzed, this represents almost 14% of the total points selected for this study. In addition, this area has a
higher density of specific points then other areas around PTIA.

3-199 Comment
Alternative W1-A1 will increase traffic noise because of raising the elevation of the Bryan Boulevard
interchange.
Response
Roadway noise impacts and noise impacts from ground operations (taxi and GPU) are presented in
Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of the FEIS. The Preferred Alternative (W1-A1) will increase traffic noise levels in '
the vicinity of the Bryan Blvd/Old Oak Ridge Road Interchange because of: 1. the proximity of the new
interchange to noise-sensitive land use, 2. the proximity of relocated Bryan Boulevard to noise-sensitive
land uses, 3.and projected increase in traffic volumes for the design-year Build alternatives.
3-200 Comment
The study says that, "arrivals are generally toward the air cargo". If that is true and the cargo terminal is on
the north side of PTIA, doesn't that mean that the published noise contours are reversed since the arrivals
will be from the SW and departures toward the NE?
Response
Under the "W' Alternatives, the runway use would be head-to-head for 95% of FedEx operations. That is,
arrivals would be from the southwest towards the air cargo ramp area and departures would be to the
southwest away from the air cargo ramp area. The noise contours in the FEIS correctly depict this
operational scenario. Please see Section 5.1 in the FEIS for further information.
database 101801.xis

F_
L

1

I
7u
3-201 Comment
FAA is requested to reexamine in greater detail all eight Operational Measures enumerated in the DEIS as
recommended mitigation measures to determine if some of these techniques may in actuality prove
beneficial in mitigating the anticipated noise increases, which are bound to impact northern High Point,
especially the residential areas south of Interstate 40 between the Guilford County line and N.C. Highway
68. Of particular interest would be the adaptability of the Noise Mitigation Flight Tracks, Aircraft Fleet Mix
Modifications, and Noise Abatement Departure Profiles for Jet Aircraft measures.
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-111.
3-202 Comment
To assist the City of High Point with the implementation of Land Use Measures enumerated in the DEIS,
and specifically the Compatible Land Use Planning measure pertaining to the coordination of "compatible
use zoning/rezoning...", FAA is requested to provide the City with the locations of the DNL 60 dBA and
DNL 55 dBA contours with respect to the W2-A, W3-A and W1-A1 Phase 2 Alternatives so the City can
better decide upon appropriate buffer areas with regard to future land use designations and preventive non-
residential zoning.
Response
Please see resporse to Comment 3-192.
3-203 Comment
The City (High Point) heartily endorses all of the Land Use Measures and Program Management Measures
enumerated in the DEIS as recommended mitigation measures. FAA is requested to insure that all of these
measures are fully implemented by PTIA.
Response
The land use and program management measures enumerated in the DEIS will be thoroughly reviewed
and implemented as necessary through the FAR Part 150 process, which the PTAA will undertake upon
completion of the FEIS and the publication of the FAA's Record of Decision.
3-204 Comment
Nighttime circling patterns of FedEx planes at PTIA in bad weather while awaiting clearance to land needs
to be disclosed. More specifically, radius of the pattern, location of the pattern, elevations or range of
elevations, and nighttime disruptions due to this circling need to be analyzed.
Response
Circling patterns were not analyzed in the FEIS because they are not typical of airport operations. Bad
weather conditions at PTIA would typically hold aircraft at their originating airport. In the event that circling
is required, aircraft are usually kept at a high enough altitude so as to not impact residents on the ground.
3-205 Comment
I am concerned that aircraft will divert noise onto neighborhoods in the Skeet Club area and those south of
Wendover Avenue.
Response
Comment noted. Neighborhoods south of Wendover Avenue and Skeet Club Road are not within the 65
DNL. See Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.

H

3-206 Comment
Ground control should vector all aircraft either taking-off to the southwest or landing to the northeast to a
point over Highway 311 straight out from the runway before any turns are allowed.
Response
The PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. The mitigation plan
includes undertaking a Part 150 Study which will include a detailed evaluation of the arrival and departure
routes. Please see Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
database 101801.xls
3-207 Comment
What specific controls will be enforced to assure that FedEx will only use the third runway when absolutely
necessary?
Response
The third or new parallel runway is required at all times for the efficient operation of the FedEx hub. The
FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA in Section 5.1.
'
3-208 Comment
Who can I talk to about regulations regarding existing and future arrival/departure flight patterns?
Response
There are no specific Federal regulations that govern arrival or departure flight tracks. The establishment of
specific flight tracks will be included in the FAR Part 150 study undertaken by the PTAA after the
completion of the FEIS and the publication of the ROD. The Part 150 may recommend specific flight tracks
be flown by FedEx aircraft and this recommendation, if approved by the FAA will be manifest in a Tower
Order that will be followed by all Air Traffic Control personnel and aircraft pilots.

3-209 Comment
Are there any legal provisions in the EIS to stop FedEx from running all flight paths in the other direction if
they choose to do so after the runway is built and will commercial airlines be able to use the new runway?
Response
There are no legal provisions in the FEIS to prohibit FedEx from using any of the runways in a manner that
is different from that proposed in the FEIS. FAA may include FedEx's adherence to the 95 percent
operational scenario as a provision in the ROD. However, FedEx operational requirements would
encourage the 95% runway use as much as- possible for operational efficiency purposes. The FEIS
provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to support the
95% runway use in Section 5.1. Although other airport operators would not be prohibited from using the
new runway, the location of the passenger and general aviation facilities would encourage the use of the
existing runway by these operators.
3-210 Comment
Did you compare 1997 flight patterns with 1998 data? It seemed that 1997 was a much less disruptive year
for airport noise.
Response
The FAA did not compare 1997 data with 1998 data. The existing baseline conditions in the FEIS are
based on 1998 data. In 1998 noise measurements were undertaken and representative of the initiation of
the overall study.

3-211 Comment
What happens if FedEx does not meet the 95/5 rule? Who will monitor their operations once flights begin?
How often? What recourse do homeowners have if they do not meet these guidelines, and we are more ,
severely impacted than originally estimated?
Response
FedEx has indicated that they will use the 95% from the south-to the south operational scenario as
indicated in the FEIS because this procedure would provide them the greatest degree of operational
efficiency. The FAA would not be required to monitor FedEx runway use. However, in the FEIS, the PTAA
has committed to a noise monitoring program and an operations monitoring program that would track daily
runway use. Pleas: see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for further information. If FedEx operations vary
significantly from what is described and evaluated in the FEIS such that additional noise sensitive areas
are impacted, supplemental environmental studies would have to be undertaken and the mitigation
program revised to mitigate for any additional impacts.
3-212 Comment ,
Can FedEx change the number of planes per night and/or the flight tracks they arrive and depart without
any consideration for the adjacent neighborhoods?
database_101801.xis I

II
u

t

r

0
Response
FedEx could change the number of aircraft that they fly on any given night, although the number would not
be expected to change dramatically unless a major operational change is announced. Arrival and
departure flight tracks are usually set by the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower and further environmental
analysis would be required if any major changes were implemented by FedEx.
3-213 Comment
Will the choice of runways to use for departure be geographically determined by destination or determined
by aircraft type? And who will be making that decision - the FAA, PTAA, or Fed Ex?
Response
Runway use would be to and from the southwest for 95% of FedEx operations and is based on FedEx
operational requirements. - This runway use would be determined by local weather conditions and not by
destination or type of aircraft. However, whether an aircraft would arrive or depart on a left (5L/23L)
runway versus a right (5R/23R) runway would probably be determined by an aircraft's arrival or departure
destination.
3-214 Comment
Is the 95/5 departure procedure actually achievable? What did you base your historical weather patterns
on the 95% of the flights going in a SW direction?
Response
The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to
support the 95% runway use. Flight operations that would occur for 95% of FedEx operations to the
southwest would minimize the overflights on the denser residential areas to the northeast of the airport and
ultimately reduce noise impacts. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-215 Comment
Is it possible or safe for non-FedEx flights to take-off to the south while the FedEx fleet is landing from the
south?
Response
FedEx arrivals are expected to occur in the late evening and early morning hours when other air carrier
activity is at a minimum. During times of FedEx activity, Air Traffic Control personnel would route non-
FedEx traffic such that arrival or departure operations would not result in a safety problem due to
converging flights.
3-216 Comment
Is it normal practice for the FAA, through a formal legal agreement with local homeowners, to restrict the
use of a new runway in the manner modeled by the FAA for a period of 20 years?
Response
The FAA does not enter into a formal legal agreement with local homeowners to restrict runway use. It is
in FedEx's best interest to adhere to the 95/5% operational scenario to maximize its operational efficiency
and save costs. However, the FAR Part 150 process, which the PTAA will undertake upon completion of
the FEIS and the publication of the ROD, can be used by the FAA, PTAA and local municipalities to
monitor significant changes in aircraft activity and operational characteristics. If significant changes do
occur, the Part 150 study can be updated and mitigation measures and commitments can be reevaluated.
3-217 Comment
Can the airport authority require FedEx to takeoff in a SW direction?
Response
Please see response to Comment 3-209 and 3-211.
3-218 Comment
Where will the 3-4 mile buffer zone for noise and overflight safety come from?
database 101801.xls
Response
The FAA does not require that a 3-4 mile buffer zone be established for PTIA or any other airport. If the
comment is referring to the existing Airport Overlay Zone, the Overlay Zone will need to be updated by
local municipalities with land use and zoning jurisdiction after the publication of the FEIS and ROD. At that
'
point, the PTAA will provide the appropriate municipalities with the 60 and 55 DNL noise contours for use
in establishing land use and zoning controls.
,
3-219 Comment
If FedEx and PTAA change their mind and only do 60% in a southern direction as it is now, the noise
contour will be decided and we will have no recourse. Is it true that if we accept sound proofing of our
homes and the noise contour gets extended in the future to an area where purchase is allowed that PTAA
will not have to buy my home,because it is sound proofed?
Response '
If a homeowner accepts sound insulation, an avigational easement is attached to the deed of the property
that gives the airport a right to fly over the property and make noise. Usually this right to make noise is
limited to a maximum dBA increase which would protect the homeowner in case of major operational
changes at an airport. If a residence is located within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contour it would be offered
sound insulation. If at a later time the noise levels increase such that the residence would be located
within the 70 DNL or greater noise contour, it would be likely that the homeowner would be offered
acquisition.
3-220 Comment
Since the removal of trees on the north side of PTIA, we have noticed an increase in noise.
Response. .
Comment noted.
3-221 Comment
Re-routing air traffic may be detrimental to those residents neighboring PTIA.
Response
Significant changes in flight tracks beyond those analyzed in the HIS would result in the PTAA having to
undergo supplemental environmental analysis.
3-222 Comment
The current runway typically operates with 60% departures to the SW and 40% to the NE. Wouldn't 40%
of the takeoffs from the new parallel runway therefore be passing over the subdivisions to the NE of PTIA?
Response
The 60/40% runway use reflects use by existing airport operators. This runway use is used during the
daytime and early nighttime hours by non-FedEx operators and would occur primarily on the existing
runway. FedEx operations at night would operate a 95/5% runway use that reflects mostly operations to
and from the southwest, thereby minimizing overflights to the northeast. The FEIS provides an analysis to '
support the 95/5% runway use at night. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-223 Comment
Considerable testing of jet engines at the east end maintenance facility can be quite disturbing.
Response
Comment noted.
3-224 Comment
Who has control and jurisdiction over plane altitudes and do airports have minimum altitude levels as they
fly over residential areas?

'
database-1 01 801AS

II
u

Response
Although the FAA sets minimum allowable altitudes for aircraft over developed areas, aircraft on approach
or departure do not have minimum altitudes. However, readers of the FEIS could use the specific points
analysis presented in Figure 5.1.3-1, along with the Lmax noise levels in Appendix B-2 and the SEL noise
levels in Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the FEIS to determine noise levels in specific areas around the airport.
3-225 Comment
Why aren't nighttime landings and takeoffs restricted?
Response
Restrictions on nighttime arrivals and departures at PTIA would not be conducive to the operation of an air
cargo hub facility. If restrictions are contemplated, the airport would have to go through the FAA Part 161
process before they could be implemented.
3-226 Comment
Stiff fines should be put on aircraft that do not adhere to the flight tracks and those monies returned to the
public or be used to monitor and/or force compliance with mitigation measures and/or acquire impacted
properties.
Response
The- PTAA has committed in the FEIS to developing a noise mitigation plan for PTIA. The mitigation plan
includes installation of a noise and operations monitoring system that could be used to monitor aircraft
flight tracks. However, it is not likely that fines would be assessed if aircraft do not adhere to established
flight corridors. Please see Section 6.2.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-227 Comment
Over 50 planes flying over head will impact workers working the third shift.
Response
Section 5.1 of the FEIS provides a description of the noise impacts associated with the alternatives.
3-228 Comment
Taking off and landing over High Point constitutes harassment by the FAA and PTIA and a serious safety
issue. Take offs and landings should be shared equally.
Response
Comment noted.
3-229 Comment
I'll never subscribe to unsafe tailwind landing/takeoffs just for FedEx.
Response
Comment noted. The 95/5% runway use would occur only at night when winds tend to be calm or light.
Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.
3-230 Comment
Is it safe for PTIA to operate the runways 95% of the time without regard to wind direction?
Response
The FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed FedEx operation at PTIA and an analysis to
support the 95/5% runway use. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for further information.
' 3-231 Comment
FedEx's dedication can be seen in its research and development of "hush-kits" to make planes quieter.
Response
Comment noted.
3-232 Comment
Alternatives N-D a^d WE would expose flyover noise issues to a new set of people living near the airport
that did not expect to be directly impacted since the existing PTIA runways are oriented in a general east-
west direction.
database 101801.xls
Response r
Aircraft noise impacts associated with Alternatives N-D or WE would expose new residents to aircraft
overflights. All other alternatives would be aligned with the existing runway and the existing flight paths
and expose residents already experiencing aircraft overflights.
3-233 Comment
We (EPA) believe the potential is great for operational expansion on the new parallel runway beyond the
proposed 48 daily operations, which would then generate even more noise during the nighttime period.
Response
The FEIS contains an analysis of FedEx's proposed 48 daily operations in 2005 and 126 in the 2009 - 2019
timeframe. This is based-on the best-available information provided to the FAA by FedEx and the PTAA.
FAA understands that this information came from FedEx's proposed business plan for the proposed air
cargo sorting/distribution hub at PTIA. The majority of nighttime operations would be by FedEx. Although
other operators could use the new runway at night, very few operations by other operators would occur
during this time period. In addition, although other airport operators (air carrier, air cargo, and general
aviation) would not be prohibited from using the new runway, the location of the passenger, general
aviation, and other cargo facilities would encourage the use of the existing runway by these operators.
r
3-234 Comment
As capacity eventually grows at PTIA and use of the cargo runway for FedEx as well as other commercial
airlines increases, we anticipate that the single family residences in the northeastern section of
Greensboro could receive greater noise impacts and ultimately be included in the DNL 65 dBA contour.
Response
The noise contours at PTIA were developed out to the year 2019 using projected operations and aircraft
fleet mixes by airport operators including FedEx. Although it is true that a new runway may eventually
encourage additional growth at the airport and could eventually create additional noise impacts, it is
unlikely that the noise levels would change substantially within the 20-year planning period.
3-235 Comment
Does the airport have any guidelines they are required to follow to reduce noise levels?
Response
See response to Comment 3-196.
3-236 Comment
Why is the DNL 65 dBA contour used in evaluating population impacts and what does DNL stand for?
Response
DNL is an acronym for day-night level. See response to Comment 3-157 for further information on the DNL
65 dBA contour. .
3-237 Comment
At what noise level is noise compensation due?
Response
Compensation is not required at any specific noise level. However, FAA guidelines consider noise-
sensitive property within the DNL 65 dBA noise contours as non-compatible land use. Noise-sensitive
property within this area may be offered mitigation such as sound insulation, acquisition, or purchase of an
avigation easement.
3-238 Comment
At what noise level is a house condemned?

[l

Response
Noise-sensitive property such as residences are never condemned based upon noise levels. However, as
mentioned in Comment 3-237, these properties may be offered some form of mitigation.
database 101801.xis r

1

I?
3-239 Comment
How do you measure the noise level? An average?
Response
Noise levels at an airport are measured using many different noise metrics. These could be single-event
noise metrics such as maximum sound levels (Lmax) or sound exposure levels (SEL), or cumulative noise
metrics such as equivalent sound levels (Leq) or day-night average sound levels (Ldn or DNL). See
Section 5.1.2 for further information on these various noise metrics.
3-240 Comment
At what level affects sleep?
Response
General research has provided information on what percentage of people might be awakened by different
levels of aircraft noise. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that an aircraft arrival or departure
event that creates outdoor noise levels equal to 100 dBA SEL would awaken no more than 10 percent of
the adults sleeping indoors with windows closed. See Section 5.1.2 for further information.
3-241 Comment
Have other air cargo companies taking advantage of the increased cargo facilities been factored into noise
calculations? Do the projected noise contours reflect this calculation? How many of these non-FedEx
cargo flights will be daytime flights? How many will be overnight?
Response
Increased air operations as a result of the new runway have been factored into the future operations for
PTIA. The noise contours reflect these additional operations. Tables 5.1.2-2, 5.1.2-3, 5.1.2-4, and 5.1.2-5
present the future air cargo operations (FedEx and non-FedEx) at PTIA for both daytime and nighttime
hours.
3-242 Comment
The DEIS assumes the truck traffic noise will be minimal compared with aircraft noise. However, trucks
could impact different people not impacted by aircraft noise. The EIS needs to answer these questions in a
detailed manner.
Response
Section 5.1.5 addresses the roadway noise impacts including truck traffic in detail.
3-243 Comment
The DEIS does provide data for selected locations outside the DNL 65 contour. While this is helpful, it
does not provide the ease of a graphical representation to show change. It also inadequately describes the
conditions in large areas that will see changes.
Response
The FAA recognizes the DNL 65 dBA noise contour as the threshold of compatibility with noise sensitive
land uses. FAA also considers an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour to be a
significant impact. These are areas on which FAA concentrated the analysis contained in this FEIS. The
document does disclose impacts to noise sensitive sites outside the DNL 65 dBA noise contour as
recommended in FICAN. Please see Section 5.1 of the FEIS for more information.
3-244 Comment
A plot of hourly average level at locations southwest of each runway would be particularly useful to
illustrate the variation of hub noise.
database-101801.xls
Response '
It would be particularly difficult to determine an hour-by-hour schedule of operations required to predict
hourly average or Leq(1) noise levels at PTIA. The FEIS does, however, present maximum sound levels
(Lmax), maximum sound exposure levels (SEL), average noise levels for the 24-hour day (Leq(24)),
average noise levels at night (Leq(9)), and day-night average noise levels (DNL) at a total of 81 specific
points around the airport.
3-245 Comment
The DEIS mentions the ability of the INM to provide contours of the SEL's. However, none are presented.

Response
Sound exposure level (SEL) contours are presented in Section 5.1.3 for various aircraft under both arrival
and departure scenarios and for all alternatives.
3-246 Comment
The INM does not consider atmospheric refraction properly?
Response
INM does not have the ability to predict atmospheric refraction (i.e. temperature inversions). However, the
INM model used in this analysis does factor in atmospheric temperature and pressure factors.
3-247 Comment
Since the results are so strongly influenced by night operations and an intentional effort exists to avoid the

normal practice of all operations into the wind, the actual expected wind conditions must be included in the ,
model. Nothing in the DEIS indicates any consideration of this.
Response
Section 5.1.2.1 presents a detailed discussion of the proposed FedEx operations at PTIA including a
summary of the detailed wind analysis that was undertaken to support the proposed operational scenario.
r
3-248 Comment
Where in the EIS is the provision that allows the use of the proposed runway to be restricted? If it is not
restricted, then the noise analysis of the EIS is totally invalid because it assumes no activity on the new
5/23 runway except by FedEx.
Response
The EIS does not contain any provision to restrict use of the proposed runway by non-FedEx aircraft. ,
Although other operators could use the new runway, the location of the passenger terminal, general
aviation facilities, and maintenance facilities strongly encourages the use of the existing runway by all other
operators.
3-249 Comment
The psychological effect of new noise imposed on people who did not expect to have it also has to be '
considered.
Response
The EIS considers change in noise level as a measure of impact on people exposed to aircraft noise.
Increases of 1.5 dBA or greater in the DNL at noise-sensitive areas within the 65 dBA DNL noise contours
are considered significant. The EIS also addresses sleep disturbance issues at PTIA as a result of aircraft
overflights. r
3-250 Comment
The EIS fails to recognize that noise less than DNL 65 can be incompatible with some residential uses.
Noise more than DNL 55 can be incompatible with the residential quality and activities expected in some
areas.
Response
DNL is the metric commonly used to determine noise impact from aircraft operations. The DNL 65 dBA
noise level is used by the FAA in determining the area of potential significant noise impacts from an airport.
database 101801.xls r
' 3-251 Comment
The national standard on the use of DNL to evaluate compatibility recognizes that single-family homes are
1 only marginally compatible in the range of DNL 55-65, and even multi-family housing is only marginally
compatible in the range of DNL 60-65.
Response
Comment noted. However, the FAA guidelines set the DNL 65 dBA noise level as the determining factor
for significant noise impact and the area of non-compatible land use.
3-252 Comment
Compatibility planning and proper decisions by the community require the open sharing of information
about noise. The PTIA historically has not demonstrated an effort to share information on existing and
' expected noise with the community as evident in that the 1990 and 1994 Master Plan updates do not
include noise contours.
Response
The EIS presents a full disclosure of the existing noise environment around PTIA as well as the noise
environment as a result of the proposed runway alternatives.
3-253 Comment
A noise impact analysis should clearly explain what is changing and provide an indication of the amount of
change. There should be a clear verbal description of what will change in terms of physical facilities and
operations. The analysis should consider actual existing conditions and impacts of the noise change on
those conditions.
Response,
The noise analysis clearly presents data that explains the change in the runway alternatives, including
runway layout, runway use, and daily operations (see Section 5.1.2). Changes in noise levels are
presented in the noise contours, the changes in noise levels at specific point locations, and the changes in
land area, noise-sensitive receptors, and population exposed to various noise levels (see Sections 5.1.3
and 5.1.4). The EIS also presents a detailed description of the FedEx operations (see Section 5.1.2).
3-254 Comment
Special "busy day", one-directional, or unusual-day DNL contours should be provided as supplementary
information. These should be supplemented with single-event contours of either maximum level or sound.
exposure level for a few different aircraft with differing noise outputs. If the time distribution of the sound is
changing significantly, this should be explained.
Response
The EIS presents single-event sound exposure level (SEL) noise contours for two different aircraft under
both an arrival and a departure scenario. This information is presented in Section 5.1.3. Busy-day DNL
noise contours were not produced.
1 3-255 Comment
The DEIS says that difference contours were computed, but these are not shown.
Response
Difference contours were developed and used as an analytical tool to determine areas that would
experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA for the purposes of identifying areas that would be significantly
' impacted and to establish areas eligible for mitigation. Because the PTAA has committed to mitigate all
impacts within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour, not just those that would experience an increase of DNL 1.5
dBA, it was decided to not depict the difference contours which are smaller than the DNL 65 dBA noise
contour.
3-256 Comment
' Most of the FedEx planes will likely takeoff in about a one-hour period, most likely between about 3:00 and
4:00 a.m. What will be the average sound level during that hour? What will the maximum levels and the
SEL's be? What will levels inside bedrooms be? How will it affect sleep?
database_101801.xls
Response
Generally, FedEx arrival operations will begin starting at approximately 10:00 p.m. and will end around
2`00 a.m. FedEx departures will begin around 4:00 a.m. and will end around 7:00 a.m. An exact FedEx
operating schedule is difficult to determine at this time, which would prohibit the determination of an hour-
by-hour average noise level. However, the EIS presents the nighttime average sound level (Leq(9))
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when all FedEx operations are expected to occur (see
Sections 5.1.2.1, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4). Sleep disturbance impacts are discussed in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.
3-257 Comment
A mitigation plan should consider the essential elements of the project causing impact: the new runway,
the night operations, and the use of noisy aircraft. The primary concern is the noise reaching indoors and
the effect on sleep.
Response
The PTAA has proposed a detailed mitigation plan to all homes exposed to noise levels greater than DNL
65 dB. This mitigation plan is outlined in Section 6.3 of this FEIS.
3-258 Comment
A unique aspect of the project is the dedication of the new runway to a single user, and the corresponding
control of the aircraft that use that runway by a single user. These factors in combination provide
opportunities for meaningful abatement.
Response
Comment noted.
3-259 Comment
An effective mitigation measure is the control of the aircraft types involved in the operation and especially
the types of aircraft using the new runway.
Response
Comment noted.
3-260 Comment
There should be no hush-kitted 727s in the fleet assigned to this facility.
Response
The 8727 aircraft used by FedEx is the mainstay of its existing narrow-body cargo fleet. FedEx has no
plans to replace the B727 through the 2005 planning period. However, by 2019 FedEx expects to begin
replacement of the B727 aircraft, although a number of these aircraft will remain in the fleet at PTIA.
3-261 Comment
On page 1-5 (third paragraph), it states that the goal is to have two widely-spaced parallel runways to
support 48 daily FedEx air cargo operations (24 departures and 24 landings) by 2005. Table 5.1.2-4
shows only 17.1 FedEx departures projected for 2005, although there are 9.6 other operations projected to
occur. The same is true for data. contained in Table 5.2.1-5.
database_101801.xls
Response
Phase 1 of the proposed project anticipates 48 daily FedEx operations (24 arrivals and 24 departures) and
' Phase 2 anticipates 126 daily FedEx operations (63 arrivals and 63 departures). FedEx also anticipates
that air cargo operations at the proposed Mid-Atlantic Hub will occur five nights per week (Monday through
Friday). The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is the model that was used by the FAA to evaluate nose
' impacts for the EIS. The INM is a model that uses "average annual day" operations to calculate noise
exposure in terms of the Day-Night metric (DNQ. To calculate the "average annual day" operations for the
proposed project, the number of total annual operations is divided by 365. In the case of Phase 1
operations, the equation to calculate "average annual day" FedEx arrivals and departures for INM
purposes is as follows: 24 daily arrivals or departures, times 260 FedEx operational days per year (5 nights
per year x 52 weeks per year), divided by 365 days per year.
' The resultant "average annual day" arrival or departure operations by FedEx equals 17.1. For Phase 2
operations, the "average annual day" arrival or departure operations by FedEx equals 44.9. Therefore the
FedEx operations numbers listed in Tables 5.1.2.4 and 5.1.2.5 that were used for the INM analysis are
1 correct. In terms of other air cargo operators, their operations are fully accounted for in the INM analysis,
as shown on the previously referenced tables.

t

I database_101801.xis
I?
1

1,--l

i

Piedmont Triad International Airport
4. Land Use
4-1 Comment
Residents of Edinburgh and LandsDown subdivisions and along Phillipsburg Court are not on your maps.
Response
These subdivisions are included in the EIS GIS system and are shown on the maps.
4-2 Comment
Why were areas allowed to be developed for residential use if PTIA was planning to expand?
Response
The local governments have initiated overlay noise contour Airport District zoning and restricted residential
development within this overlay district since the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan was adopted as discussed in
Section 4.2.1.4 of the FEIS. Prior to 1986 the local governing bodies did not plan land use or zoning
surrounding PTIA. The FAA and PTAA do not have the authority to regulate land use or zoning
surrounding PTIA.
4-3 Comment
PTIA has not planned for this expansion properly.
Response
Comment noted. The PTIA has planned since 1968 to build a parallel runway as stated in their Master Plan
and ALP.
4-4 Comment
PTIA may own the land but there is probably a better use of the airport owned land than running runways
and taxiways all over the landscape.
Response
Comment noted.
4-5 Comment
Neither State nor Local Governments and Planning Agencies have conducted planning measures to
accommodate a cargo hub operating at night on a new runway that would bring PTIA a mile closer to a
densely populated area.
Response
Guilford County, the Cities of Greensboro and High Point and other local jurisdictions that would be
minimally affected by the sponsor's proposal initiated a process in 1999 to update the 1986 Airport Area
Use Plan. As of the FEIS issue date, that process is underway; the FAA has been advised that the update
is scheduled for completion in 2002. In its present state, the updated Plan proposes to revise land use
measures to achieve compatibility with a new west-side parallel Transport Category runway at PTIA and
the associated changes in noise (see Appendix A, Agency Correspondence). The Plan will not be
completed or issued until the impacts described in the FEIS and the determinations contained in the ROD
can be incorporated into that planning process.
4-6 Comment
The project is not eligible for federal aid because it is not "reasonably" consistent with existing plans of
public agencies for the development of the area in which PTIA is located", and "fair consideration has [not]
been given to the interest of all communities in or near which the project is located".
Response
All of the "W' build alternatives are consistent with PTAA's existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP), however,
Alternatives N-D and WE are inconsistent with PTIA's ALP. Under all of the build alternatives, the noise
contours would expand, and local land use planning documents would have to be revised to address new
land use compatibility requirements.
database_101801.xis
As of the FEIS issue date, local government land use planning is addressed in the following existing '
documents: 1986 Airport Area Use Plan (adopted by Guilford County, cities of Greensboro and High Point,
and PTAA); the 1986 Greensboro/High Point/Guilford County Airport Overlay district boundaries; the High
Point 2000 updated Land Use Plan; the High Point Johnson Street/Sandy Ridge Area Plan, the High Point
,
West Wendover Avenue/Guilford College Road Corridor Plan, and the Guilford County Northwest Area
Plan.
While various individual revisions to the above referenced plans are in progress, Guilford County, the
Cities of Greensboro and High Point and other local jurisdictions that would be minimally affected by the
sponsor's proposal initiated a process in 1999 to update the 1986 Airport Area Use Plan. As of the FEIS
issue date, that process is underway; the FAA has been advised that the update is scheduled for '
completion in 2002.
In its present state, the updated Plan proposes to revise land use measures to achieve compatibility with a ,
new west-side parallel Transport Category runway at PTIA and the associated changes in noise (see
Appendix A, Agency Correspondence). The Plan will not be completed or issued until the impacts
described in the FEIS and the determinations contained in the ROD can be incorporated into that planning
process.
4-7 Comment
Did PTAA notify FAA of purchasing the land for the parallel runway and can you assure us that we will not
be prejudicial because they have already bought the land without looking at our alternative?
Response '
Since 1968 , a parallel runway has been part of the PTIA Master Plan and ALP, which has had the
concurrence of the FAA. Chapter 3 of the FEIS states that 42 alternatives were examined during the EIS
process, including the alternative submitted by the local citizens. FAA did not participate, financially in the
land or concur in its purchase. Such unilateral local decisions will not prejudice the FAA's decision.
4-8 Comment '
Over the past 25 years, there is no evidence that the PTAA or the FAA, although "required, as a minimum,
to use their best effort to assure proper zoning or other land use controls near PTIA", have done anything
to encourage development of appropriate compatible land use controls in connection with possible ,
construction of a r. rallel runway.
Response
PTAA and FAA have no zoning authority to regulate local land use. The PTIA cooperated with the Cities of '
High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County with the preparation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan
and is now working with the local governments with updating the existing plan as noted in Section 4.2.1.4
of the FEIS.
4-9 Comment
PTAA's future land use maps show current residential areas as agriculture or wooded, undeveloped sites.
Be sure to obtain accurate maps.
Response
GIS data was obtained from the local governments and updated by conducting land use surveys. Several
land use surveys were conducted in order to develop the most accurate mapping. The last update was
conducted in October 1999.
4-10 Comment
We are concerned that with the proposed project that our residential area will be re-zoned and destroy our
community.
Response ,
The Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County have indicated that they will be revising the
1986 Airport Area Land Use Plan based on the noise contours associated with the FEIS Preferred
Alternative. The goal of the Plan will be to prevent the development of non-compatible land use. Some
,
existing residential areas may be rezoned in order to develop more compatible land use patterns with
airport operations.
database 10180I
As
.
' Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-3. Local governments have restricted residential land use in
' the vicinity of the airport since the Airport Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986.
4-24 Comment
We realize that a small, but very vocal group of people have opposed the location of the FedEx hub. They
' seem to ignore the fact that the developers were told not to locate the housing development in the area in
question.
Response
' Comment noted. See response to 4-3 and 4-23.
4-25 Comment
' The DEIS executive summary speculates on the contents of the revised Airport Layout Plan, expected by
January of 2001. 1 assert that a reasonable evaluation by the FAA would require comparison of the
proposed Fed Ex development to the actual revised ALP (with updated land use), when released.
1 Response
The FEIS contains the July 2000 ALP developed by PTIA and it is this plan which is evaluated in the FEIS.
The local governments plan to revise their land use plans and zoning in accordance with changes in airport
operations that result in revised noise contours as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
4-26 Comment
' At the same time leaders are promoting a night-time cargo hub, they are re-zoning effected areas for home
construction.
Response.
See response to Comment 4-18.
4-27 Comment
Once a preferred alternative has been selected, remedial land use measures identified in the DEIS must
be undertaken by the PTAA to mitigate adverse noise impacts. These measures should be part of a
comprehensive noise mitigation program that would be implemented by PTAA using FAA FAR Part 150
' funds.
Response
As discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS, the PTAA would implement a noise mitigation program for the
Preferred Alternative W1-A1. After the FAA issues its Record of Decision, the PTAA will implement a FAR
Part 150 study, which will include an evaluation of remedial land use measures.
4-28 Comment
' Guilford County is currently in the process of updating the 1986 Airport Area Plan. The update of this plan
will include the new noise contours resulting from the selection of a preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
As noted, the 55 DNL contour should be included in the preferred alternative to insure compatible and
' consistent land use planning within the airport area.
Response
The Final EIS will depict the 65 DNL contour because this is the standard FAA threshold of significance.
Under the FAA's guidelines contained in FAA Order 5050.4A, the FAA is not required to utilize the 55 DNL
noise contours in its evaluation of noise impacts. However, after the issuance of the FAA Record of
Decision, the PTAA could release the 60 and 55 DNL noise contours at the request of local governments.

database 101801.x15
'
4-11 Comment
' The new contour line should minimize negative effects of airport noise by maintaining very low residential
densities within the 65 DNL contour.
Response
The Guilford County Board of Commissioners adopted an Airport Area Plan in 1986. The purpose of the
plan was to recommend a general pattern of land use, utility provision, and environmental protection in the
area surrounding the airport that would permit continued development without adversely affecting airport
operations. In July 1999, Guilford County, in cooperation with Forsyth County, Greensboro, High Point,
' and Kernersville, initiated a citizen based planning process to examine land use, transportation,
facilities/utilities, and environmental factors in the PTIA area. The citizen based planning process will
update the 1986 Airport Area Plan with the completion of the EIS and the selection of a Preferred
' Alternative.
4-12 Comment
' Acquisition of avigational rights may be necessary for properties made nonconforming by airport overlay
zoning or otherwise affected by increased noise levels.
Response
As discussed in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS, the PTAA would voluntarily acquire all houses within the 75 and
' 70 DNL noise contours and offer acoustical treatment for all homes in the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. The
PTAA would receive an avigational easement as part of the acoustical treatment mitigation.

4-13 Comment
PTAA is currently acquiring and condemning properties for the project under study through imminent
domain. This is a violation of FAA policy.
Response
' The PTAA has a long-standing program of property acquisition related not only to lands that are needed for
proposed future developments but also for any lands in proximity to PTIA that become available for
purchase. These acquisition plans include properties related to developments depicted on the FAA-
conditionally approved ALP and described in the 1994 Master Plan Update. At the time condemnation
proceedings began for the parcel of land associated with the relocation of Oak Ridge Road, this project
was considered an airport-related development project that had independent utility from the proposed
runway and sorting/distribution facility project. Therefore its' acquisition was in keeping with FAA policy.

4-14 Comment
' Where is PTIA property boundary located?
Response
The PTIA's property boundary is shown on Figure 4.2.1-1 of the FEIS.

4-15 Comment
What is a PUD? If it is a large residential area, shouldn't be labeled residential?
Response
See Section 4.2.1.3 of the FEIS. PUD is an acronym for Planned Unit Development, which is a mixed use
zoning classification that includes residential use. The Cardinal is zoned as a PUD.
' 4-16 Comment
How many homes have been built and are projected to be built southwest of PTIA?
Response
' Frazier Downs is the latest subdivision to be approved in the area southwest of the PTIA. This subdivision
was approved prior to the announcement of the proposed cargo hub in April 1998. The local governments
are discouraging major subdivisions from being built in the prospective noise contours.
4-17 Comment

database_101801AS
The hub will turn residential areas of Guilford College, Oak Ridge, Summerfield, Colfax, northwest ,
Greensboro, and north High Point into an industrial, warehouse, transportation area in which few will want
to live.
Response '
Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-10.
4-18 Comment '
Land use that was zoned residential was done so even though knowledge was readily available on the
impact of airport expansion.
Response '
The Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County have only allowed minor subdivisions to be
built within the airport noise contours since the Airport Land Use Plan was enacted in 1986. The Cardinal
subdivision was allowed to be developed prior to the implementation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan. '
4-19 Comment
We (EPA) suggest that the City of Greensboro carefully consider zoning potential impact areas accordingly
and make realtors aware of potential or planned airport expansions in order to advise home buyers of
potential land use conflicts.

Response ,
According to the City of Greensboro, High Point and Guilford County, careful restriction of new
development within the prospective noise contours will occur after the ROD is issued and new land use

plans are enacted based on the noise contours associated with the FAA's Preferred Alternative. ,
Coordination with the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association indicates that it recommends that its
members inform prospective buyers of the proposed airport improvements.
4-20 Comment
There is nothing in the Land Use Assurance Letter indicating any commitment to keeping the airport noise

compatible with the existing development. ,
Response
Because the PTAA does not have zoning or land use jurisdictions outside of its property boundaries, it

cannot dictate local land use designations. However, as part of the mitigation program presented in '
Section 6.3 of the FEIS, the PTAA has committed to undertaking an FAA Part 150 Study, which will allow
the PTAA to work with local jurisdictions that do have land use and zoning authority to ensure that non-
compatible land uses are not develo
ed in the air
ort area
- ,
p
p
.
4-21 Comment
Since Greensboro does not have a plan for growth, we are unprepared for such a facility. '
Response
Comment noted. The City of Greensboro began preparing a comprehensive plan in September of 2000,
which should be completed by 2003.
4-22 Comment
The proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding land uses and should not proceed.
Response
Comment noted.

4-23 Comment
It seems rather limited and narrow that people who have built houses in and around the airport knew well
ahead of time of where they were building those houses and the potential for the expansion of the airport
,
would exist. Their lack of vision and understanding that potential growth always existed, I do not
understand. It is my firm belief that they must accept reality and move on. Therefore, to negatively effect
the bulk of the population for a few people who knew very well that their homes were jeopardized by

building so close to the airport, I have no sympathy. '
database_10180I.As
Piedmont Triad International Airport
' 5. Social Impacts
5-1 Comment
The runway will cause negative impacts on residential communities.
Response
Chapter 5 of the FEIS discusses the impacts of the proposed project and Build Alternatives to residential
areas.
5-2 Comment
' The third runway will result in declining property values, safety concerns, air, water, and noise pollution,
and destroy the quality of life of nearby communities.
Response
Appendix E, Section 7.0 of the FEIS presents an evaluation of potential effects on property values in the
PTIA area. Sections 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 of the FEIS discuss potential impacts in terms of noise, air quality and
water quality.
5-3 Comment
PTIA should provide adequate safety areas or buffer zones for residents neighboring the airport.
Response
The PTAA and loc-31 governments are now revising the 1986 Airport Plan in order to ensure the
compatibility of future land uses and to minimize the impacts to existing residential areas as discussed in
Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
5-4 Comment
Why did the county allow homes to be built and continue to issue building permits around the area of this
' proposed runway?
Response
Since 1986 Guilford County as well as the Cities of Greensboro and High Point have restricted
' subdivisions and the provision of sewer from being built on land within the noise contours as discussed in
Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
5-5 Comment
The proposed runway is located too close to residential neighborhoods.
Response
' Comment noted. The density of residential uses within the PTIA noise contour was regulated with the
adoption of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan. Some residential areas were built prior to the local
enforcement of the Airport Overlay District. See Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
' 5-6 Comment
With the proposed third runway at PTIA we will not be able to sell our home.
' Response
Sale of individual homes is a function of a complex set of marketing factors that can not always be
predicted based on past experience. The impact of the proposed project and Build Alternatives on
residential property values is discussed in Section 5.3 as well as Section 7 of Appendix E of the FEIS.
5-7 Comment
I believe the overall good to the larger community will outweigh negative impacts.
Response
Comment noted.
5-8 Comment
FedEx is a proven high quality corporate citizen. It will strengthen the community.
database_101801.x1s
Response '
Comment noted.
5-9 Comment
A small part of Guilford County should not hold back the growth potential of the entire county.
Response
Comment noted.
5-10 Comment
I think it would be useful to know what impacts, for example property values of existing neighborhoods and '
future residential development, have occurred at areas near a similar FedEx facility (Memphis,
Indianapolis).
Response '
The FAA has not conducted a property value study for areas surrounding other FedEx facilities as part of
this EIS.
5-11 Comment
Greensboro and Guilford County gave up their rights to build this runway when these political jurisdictions
allowed the building of a community next to PTIA. I
Response
Comment noted. See responses to Comments 4-3 and 5-4.
5-12 Comment '
Greensboro. is.an uncontrolled sprawling city that will share the heartaches of other urban centers such as
L.A.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-21. The City of Greensboro is now preparing its first
comprehensive plan, which should be completed by 2003 as discussed in Section 4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
5-13 Comment
It is my opinion that to concurrently promote both residential and industrial development in the same area
is unethical.
Response
Comment noted. See responses to Comments 4-19 and 5-11.
'
5-14 Comment
Proposed FedEx facility will positively impact the real estate market in the area.
Response ,
Comment noted. The impact of the proposed project and Build Alternatives on residential property values
is discussed in Section 5.3 as well as Section 7.0 of Appendix E of the FEIS.

5-15 Comment
FedEx will provide strong employee benefits for those employees working at the new sorting hub, even for
part-time employees.
Response
Comment noted.
5-16 Comment '
This type of industrial development is what the residents have been hoping for.
Response
Comment noted. .
5-17 Comment '
Homebuyers were not warned of PTIA expansion because this crucial information was not disclosed.
database 101801.x1s

r,
?I
u

Response
Since 1968 , a parallel runway has been part of the PTIA Master Plan and ALP, which has had the
concurrence of the FAA and has been a matter of the public record. The 1994 ALP also shows portions of
the airport being developed for future air cargo facilities. This expansion of cargo facilities would have
occurred with or without the proposed project.
5-18 Comment
Residents and businesses have moved to the Piedmont Triad Area because of apparent growth in the
area.
Response
Comment noted.
5-19 Comment
Purchasing thousands of homes and forcing people to relocate is wrong.
Response
Comment noted. As discussed in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS, acquisitions for the Preferred Alternative W1-
A1 would result in the purchase of 18 residences from construction activities as noted in Table 5.3.3-1. An
additional 53 houses that are located in the 70-75 and >75 DNL for Phase 2 would be acquired for noise
mitigation as stated in Table 5.2.4-3. A total of 71 residences would be acquired.
5-20 Comment
Implementation of FedEx in the Triad will generate opportunities in the Triad for young people that will
potentially make them stay in the area.
Response
Comment noted.
5-21 Comment
Tax dollars should be used to build and refurbish Triad Schools, not for an additional runway that won't be
used.
Response
Comment noted.
5-22 Comment
The proposed project at PTIA will cause me (or my company) to move.
Response
Comment noted.
' 5-23 Comment
Please consider residents in the area when reviewing the alternatives.
Response
Comment noted. The FAA considered social impacts when evaluating the five reasonable alternatives as
discussed in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. The FAA will also consider potential social impacts in the development
of the Record of Decision.
' 5-24 Comment
The proposed project will be devastating to a vast area of the county's population.
Response
Comment noted.
5-25 Comment
I cannot fathom any reasonable person saying that impacts on homes and people within 4 miles of this new
runway will not be more than adversely affected.
' Response
Comment noted. The noise impacts are fully disclosed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS.
database_101801.x1s
5-26 Comment '
The study claims to predict economic impact yet claims it cannot predict community impact.
Response
Comment noted. See Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS for the disclosure of social impacts.
5-27 Comment
With the FedEx project, you are punishing us for moving to the best school district in the county. '
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 4-3.

5-28 Comment
A study should be done to determine the level of disruption of people living near a facility like a FedEx.
Response '
Comment noted. See Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS for the disclosure of social impacts.
5-29 Comment '
Has the FAA allowed a new runway to be built as close to a residential area as this one?
Response
The FAA evaluates proposed new runway projects using multiple environmental and social impact criteria. I
In some instances, new runways have been built in proximity to residential areas.
5-30 Comment '
If you build an airport close to a major population, business areas, and transportation corridors, how can
you reasonably expect that residential areas won't build up in close proximity?
Response
Comment noted.' ?ie FAA does not have the authority to administer land use controls. Since 1986 the
local governments have been restricting land uses in the vicinity of the airport as discussed in Section
4.1.2.4 of the FEIS.
5-31 Comment
FAA takes no action to ensure that airports would plan for future expansion away from residential areas.
Response '
Comment noted. The FAA is responsible to review an airport sponsor's Master Plan and ultimately approve
the airports Airport Layout Plan (ALP). It is the responsibility of the local governments to develop and '
administer land use controls.
5-32 Comment
-How many homes will need to be purchased due to noise? '
Response
See response to Comment 5-19.

5-33 Comment
I am very pleased to learn of the excellent FedEx reputation as a quality employer. An employer which
champions minority employees and commits to its local community through volunteerism, United Way '
campaigns and school enrichment programs.
Response
Comment noted.
5-34 Comment
The negative impact to our community outweighs the dubiously positive outcomes of FedEx locating in our
area.
Response
Comment noted. The impacts of the proposed project and Build Alternatives are discussed in Chapter 5 of ,
the FEIS.
database_101801.xis
' 5-35 Comment
I am pleased to know that FedEx, through their Adopt-A-School program, has become a national model for
a successful initiative to improve education in the communities where FedEx employees live.
Response
Comment noted.
' 5-36 Comment
Where will we relocate if the FAA approves the hub in Guilford County?
Response
' According to the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, there is an ample supply of available housing
in the Triad as discussed in Section 5.3 of the FEIS.
' 5-37 Comment
In view of the very substantial camouflage of peak noise levels and in place of open revelation of what
those may be not only in noise cone areas, but in lateral flanking areas also near the airport, to simply
blandly claim the lack of significant division or disruption of established communities, (or) disruption of
'
information in the
DEIS has been supplemented with SEL sleep disturbance, ground noise, and highway noise analysis in
order to further evaluate the impacts to the surrounding communities.
5-38 Comment
If homes are staying in the areas without retribution to the owners, what will the FAA mitigate for small
t children that are currently in those areas as to ramifications on their schooling and to their health?
Response
' All houses within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours would be purchased because of potential impacts to
the occupants. The houses within the 65 to 70 DNL noise contours will be acoustically treated in order to
achieve indoor noise levels that meet the standards established by the EPA, HUD, and the FAA guidelines.
' 5-39 Comment
Will the FAA pleas.? provide some details regarding social impacts?
Response
See Section 5.3 of the FEIS.
5-40 Comment
The proposed FedEx hub and third runway violate the 5th Amendment, public confiscation without
adequate compensation?
' Response
Comment noted. All acquisitions and relocations associated with the airport improvements would be
conducted in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970.
5-41 Comment
What guidelines will PTIA offer to buy my house?
Response
See response to Comment 5-40.
' 5-42 Comment
How does PTIA calculate purchase prices and when will this take place?
r
orderly Response planned Comment noted. The noise development is, in impacts my are fully humble view, disclosed in nothing Section short 5. of 1 of the straining FEIS. the The limits of human credulity!
database 101801.x1s
Response
See response to Comment 5-40. Real estate appraisals conducted for property acquisitions as the result of
the proposed project will incorporate standard accepted appraisal methods as mandated by the Uniform
Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. These methods take into account
significant capital improvements that affect marketability for that property. In terms of timing, acquisitions
would take place based upon the availability of funding from the FAA.

5-43 Comment
The Summary states that "All of the alternatives would result in social impacts..." and then later states,
"None of the alternatives would result in significant division or disruption of established communities...". '
How does the FAA propose to resolve these conflicting statements?
Response
All of the alternatives would require some acquisition of existing housing and the disruption of
neighborhoods. A total of 71 houses would be acquired because of construction and noise mitigation for
the Preferred Alternative W1-A1 as discussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.3.1 (Noise Mitigation) of the FEIS.
r
5-44 Comment
There is no accountability by government officials that allow homes to be built in an area where the third

parallel runway will impact. '
Response
See response to Comment 4-2. '
5-45 Comment
Airports provide service to a community and with a continuing urbanization you have to deal with
unpleasant side effects of that urbanization and that growth and progress.
Response
Comment noted.
'
5-46 Comment
PTAA is unwilling to put anything in writing that can publicly be given to people to assure them that the
project will not hurt neighborhoods. '
Response
Comment noted. The objective of the EIS process to disclose the impacts of the proposed project and
Build Alternatives to the public is presented in the DEIS and the FEIS.
5-47 Comment
Population and demographic statistics appear to be too heavily based upon 1990 census numbers. Any
review of the Triad area with any sense of the locality would take into account the vast changes in growth
patterns, population densities, and traffic patterns which have occurred since 1990. This data is too old to
serve for calculations which allegedly predict the growth of the region through 2016.
Response
The North Carolina Office of State Planning population estimates and projections as reported by the
Piedmont. Council of Governments PR.IN database were used to assess population growth since the 1990
Census. These are the same population estimates and projections used by the local governments. The
US Census is the only reliable source to obtain demographic information such as racial and income
characteristics and these figures are reported in the FEIS as warranted.

database_101801.xis I
Piedmont Triad International Airport
' 6. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
6-1 Comment
Purchasing of numerous homes adjacent to PTIA would cost the project and taxpayers millions.
Response
See response to Comment 5-19. As presented in Section 6.3.1 and Appendix E Section 7 of the FEIS, the
purchase of the 53 home included within the affected noise contours (> 70 DNL) could range from
approximately $2.1 to $3.4 million for both Phases 1 and 2. These values are based on current assessed
and recent sales values for properties in the affected areas as derived from current county-wide tax
' assessment data. It is estimated that an additional $1.2 million would be needed to pay for costs
associated with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. The total
costs could range from $3.3 to $4.5 million dollars.
' 6-2 Comment
We are concerned we will suffer an economic loss if this runway is built.
Response
As discussed in Section 5.4.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS, the proposed project would produce a regional
benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300 additional employees, generating
increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order of $4.4 billion. Fiscal benefits,
discussed in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS, could reach a total of nearly $15.4
million for the six counties making up the Socioeconomic Study Area. Individual homes within the
immediate vicinity of the airport could experience a decrease in value however this affect is not measurable
at this time (see Section 5.3 and Section 7 of Appendix E of the FEIS). Studies indicate that, over longer
periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an increase in overall property
value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change to accommodate more
desirable and compatible uses. The detailed property value analysis is contained in Section 7 of Appendix
E in the FEIS.
' 6-3 Comment
Buy us out, give us fair market value for our homes soon, and let us get on with our lives.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 5-19. As discussed in Section 6.3.1, all property owners
whose property is acquired because of the proposed project would receive fair market value as mandated
by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
r 6-4 Comment
There is no one to work the low paying jobs when the unemployment rate is so low.
Response
In general, the FEIS shows that the replacement theory of employment takes effect in areas experiencing
economic growth and development. There is sufficient labor pool availability within the region to meet the
demands of increased production if the economy continues to growth at rates similar to those experienced
over the past ten years (Section 5.4.4 of the FEIS).
6-5 Comment
The proposed project should be stopped or prepare to purchase thousands of homes.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-1.
' 6-6 Comment
There are economic benefits of the proposed runway and cargo facility, both directly and indirectly, that
benefits the whole community.
Response
Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
database_101801.xis
,
6-7 Comment
I conducted an economic impact study for the FedEx project at PTIA for the Greensboro Chamber of
Commerce. If I can answer any questions about the study, please feel free to call or write anytime.
Response
Comment noted.
'
6-8 Comment
No EIS study concerning economic impact should take place without both input and evaluation of the
effected homeowners. In addition, similar judgements made in cases involving property should be made
available to the public.
Response
Comment noted. The public has had the opportunity to voice their concerns throughout the EIS process.
The DEIS and FEIS have been made available for public review. All comments submitted during the EIS
process have been reviewed and responded to by the FAA in this FEIS.
6-9 Comment r
Economic benefits should never endanger a community's quality of life or impact the environment.
Response
Comment noted.
6-10 Comment
FedEx will be bringing not only investment and jobs to our state, they will bring with them a wave of '
customers and suppliers who will also create investment in our state's economy and our citizens.
Response
Comment noted. The economic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix
E of the FEIS.
6-11 Comment
Benefits of the project will favorably impact the City of Lexington and help us in our local economic
development efforts.
Response '
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10.
6-12 Comment
New jobs will be created (directly and indirectly) as a result of the FedEx facility.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2.
6-13 Comment
Proposed development at PTIA would represent an economy unlike any that has been seen for some time.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2.
6-14 Comment
FedEx will employ those workers whose jobs have been phased out (textile, tobacco, etc), supplementing
the employment base of the Piedmont Triad area and the State of North Carolina.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2. '
6-15 Comment
FedEx will have a positive impact and benefits the entire community.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2.
database_10180I.As I
' 6-16 Comment
Part time jobs will not have an incredible impact to the working class in and around Greensboro.
Response
The economic impact analysis is based on conversion of "part-time" numbers to full-time equivalents.
Input-output multipliers generate long-term results as a function of wages and salaries estimated for both
full- and part-time employment (Section 5.4 and Appendix E. of the FEIS).
'
6-17 Comment
FedEx will add to the area's tax base, which will help to fund vital services for the area.
' Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10. As discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6
of Appendix E of the FEIS, projected additional employment and population growth within the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area has the potential to generate fiscal benefits for each of the counties included,
reaching a total of nearly $15.4 million by 2019.
6-18 Comment
' There is a need for jobs in the Triad due to increases in the labor market.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-10.
6-19 Comment
Benefits of the project will favorably impact the Piedmont Area, North Carolina, and Southern Virginia.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2.
6-20 Comment
FedEx has had the willingness to employ those who may have had difficulties, historically, in finding
employment.
Response
Comment noted.
' 6-21 Comment
Greensboro's economy does not need a boost.
Response
Comment noted. Please see the discussion and analysis of Greensboro's economy contains in Section 4
and Appendix E of FEIS.
' 6-22 Comment
Adding 1,500 mostly part-time jobs will not have a huge economic impact that proponents of PTIA
expansion are suggesting.
Response
The economic impact analysis takes into account both the full- and part-time employment projections
(Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS).
r
6-23 Comment
It would be useful to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether tax incentives being given to
FedEx would not be more beneficial in the long term if used to improve Greensboro's infrastructure.
Response
The fiscal impact -..nalysis discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS
concludes that projected additional employment and population growth within the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area has the potential to generate fiscal benefits for each of the counties included,
reaching a total of nearly $15.4 million by 2019.

' database_10180 1.xis
6-24 Comment
If you are looking at potential economic benefits of FedEx coming, will you look at other similar examples
(i.e. UPS at Louisville) to see potential economic costs after they come and can't find people to work at the
facility that has no public transportation and no available skilled workers for hire?
Response
The FEIS discusses the population and employment growth of the Indianapolis and Memphis MSA in
Appendix E Section 3.3 of the FEIS. The FEIS did not examine the UPS operations in Louisville or '
conduct detailed economic analysis of the FedEx hubs in other cities.
6-25 Comment
Every business in our county and triad region is looking forward to FedEx expanding our region and aid our
economic transition to higher technology in the future.
Response
Comment noted.
6-26 Comment
With a quicker way to do business, productivity levels would increase, improving companies as a whole,
thereby giving them a competitive edge.
Response '
Comment noted.
6-27 Comment
Will a comparison of economic impacts for the short and long term as well as with and without FedEx be '
conducted?
Response
The economic impact analysis addresses both the No-Action and the Build Alternativ
i
ll
h
f
h
e
n a
p
ases o
t
e
study, and includes both short- and long-term estimates of benefits and costs attributed to the proposed
project (Section 5.4 of the FEIS).
6-28 Comment
I do not want my home to be bought or force me to relocate elsewhere.
Response ,
Only homes within the DNL 70 and 75 dBA noise contours and the construction areas would be offered the
option of being acquired by the PTAA as Federal funding becomes available. Those residents who do not
participate in this aspect of the noise mitigation program would be offered the opportunity to be included in
the acoustical treatment program. The PTAA would receive an avigation easement as part of the
acoustical treatment mitigation.

6-29 Comment
Beneficiaries of the proposed project will be the contractors, people selling their homes, and PTIA.
Response
Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
6-30 Comment
I wish FedEx was coming to town a lot sooner than five years.
Response
Comment noted.
6-31 Comment
Residents adversely impacted by the proposed project should be compensated and included in the EIS.
Response
See response to Comment 5-40.
database
10180 1
i ,
_ .x
s

ICI

n
L_

7
L

6-32 Comment
The proposed project will attract businesses too not only adjacent to PTIA but to surrounding communities
and rural areas as well.
Response
Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
6-33 Comment
FedEx has been rewarded by the Governor of Tennessee for employing those on welfare thereby reducing
the amount of taxpayers dollars supporting.
Response
Comment noted.
6-34 Comment
The loss of jobs as a result of an aircraft disaster over the tank farm would damage surrounding
businesses and would create additional long lasting burdens on the region.
Response
Comment noted.
6-35 Comment .
If my property is devalued by aircraft noise, existing and future, what legal recourse do I have?
Response
See response to Comment 5-6.
6-36 Comment
I have suffered a large degree of personal financial loss, daily emotional stress, and the lack of ability to
plan for my family's future.
Response
Comment noted.
6-37 Comment
Homeowner's property will not be devalued.
Response
Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS reports on the potential effects on property values, indicating a
potential decrease in property values for those households located within the noise contours. Actual
change in value, however, requires a long-term study of effects of actual implementation. Studies also
indicate that, over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an
increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change
to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. The detailed analysis is contained in Section 5.4.6
of the FEIS and Section 7 in Appendix E of the FEIS.
6-38 Comment
FedEx locating its Mid-Atlantic hub at PTIA should be considered an important investment for the area.
Response
Comment noted. The fiscal impact analysis discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of
Appendix E of the FEIS concludes that projected additional employment and population growth within the
Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area has the potential to generate fiscal benefits for each of the counties
included, reaching a total of nearly $15.4 million by 2019. See response to Comment 6-2.
6-39 Comment
North Carolina General Assembly has passed legislation authorizing tax exemptions for FedEx and other
companies may qualify.
Response
Comment noted.
I database 101801.xls
6-40 Comment '
Are the homes in the Cardinal being bought to create a "crash zone" so close to residential and
commercial areas?
Response
No homes in the Cardinal are proposed to be acquired because of construction or noise mitigation. See
response to Comment 5-19.

6-41 Comment
The proposed project will only attract some residual businesses to the area.
Response
The FEIS indicates a regional benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300
additional employees, generating increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order
of $4.4 billion. These conclusions indicate a long-range potential for attracting significant new '
manufacturing businesses to the region as a function of improved location factors (Section 5.4 and
Appendix E of the FEIS).
6-42 Comment '
I have read that the airport commission had to grant permission initially to the developer [of the Cardinal] to
build this area.
Response
On October 10, 1973, Guilford County Commissioners approved the Cardinal Corporation rezoning R-PUD
request. The planning staff report to the Planning Board discusses that, "One of the most significant
problems affecting the proposed Cardinal development is the proximity of the Greensboro-High Point-
Winston-Salem Regional Airport and the relationship of the Cardinal property to the future development
plans." On December 17, 1973 the Guilford County Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the
rezoning case. Mr. Stanley Frank, Chairman of the Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority, expressed
doubt that the Cardinal development would be compatible with the airport operations during the Public
Hearing concerning the rezoning to allow the Cardinal project to be built. Mr. Frank believed that the air
traffic could affect Cardinal residents. The Guilford County Board of Commissioners approved the '
rezoning request by a vote of 3 to 2.
6-43 Comment '
Tax incentives being offered to FedEx and a loss of property taxes will mean higher taxes for the public.
Response
Over the period 2004 through 2019, the fiscal impact analysis indicates a potential benefit to the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area on the order of $15.4 million with a net present value of nearly $8.6
million (See Section 5.4.5 as well as Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS). The acquisition of homes as
part of the noise mitigation program would create a short-term, temporary loss in municipal property taxes.
However, recovery of this lost tax base would occur in the mid-term with the development of new
compatible land uses (businesses and industry) surrounding PTIA.

6-44 Comment
Perhaps FedEx will bring in jobs, but I do not think anyone will want to live in Greensboro or near PTIA.
Response '
The FEIS projects additional population growth on the order of 25,000 by 2019 with additional employment
of approximately 16,300, above that predicated under the No-Action Alternative (Section 5.4 of the FEIS).

6-45 Comment
Homes have declined in value since the FedEx announcement and no one will buy them.

database_101801.xls
' Response
The FEIS property value analysis indicates that changes in noise contours resulting from changes in
airport operations may have an affect on residential property values in the PTIA area. However, conclusive
evidence has not been developed to-date because of the limited time-frame (two years) since the
announcement of the potential hub and because no noise impacts from the operation of the hub have been
' realized yet. Over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is often offset by an
increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as land uses change
to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. A detailed evaluation of potential property value
impacts is contained in Section 5.4.6 of the FEIS and Section 7 of Appendix E in the FEIS.
6-46 Comment
With so many homes for sale in the Cardinal community, residents are the ones bringing down the value of
their homes.
Response
' Comment noted. See Section 5.3 as well as Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS.
6-47 Comment
I will not buy a home in the Cardinal because the risk of it losing value.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-45.
6-48 Comment
Injustices accompany this type of expansion when carried out so close to a large town. Many people are
' forced to sue the authorities to obtain just remuneration for property loss or decline in value.
Response
Comment noted.
' 6-49 Comment
The most reliable index as to the economic effects of the proposed FedEx facility would be to use market
valuation techniques employed by certified appraisers. This approach uses comparable home sales and
' reduces the value to a per square foot value. This information should be reviewed for the last 2 years and
incorporated into the EIS document.
Response
The property value analysis in the FEIS assessed home sales data provided by the Guilford County Tax
Department available through July 2000. More detailed assessments would be necessary as part of any
property acquisition program. Long-term effects would required analysis over a period of time following
implementation of the program rather than only on a period of time following the announcement of possible
location. Studies also indicate that, over longer periods of time, a decrease in residential property value is
often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere in the region as
land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. See Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS
and Appendix E Section 7.0 of the FEIS.
6-50 Comment
To quote Chamber of Commerce figures when it comes to businesses that will move in is biased and not
credible.
' Response
Market analysis used as the basis for the economic impact study was based entirely on independent
studies from sources such as the PTCOG and using employment and population data from fully
independent sources. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
6-51 Comment
t Will local or imported talent fill the high tech jobs brought by FedEx? Will we educate our own citizens to
database_101801AS
fill these positions? Have plans been made with local colleges to train for these jobs?
Response '
It is up to local and regional institutions to respond to changing market and development conditions,
including design of educational programs responsive to changing needs. Local community colleges have
expressed interest in developing training courses to meet the needs of FedEx and other new businesses.
6-52 Comment ,
Government should allocate money to homeowners within a 3-mile radius surrounding the existing and
proposed runways to assist in moving or any other reasonable request.
Response
Comment noted. All acquisitions and relocations associated with the airport improvements and noise
impacts would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The Act provides for moving expenses as well as closing and realtor
costs.
6-53 Comment ,
FedEx will hurt businesses by taking existing employees.
Response
Economic growth and development always incorporates a re-allocation of labor supply. Over time, this
reallocation helps to turn "growth" into "development." In addition, more employees and residents would be
attracted to the Triad area, thereby resulting in an increase in the employment base.
6-54 Comment
Will the project effect gasoline prices?
Response
Generally, gasoline prices are determined by economic forces and policies established on the national and '
international market level, rather than by local markets.
6-55 Comment
Your facts regarding the number of homes in the area are not correct and you refuse to confirm them with
the public.
Response
'
The housing and population figures are based upon the US Census and the EIS GIS system database.
Numerous field surveys were conducted and information obtained from the local governments in order to
obtain the most accurate and best possible information available at the time the analysis was conducted.
6-56 Comment '
The Greensboro News & Record reported that FedEx in Ft. Worth, Texas promised 1,500 jobs, but in thee.
15 months since opening only an approximate 500 people have been hired.
Response t
The FedEx Hub located at the Alliance Airport near Fort Worth Texas employed 900 full and part-time
workers as of October 2000.
6-57 Comment 1
In order for a job to be created, there must be a net gain in total employment for the area. Given low
wages, short hours, strenuous work, and night shifts, it is likely that few people will actually move to the
area to take the type of jobs offered by FedEx.
Response
The FEIS indicates a potential growth in employment on the order of 16,300 by 2019--and this growth
represents a net increase over that already predicted by regional and state planning agencies (Section 5.4
and Appendix E of the FEIS).

database_101801.xis
' 6-58 Comment
The study conducted by the Chamber of Commerce is flawed because it includes funds spent on
' construction and the assumption that those dollars would return directly to the Triad. It is likely that these
construction contracts will be awarded to out of state contractors and workers, thereby nullifying any
positive economic impact.
Response
' Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-50. The status of who would obtain the contracts is not
known at this time.
6-59 Comment
Economic benefits will not exceed the costs.
Response
The FEIS indicates a potential increase in benefits as a function of new employment on the order of
16,300. Input-output models predict a long-term benefit in value-added for the region exceeding $7.4
billion over the 16--year period from 2004 through 2019 (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS).
6-60 Comment
Worker state taxes will not reimburse the $115 million in tax incentives.
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS did not examine the tax incentive issue; however, it did calculate the
accumulated total state tax revenues on the order of $633 million through 2019 for the Six-County
Socioeconomic Study Area as stated in Table 5.4.3-16 of the FEIS.
6-61 Comment
It is likely that most of the workers FedEx hires will move from existing jobs within the Triad. Thus FedEx
will generate very little net gain of jobs.
Response
' Net gain to regional employment is expected to reach over 16,300 by 2019. See Section 5.4 and Appendix
E of the FEIS.
6-62 Comment
With FedEx's shrinking profit margin, it is improbable that FedEx will be willing to pay more than the $8 per
hour that it has predicted.
Response
Comment noted. FedEx reported that the average hourly wages at Memphis, Indianapolis, and at
Alliance/Fort Wortn hubs were on the order of $10.00 per hour by the end of 1998.
' 6-63 Comment
Many homes will have to be purchased outright or the homeowners compensated for damages with federal
and local funds.
' Response
See responses to Comments 5-19 and 5-40.
6-64 Comment
Property values will be enhanced by the added industry.
Response
Overall fiscal impacts for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area are expected to exceed $15.4 million
over the 16-year period. The fiscal impact analysis includes the results of possible changes in property
values for the six-county region as well as other annual sources of revenues and expenditures as
' discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 in the FEIS.
6-65 Comment
Can the FAA require PTAA to purchase homes it does not wish to purchase?
database_101801.xis
Response
The FAA has historically only provided Federal funding for approved mitigation programs that provide for
the mitigation of noise impacts within the 65 DNL noise contour. If mitigation were to occur outside the 65
DNL noise contour, the full cost would have to be borne by the PTAA, unless the PTAA participated in a
f
FAR Part 150 Study and the Authority adopted a standard less than the DNL 65 dBA as the mitigation
standard. The FAA cannot at this time, require the PTAA to purchase homes outside the 65 DNL noise
contour.
6-66 Comment
The Triad has suffered in recent years from job losses due to displacement of employees particularly in the
tobacco and textile industries.
Response -
Comment noted. See Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
6-67 Comment
Proponents of FedEx are counting on the extensive commercial development of the entire northwest of
Greensboro. Is that PTAA's decision to make?
Response
Rezoning of land would be the responsibility of the local governments, not the PTAA or the FAA, as
discussed in Section 5.2.3.2 of the FEIS.
6-68
6-69
Comment
Why was FedEx chosen to get a taxpayer subsidy?
u
Response
The provision of tax subsidies to FedEx was a decision made solely by the state and local governments,
not the FAA. I
Comment
What benefit does FedEx bring to the people, community, and environment of Greensboro?
Response
The potential economic benefits would result from a net increase in employment and the wages and
salaries which that employment generates. Total wages and salaries over the 16-year period could exceed
$.4 billion with associated value added on the order of $7.5 billion. Fiscal impacts during the same period
could exceed $15.4 million for the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area (Section 5.4.3 and Appendix E
of the FEIS).
6-70 Comment
I oppose the building of a third runway, and the development of a FedEx cargo hub at PTIA for the
following reason: Employment - Piedmont Triad Business Index shows unemployment in the Triad at 2.8
percent, well below the national rate of 4.1 percent (accepted standard for full employment is 5 percent).
Therefore the professed "need for jobs" is highly inflated and inaccurate.
Response
Comment noted. Need for jobs as opposed to maintaining a viable rate of economic growth and
development withi,. a region are two different issues. Maintaining existing employment levels within the
context of declining manufacturing and conversion to retail and service economy will, in the long run, result
in a measurable decline in the economic vitality of the region.
6-71 Comment
Can you promise the quality of jobs without warehouses, trucks, and more traffic coming here as a result of
FedEx?
Response
Marketing for new development is substantially different than market analysis. It is up to local development
agencies to build on the opportunities presented by any investment in infrastructure within the region. The
FAA cannot determine what type or extent of jobs will become available as a result of FedEx establishing
their hub at PTIA.
I I

0
E

k
7
database 101801.xls
' 6-72 Comment
Our region needs a company of this caliber to enhance the opportunities of our area.
Response
Comment noted.
6-73 Comment
Have benefits to communities surrounding Indianapolis outweighed the cost in incentives, talent drain from
folks moving out, as well as increased infrastructure costs?
Response
' Section 3 of Technical Appendix E of the FEIS contains a Case Study analysis of the socioeconomic
impacts of the Fec+cx Hub at Indianapolis. It is important to remember however, that different communities
will experience different benefits and impacts based on specific local conditions, and the results at
Memphis, Indianapolis and Ft. Worth may not be directly applicable to the Triad.
6-74 Comment
' Why is Indianapolis International Airport trying to stop the destruction of fringe communities by
compensating the homeowners approximately 10% when they sell their homes? Residents in these
subdivisions say they lose more like 25% when they sell.
1 Response
The Sales Assistance Program established as part of the Indianapolis International Airport's noise
mitigation program was intended to help stabilize neighborhoods. This program compensates homeowners
10 percent of the sellers asking price when a home is sold. This program was established for areas that
are not eligible for the Purchase Assurance, Sound Insulation or Acquisition noise mitigation programs. To
date, approximately 108 homeowners have participated in the program. The FAA has no information
verifying the commentators reference to a 25 percent loss in home value in the Indianapolis area.
' 6-75 Comment
Our regional economy is in urgent need of this new development.
Response
Comment noted. Please see Section 4.2 of the FEIS and Appendix E of the FEIS for a discussion of the
regional economy
.
6-76 Comment
' Assuming the individuals whose property values may be affected are compensated fairly, the benefits of
the FedEx hub far outweigh any detrimental effects.
Response
' Comment noted.
6-77 Comment
' The jobs to be created by FedEx and related industries will be a big boost to the local economy.
Response
Comment noted. See responses to Comments 6-2 and 6-69.

6-78 Comment
The impact of the proposed FedEx Hub is already being experienced here as small industries, attracted to
the area because of the proposed Hub are beginning to locate here.
Response
Comment noted.
' 6-79 Comment
FedEx is saying Wth their corporate vote that Greensboro and the Piedmont Triad is the Best place to do
business.
Response
Comment noted.

database 101801.xis
6-80 Comment '
With a proposed employment of about 750 initial employees and increasing to approximately 1,500 by the
time the hub is fully operational lends "hope" to our community.
Response
Comment noted. Recent employment figures provided by FedEx indicate a total of 996 employees by 2005
and 2,650 by the year 2019.

6-81 Comment
If the FedEx facility is not constructed, home values in the neighborhood opposed to the project will
eventually be devalued by lack of growth in our community.
Response
Comment noted. Long-term economic growth and development within the region is essential to maintaining
the value of homes and commercial property in any region.
6-82 Comment
Did the FAA study take into account the impact to other employers in the area who will have to recruit, hire,
and train new employees to replace the ones who go to work for FedEx?
Response
See response to Comment 6-53.
6-83 Comment
Did the consultants or anyone else disclose to FedEx the employee turnover rates for the types of jobs
they are offering?
Response. .
See response to Comment 6-53.
6-84 Comment
A FedEx Hub will enable the Triad Region to keep pace with the rest of North Carolinian terms of new
employment opportunities. '
Response
Comment noted.

6-85 Comment
Guilford County will pay the tax exemptions while surrounding counties, who will not have to pay taxes, will
benefit from the jobs produced. This is unfair to the people of Guilford County. ,
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS indicates that approximately 60 percent of the new employment and population
resulting from the Build Alternative will locate within Guilford County (See Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E t
Section 6.0 of the FEIS).
6-86 Comment '
FedEx's own personnel will fill the higher paying jobs. The lesser paying jobs will go to the locals.
Response
Comment noted.
6-87 Comment
The tax break I have seen ranges from $70-120 million. Did Memphis or Indianapolis give this tax break?
Response
The FEIS did not examine the tax subsidy issue. The decision was made by state and local governments '
to offer tax incentives.
6-88 Comment
Will the fact that FedEx is located here further this area (High Point) as a destination point for travelers and
visitors?
database-101801.xis I

H

J

Response
The number of business travelers and visitors would increase as the result of the expansion of the local
economy.
6-89 Comment
No one has come forward to reveal what companies and what jobs have located to cities expressly
because Fed Ex was located there.
Response
Appendix E Section 3.4 discusses the employment and population growth of the Memphis and Indianapolis
areas as the result of the FedEx hubs in those cities.
6-90 Comment
The Triad needs to retain our young people and we must have high-tech jobs for employment.
Response
Comment noted.
6-91 Comment
The multiplier effect of the FedEx jobs, especially in the out years, does not match even FedEx's proposed
employment figures. This should be recalculated.
Response
The multiplier effect measures the impact of direct employment on the total employment that would result,
including indirect and induced employment. FedEx employment projections were used in the FEIS as the
direct employment projection.
6-92 Comment
The number of jobs created by industries locating in the area just to be near FedEx is very conjectural.
Coming up with a '6tal of 16,308 is very misleading in its implied precision. A range of such effects would
be more believable and would reflect better on the reliability of such projections.
Response
The analytical approach generates numbers which appear to be specific but which are, in fact, estimates.
There is a choice in the study approach to round off the numerous calculations. The rounded totals are
often used in the text; however, when rounded numbers are used in the tables it becomes difficult to track
the conclusions through what is a series of complex analytical steps. If the numbers were shown as
rounded totals in the tables, it would be difficult to follow each step of the analysis through the employment
generation as well as in the fiscal analysis. The estimated change in employment is viewed as an order-of-
magnitude estimate. It is important to see that change as one approaching 2 percent of overall regional
employment by 2019 rather than as an over-specified number.
6-93 Comment
The economic growth in this area can only be sustained with development of the infrastructure including
the expansion of the airport with the FedEx hub.
Response
Comment noted.
6-94 Comment
The FedEx hub is the catalyst we need to secure our economic future.
Response
Comment noted.
6-95 Comment
FedEx will be a superb long-term economic engine for the Triad.
Response
Comment noted. The economic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix
E of the FEIS.
I database 101801x15
6-96 Comment
Condemned homes nearby our home may cause property values to decrease.
Response
Comment noted. Studies actually indicate that, over longer periods of time, any decrease in residential
property value is often offset by an increase in overall property value in proximity to airports and elsewhere
in the region as land uses change to accommodate more desirable and compatible uses. The detailed
analysis is contained in Section 5.3 of the FEIS and Section 7: Property Value Analysis in Appendix E.
6-97 Comment
Although the Draft EIS does mention certain companies downsizing, there is no mention of the many
companies who have chosen to-locate; or expand here. I would suggest that the Draft EIS be amended to
reflect the addition of numerous jobs with employers such as RF Micro, Sealy, VF and United
HealthCare...to ne.,ne only a few.
Response
The economic impact analysis discusses long-term impacts on overall regional employment and not on the
specific changes in particular business located within the region (Section 5.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS).
6-98 Comment '
The economic analysis of the benefits is flawed when it does not consider all the costs associated with the
project. Only the positive figures were used and the added costs ignored. This one-sided analysis, as well
as the controversy over whether the benefits were estimated properly, does not help the credibility of the
rest of the report.
Response
The fiscal impact analysis examines both the costs and revenues that local jurisdictions may experience as ,
a function of increased growth and development (Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E- Section 6.0 of the FEIS).

6-99 Comment
The DEIS (economic analysis) did not deal with the variability in the estimates used or foreseeable range
estimates. Any analysis over this long a period needs to deal with the potential range of outcomes, not just
the optimistic upside.
Response
The growth and development projections are based on past trends. All estimates are assumed to be order-
of magnitude best applications. Also see response to comment 6-92.
6-100 Comment
The EIS should have considered alternative job-promoting schemes and attract high-tech businesses
instead of the FedEx project.
Response '
The EIS considers the impact of the proposed project. Local area economic development agencies have
the responsibility of examining alternative growth and development market opportunities.

6-101 Comment
Do you realize that the hub may also cause many businesses to avoid relocating in the area?
Response ,
The FEIS examines the net impact of the proposed project and discussed it in detail in Section 5.4 of the
FEIS and Section 4 of Appendix E of the FEIS. As reported, net changes in growth and development
indicate a potential increase of approximately 16,300 employees within the Six-County Socioeconomic

Study Area by 2019 along with all of the corresponding wages and salaries, state and local taxes, and '
value added associated with that potential increase.
6-102 Comment
Can you please tell me what financial impact more migrant workers moving to the area without insurance
will have on local health care resources and who will absorb these costs?
database_101801AS
Response
Full and part-time workers employed by FedEx receive health care insurance and other benefits. The FEIS
did not examine migrant workers and health care impacts.
6-103 Comment
Page 4-15 of Appendix E states that in Indianapolis, it appears that cargo shipment capacity has not yet
emerged as an important location factor in attracting new industry or had a major impact on the total
employment. There is no evidence that new businesses or jobs will come to the area because of FedEx?
Response
The potential effects at PTIA are based on projections using only local-area population and employment
information. Information from other FedEx locations is used only to discuss general experience in other
locales. Appendix E Section 3.4 of the FEIS discusses business recruitment impacts as the result of the
Memphis and Indianapolis FedEx hubs.
6-104 Comment
A cost-benefit analysis needs to be completed on this project.
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS discusses the fiscal impacts of the Proposed Project in Section 5.4.5 and
Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS. In addition, the PTAA completed a cost benefit analysis that has been
submitted to the FAA.

17
U
1

6-105 Comment
Using state economic models, there will be a million jobs in the same time frame even if FedEx does not
come.
Response
The analysis generates a net change in employment beyond that predicted by state population growth
estimates and No-Action employment projections. As indicated in Table 5.4.3-2 of the FEIS, total regional
employment by 2019 is estimated at 872,313. This represents an additional 174,515 jobs in the Six-
County Socioeconomic Study Area since 2000. The change in employment on the order of 16,300
measured as the basis for economic impact as the result of any of the Build Alternatives is a net change
and, therefore, an addition to the already projected regional employment growth.
6-106 Comment
Are the money/jobs that are projected calculated after what is spent by the houses, roads, etc.?
Response
Impact measures include wages and salaries, value added, and net fiscal benefits. Projected additional
employment and population growth within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area has the potential to
generate fiscal benefits for each of the counties included, reaching a total of nearly $15.4 million by 2019.
This fiscal impact is discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and Section 6 of Appendix E of the
FEIS.
6-107 Comment
The study does not adequately demonstrate the effect the facility would have on the local economy. The
projected economic benefits are largely conjecture.
Response
Comment noted. Both Section 5.4 of the FEIS and Appendix E of the FEIS contain detailed analysis of
projected regional as well as local economic impacts. As in the case with any study of projects considered
for the future, all impacts are only projections. In this case these projections are based on sound analytical
methodologies described in detail within the FEIS documents. Areas covered include impacts associated
with the expanded cargo facility itself, impacts associated with possible regional growth and development
stimulated by improvements at the airport, fiscal impacts associated with each of the six counties within the
defined impact study area, and estimates of potential changes in residential land value for properties
located within close proximity to the airport.
database_101801.xls
6-108 Comment '
The projected tax revenue gains were emphasized, but the cost of additional infrastructure and service was
not included in the report. Without this additional cost information, there is no way to tell if this would be a
net gain or loss in local and state revenues.
Response
The DEIS did not contain such analysis. A fiscal impact analysis was completed for the FEIS and shows a
potential net benefit or loss for each of the affected counties within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study
Area. These estimates are based on average per-capita revenues and expenses as reported by each of
the affected jurisdictions, but do not include special bond issues that are incorporated to meet the needs of
capital expenditures (Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS).
6-109 Comment
How is the real estate value of my home estimated? Does it include recent improvements, such as
landscaping?
Response
Real estate appraisals conducted for property acquisition for the proposed project will incorporate standard
accepted appraisal methods. These methods take into account significant capital improvements that affect
marketability for that property.
6-110 Comment
I request that an economic analysis be done to translate the adverse health effects into financial loss by

the community due to the incurred health expenses, related job losses, vacations, away from the job, etc. ,
Response
Comment noted. The FAA did not conduct an evaluation of the costs of any health effects as part of this
EIS.
6-111 Comment
Is the negative impact on our property values addressed in any way in the EIS?
Response
The DEIS did not contain such analysis. A supplemental study was conducted for the FEIS and indicates a
possible decline in residential value for properties affected by increased noise. The detailed analysis is
contained in Section 5.4.5 in the FEIS and in Section 6 of Appendix E of the FEIS.

6-112 Comment
When will homes in the "buy-out" areas be purchased? I hope before the construction.
Response
Acquisitions for construction would occur early in project development, prior to the commencement of
construction activities. Acquisition for noise mitigation would occur based upon the significance of impact.
Houses within the 75 DNL would generally be acquired prior to the acquisition of houses within the 70 '
DNL. Acquisitions would occur as Federal funding becomes available from the FAA. It is a goal of the
PTAA to begin mitigation acquisitions as soon as possible after the issuance of FAA's ROD.
6-113 Comment
Analysis of actual economic data post-FedEx coming to those cities would be helpful in evaluating the
reasonableness of the benefits projected in the EIS.
Response
Comment noted.
6-114 Comment I
Resolution - North Carolina General Assembly has passed legislation authorizing a total tax incentive
package of $141.2 million for a one-million square-foot facility on 175-acres reflecting an initial capital
investment of between $230 and $300 million at PTIA.
Response
Comment noted.
database-101801-As
'

1

7
L
r

6-115 Comment
Where in the EIS study do they document the financial losses to the people of our neighborhood? We
would like to see in the EIS study the financial effect of the people in the Cardinal Commons.
Response
A detailed analysis of potential impacts to property values is contained in Section 5.3 of the FEIS and in
Appendix E, Section 7 of the FEIS.
6-116 Comment
The proponents of the FedEx hub think it will attract technology companies with high paying jobs, however,
I think you will find these companies are looking for a better quality of life than can be offered at a cargo
hub. While these companies may build a warehouse here offering low paying jobs, the higher paying,
executive-type positions will be in locations offering better air quality and an outstanding education system.
Response
Comment noted.
6-117 Comment
What will be the monetary bottom line on income for the community versus expenses and costs of this
project for the community?
Response
The FEIS examines the long-term potential effects of projected related growth and development on the
estimated revenues and expenditures for each of the six counties included in the defined study area. The
detailed analysis is in Section 5.4.5 of the FEIS and in Appendix E Section 6.0 of the FEIS.
6-118 Comment
While claiming that the cargo hub project will provide much economic growth in the Piedmont area on the
one hand, the FAA then claims that there will be so much new growth with the No-Action Alternative that
the differences in pollution and water problems will be minimal. If this is the case, then obviously the
economic impact would be minimal as well. So, which analysis is correct?
Response
The economic impact analysis of the FEIS looks at the "net" change in growth attributed to the Build
Alternatives. That impact is estimated at a less than 2 percent increase in the overall employment growth
projected for the region by 2019 (Section 5.4.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS).
6-119 Comment
What other air cargo companies will be recruited to this area?
Response
Recruiting new businesses into the area is a responsibility of local economic development agencies and
the counties they represent, not the FAA. It is difficult to determine what other air cargo companies would
be recruited. it is dependent on local marketing, programs, activities, and specific/individual business
decisions.
6-120 Comment
We (U.S. Congressmen) strongly believe this project has the potential to increase business development
and bring an infusion of steady jobs as a result of airport expansion.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 6-2.
6-121 Comment
North Carolina will reap tremendous dividends from this investment in our economic future.
Response
' Comment noted. See Section 5.4 of the FEIS for further information.
database_101801.xls
6-122 Comment
The facility will support all industries for whom timely delivery is a critical factor.
Response
Comment noted.
6-123 Comment
The incentive package under consideration will be more that offset by the investments to be made by r
FedEx in locating the hub at PTIA.
Response
Comment noted.
6-124 Comment
We request the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina approve the incentive package offered by
the North Carolina Department of Commerce in due order.
Response
Comment noted.
6-125 Comment
The Piedmont Triad experienced equal or greater growth without FedEx than did in those areas where
FedEx has located. From this statistic, using extrapolations only marginally less scientific than those in the
FAA's study, it can be said that location of a FedEx hub impedes the economic development of a given
city. Please explain this discrepancy.
Response
Economic growth and development is a complicated process which takes into account numerous factors.
The process of forecasting change is a function of trends resulting from an historic evaluation of these
factors. As indicated in the analysis, the location of FedEx is only one of the factors considered and
evaluated. As a rc.!;ult, the trends described and reviewed in the analysis are strictly characteristic of the
Piedmont Triad. This analysis clearly demonstrates the potential positive impact of the future operations
associated with the FedEx hub. In some cities it may be possible that location would impede economic
development-that is not the case in the Piedmont Triad.
6-126 Comment
The DEIS reads, " It was assumed that there would be one new household for every 1.5 new jobs and that
the average household size would be 2.3 persons." What is the basis of this assumption?
Response
These assumptions are based on the latest information available from the local jurisdictions. Local
planning departments were contacted to determine the average household size for their jurisdictions. The
average household size was determined to be 2.3 persons per household and there was an average of 1.5 ,
employees per household.
6-127 Comment
To what extent does the study contemplate that the jobs it predicts will not be filled by "new employees" or
"new households" but will instead be filled by pirating workers from existing firms? Does the resulting
negative effect on the expansion of those industries factor into your equation?
Response
All changes in employment are regarded as net new employment. In a growth economy, jobs vacated by
employees moving to new positions are filled by new employees migrating into the region.
6-128 Comment
The study states that the Triad regional economy is strong in all economic sectors except Government
(Table 2.3). Please explain how this project will ameliorate that deficiency. What governmental
employment will come from this project?
database 101801.xis ,

Response
The discussion summarized in Table 2.3 is about economic base conditions in the region. This analysis is
a review of relative strengths and weaknesses within the region, not absolutes. Within the region, certain
economic sectors exhibit relative strength; others exhibit growth; and still others exhibit relative
weaknesses. There is no specific indication that this project will have any unusual impact on government
sector employment other than that associated with state and local services necessary to support continued
population growth.
6-129 Comment
The one county identified as weak in transportation and wholesale trade, sectors which admittedly will be
positively impacted by this project, is Montgomery County. The Uwharrie National Forest is located in this
county and is obvious that this situation limits development potential and transportation options. How will
this study aid Montgomery County in overcoming the fact that over half the county belongs to the Federal
government?
Response
The EIS does not address this issue but, rather, indicates a potential for capturing a component of growth
and development that could have a positive impact on the local and regional economy. It is up to individual
jurisdictions to formulate a policy for capturing that growth potential in a manner consistent with local policy
concerns.
6-130 Comment
Upon what valid statistical and empirical basis does the report base its prediction of the lower job growth
under the No-Action Alternative?
Response .
The economic impact analysis process is described in detail in Section 4.0 of Appendix E. The No-Action
Alternative is based on projected population projections provided by the North Carolina Office of State
Planning supplemented by regression analysis to project future employment based on 20 years of historic
data. That analysis uses established procedures for deriving regression models to assimilate that historic
data. The analysis was expanded to include cargo shipment activity within the region as one of the
independent variables. The process illustrates not that growth is less under the No-Action Alternative, but
that increased cargo capacity at the airport can have a positive impact on future growth in excess of that
predicted under the No-Action Alternative.
6-131 Comment
The EIS adopts dc-;pressed numbers and uses them as a baseline against which to measure the effect of
the build alternatives through 2016. This approach fails to consider both the increasing level of
development in the area and any negative economic effect of the hub, such as overstimulation of labor
demand, adverse impacts on quality of life, increased traffic pressures, which would lower the net increase.
Response
This description of the methodology is discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the EIS. The impact analysis
procedure first establishes forecasts based on nearly 20 years of existing data. Those forecasts are
compared to incorporate forecasts prepared by the North Carolina Office of State Planning as the baseline
for the No-Action Alternative. Forecasts for change in future employment and personal income are based
on a statistical analysis of the potential effects of increased cargo capacity at the airport. These population
and employment effects are relatively small as described within the analysis. The analysis continues with
estimates of potential fiscal impacts on individual jurisdictions based on an estimated distribution of future
change in population. When jurisdictions consider how to accommodate future growth and development, it
will be appropriate to consider specific small-scale impacts on traffic capacity. This analysis is outside the
scope of the economic impact component.
6-132 Comment
What would be the effect of dislocation of entire neighborhoods, such as those reported in Plainfield on the
economic health of the City of High Point?
database 101801.xls
Response '
There are no High Point neighborhoods that would be acquired as the result construction or noise
mitigation for any of the Build Alternatives.
6-133 Comment
On page 5-68 of the DEIS, it is stated, "As evident in the Memphis and Indianapolis case studies,
businesses are attracted to metropolitan regions where FedEx hubs operate." What case studies are
referred to here?
Response
The case study referred to in the text is discussed in Section 3.0 of Appendix E. References to additional
studies and discussions appear in Section 4.0 of the Appendix E.
6-134 Comment
Nearly every assumption of future growth or measurement of employment growth or business recruitment
in other hubs is based on what the study terms "anecdotal" information. This approach is unscientific,
untestable, and improvable.
Response
All techniques applied and discussed are based on sound econometric forecasting procedures,
supplemented with reviews of other studies and with discussions with professionals with direct local
experience.
6-135 Comment
The EIS fails to present the model used by the preparer in estimating the "cargo-component" effect on
employment in. language which can be easily comprehended by the general public.
Response
The methods used are discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the FEIS and presented in detail in Section 4.0 of
Appendix E. Procedures applied include input-output multipliers for estimated indirect and induced
impacts, multivariable regression models to forecast trends, and comparison with similar applications in
comparable situations where possible. The capacity utilization approach to transportation impact analysis
applied by the analysis team has been used in other airport applications as well as other transportation
system evaluations. Although the procedures are standardized, the outputs are always characteristic of
the regions for which they are developed.
6-136 Comment
Has the "cargo-component" model ever been empirically tested in other hub locations to determine its
accuracy? Have the multipliers used been applied to any other project and resulted in accurate predictions
of economic effect? Has it been applied in the case of expansions of other cargo facilities not related to
FedEx? If so, please include the data and results of such tests. If not, please so state in the Final EIS.
Response
See response to Comment 6-135. Although the procedures are standardized, the results are always
characteristic only of the specific economic regions for which they are derived. There is no "black box"
model used in thiE ;analysis--only standard econometric forecasting techniques based on existing trends
and statistical modeling. This process has been used in numerous transportation system evaluations
including airports, highways, and transit system development proposals. In this study, the model is
specifically tested against experience in Memphis and Indianapolis. Results are discussed and compared
with studies by others.
6-137 Comment
To what extent is the cargo-component model based upon the anecdotal research done by telephone?
Response
The results are reviewed in the context of discussions with professionals from other areas as well as in
comparison to studies prepared by others. See response to Comment 6-133. ,
database_101801.xis -

1

L

6-138 Comment
To what extent does the economic model of the "cargo-generated component" reflect an expectation that
air cargo companies other than FedEx will take advantage of the increased cargo facilities at the airport?
Response
Since the analysis is based on potential changes in overall regional employment trends, it includes
potential utilization by other air cargo companies as well as by companies requiring increased cargo
shipment capacity and accessibility.
6-139 Comment
Please explain how adding FedEx into PTIA, focusing so many jobs in and around the airport, combats the
increasing centralization of our employment base. Does it not promote such centralization? If not, why
not?
Response
Jobs associated directly with FedEx would be located at the airport-based facility. Other jobs resulting
from indirect and induced employment associated with FedEx as well as with potential regional growth
would locate as a function of existing and proposed transportation systems and land use availability. That
possible distribution is discussed in the Impact Analysis section of the EIS. Centralization will continue to
occur as long as the forces driving growth and development are centralized, including availability of land
and infrastructure supporting change.
6-140 Comment
The FedEx project would drive residential development out and away from the central area and away from
the new job base, pulling cities apart, and increasing the burden on our roadways. The DEIS fails to
address the long-term costs of such a fundamental shift in development.
Response
Growth and development, in terms of both population and employment, is a function of numerous factors.
These include existing land use and zoning policies, infrastructure availability and cost, market factors
resulting from supply and demand, educational practices, and others. The issues associated with these
factors are considcrably broader than those associated with the proposed improvement at PTIA and must
be addressed by all of the jurisdictions involved.
6-141 Comment
The estimate of extensive economic impacts (approximately 16,000 new jobs) rests on very strong
assumptions about the location decisions of other firms. These assumptions are not sufficiently justified
within the analysis.
Response
The total estimated potential change in regional employment is on the order of 2.0%. Although the change
in employment is a relatively small number, the change in total value added for the region is a relatively
large value--on the order of $7.5 billion over sixteen years for the six counties within the study area.
Location decisions by individual companies are complex, but the trends that result from their decisions are
demonstrated in the twenty years of data used in the analysis. Both the statistical models and the input-
output models reflect these location decisions. Context discussions indicate that access to airports with
cargo shipment capacity are important to both service and manufacturing companies. The level of
importance is reflected by the forecasting process.
6-142 Comment
It seems misleading to represent economic forecasts as point estimates rather than confidence intervals.
A number of scenarios are reasonable. At the very least, include pessimistic, optimistic and base case
scenarios, with the associated assumptions clearly articulated.
Response
Forecasts are never fixed as the commenter indicates and are only as good as the original data used in the
trend evaluations. This analysis relies on nearly twenty years of historic data and generates output
primarily as a function of relative predicted change in total employment and income. As a result, adding
intervals for absolute data would result in different high and low estimates for actual employment but not
change significantly the relative intervals between "with" and "without" alternatives.
database 101801.xls

6-143 Comment
There is no attempt to estimate the foregone economic growth that will be lost as a result of making the
Triad's economy much more strongly oriented to transportation, warehousing and logistics. It is likely to
dissuade some firms from locating in the Triad.
Response
Forecasted regional growth represents strengths as weaknesses characteristic of the past historic trends:in
the regional economy. The existence, for example, of a strong but declining manufacturing based is
indicative of the ability of the region to offer attractions to manufacturing and distribution companies if basic
needs are met. Basic needs include but are not limited to labor force characteristics and access to
transportation infrastructure. Other changes in regional characteristics would generate different impacts.
These alternatives are outside the scope of the economic impact analysis component of the EIS.

6-144 Comment
The effect on the market values of the impacted communities must be examined carefully.
Response
Additional material prepared for the FEIS included an analysis of possible fiscal impacts affecting
jurisdictions within the study area.
6-145 Comment
An impact does exist and cost of mitigating that impact must be a part of the overall economic analysis and
decisions.
Response
Section 6.3 of the FEIS presents the mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative along with the
approximate costs of implementing the mitigation program.

r]

database 101801.xis I

?1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
7. Air Quality
7-1 Comment
Increase in flights and additional truck traffic due to the third runway will increase air pollution.
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS and the Final Draft General Conformity Determination analysis indicates that
the increase in criteria pollutants will be de minimis except for volatile organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides, the precursors of ozone. The increase in these two pollutants is accounted for in the North
Carolina State Air Quality Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative for development of
PTIA will not interfere with the ability of the region to achieve the national ambient air quality standards for
ozone.
7-2 Comment
Proposed development at PTIA will add to the already declining air quality.
Response
See response to Comment 7-1, above.
7-3 Comment
FedEx will increase health problems due to excessive toxic emissions from planes and trucks.
Response
Based on information available in the scientific literature, there is no known "cause-and-effect" between
toxic air emissions from planes and health problems around airports. Some studies are underway to better
identify the potential contribution of aircraft emissions to overall air quality conditions in airport vicinities,
but they are incomplete at this time. Diesel emissions from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles have been
identified by the EPA as a source of toxic air emissions. As a result, new emission standards are being
developed and implemented on new trucks to help reduce the potential impacts to health from these
pollutants. Similar standards have not been imposed on aircraft engines.
7-4 Comment
Residents currently experience days of poor air quality; even Orange Days.
Response
The greater Piedmont - Triad region, including Guilford County, has experienced several air quality alert
days over the past several months. Based on the data, these elevated levels of pollutants (ozone in
particular) are region-wide and not confined to one area, municipality or county, nor are they peculiar to the
airport area.
7-5 Comment
The 60 nightly cargo flights and 120 trucks will add 60 tons/year of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
200 tons/year of nitrogen oxide (NOx).
Response
Based on the data contained in Table 5.5.4-1 of the FEIS, the estimated increase in emissions associated
with the planned project are approximately these values in Phase 2 (2019).
database_101801.x1s
7-6 Comment '
An air quality analysis of direct and indirect emissions is needed as part of the environmental study.
Response
Comment noted. The air quality analysis in the EIS and General Conformity Determination considered
both direct and indirect emissions. The U.S. EPA defines "direct emissions" as those that are caused or
initiated by the Federal action and occur in.the same place and timeframe as the project. Examples
include aircraft and motor vehicle emissions that occur on the airport site. By comparison, "indirect
emissions" are defined as those that are caused by and may occur later in time and/or may be further
removed in distance from the action but are reasonably foreseeable and the Federal agency can
practicably control and will maintain control due to a continuing program responsibility. Examples include
motor vehicles that are airport bound, but are off the airport site. Direct and indirect emission sources are
accounted for in the EIS, the Transportation Improvement Program, the Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area and the SIP.
7-7 Comment
Hub operations should be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Response
Comment noted. The mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General
Conformity process which is the responsibility of the FAA. This insures that the FAA does not approve,
fund, or permit any project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan
developed by the state to attain and maintain the ambient Air Quality Standards. This General Conformity
process has been completed for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS

and in the Final General Conformity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS. ,
7-8 Comment
Some of the pollutants for jet exhaust have been determined to be highly carcinogenic.
Response
All internal combustion engines that burn hydrocarbon-based fuel (including jet aircraft engines) emit
exhaust by-products, some of which are classifiable as potentially carcinogenic. However, there has been
no direct correlation made by the scientific or medical communities between the release of aircraft exhaust
and an incidence of cancer. This is partially because most of aircraft emissions are released at altitude
and are widely dispersed, or diluted, before they reach ground-level. It is also true that aircraft engines are
very efficient at burning fuel and the exhaust products of combustion are minimal; especially with the newer
fleet of aircraft. Finally, because airports are surrounded by vast tracks of restricted areas, public
exposures to jet exhaust are very limited or even non-occurring.
7-9 Comment I
If the modifications include installation of air emissions sources such as emergency generators or paint
spray booths, an air quality permit may be required.
Response I
Emergency generators, spray paint booths, and other similar "stationary sources" are required, by law, to
obtain both construction and operational permits from the North Carolina Department of Environmental &
Natural Resources. Any such facilities that arise as a result of this project, will be permitted in accordance
with these requirements.
7-10 Comment
Where is the air pollution going to go and how far away from PTIA will it effect people who have respiratory
problems?
Response '
The distance and direction air pollutants travel from a source (including PTIA), depends to a large extent
on the specific air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, particulates); it's physical form and mass (e.g. gas, liquid or
solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at which the pollutant
is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity, precipitation)
occurring at the time of the release. For an explanation of human exposures to aircraft exhaust and health-
elated issues, see responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-8.
database ,0,8o,.xs

1
n

7-11 Comment
What effect will the added emissions from additional aircraft and trucks have on the requirement for using
oxygenated gasoline in the fuel stations in the area?
Response
As discussed in tha response to Comment 7-7, the proposed project must be shown to be consistent with
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Greensboro area as part of the Clean Air Act General
Conformity Requirements. The SIP is also the mechanism for determining whether or not the use of
oxygenated gasoline is necessary for the area to meet its attainment goals. Therefore, any relationship
between the proposed project and the continued use of oxygenated fuels in the Piedmont Triad area is
resolved in the SIP as part of the overall strategy for managing air emissions throughout the area.
7-12 Comment
EPA officials have stated that airports actually act like "mini-cities" and contribute as much as 5% of the
total fossil fuel emissions to our environment. If this is the case on the national level, what happens at the
local levels to those cities adjacent to PTIA?
Response
When comparing the total amounts of emissions associated with PTIA to the county or regional totals, the
airport represents approximately 1 to 3 percent of the total, depending on the pollutant. When making a
similar comparison of total PTIA emissions to the total of those emitted directly adjacent to the airport, the
contribution is higher. However, most airports (including PTIA) are surrounded by large tracts of restricted
vacant land. Therefore, the human exposure to airport related emissions is minimized significantly.
7-13 Comment
I routinely have to clean the accumulation of black jet fuel/pollution off of patio furniture and we often have
to go inside because of the burning jet fuel fumes in the air. What are the effects of dumped jet fuel on our
residential roofs?
Response
Unburned fuel from jet aircraft is not dumped unless there is an eminent emergency that endangers the
passengers or people on the ground. If possible, and only on these irregular occasions, the pilots eject the
fuel at altitude and away from inhabited areas. This minimizes the environmental impact and allows the
crew to better prepare for an emergency landing. In short, fuel dumping is not a common practice and only
conducted when the aircraft is in eminent danger. Citizen complaints and concerns about black deposits
on outdoor furniture is shared by both those people that live near airports and those who do not. The
atmosphere in an urban area is affected by many and varied sources of pollution that collectively contribute
to the problem. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible, to differentiate those deposits that originate from
aircraft from those that originate from motor vehicles, power plants, factories, etc. Air quality monitoring
studies conducted at several major metropolitan airports across the U.S. have demonstrated this
occurrence.
7-14 Comment
FAA should provide quantitative dispersion analysis data so that specific areas affected by the additional
emissions are identified.
Response
Because the greatest potential impact on air quality associated with the proposed project is on regional
ozone precursors (e.g. NOx and VOC) and because these impacts are not amenable to dispersion
modeling, it would be inappropriate in this case to conduct this analysis.
7-15 Comment
FAA should provide in their air quality analysis projections describing the long term effects of the combined
emissions from the expanded airport operations, commuter and truck traffic, Duke Energy's coal fired
generation facility, Dynegy's proposed 800 MW dual fueled plant, and other large point source emitters.
database_101801.xis
Response I
The FEIS provides an assessment of the long term effects of the emissions associated with the airport and
the planned improvements. This data and information is taken together with all the other sources of air
emissions in the Piedmont - Triad area and analyzed by NCDENR in the SIP. In this way, the combined
effects of the emissions associated with PTIA and these other sources are taken into account.

7-16 Comment
What additional costs will the area bear if growth stimulated by a FedEx hub causes the US EPA to
implement more strict air quality standards for the Piedmont area? Who will pay the costs?
Response
As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project,
PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed
together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions throughout the region is properly
managed and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. Should the area not achieve
attainment within the SIP-prescribed timeframe, then emission reduction measures are developed and
implemented region-wide. The costs of these measures are borne by the sources of the emissions that are
identified in the SIP, or its amendments, as subject to these necessary controls.
7-17 Comment
The Clean Air Act, Section 110 provides that each state implementation plan must contain provisions
preventing sources within the state from contributing significantly to nonattainment problems or interfering
with maintenance. In addition, increasing concern about the adverse health effects of ground level ozone
has led the EPA and North Carolina to propose and implement a tightened national ambient air quality
standard of 0.08 ppm. The current 8-hour value for ozone in the Triad is 0.097. With the addition of the .
proposed 126 FedEx cargo flight operations per evening, how will the Triad ever reach attainment? ?
Response
As discussed in response to Comment 7-7, the mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean
Air Act is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any
project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the
state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. This General Conformity process
has been completed for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS and in the
Final General Cor`armity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-18 Comment
.How will the State of North Carolina address their implementation plan since the Triad is already in
nonattainment and the addition of FedEx flights will only compound the already existing ozone problem.
Response
Please see response to Comment 7-17.
7-19 Comment
If sanctions are imposed for nonattainment, will it not cost the State of North Carolina federal money for
road and other improvements?

r
database_101801.xis
11

C?
11

Response
Should the State of North Carolina fail to demonstrate attainment of the national Ambient Air Quality
Standards, sanctions could be applied by the Federal government that would limit the amounts of available
funds for roadway construction and other infrastructure projects. As discussed in the response to Comment
7-7, the mechanism for demonstrating that the PTIA improvements are in compliance with the Clean Air
Act is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any
project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the
state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards and thereby avoid these sanctions. This
General Conformity process is underway for this project and is described in greater detail in the Draft
General Conformity Determination Report, which is being published separately from the FEIS.
7-20 Comment
Is the FAA's intent to shift the burden or reaching attainment for ozone on other industries or the public to
compensate for the pollution created by bringing FedEx to the Triad?
Response
As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project,
PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed
together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly
managed and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. Should the area not achieve
attainment within the SIP-prescribed timeframe, then emission reduction measures are developed and
implemented region-wide. The costs, or burden, of these measures are borne by the sources of the
emissions that are identified in the SIP, or its amendments, as subject to these necessary controls.
7-21 Comment
With the proposed addition of 126 FedEx cargo flight operations per night over the Triad, will the air
pollution emitted from these planes not aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage
lung tissue and weaken immune systems of active, young children, older adults and adults with respiratory
disease, such as asthma?
Response
The causative agents that contribute to respiratory problems are multifaceted and, generally speaking not.
fully understood. Ambient (e.g. outdoor) air pollution, indoor air quality and lifestyle are but a few of the
potential contributors. In an urban environment, outdoor air quality is also influenced by a wide array of
factors including climate and meteorology, vegetation and seasonal factors, as well as both regional and
local air pollution sources. These sources consist of motor vehicles, industry and the natural degradation of
earthen materials. Aircraft also contribute, but in comparatively small quantities (e.g. less than 1 to 3
percent of the total). As a consequence, the relationship between aircraft emissions and respiratory
problems is not defined nor documented. See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, and 7-10 for further
explanation of what is known about aircraft emissions and the potential effects on human health.
7-22 Comment
Greensboro, a city in a state with the 3rd worst air quality in the country, already has sufficient bad air
problems. Fed Ex would compound this.
Response
As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with the proposed project,
PTIA as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed
together, in the SIP; a plan developed by the state to attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality
Standards. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly managed
and the area achieves attainment of the air quality standards. The mechanism for demonstrating
compliance with the SIP is the General Conformity process. This insures that the FAA does not approve,
fund, or permit any projector action that is not consistent with the SIP; This General Conformity process
is underway for this project and is described in greater detail in Section 5.5 of the FEIS and the Final
General Conformity Determination, which is included in Appendix F of the FEIS.
database_101801.xls

7-23 Comment
Some more detailed explanation of the particulate emissions would be helpful.
Response
Particulate matter emissions are comprised of dust, dirt, unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons and
other non-gaseous emissions from motor vehicles, power plants, industry and the natural environment.
Unlike gaseous emissions, particulate matter has mass and is more subject to the effects gravitational
settling. From a regulatory standpoint, particulate matter is sub-divided into three size classifications:
coarse, fine and very fine. Aircraft, aircraft service vehicles, and motor vehicles traveling to, from and
moving about the airport are also sources of particulate matter. Most of this material is deposited back to
the ground before it leaves the airport site. That material that is transported off the airport site or released
at altitude eventually settles out from the atmosphere. The contribution of airport-related emissions to
particulate matter is not well known or understood, but it is not viewed to be a large contributor to ambient
pollution levels.
7-24 Comment
Air pollution average based on 24 hour normalized average. The air is more still at night when the most air
pollution from emissions will occur. This will cause more pollution. The DEIS should not normalize these
issues.
Response
A number of factors and variables play important roles in the formation and dispersal of air emissions.
These include the specific type of air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, particulates); it's physical form and mass
(e.g. gas, liquid or solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at
which the pollutant is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity,
precipitation, and solar radiation) occurring at the time of the release. At night, some of the influencing
meteorological conditions will moderate e.g. wind speed and solar radiation; two factors that have opposite
effects.
7-25 Comment
What are the accurate numbers for pollutants from the added aircraft operations and the associated
trucking operations? This should include all the emitted pollutants: VOCs, NOx, CO, particulates, S02,
sulfates, and any r±her identified toxics. ,
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are
provided for the pollutants VOCs, CO, and NOx. Particulates (as PM-10) are also emitted but emission
factors for aircraft are unavailable. Airports and aircraft are not significant sources of S02 or sulfates, and
therefore, these emissions are not included. Most toxic air pollutants are a subset of a group of compounds
called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Therefore, although toxic air pollutants are not specifically
addressed as part of the emissions inventory in the FEIS, they can be considered part of the VOC
estimates. As such, because VOC emissions are anticipated to decline in the future with the proposed
project, toxic air pollutants are similarly expected to decrease.
7-26 Comment
How will this increase in pollutants affect the area's ozone levels in the future? Specifically, how many
additional days will the level go over 100, how much higher will it be on those days where it already
exceeds 100, and how may days can be expected where it will go over 200?

database_10180I.As I

r?1
LJ

L I

17
LJ

Response
As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15, emissions associated with this project, PTIA as a
whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed together, in
the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in emissions through-out the region is properly managed and
the area is better prepared to achieve attainment of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone. Because
ozone formation involves a complex series of atmospheric reactions, contributions of emissions from a
wide array of sources, and is highly dependent of both local and regional meteorological conditions, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to predict the impact of one single source,such as the improvements to PTIA.
For this reason, the Clean Air Act requires that FAA not approve, fund,or permit any project or action that
does not conform the goals and timetables of the SIP. The FAA has determined that the Preferred
Alternative conforms with the current 2004 SIP for the GreensboroWnston-Salem/High Point area.
The Draft General Conformity Determination was distributed in May 2001. A Revised Draft General
Conformity Determination was distributed in July 2001 to address construction-related emissions
associated with the Preferred Alternative. The Second Revised Draft General Conformity Determination,
distributed in October 2001, was prepared to reflect more accurate ground service equipment operational
data, use the most-up-to-date version of EDMS and to address conformity in 2009. A copy of the Final
General Conformity Determination is included in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-27 Comment
What is the correlation between increased pollutants such as NOx and CO and increased premature
deaths? What can be expected in the Triad after FedEx is at maximum capacity?
Response
As explained in Section 4.3.6.1, under the Clean Air Act the U.S. EPA has established primary national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health from the detrimental effects of CO, ozone,
and four other criteria air pollutants. Each area in a state is classified according to whether it meets the
primary national ambient air quality standards for each of these criteria pollutants. States must develop
plans, called State Implementation Plans or SIPs, to insure that areas that do not meet the standards attain
them. The FAA may not approve, fund or permit any project or action that does not conform to the goals
and timeframes of a SIP.
The Preferred Alternative W1-A1 would increase emissions of CO by 764 tons per year (56%) and 744
tons per year (46%), when compared to the 2009 and the 2019 No-Action Alternative, respectively. See
Tables 5.5.4-1 and 5.5.5-1 of the FEIS. However, as Guilford County has air quality that is better than the
NAAQS for CO, the increased CO emissions associated with the FedEx hub are not expected to cause
violations of the NAAQS and adversely affect public health in the Triad area. The Preferred Alternative W1-
A1 would increase emissions of NOx by 251 tons per year (87%) when compared to the 2009 No-Action
Alternative and by 242 tons per year (69%) when compared to the 2019 No-Action Alternative. See Tables
5.5.4-1 and 5.5.5-1 of the FEIS.
Because Guilford County, two other counties, and a portion of a third county have air quality that only
marginally complies with the primary national ozone standard, FAA has conducted a detailed analysis
which demonstrates that the increases in NOx emissions associated with the proposed FedEx hub would
conform with the goals and objectives of the NC SIP. In this respect as well, the proposed action, which is
consistent with the state's plans to achieve the ozone NAAQS, should not adversely affect public health or
cause premature deaths in the Triad area. A copy of this Final General Conformity determination is
included in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-28 Comment
What is the effect on air quality of the high altitude overflights which are apparent by numerous contrails

that can be seen in this area?
I database-1 01 801.x1s
Response I
The effect on air quality of the contrails cause by high altitude aircraft overflights is subject to an ongoing
investigation by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus far, the findings of these investigations are inconclusive and the
research continues.
7-29 Comment
The EPA has just recently proposed new rules on emissions limits for diesel trucks that should reduce the
sulfur content of fuels used. Will this apply to the FedEx trucks currently in use or is it only for new trucks?
What is the anticipated implementation date for this and how will it affect the Triad? ,
Response
This multistate clean diesel initiative, includes North Carolina, and takes effect in 2007. Essentially, the
program calls for stricter emissions standards for new trucks than those already in place. This should have
a positive affect in the Triad area.
7-30 Comment
Are there any programs coming to reduce aircraft emissions similar to the new rules on emissions limits for
diesel trucks?
Response
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has promulgated aircraft engine emission standards
on a schedule that gets progressively more strict. The U.S. EPA has adopted these same standards.
Therefore, aircraft engine emissions will in the future will be less, when compared to today's engines.
7-31 Comment
Of the fuel burned at night, how much of it, in pounds, is Carbon Monoxide, Volatile Organics, Nitrogen
Oxide, and Particu ar Matter?
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are
provided for the pollutants, CO, VOCs, and NOx. The daytime/nighttime temporal distribution of these
emissions follows the airport activity diurnal profile discussed in Section 5.1 of the FEIS.

7-32 Comment
On a humid night less efficient engines would cause unburned fuel not to evaporate until it reaches the
ground, coating the trees, people, birds, houses, and swimming pools. This has been reported as a
problem, but not addressed in the DEIS.
Response
A number of factors and variables play important roles in the formation and dispersal of air emissions.
These include the specific type of air emission (e.g. CO, NOx, VOCs); it's physical form and mass (e.g.
gas, liquid or solid); the temperature of the exhaust and the surrounding air; the altitude, or height, at which
the pollutant is emitted; and the meteorological conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, humidity,
precipitation, and solar radiation) occurring at the time of the release. At night, some of the influencing
meteorological conditions will moderate e.g. wind speed and solar radiation; two factors that have opposite
effects.
7-33 Comment
Is there a possible mistake in the graphs for total carbon monoxide and total volatile organic compound
emissions? Both graphs appear to be identical on the air quality page.
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources. These data are
provided for the pollutants, CO, VOCs, and NOX. As shown, the total amounts of CO are an order-of-
magnitude greater than VOCs.
database_101801.xis
7-34 Comment
Why is there an increase in the No-Action bar graph from Phase 1 to Phase 2? It appears an arbitrary
standard factor may have been applied to create a result.
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action
and Build Alternatives. In all cases, these estimates are based on aircraft operational levels and other
airport operational characteristics that are unique to that scenario and timeframe. The differences in total
emissions between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 No-Action conditions are largely attributable to the
differences in the number of aircraft operations and the changes in the fleet mix that are expected to occur
within this timeframe.
' 7-35 Comment
Would FedEx and the airport be required to mitigate aircraft emissions or would this be up to the Guilford
County taxpayer?
Response
Mitigation measures would be the responsibility of the PTAA, the airlines and FedEx. These mitigation
measures, should they be required, can be applied to aircraft, ground service vehicles, and/or motor
vehicles associated with the airport, the cost of which is borne by the airport and airlines serving the
airport.
7-36 Comment
In order to give a more accurate assessment of the current state of air quality in Guilford County, the FEIS
should note that the county will likely be designated nonattainment under the eight-hour ozone standard.
Response
Unless and until the 8-hour standard is enforced by the EPA, Guilford County may be designated as
nonattainment for the ozone eight-hour standard. Recently, North Carolina submitted a list of areas that
would be nonattainment under the 8-hour standard. EPA has not communicated with North Carolina at this
time on the status of the designations. An area may be maintenance for one standard (i.e. 1-hour) and
' nonattainment for another (i.e. 8-hour), as the 8-hour standard is more stringent. At this time, neither the
EPA nor the State of North Carolina are enforcing the 8-hour ozone standard.
7-37 Comment
The details of the analysis for ground transportation emissions (e.g. MOBILE input files, VMT, speeds) are
not contained in the DEIS. These should be contained in Appendix I.
Response
The details of the ground transportation emissions analysis were added to Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-38 Comment
' CO2 should be added to the list of exhaust gas emissions from aircraft engines. It is a major aircraft
exhaust gas and a greenhouse gas.
Response
Comment noted. CO2 has been added to the list of exhaust gas emissions from aircraft engines.
7-39 Comment
"Off the airport, the emissions inventory includes all motor vehicles traveling to, from and around the airport
on..." The emissions impacts of off-airport motor vehicles should include the emissions over the entire trip
to/from the airport from/to the trip origin/destination, not just in the vicinity of the airport. This can be
estimated by using the Piedmont Triad Regional travel demand model. This requirement is satisfied if the
proposed airport and runway improvements and the associated effects on trip-making in the region are
included in the currently conforming transportation plan/TIP.
database_101801.xis
Response
The off-airport motor vehicle emissions are accounted for in the regional travel demand model and the
2002-2008 TIP. The on-site motor vehicle emissions are included in the FEIS air quality analysis for the
purpose of showing the effects of the various project alternatives on these emissions. These on-site r
emissions are based on the vehicle miles traveled, average operating speeds, and EPA emission factors.

7-40 Comment
In addition to infrastructure that helps reduce emissions by reducing the probability of on-site congestion
and idling, the possible mitigation measures should include strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle ,
travel, increase high-occupancy vehicle travel, and encourage transit ridership to/from the airport (if transit
is available).
Response
Because the majority of the trip to or from the airport occurs on public roadways, PTIA has little influence
on how, and by what means, the trip is made. Once on the airport, shuttle buses are available for rental
car, hotel and remote parking facility users. To the extent practicable, the airport would continue to
encourage and support programs and strategies to help reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel, increase
high-occupancy vehicle travel, and encourage transit ridership to and from the airport. See Section 6.3 of
the FEIS for the Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative.
7-41 Comment
Will Fed Ex be using treated jet fuel?

Response '
FedEx will not be using specially treated jet fuel other than that which is used in most commercial carrier
jets.
7-42 Comment
The data does not clearly delineate the extent of the operations of the project on ambient air quality
because no attempt is made to use seasonal effects.
Response
Section 5.5.2 of the FEIS describes the methodology that was used to prepare the air quality impact
analysis. As discussed, the assessment was based on average daily or annual conditions. Seasonal '
variations were not taken into account.
7-43 Comment
How many more ozone alert days will (the project) cause? What are the public health costs of this added
burden?
Response
As stated in the responses to Comments 7-7 and 7-15 above, emissions associated with this project, PTIA
as a whole and all the other sources in the Piedmont - Triad area are accounted for, and assessed
together, in the SIP. In this way, the growth, or increase, in ozone-forming emissions through-out the ,
region is properly managed and the area is better prepared to achieve attainment of the National Air
Quality Standards for ozone. It is not known how many more ozone alert days the proposed project would
directly cause or what costs would be attributable to potential additional ozone alert days.
7-44 Comment
Much more effort needs to be devoted to methods of reducing and eliminating pollution so that the public '
can make informed judgements on what is needed on this project. A consultant presenting the air pollution
section at the public forum commented that they were studying the use of electric vehicles for other airports
to mitigate ground vehicle generated emissions yet nothing was mentioned of this in the DEIS. What other
feasible, economical, easily accomplished mitigation ideas were not covered?

database_101801.xls
Response
As the comment suggests, mitigation measures for air quality must be effective, feasible and cost-effective
to have any meaningful benefits. At some large airports where the number of fleet vehicles or ground
' service equipment is greater than at PTIA, electric and/or alternate-fueled vehicles become an attractive
option. This is largely because the cost. for the infrastructure needed to support this equipment is shared
by a number of users. At small and medium-sized airports, the effectiveness diminishes and the benefits
to air quality are reduced.
7-45 Comment
I attended the public forum 5/23. 1 was astounded when one of the presenters, when challenged from the
audience about air pollution, made the comment that the air is already polluted and a little more really isn't
going to hurt. This seems like the attitude with which the whole study was assembled.
' Response
Any suggestion by a presenter that an increase of air emissions is unimportant or otherwise
inconsequential is incorrect and inappropriate. As a safe-guard against this approach, the Clean Air Act
requires that any Federal agency (including FAA) must demonstrate that the project or action be shown to
conform to the State Implementation Plan - a plan intended to keep the area in attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This demonstration, called the General Conformity process, has been
completed for this project and the results are contained in the Final General Conformity Determination,
which is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-46 Comment
I have been informed that the report on air pollutants does not include any information on toxic pollutants
such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other toxins known to occur in association with jet
aircraft operations. Since humans should not be exposed to these chemical toxins, I would like to know
why the FAA has neglected to include this information. Do you have reference data that show how these
chemicals relate to human health (association to known diseases, "safe" exposure levels, etc.) and can
you please share this information with me?
Response
Toxic air contamir=.nts (TACs) differ from criteria air pollutants in that there are no established ambient
standards and a risk assessment approach is typically used instead to evaluate potential impacts. Health
risk assessment procedures are not well developed for mobile sources. TACs typically are evaluated in a
health risk assessment prepared in connection with the application of a permit for stationary emissions
sources from the local air district. Such permits are not typically required for mobile sources, which
constitute the vast majority of emissions sources at the airport. TACs from mobile sources traditionally
have been regulated through promulgation of standards limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from on-road motor vehicles enforced on vehicle manufacturers and through specifications on
gasoline and diesel fuel.
In addition, based on information from the scientific and medical communities there is no known "cause-
and-effect" between toxic air pollutants from jet aircraft and harmful health effects on humans. Moreover,
there are no Federal or state regulations on toxic air emissions from aircraft nor are there any requirements
that call for such an assessment in an EIS.
7-47 Comment
The EIS should consider the potent xenoestrogens that are in the airplane fuels. Xenoestrogens are
' extremely potent endocrine disrupters.
Response
See response to Comment 7-46, above.
7-48 Comment
I have not seen any provision for buying homes from owners where one or more family members in the
home suffers from asthma or emphysema or other breathing disorders and where Fed Ex nighttime air
pollution on top of what already exists in the daytime from this nearby airport may also render their homes
intolerable!
database 101801.xls
Response ,
See response to Comment 7-21, above.
7-49 Comment
What is the air quality mitigation plan to reduce pollution?
Response
Potential air quality mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.2.3 of the FEIS. The mitigation
program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
7-50 Comment I
The air contaminants charts shown during the public meeting at Guilford High School showed a yearly
average, and do not show the addition of FedEx's 20 nightly operations (and 40 operations in the future).
This is inadequate.
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action
and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially
attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations.
7-51 Comment I
Air pollution will be far worse than predicted, especially during unfavorable weather and temperature
conditions that may slow its dissipation or when mixed in with night-time fogs.
Response
See responses to Comments 7-10, 7-24 and 7-32.
7-52 Comment I
What is the quantified amount of pollution estimated to be generated and released by air and ground
vehicles which will be associated with the proposed project and others using that facility?
Response
See response to Comment 7-50.
7-53 Comment ,
Will the increase in truck and automobile emissions directly and indirectly associated with the FedEx
operation also have an effect on our air quality which could also exacerbate the risk of losing our Federal
Highway matching funds? This analysis should be included in the EIS.
Response
The motor vehicle emissions included in the FEIS also include those associated with the FedEx operation.
Those motor vehicle emissions that occur off the airport site are accounted for as part of the region-wide
emission totals for the Piedmont-Triad roadway network. These emissions are evaluated as a whole under
the Transportation Conformity provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. In this region, motor vehicle
emissions are managed by the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization
and the as part of the overall Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP). These transportation agencies insure that the TIP remains in conformance with the State
Implementation Plan, thereby avoiding sanctions of Federal Highway funds for air quality noncompliance.
7-54 Comment
It was not clear in the EIS if the emissions and contaminant dispersion estimates were based upon new
state of the art Stage III airplanes or the older planes equipped with hush kits used by FedEx?
Response
The emission estimates were based on all Stage III compliant aircraft fleet mixes that are forecasted to be
in place corresponding to the time (or year) the inventory is chosen to represent (e.g. Phase 1 - 2005 and
Phase 2 - 2009 to 2019). The extent the two types of Stage III compliant aircraft types would be used is
contained in Tables 5.1.2-2 through 5.1.2-5 of the FEIS.
database 101801AS

1

7-55 Comment
How much air pollution will the Fed Ex planes create in our city?
Response
See response to Comment 7-50.
7-56 Comment
Where in the EIS study do you mention how the air pollution affects the children in the Cardinal Commons?
Response
The FEIS air quality impact assessment addresses the affects of the proposed project at PTIA on the entire
airshed surrounding the airport. The effects on individual communities, like Cardinal Commons, are
implicitly included in this analysis. See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10 and 7-46.
7-57 Comment
Where in the EIS study does it mention what type of toxins will be emitted into the air from the intense
construction and how children will be affected verses adults? Does the exposure our children and our
neighbors children violate the "Children's Environmental Protection Act of 19977'
Response
See responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10 and 746, above in connection with toxic air pollutants. The
covenants of the Children's Environmental Protection Act are also covered under the Federal Clean Air
Act; appropriate sections of which dictate how the FEIS air quality analysis is conducted and the results
interpreted.
7-58 Comment
The airport expan,>ion proposal utilizes projections based on the area being in attainment for ozone by
2003. This will not happen.
Response
The most recently approved SIP, dated 1994 and called the Maintence-Redesig nation Plan, contains area-
wide emission projections to the year 2004. NCDENR is currently working on an update to this plan and
expects to have it completed sometime in 2002. The emissions associated with the airport and the
proposed project will be included in the update.
7-59 Comment
More air pollution will result from motor vehicles stopped, idling, and creating unnecessary air pollution.
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action
and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially
attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations. The planned roadway improvements associated with
the build alternatives are designed to provide efficient access and egress traveling to and from the airport.
These design elements include limited access roadways, grade separated interchanges, and high speed
ramps; all conducive to eliminating stop-and-go driving or extended idling periods and excess, or
unnecessary, air pollution.
7-60 Comment
We leave our windows open at night and let Mother Nature cool our homes in order to save electricity and
fight the air pollution problem. If FedEx comes, we'll have to add to the pollution problem by turning the air
conditioner. Please consider this.
Response
Nearly all air conditioners are powered by electricity which, in the cases of fossil-fueled energy plants, is
regulated for the amount of air pollution generated. As a result, any increase in these emissions, should it
occur, must be permitted by the NCDENR before they are allowed.
database 101801.xis
7-61 Comment '
It is my understanding that there are no pollution standards for aircraft and that their expulsion of pollution
is far greater than any other vehicle. If the FedEx hub is approved, the increase in pollutants from its 120
flights (60 landings and 60 takeoffs), along with 155 trucks which will be parked at the hub, will create a
dangerous situation with our air quality.
Response
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has developed emission standards for jet engine t
aircraft. Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the FAA cannot not approve, fund, or permit any project or
action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the state to
attain and maintain the Ambient Air Quality Standards. This approval process, called the General
Conformity process, has been completed for this project. A copy of the Final General Conformity
Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS.

7-62 Comment
Based on the proposed annual aircraft operations, PTIA is required to apply for and obtain a Transportation
Facility Permit (TF) prior to constructing or modifying the airport.
Response
The application for a Transportation Facility Permit has been prepared by the PTAA and the proposed
project meets all of the requirements. The permit will be obtained from NCDENR before construction
begins.
7-63 Comment
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2D.1603, a General Conformity determination will need to be made for the,.
proposed Runway 5/23, proposed new overnight express air cargo sorting and distribution facility and
associated development at PTIA.
Response
A Draft General Conformity Determination has been prepared for the proposed project and was published
and reviewed by appropriate resource agencies and the public. A copy of the Final General Conformity
Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-64 Comment
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2D.1503, a Transportation Conformity determination is required for this '
project.
Response
Transportation Conformity requirements are under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT). As such, NCDOT will provide the necessary assurances that the roadway
improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative are included in the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and that the TIP is in conformance with
the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Because the roadway improvements meet this criteria, the affirmative
determination of Transportation Conformity will be recorded as part of the Record of Decision for this
project.
7-65 Comment
The document addresses fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. I
Response
Comment noted. Fugitive dust emissions will be addressed during construction activities by the adherence
to wind and water erosion control measures both at the construction site and on the haul routes used by
construction vehicles.
7-66 Comment '
Alternative W1-A1 does more to separate airport traffic from interstate traffic than any other choice. This
alternative includes elimination of a tunnel and significant (50%) reduction of on-site traffic volumes. The
air quality analysis does not, however, reflect these savings. There is concern that the air quality analysis
may not have considered these differences.
database 101801.xls
' Response
The beneficial effects of the surface transportation system improvements associated with Alternative W1-
Al are accounted for in the Transportation Improvement Program and Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) for the Triad area. Because of this, they are not accounted for in the EIS air quality analysis to
avoid double counting the benefits.
7-67 Comment
The applicant's analysis is flawed and provides little information to assess the project's potential to degrade
local air quality and impact the health of those who live throughout the surrounding community.
' Response
The air quality analysis was conducted in full accordance with FAA and NCDENR guidelines. See
responses to Comments 7-3, 7-8, 7-10, and 7-46 for further explanation of health effects.
7-68 Comment
Without providing the reader with supporting documentation to validate such deviations or refinements to
existing guidance, the applicant's assumptions and resulting values cannot be confirmed and are without
merit.
Response
The air quality impact assessment methodology is discussed in Section 5.5.2 of the FEIS. Appendix F
contains additionai information developed or used in support of the analysis.
7-69 Comment
In Appendix F which is identified as the source of "supporting" documentation for the air quality
assessment, only aircraft type, engine, operational timeliness and annual LTO's are reported. No emission
inventory data is identified. As such, no examination of the applicant's assumptions and model
assignments can be made to validate the emission inventory values presented in the DEIS.
Response
Appendix F of the FEIS contains the key supporting documentation for the air quality analysis. The
remaining documentation of the analysis, including a complete description of all inputs and computer files,
was too voluminous and technical to include in the EIS. However this supporting documentation has been
made available upon request from the FAA since the comment period on the Draft EIS.
7-70 Comment
Stationary pollution generated by parked aircraft should be part of the air quality analysis.
Response
Section 5.5.2.2 (Aircraft) of the FEIS discusses the assumptions used to develop the aircraft component of
the emissions inventory. It describes the taxi/idle mode to include all the time the aircraft in on an airport
taxiway or terminal area apron with its engines running. Therefore, air emissions generated when the
aircraft are stationary, or parked, are included in the analysis.
' 7-71 Comment
With the introduction of this much trucking and airplane traffic, how could the FAA possibly come to the
conclusion that the difference between the No-Action Alternative and Alternative W2-A will result in minimal
' increases in noxious chemicals, in the area of only 8%?
Response
Tables 5.5.3-1 and 5.5.4-1 in Chapter 5.0 (Environmental Consequences) of the FEIS summarize the total
amounts of pollutants emitted by aircraft, motor vehicles and other airport-related sources for the No-Action
and Build Alternatives. The differences between the No-Action and five Build Alternatives are essentially
attributable to the addition of the FedEx operations.
7-72 Comment
North Carolina is the second worst state in terms of air quality in the entire nation, and while this area may
be in attainment now, it is likely that the EPA will tighten the standards over the next 5 years. This project
runs the risk of increasing our pollution problems to the point where our county could be in violation of new
EPA standards. How will the FAA mitigate that problem?
database_101801.xis
Response ,
See response to Comment 7-35.
7-73 Comment
How is EPA approval obtained with respect to air quality?
Response
The U.S. EPA is one of the primary Federal agencies that reviewed the air quality analysis contained in the ,
DEIS as well as the General Conformity Determination. EPA has reviewed and commented on each
version of the Draft General Conformity documents prepared for this project. EPA's comments on the
Second Revised Draft of the General Conformity Determination indicates that all of their issues have been ,
addresses and that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the current approved SIP for the
GreensboioWnston-Salem/High Point area. Correspondence from the EPA, in reference to the General
Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix A of this FEIS. In addition, in accordance with the '
Federal Clean Air Act, the FAA has made a determination that the Preferred Alternative conforms to the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the General Conformity process. A copy of the Final General
Conformity Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS.
7-74 Comment
The DEIS states that ozone levels will increase in Guilford County with or without the PTIA expansion. The ,
DEIS states that Guilford County is expected to be in attainment with Federal ozone levels by 2003. We
(ABEQ) question how ozone levels can increase while we move from maintenance to attainment status.
Response I
The air quality impact analysis does not claim that ozone levels will increase with or without the proposed
project at PTIA. The analysis does indicate that emissions of NOx and VOCs (two pollutants considered to
be precursors to the formation of ozone) will increase somewhat in the future due largely to the forecasted
increase in operations at the airport over time.
7-75 Comment '
Indirect emissions should cover the emissions from when the runway is anticipated to be at full capacity.
Response I
All of the emission sources (eg. aircraft, ground service equipment, fuel facilities) are accounted for in the
EIS Air Emissions Inventory or, in the case of motor vehicles, included in the Transportation Improvement
Plan and Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the Greensboro/VVinston-Salem/High Point area. In
this way, both the direct (eg. on-site) and indirect (eg. off-site) emissions and their sources are covered.
7-76 Comment ,
My concern is whether adequate attention and discussion is being given to air and specifically water
pollution from complex hydrocarbons and other pollutants emitted from jet exhaust. '
Response
See response to Comments 7-1, 7-7, and 7-8.
n

database_101801.xis

1

I
Li

u

1

u

Piedmont Triad International Airport
8. Hazardous Materials
8-1 Comment
EIS needs to include a study of the various hazardous materials that FedEx will be handling and how they
may impact the safety of the community.
Response
FedEx has established a set of guidelines, based on the Federal Department of Transportation
requirements, that regulate the types of substances that can be shipped in aircraft and on public roadways.
These guidelines also dictate the quantities of materials that can be transported and the packaging, or
containment, requirements.
8-2 Comment
Are the existing USTs and appended plumbing double walled, with interstitial monitoring devices?
Response
The FEIS documents all known (registered) UST's on PTAA property. The U.S. EPA and the NCDENR
have developed guidelines and timetables for the installation and retrofitting of USTs and their associated
piping; including the monitoring requirements. In order to be registered, all USTs must meet these
minimum standards.
8-3 Comment
Have core samples been taken as prescribed under Federal and state law, to address any possible
existing soil contamination in the vicinity of the USTs and appended plumbing?
Response
No field sampling of the soil or groundwater in the vicinities of the USTs at PTIA were undertaken by the
FAA as part of this FEIS. Rather, this level of analysis is intended to identify and locate these USTs as
well as above ground storage tanks, pipelines, landfills, etc. or any other source of potentially significant
environmental contamination. In this way, any significant sites of contamination can be avoided, if
possible. No such sites were identified in the vicinities of the proposed project at PTIA. Should core
sampling and other forms of testing be required to verify the presence or delineate the extent of
contamination at any of the sites identified as having the potential to contain environmental contamination,
it will be accomplished before the construction process begins.
8-4 Comment
Does PTIA have any existing groundwater monitoring wells and if so, have they noted any groundwater
contamination over the last 5-year period?
Response
PTIA does not have any groundwater monitoring wells under it's direct control.
8-5 Comment
Does PTIA intend to remove or abandon the USTs and appended plumbing?
Response
Section 4.3.7 of the FEIS summarizes what is known about the locations and conditions of the USTs in the
vicinities of the proposed project at PTIA. Section 5.20 provides information pertaining to which of these
USTs may be potentially impacted, by alternative. Should any of these tanks be removed, this will be
accomplished in accordance with tank removal and abandonment guidelines developed by the NCDENR.
8-6 Comment
In Section 5.20.3.2, what does the FAA mean by the term "significant sources?"
1 database_101801AS
Response
The primary purpose of the investigation into sites potentially containing hazardous materials or
environmental contamination is to locate any sites that portend to pose a problem to the planning, design
and construction of the proposed project at PTIA. Another purpose is to insure that the planned
improvements do not inadvertently spread contamination or inhibit the clean-up of contaminated sites. Any
sites that meet this criteria are deemed to be "significant sources".
8-7 Comment
Will all new USTs and appended plumbing be double walled with interstitial monitoring devices? Who will
be responsible for developing a written monitoring program to address the frequency of monitoring
equipment used, location, responsible parties, reporting format, maintenance schedules, training, and
response plans to a release?
Response
Any new USTs or ASTs will be designed and constructed in accordance with Federal and state codes
including those established by the U.S. EPA, NCDENR, the American Petroleum Institute and the National
Fire Protection Association. The owner, or operator of the tank will be responsible for developing,
documenting, and fulfilling the monitoring and spill response requirements, also in accordance with Federal
and State regulations.
8-8 Comment
Has PTIA ever been found to be in noncompliance with either the Federal or state tank storage regulatory
compliance program? If so, what was the outcome?
Response
Spills have occurred from time to time at PTIA. PTAA is unaware of any findings of noncompliance of
Federal or state compliance programs. PTAA strives to comply with all requirements regarding the storage
of any materials. Records indicate that there have been no past hydrocarbon spill events that migrated
beyond airport property boundaries since January 1974, the effective date of 49 CFR regulations. In
addition, to ensure compliance, PTAA has from time to time removed UST's from newly acquired
properties.
8-9 Comment
Has PTIA ever reported an unplanned release from an existing UST? If so, what was the outcome? '
Response
As with any airport, minor spills occur from time to time at PTIA. In all cases, efforts to contain and remove
contaminants are begun immediately. As a further measure of protection against spill contamination, '
PTAA has developed a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan. This plan specifically
identifies all known storage tanks, drainage systems and outfalls, and provides contact persons for every
tenant on the airport, as well as emergency response and HAZMAT teams.
8-10 Comment
Will all remaining solvents in the USTs be treated as hazardous waste prior to removal or '
decommissioning?
Response
Under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. EPA has established parameters by '
which waste materials are classifiable as hazardous. Should solvents or other residues left in the tanks at
the time of abandonment or removal meet these criteria, they will be disposed of as such and in an
environmental and lawful manner. '
8-11 Comment
Does FedEx adhere to and comply with not only the Federal regulations (49 CFR), but also the Dangerous

Goods Regulations set forth by the International Air Transport Association? How many violations or '
notices has FedEx received during the last 5-year period concerning the transport of dangerous goods?
Response ,
Please see response to Comment 8-1.

database 101801.As
8-12 Comment
Does PTIA or FedEx comply with the EPA's Audit Policy? If so, how many audits were completed during
1999 and what were the major findings?
Response
PTAA is unaware of the EPA's audit policy and has no recollection of any audit conducted in 1999 by the
EPA. However, the PTAA states that EPA is welcome at any time on the airport property if an audit should
be required
.
8-13 Comment
Based on FedEx's poor compliance history, will additional scrutiny be given to section 304 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act to protect the local community?
Response
' The transportation-by-air industry, including air freight, is not included in the family of industries that report
under the requirements of Section 304 of EPRCA.
8-14 Comment
During cold weather, will PTIA continue to use only acetate-based deicers or will they try to economize and
also rely on urea pellets?
' Response
There are no anticipated changes to PTIA's policies or practices on de-icing as a result of the planned
improvements to the airport.
' 8-15 Comment
We have serious concerns in reference to the transportation of hazardous wastes by FedEx and the safety
of the third parallel runway.
Response
Please see response to Comment 8-1.
' 8-16 Comment
Table S-1 relates that all action alternatives are predicted to conflict with six potentially hazardous material
sites. However, review of Section 5.20 suggests that although old UST sites exist, other sites may only be
' suspected sites of ;ontamination. Coordination with EPA Region 4 and/or the State should nevertheless be
pursued to determine appropriate action. These sites should either be avoided, suitably cleaned-up, or

' suitably capped to allow unrestricted or designated use of the area.
Response
The six sites that are identified as having potential contamination from underground storage tanks (USTs)
are associated with the existing rental car and cargo facilities at PTIA. These sites were identified from an
' electronic database of Federal and state regulatory files. The intent, and the level, of this investigation is to
identify those sites that are known, or have the potential, to contain soil and/or groundwater contamination
so that any conflicts between these sites and the planned improvements to the airport can be avoided or
otherwise resolved. Because these sites are UST sites, should contamination be present, the problems
and remedies can be addressed following routine tank removal, closure and clean-up procedures. To the
extent this becomes necessary will be determined during the design phase of the project.

database 101801.xis

1

,I]

I
Piedmont Triad International Airport
9. Water Quality
9-1 Comment
Once FedEx is in Greensboro, residents will be asked to reduce the usage of water due to a potential
strain on the sewage disposal system.
Response
Personnel with the City of Greensboro employed at the T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant and in
water supply management in Greensboro, North Carolina have not indicted water restrictions would be
placed on residents if the FedEx Mid-Atlantic Hub is constructed based on FAA's correspondences with
them. The PTIA is expected to discharge approximately 0.049 mgd and 0.074 mgd of waste water effluent
to the T.Z. Osborne Waste Water Treatment in Greensboro, North Carolina after the completion of Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the FedEx Hub, respectively. The T.Z. Osborne Wastewater Treatment Plant will have a
treatment capacity of approximately 30 mgd after upgrades are complete in 2001. Therefore, the PTIA
would account for approximately 0.16 % and 0.25 % of the plants total treatment capacity after Phase 1
and Phase 2, respectively. This does not appear to warrant water restrictions on residents by the City of
Greensboro.
9-2 Comment
City Council authorized the extension of water and sewer lines and waiver of certain connections to
prepare for FedEx's arrival to Greensboro.
Response
Comment noted. The City of Greensboro currently provides water to the PTIA. The City of Greensboro will
provide water and sewer service to the FedEx facility.
9-3 Comment
Runoff from added impervious surfaces will pollute the scarce water supply of Greensboro. How will this be
impacted and prevented?
Response
Refer to Section 5.6 of the FEIS for impacts to Water Quality. Please refer to Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS for
local and state regulations pertaining to the treatment of stormwater runoff from new development. Wet
detention ponds and/or dry detention ponds can be designed and constructed to collect and treat polluted
storm water runoff from the developed site. Further discussion on wet and dry detention ponds can be
found in Sections 6.2.4.1 and 6.2.4.2 of the FEIS, respectively. A proposed mitigation program for water
quality impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3.4 of the FEIS.
' 9-4 Comment
' Additional manufacturing and pharmaceutical facilities will add to our growing problem of polluted water
and water shortages.
Response
Additional industrial and commercial development in the greater Greensboro area will most likely result
with the development of the Mid-Atlantic Hub at the Piedmont Triad International Airport (PTIA). All new
development is required to abide by the development ordinances in the jurisdictions in which they reside.
The jurisdictions in the vicinity of the PTIA include; Guilford County, City of Greensboro and City of High
Point. These three jurisdictions include environmental regulations in their ordinances to protect surface and
groundwater. The environmental regulations are located in Article VII of the Guilford County and City of
Greensboro development ordinances and Chapter 7 of the City of High Points development ordinances. A
summary of these ordinances with respect to water quality protection is included Sections 4.3.3.1 and
6.2.4 of the FEIS. The environmental regulations within the ordinances of these three jurisdictions are
mandated by Federal Clean Water Act, as amended in 1987, and state mandates in the North Carolina
' Administrative Code.
I database 101801.xis
Additional Federal regulations require point source dischargers such as manufacturing facilities to operate
under an National Pollution Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permit from the Sate of North Carolina.
The NPDES permit contains effluent limits for specific pollutants, requires water quality data to be
submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality (NCDENR DWQ) monthly and the implementation of best management practices to minimize water
pollution (see Section 4.3.3 of the FEIS).
,
9-5 Comment
The LWVGC has lobbied for the protection of both the quality and quantity of water; and suggests a
detailed study be performed. '
Response
The existing conditions study of the Generalized Study Area for water quality and water supply is located in
Section 4.3.3, Water Resources, of the FEIS. Water quality and water supply impacts for the No-Action
Alternative and Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the five Build Alternatives are addressed in Section 5.6, Water
Quality, of the FEIS. Measures to mitigate water quality and water supply impacts are located in Section
6.3 of the FEIS. Detailed data such as stormwater calculations, water supply calculations water quality
data, and other background material utilized in the water quality and water supply study is located in
Appendix K. The existing conditions study, impacts study and mitigation strategy for floodplains are
located in Section 4.3.4 Floodplains, 5.12 Floodplains, and 6.3.6 of the FEIS. '
9-6 Comment '
We already have water shortages. The proposed project will have an adverse effect on the quality and
quantity of water and the physical environment. This should not happen.
Response
As discussed in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would not result in
significant impacts in terms of water quality and water supply in the Triad area. Detailed discussion on the
existing water supply, water supply impacts and water supply mitigation is located in Section 4.3.3.3, Water
Supply, Section 5.6, Water Quality and Section 6.3 of the FEIS, respectively.
9-7 Comment '
Historically low water and commercial sewer users have been associated with similar projects.
Response
The City of Greensboro's largest water users are listed in Section 4.3.3.3, Water Supply, under the
subheading Water Usage. The PTIA is expected to demand less than these existing facilities (see Table
5.6.3-5 in the FEIS).
9-8 Comment
Aircraft flying over the Greensboro watershed may affect the quality of drinking water produced by the
watershed.
Response ,
The FEIS discusses surface water quality impacts from polluted stormwater runoff, deicing and accidental
spills of hazardous materials because these are the primary causes of surface water degradation.
Additionally, Federal state and local regulations require surface waters to be protected from these impacts. '
See response to Comment 7-13.
9-9 Comment
While the Randleman Dam is being planned, how will the proposed airport construction impact the Dam
construction?
Response '
The FAA does not know if the proposed project at PTIA was looked at specifically in the planning of this
reservoir. However, the PTIA currently accounts for approximately 0.13 % of the City of Greensboro's
water demand (see Section 4.3.3.3 Water Supply of the FEIS) and is expected to grow to approximately '
0.19 and 0.27 % after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project is complete. See Section 4.3.3.3 of the
FEIS for discussion on the Randleman Reservoir.
database_101801.xis I

r]

11

n

1

9-10 Comment
It is my understanding that PTIA/airline sector is exempt from many water pollution rules, and that fuel,
wind deicer and other lubricants can be discharged directly and legally into watersheds.
Response
That is not correct The airport must comply with all Federal, state and local regulations pertaining to water
quality. The PTIA is currently developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which will incorporate
pertinent regulations and be utilized in subsequent development projects on airport property. These
regulations are outlined in Sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 in the FEIS.
9-11 Comment
PTIA is at the head of the Greensboro Horsepen Creek watershed and any untreated pollutant will go
directly into the creek and directly into city reservoirs.
Response
The PTIA drains to Horsepen Creek as well as Brush Creek and the East Fork Deep River. Stormwater
runoff from the proposed project will be treated and attenuated within dry detention ponds prior to
discharging into these three waterways. The detention ponds will be designed according to standards
mandated by state and local regulations pertaining to water quality. These regulations are outlined in
sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 of the FEIS. The design standards for the dry detention ponds and their
effectiveness as stormwater treatment facilities are discussed in Sections 6.2.4.1 and 6.2.4.2 of the FEIS.
9-12 Comment
Will the cost of removing pollutants from the water be determined and documented, as well as determining
who will pay to clean up the pollution?
Response
Water quality mitigation measures are based on the concept of providing quality and quantity treatment
ponds to accommodate the additional runoff as a result of the proposed project. These costs are included
in the construction costs of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives and are detailed in Section
6.3 of the FEIS.
9-13 Comment
An assessment of water pollution based on the current artificial on-airport standards is a sham. Failure to
consider their known effects due to an artificial technicality is criminal.
Response
Surface and groundwaters the PTIA discharge to are monitored by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ) as part of their water
quality management program. The NCDENR-DWQ collects, monitors and evaluates water quality data
from these surface waters to check if they meet state standards with respect to their intended use. The
NCDENR-DWQ imposes remedies and strategies to improve water quality for waters that do not meet
standards. No industries or particular land owners are exempt from Federal, state and local regulations
pertaining to water quality. These regulations require the PTIA to obtain permits from appropriate Federal,
state and local agencies. These permits generally require the implementation of temporary and permanent
best management practices in preventing water quality degradation. Discussion on Water quality
regulations are located in Section 4.3.3, Water Resources, of the FEIS and Section 6.2.4, Possible Water
Quality Mitigation Measures, of the FEIS.
9-14 Comment
Water that had mostly gone to ground recharge will now be directed into sewers and rush into Horsepen
Creek. It is certain this project will lower the water table around PTIA or be diverted into another watershed
not serving Greensboro.
database_101801.xis
Response ,
The additional impervious surface from the proposed project will increase surface water runoff volumes
and decrease the amount of water percolating to groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project. However, this surface water runoff will remain within the following three sub-basins on PTIA
,
property; Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River. The surface water runoff
generated from the new development will be collected in stormsewers, which will discharge to stormwater
detention ponds for treatment and attenuation. Ground water recharge will occur within these detention '
ponds. These ponds will then discharge to either Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek or the East Fork Deep
River. Brush Creek and Horsepen Creek drain to the City of Greensboro's water supply reservoirs, Lake
Higgins and Lake Brandt, respectively. The East Fork Deep River drains to the City of High Point's water '
supply reservoir, High Point Lake. Therefore, the City of Greensboro's and City of High Point's potential
water supply from rainfall will not be diminished by re-directing surface water runoff to other watersheds.

9-15 Comment
The FedEx project must not be allowed to endanger lives by destroying the watershed. '
Response
All new development within Guilford County must abide by state and local regulations pertaining to water
quality. These regulations are outlined in Sections 4.3.3.1 and 6.2.4 in the FEIS. '
9-16 Comment
Provisions must be made for water systems that will recharge the aquifer, not create flash floods, or '
retention ponds that dissipate water by evaporation rather than recharge.
Response
Detention ponds are recommended as a possible mitigation measure because they treat as well as
attenuate excess surface water runoff. Injecting stormwater runoff into the aquifer is a good idea but
Federal, state and local permitting agencies require treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge.
Treatment is typically accomplished with open water systems such as detention ponds, grass swales, filter

strips and stormwater wetlands. Therefore, groundwater recharge does not necessarily eliminate the ,
usage of detention ponds or other open water stormwater treatment facilities. The detention ponds are
designed to prevent flash floods by attenuating stormwater runoff and gradually releasing at pre-

development flow rates. See Section 6.2.4, Possible Water Quality Mitigation Measures, and 6.2.7.2, ,
Stormwater Detention, for discussion on wet and dry detention ponds.
9-17 Comment I
Final design should include sufficient storm water ponds to treat water from the entire site and upstream
drainage. Ponds and best management practices should be designed to reduce pollutants and dissipate
energy so that down stream riparian and wetland habitat and water quality are not degraded. '
Response
Detention ponds are recommended and are discussed in Section 6.2.4, Water Quality Mitigation Measures,
and Section 6.2.7.2, Stormwater Detention, of the FEIS.
9-18 Comment '
Bioengineering techniques and stream design criteria should be utilized for stream protection, relocations,
and restorations as per fluvial morphology and restoration principles.
Response
The proposed plan to mitigate water quality impacts and protect the adjacent streams, Horsepen Creek,
Brush Creek and the East Fork Deep River are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
9-19 Comment 1
Upgrading of the storm water management system and the new storm water management system for the
third runway will be a positive impact.
database_101801.xls
' Response
The modified storm sewer system associated with the proposed project will include stormwater
' management systems designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff (see Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the
FEIS). The PTIA is currently developing a Stormwater Master Plan which incorporates the stormwater
management identified in the FEIS in Section 6.2.4 for the proposed project and subsequent development
and improvements to the existing storm sewer system to treat and attenuate existing areas within the PTIA.
9-20 Comment
Monitoring wells should be placed at several points next to PTIA property to monitor discharge. An
assessment of current discharge should be done before approving this project.
Response
' There are no new monitoring wells planned for installation associated with the development of the
proposed project. However the NCDENR-DWQ currently monitors water quality in Brush Creek,
Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River as part of their statewide water quality monitoring program
' (see Section 4.3 3 in the FEIS for details).
9-21 Comment
' Does the water demand include the additional 16,308 new households projected by your EIS?
Response
The estimated water demand in the FEIS includes the water usage from the proposed project, and at the
PTIA terminal (see water supply subheading in Sections 5.6.3.1, No Action Alternative, and 5.6.3.2,
Alternative W2-A and Tables 5.6.3-4 and 5.6.3-5 in the FEIS).
9-22 Comment
The DEIS states that the Randleman Dam will come on-line in 2002, yet 2007 is now considered the
earliest date it will be operational. The FEIS should address this new information.
Response
The Randleman Dam project received a permit from the USACE in April, 2001. Construction is estimated
to take 2 to 3 years, indicating that it is now expected to come on-line in 2004-2005 according to the
Piedmont Triad Water Authority (see Section 5.6. of the FEIS).
9-23 Comment
How will the addition of impervious surface, impact the water supply?
Response
New impervious surfaces cover up existing pervious areas where water historically infiltrated to the
underlying aquifer. This water becomes stormwater runoff, which has the potential to create downstream
flooding as well as transport hazardous pollutants to surface water. However, these impacts can be
minimized with the use of Best Management Practices designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff
(see Section 5.6, Water Resources for impacts and Section 6.3 of the FEIS).
9-24 Comment
Why is a water shortage only discussed in relationship to a drought?
Response
The FEIS indicates the City of Greensboro has water supply problems due to its location in the upstream
end of the watershed, therefore, the City is dependent on rainfall for its water supply. There are no major
rivers bringing water to the region from other areas. Therefore, during droughts the water supply becomes
critical. However the FEIS also indicates the water supply is critical at all times with the following
statement in Section 4.3.3.3, Water Supply: "The City of Greensboro is approaching the limits of its
available water supply and has placed a priority on securing additional sources and encouraging water
conservation" .
' 9-25 Comment
What will happen in the event of a real drought and given the real likelihood that Randleman Dam is not
completed on schedule?
I database 101801.xis
Response '
The City of Greensboro's Water Department can better answer what the type of measures would be taken
in the event of a drought. However, the proposed project is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and
0.27 % of the available water supply after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project. Operation of the '
proposed project is therefore not considered to constitute a major water use in the area. Also please see
response to Comment 9-22.
9-26 Comment
The huge sorting facility plus the new runway will pave over the city's prime watershed renewal area.
Response '
The amount of impervious area added to the impacted watersheds for each alternative can be found in
Section 5.6, Water Quality of the FEIS. Detention ponds will be designed to collect runoff from these new
impervious surfaces for treatment and attenuation (see Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS).
9-27 Comment
Now the replenishing of ground water will be restricted and what does flow into the aquifer will be polluted '
with airplane emissions.
Response
Impacts to groundwater recharge are located in the subheading "Groundwater Recharge/Discharge" for
each alternative in Section 5.6, Water Quality in the FEIS.
9-28 Comment '
Extensive increase in pollutants, toxins, going into Brush Creek, therefore into our drinking water not only
from ice treatments but from the toxins of engines, acids which drain onto impervious surface, then into the
groundwater. The DEIS states these toxins may be filtered out?
Response
These pollutants have the potential of entering Brush Creek in stormwater runoff. However, the stormwater
runoff will be collected in detention ponds for treatment and attenuation. These ponds treat stormwater
with nutrient uptake by plants, chemical decomposition, and settlement. See Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the
FEIS for more information.
9-29 Comment r
The DEIS doesn't adequately address the increase in impervious surface and the impacts to groundwater
recharge.
Response
Impacts to groundwater recharge are located in the subheading "Groundwater Recharge/Discharge" for
each alternative in Section 5.6, Water Quality in the FEIS.
'
9-30 Comment
Does PTIA or FedEx maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan or Facility Response
Plan in agreement with section 311 of the Clean Water Act? If so, who is responsible for enforcement? '
Have there been any noted violations during the last 5 years by either PTIA or FedEx?
Response
The PTIA has a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. This plan provides the most '
current information available concerning the storage and use of oils, fuel and hazardous substances at
PTIA. This plan was prepared in accordance with the Federal Oil Pollution Prevention Act. The SPCC
serves as a master plan for the majority of both PTAA owned and tenant operated facilities that are located
on airport property (the SPCC is identified in Section 4.3.7.2 in FEIS. The PTAA is responsible for the
plans' enforcement. There have been no noted violations in the last five years.

9-31 Comment
Our leaders had a plan to evacuate the city if the water shortage got any worse. Certainly a loss of

groundwater and added industry can only make this problem worse and possibly critical. '
database 101801.x1s

d
!J

7
Response
Comment noted. The PTIA is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and 0.27 % of the city's water
supply after implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project (see Section 5.6, Water
Quality of the FEIS. Water supply mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS.
9-32 Comment
The possible water-related impacts of the proposed construction have been discussed in the EIS.
However, much of the discussion is qualitative in nature ...To the extent possible, additional quantitative
information regarding the possible water-related impacts should be included in the Draft EIS, to allow for
their more definitive identification.
Response
The concentrations and types of pollutants expected from the operation of the proposed project and
reasonable alternatives are in Tables 5.6.3-5 and 5.6.3-6 in the FEIS.
9-33 Comment
Clearing areas of vegetation during construction would result in short-term turbidity impacts to surface
waters of all three sub-basins in the proposed project area, and mitigation measures are proposed to
minimize these impacts. However, because the proposed construction will take a number of years to
complete, the turbidity impacts might be more than short-term in their effects.
Response
Comment noted. However, land disturbance takes place in the early steps of the proposed project. The
contractor will be required to abide by the terms of an NPDES permit, which requires the on-site
containment of sediments from the construction site with use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
These BMPs are discussed in Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS.
9-34 Comment
FedEx's major benefit for Greensboro is supposed to be its ability to attract other companies, yet the water
consumption estimates are only for FedEx, not any other companies.
Response
Section 5.23 discusses potential water quality impacts from the cumulative projects.
9-35 Comment
Would our reservoirs be fuller or emptier as a result of FedEx?
Response
PTIA, with the proposed project is expected to demand approximately 0.19 % and 0.27 % of the City of
Greensboro's Water Supply after Phase 1 and Phase 2 is complete. Water demand has actually
decreased in the City despite growth due to the implementation of conservation measures (see Section
6.2.4 of the FEIS).
9-36 Comment
The DEIS does not adequately address issues on pollution and water.
Response
The existing conditions (pre-development) with regards to water quality and floodplains are located in
Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, respectively, of the DEIS and FEIS. Section 4.3.3 discusses existing surface
water hydrology, existing surface water classifications and standards, existing surface water quality data,
existing water pollution sources, existing groundwater quality, existing groundwater classifications and
standards, existing water supply and sanitary wastewater treatment. Section 4.3.4 discusses existing
floodplains, floodplain regulations and existing flooding problems. The expected impacts to water quality
and floodplains is discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.12, respectively, for each alternative. Mitigation
measures for water quality and floodplain impacts are discussed in Sections 6.2. and 6.3 of the FEIS.

1 database_101801.xis
9-37 Comment '
The EIS did not adequately address the fact that the flight path of the new runway is directly over our
primary drinking water supply. Increased flights and associated ground transportation pollutants will have '
serious affects on our drinking water.
Response
The FEIS addressed the collection and transfer of pollutants in stormwater runoff. The origins of the
pollutants can be from land operations as well as aircraft operations. Most aircraft air emissions evaporate,
dissipate, or are oiherwise dispersed while they remain airborne. As a result, only minute quantities of
even the visible plumes emanating from aircraft engines ever reach the ground surface or bodies of water
(including lakes). Air quality monitoring studies at other airport locations have helped to document this
occurrence. For example, these findings have shown no significant differences between ambient
particulate concentrations at or near airports and areas located away from the airport. Deicing chemicals
are similarly dispersed and diluted during the take-off, climb-out, and landing operations.
The dumping of fuel during take-off or landing is also not conducted, unless under extreme emergencies
involving mechanical or operational failures. In summary, the potential impact from aircraft air emissions '
on terrestrial or aquatic systems that are located off airport property is considered to be negligible.

9-38 Comment
The post-development peak discharge should not exceed the 25 year pre-developed peak discharge (not
the 10-year as shown). Further, the 25 year high-water should establish the emergency spillway crest. '
Response
Current Guilford County regulations require that the 10-year post development peak discharge rate shall
not exceed the 10-year pre-development discharge rate and the 10-year post development peak maximum
water surface elevation equals the crest of the emergency spillway. These regulations are similar to the
City of Greensboro's. For further information see Section 6.2.7.2 of the FEIS and the City of Greensboro's

Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidance Manual, May 1999. This manual is available at City of I
Greensboro Stormwater Services, 401 Patton Avenue Greensboro, North Carolina 27406 [phone].
The Stormwater Master Plan for the Piedmont Triad International Airport is adopting Guilford County and
City of Greensboro stormwater regulations.
9-39 Comment
I strongly recommend that the angle for graded slopes and fills should be 3:1 to provide for proper
establishment, mowing, and maintenance. If the slopes cannot be obtained reasonably, then retaining
walls should be used to allow flatter slopes. '
Response
All efforts will be made to grade and stabilize slopes and fills in a fashion that minimizes erosion and such
that maintenance activities such as mowing are not impeded. Retaining walls will be considered in
floodplain areas to minimize floodplain encroachment. '
9-40 Comment
I recommend the use of extended detention wetlands, (or semi-dry detention basins) which would
incorporate flood control and water quality. These basins would be a combination of wet and dry detention
ponds and a constructed wetland and would permanently impound from 1-3 feet of water and be planted
with emergent aquatics.
Response
Comment noted. Extended dry detention ponds and wet detention ponds are proposed by the PTAA to
treat and attenuate stormwater runoff. Please see Section 6.0 of the FEIS.
9-41 Comment
The DEIS asserts "water will be available from the project (Randleman Dam) in 2002." If Randleman Dam '
construction began tomorrow, it would not be on line until 2004 at the earliest. Greensboro has
experienced drought conditions for the past five years. Fed Ex's use of more than 10 million gallons per
year and the loss of ground water, will result in significant hardship to the population.
01801z
database-1
1 Response
The statement in the DEIS has been corrected and the FEIS now states that the Randleman Reservoir will
be on-line in 2004-2005.
9-42 Comment
How many new homes will be built in the County (in areas without city water) by new residents working at
Fed Ex or associated businesses, and will the FAA take advantage of the well volume and well depth data
available to strengthen estimates of the impact of these new houses on the County's groundwater?
Response
The induced socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E
of the FEIS. As indicated in these sections, the majority of FedEx employees would be part-time
employees who would already live in the Triad. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project
would result in a significant increase in the construction of new homes for FedEx employees.
9-43 Comment
What will be the impacts of each alternative on the increased nutrient loading into Greensboro's drinking
water supply?
Response
Increased nutrients can adversely affect aquatic life by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations with
increases in the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The greatest threat to increased nutrient loadings
' from airports is deicing wastewater because of the glycol content. Strategy for the treatment of glycol-
laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS.
9-44 Comment
What will be the cumulative impacts of not only increasing the demand of Greensboro's very limited
drinking water supplies and what will be the cumulative impacts on increased wastewater discharge on
water quality?
Response
The water and wastewater demands at the PTIA after Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project are
shown in Tables 5.6.3-2 and 5.6.3-3, respectively in the FEIS. Projected water demands based on growth
at PTIA without the addition of the Mid-Atlantic Hub were considered (see Section 5.6, Water Quality in the
FEIS). Cumulative impacts in the Generalized Study Area are disclosed in Section 5.23 of the FEIS. As
discussed in this section, it is the responsibility of local municipal jurisdictions and planning agencies to
plan for growth and development and the subsequent public service demands that accompany such
growth.
9-45 Comment
What is the mitigation plan to reduce water pollution?
Response
Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
9-46 Comment
The runoff from over 300 acres of added impervious surfaces should be thoroughly mitigated to the utmost
extent possible, so that there is not a diminishment in our water quality.
Response
Detention ponds will be designed to treat and attenuate runoff from the added impervious areas (see
Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3 of the FEIS).
9-47 Comment
A dedicated deicing agent collection system MUST be required for the proposed air cargo facility.
Response
' Strategy for the treatment of glycol-laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS.
I database-101801.xis
9-48 Comment I
In October 1999, a FedEx cargo plane overshot the runway and plunged into the ocean in the Philippines.
Containment measures were required for the resulting fuel leak. What if it had occurred here, in Guilford
County, in our watershed area?
Response
The PTIA has a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan which outlines countermeasures to
contain, cleanup, and mitigate the effect of a spill that impacts jurisdictional waters.
9-49 Comment
Figure 4.3.3-2 of the DEIS shows water quality measurement locations that appear to be too far East to '
adequately assess the impact on the main water supply for the City of High Point. The contaminant levels
should be measured due south of the runway or directly from the Deep River itself. It was not clear at what
level of incremental contamination the expansion to accommodate FedEx would be rejected.
Response
These water quality stations are part of the USGS or NCDENR water quality network. They were not
chosen specifically for this project. Data from these stations was reported in the FEIS because they were
nearest the proposed project. However, additional data on Brush Creek and Horsepen Creeks was also
obtained from NCDENR and is shown in Appendix K of the FEIS.
9-50 Comment
What are the incremental levels of contamination caused by the FedEx airplanes to the water supply? ,
Response
Contaminates from specific sources were not quantified. The FEIS describes the qualitative impact from
all potential pollution sources (see Section 5.6, Water Resources in the FEIS).
9-51 Comment
What will be the health impact on residents drinking contaminated water?
Response
The FAA did not evaluate the potential health impact on residents drinking contaminated water in this EIS.
However, mitigation measures to protect surface waters from stormwater runoff were identified. Mitigation

measures will be designed to meet state water quality standards. Additionally, the receiving waters and '
drinking water reservoirs are monitored by Federal, state and local agencies to ensure the water is safe for
human consumption. '
9-52 Comment
What will be the increased cost to the City of High Point to minimize the impact of this increased level of
pollution to their main water supply reservoirs?
Response
The proposed project will have minimal water quality impact to the East Fork Deep River Watershed, which
contributes flow to the City of Highpoint's reservoir, Highpoint Lake (see Section 5.6, Water Quality of the
FEIS). Therefore, no costs are anticipated.
9-53 Comment
Does the City of High Point measure for the contaminants and do they have the ability to remove them?
(VOC's, Nitrogen Oxides, Benzene and formaldehyde).
Response
The FAA is not aware if the City of Highpoint tests for these pollutants. However, the NCDENR has a
testing program, which includes the drinking water reservoirs for the City of Highpoint, Oak Hollow Lake
and Highpoint Lake as well as the East and West Fork Deep Rivers.
9-54 Comment
Based on the proposed increase number of aircraft, how does PTIA propose to control the glycol runoff '
from de-icing procedures?
Response
Strategy for the treatment of glycol-laden runoff is discussed in Sections 5.6, 6.2 and 6.3 of the FEIS.
database -1 01 so,X

1

1
I

1

9-55 Comment
At what level of contamination to our water resources would the expansion to accommodate FedEx be
rejected?
Response
The FAA would require that water quality impacts be addressed and mitigated to a level that satisfies the
requirements of Federal, state and local jurisdictional and regulatory agencies prior to issuing a Record of
Decision.
9-56 Comment
If a FedEx plane carrying hazardous material should go down in the wetlands, watershed area near the
airport, High Point's water supply, watershed, or reservoirs, what is the FAA's emergency plan for the
contaminant and clean-up. How effective could the containment and clean up?
Response
The PTIA has a Spill Prevention and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan that outlines countermeasures to
contain, cleanup, and mitigate the effect of a spill that impacts jurisdictional waters.
9-57 Comment
Will the incremental levels of pollution make the Benthic macro-invertebrates rating in the Deep River
worse, indicating the water is no longer for any elements measured or was this an oversight?
Response
Quantitative estimates were not determined in the study. However, macroinvertebrate samples by the
NCDENR-DWQ from 1993 indicate "fair" water quality in the East Fork Deep River. The "fair" water quality
status is most likely attributable from the urbanized land uses at the headwaters of the East Fork Deep
River and agricultural land through out it's reach. The East Fork Deep River has approximately 10 small
point dischargers near Interstate 40, mostly associated with oil storage facilities. The East Fork Deep River
should expect little or no increase in pollution from the proposed project due to the small impact to the East
Fork Deep River Sub-basin and the use of BMPs to treat stormwater runoff (see subheading Benthic
Macro-invertebrates in Section 4.3.3.1, Water Resources in the FEIS.
9-58 Comment
Why were water quality measurements not taken in the West fork of the Deep River and Oak Hollow Lake
for review in Table-, K-4 and K-7? Are you implying that they do not exceed acceptable limits of
contamination for any of the elements measured or was this an oversight?
Response
No stormwater runoff from the PTIA drains to the West Fork Deep River, which ultimately drains to Oak
Hollow Lake. Therefore, existing water quality data was not summarized and impacts from the proposed
project were not documented in the FEIS for the West Fork Deep River and Oak Hollow Lake.
9-59 Comment
With regards to demand and conservation, the DEIS gives the misleading impression that demand has
remained constant, despite increased population. Again, this is not entirely true.
Response
The City of Greensboro's. 1997 Water Supply Plan indicates water consumption has remained relatively
constant due to conservation efforts. (see Appendix K of the FEIS for the 1997 Water Supply Plan).
9-60 Comment
I urge the FAA to measure very carefully, the effect of air pollution on High Point's water supply.

I database_101801.xls
Response
Most aircraft air emissions evaporate, dissipate, or are otherwise dispersed while they remain airborne. As
a result, only minute quantities of even the visible plumes emanating from aircraft engines ever reach the
ground surface or bodies of water (including lakes). Air quality monitoring studies at other airport locations
have helped to document this occurrence. For example, these findings have shown no significant
differences between ambient particulate concentrations at or near airports and areas located away from the
airport. Deicing chemicals are similarly dispersed and diluted during the take-off, climb-out, and landing
operations. The dumping of fuel during take-off or landing is also not conducted, unless under extreme
emergencies involving mechanical or operational failures. In summary, the potential impact from aircraft
air emissions on terrestrial or aquatic systems that are located off airport property is considered to be
negligible.
9-61 Comment
The issues of stormwater runoff management have not been adequately addressed. The airport does not
have a NPDES stormwater permit. Stormwater runoff sampling data is missing. The amount of chemical
contaminant in the stormwater runoff from impervious surface areas is not known.
Response
See Section 4.3.3.1 of the FEIS for the status of the PTIA's NPDES permit. Typical concentrations and the
types of pollutants expected in stormwater runoff at the airport are shown on Tables 5.6.3-5 and 5.6.3-6 in
the FEIS.
C

9-62 Comment ,
The City of Greensboro will not be able to handle the increased demand on water supply if FedEx comes
here.
Response '
The water supply available to the City of Greensboro will grow approximately 75 % with the addition of the
Randleman Reservoir in 2004-2005. The City of Greensboro water consumption has declined in recent
years due to the City of Greensboro's water conservation program (see Section 6.2.4 of the FEIS for more
details).
9-63 Comment
The DEIS does a good job of describing water quality mitigation measures that will minimize impacts by the '
proposed project, but does not address what measures Greensboro, High Point or Guilford County plan to
implement to improve water quality in each of these streams (North and South Buffalo Creek, Horsepen
Creek, Brush Creek, East Fork Deep River, and Richland Creek). We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS
address these water quality issues and include what measures are proposed to improve water quality in
each of these streams.
Response '
Cumulative impacts from future residential, commercial and industrial development following the
construction of the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 5.23 of the FEIS. See Appendix A,
Agency Correspondence, for the Governor's Air and Water Quality Assurance Letter.
9-64 Comment
We (NCWRC) request that the Water Quality Mitigation section of the Final EIS provide clarification on ,
specific vegetative requirements in the 100-foot vegetative buffer for all new development activities along
perennial streams.
Response

Specific vegetative requirements within any established buffer zone will be determined at the time the '
proposed improvements are designed and will be coordinated closely with the Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Plan described in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. It would be premature to specify particular plant types

at this point in the process. '
n
database_101801.As

1

II'?

9-65 Comment
We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS address what measures will be implemented to minimize impacts
to intermittent stream corridors as a result of project and secondary development. Typically, we
recommend that minimum 35-foot vegetated buffers, preferably forested, be maintained along intermittent
stream corridors.
Response
Please see response to Comment 9-64. Regulations for stream corridor buffers are described in Section
6.2.4 of the FEIS.
9-66 Comment
The Final EIS should address what measures will be taken to provide water to the project and to support
secondary development in the event that Randleman Lake is not constructed and operational when the
proposed project is completed.
Response
The FEIS indicates that current and future tenants at the PTIA use surface water supplied by the City of
Greensboro (see Section 4.3.3.3 Water Supply). As discussed in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, the proposed
project and reasonable alternatives will not result in significant impacts to local water supplies. The
USACE issued a permit for the Randleman Reservoir in April 2001. Construction is slated to begin late
2001 and be completed by 2004 to 2005. Therefore, the FAA concludes that the water supply demands of
the proposed project will be met. The FAA is not aware of any "contingency plans" that have been
developed by the City of Greensboro if the reservoir does not come on-line as anticipated. The FAA
recommends the proposed project be designed with water conservation in mind with the use of water
saving plumbing fixtures, little irrigation requirements for landscape areas and good habits by employees to
reduce the overall demand for water supply. Please refer to Section 6.2.4.6 of the FEIS for discussion on
erosion and sedimentation control to be implemented during construction.
9-67 Comment
Secondary development resulting from the proposed project will increase the potential for degradation to
aquatic and fisheries resources in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area due to increased wastewater
and stormwater discharges... We (NCWRC) request that the Final EIS address these water quality issues
and include what measures are proposed to improve water quality in the affected streams and what
measures are proposed to prevent degradation of streams that are unimpaired.
Response
Secondary impacts resulting from development of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.23 of
the FEIS All future development in the vicinity is required to abide by the stormwater development
ordinance's for the City of High Point, City of Greensboro and Guilford County, which incorporate state
guidelines to protect water quality.
9-68 Comment
Any construction activity including land clearing, grading and excavation activities resulting in the
disturbance of five (5) or more acres of total land are required to obtain a NPDES Stormwater Permit prior
to beginning these activities.
Response
An NPDES permit will be obtained for the project as discussed in the FEIS in Section 6.3, Element 4.2.
9-69 Comment
To mitigate both the construction (short-term) and secondary (long-term) impacts to surface water quality
within these subbasins, PTAA must prepare and implement a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP)
Response
The PTIA is currently preparing a Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP) that incorporates Best Management
Practices for existing development, the proposed project and other future development.
database_101801.xis
9-70 Comment ,
How is EPA approval obtained with respect to water quality?
Response
EPA does not have direct jurisdiction in terms of water quality. As long as all state water quality standards '
are met and all appropriate Federal (NPDES), state and local permits are obtained, the EPA requirements
should be satisfied. It is ultimately up to the state, particularly the Governors Office (or designee) to assure
that water quality standards will be met by the proposed project. '
9-71 Comment
The authors of the DEIS seem to confuse groundwater recharge and discharge areas. The DEIS defines '
groundwater discharge areas using the same definition for groundwater recharge areas.
Response
The definitions in the DEIS have been revised as suggested. See Section 5.6 of the FEIS.
9-72 Comment
We (ABEQ) strongly support the proposed development of the Horsepen Creek floodplain on the '
southeastern side of PTIA as a wetland. We recommend that as much stormwater as possible be diverted
to this location, particularly from the impervious areas on the airside of the facility.
Response
Comment noted.
9-73 Comment
FAA is requested in its response to these comments to officially confirm what appears to be stated in the ,
DEIS that none of the six alternatives considered during the Level 2 screening process will have any
adverse environmental impact on High Point's public water supply or upon the East Fork Deep River Sub-
basin either during the Phase 1 or Phase 2 construction periods, or thereafter when the proposed FedEx
Air Cargo Facility, new runway, and any other PTIA improvements included in the DEIS are operational.
Furthermore, FAA is requested to see to it that the above official confirmation is strongly stated in the FEIS.
'
Response
Impacts to the East Fork Deep River could potentially have an affect on the City of Highpoint's water
supply. However, these impacts would be minimal because little disturbance would occur within the '
watershed draining to the East Fork Deep River. This statement has been clarified in the FEIS.
9-74 Comment
FAA is requested to insure that PTIA will be required to fully comply with all State and local regulations
pertaining to the provision and continuing maintenance of riparian buffers and any other applicable
watershed protection provisions. FAA is also requested to see to it that the above referenced regulations
concerning riparian buffers as required under the approved Randleman Lake Watershed Rules are
appropriately noted in the FEIS.
Response
The PTAA will be required to comply with all State and local regulations pertaining to the provision and
continuing maintenance of riparian buffers and any other applicable watershed protection provisions.
9-75 Comment '
With regard to the allegation of "fuel dumping", in the vicinity of an airport prior to aircraft landings, FAA is
requested to provide clarification as to what extent the periodic dumping of jet fuel is currently an

operational practice of the airline industry. If such fuel dumping is currently occurring, FAA is further '
requested to provide a complete assessment as to the environmental impacts of such an operational
practice.

Response ,

database_101801.x1s

H

J

J

1
i
0
Unburned fuel from jet aircraft is not dumped unless there is an eminent emergency that endangers the
passengers or people on the ground. If possible, and only on these irregular occasions, the pilots eject the
fuel at altitude and away from inhabited areas. This minimizes the environmental impact and allows the
crew to better prepare for an emergency landing. In short, fuel dumping is not a common practice and only
conducted when the aircraft is in eminent danger. FAA has no formal regulation pertaining to fuel dumping
or documented instances of fuel dumping at PTIA.
9-76 Comment
The proposed site is adjacent to the existing airport facilities and Bryan Blvd. Approximately 14,500-feet of
Brush Creek flow through this site. Brush Creek is a protected watershed and is classified as WS-III-NSW
and flow to Lake Higgins, a water supply reservoir for the City of Greensboro.
Response
Stormwater treatment facilities would be constructed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff prior to
discharging into Brush Creek such that all state water quality standards are met. Please see Chapter 6.0
of the FEIS for further information.
9-77 Comment
Stormwater and water supply issues will require due diligence and buffer protection. Variances and/or
mitigation requirements and/or other actions may be necessary for both. Maximizing mitigation efforts
within the same subbasin where the impacts occur will be paramount.
Response
The three sub-basins impacted by this project are Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River
Sub-basins. Stormwater treatment facilities would be constructed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff
prior to discharging into Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and the East Fork Deep River such that all state
water quality requirements are met. Please see Sections 5.6 (Water Quality) and Chapter 6.0 (Mitigation)
of the FEIS for further details.
9-78 Comment
Identify the streams potentially impacted by the proposed project. The current stream classifications and
use support ratings should be included.
Response
Brush Creek, Horsepen Creek and East Fork Deep River are streams impacted by the proposed project.
Stream classifications and user support ratings are identified in Section 4.3.3 Water Quality in the FEIS.
9-79 Comment
Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins be placed at all water
supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
Response
The final design for the stormwater attenuation ponds will comply with all state water quality requirements.
This will include Best Management Practices (BMP's) such as spill catch basins and oil-water separators
as needed. Please refer to Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information regarding mitigation measures for
the Preferred Alternative.
9-80 Comment
Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
Response
Permanent stormwater controls include wet and dry detention ponds and oil-water separators. Temporary
stormwater controis include sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices to be implemented
during construction and shortly there after until the site stabilizes. Refer to Chapter 6.3 of the FEIS for
more details.
9-81 Comment
Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
1 database 101801.xis
Response 1
Sediment and erosion control methods would not be placed in wetlands. Sediment and erosion control
methods would be installed according to state guidelines during construction, and be located outside of
wetland areas to protect them from sediment deposition (see Section 6.3 in the FEIS for Water Quality
Mitigation Measures.
9-82 Comment
Reedy Fork subbasin area will be deprived of approximately 696 gallons per day of groundwater recharge.
This translates to approximately 83,000,000 gallons of water annual loss to the Greensboro water supply.
Response
Groundwater recharge loss calculations were conducted as part of this FEIS and represent a worst case
scenario assuming no infiltration/recharge within areas of impact. The calculated loss of recharge area and
volume, by alternative, is contained in Section 5.6 of the FEIS, Water Quality.

fl

9-83 Comment
We view the with concern the possible detrimental effects of this project on sedimentation, water quality,
and increased flooding.
Response
Mitigation measures are proposed to minimize water quality and floodplain impacts (see Chapter 6.0,
Mitigation, in the FEIS for further information).
1

1

u

database_101801.xis '

u

n

H
u
u

Piedmont Triad International Airport
10. DOT Section 303
10-1 Comment
Conserve the parks and natural areas.
Response
Comment noted. Section 303(c) sites would not be impacted by Alternatives W2-A, W3-A or W1-A1.
Alternatives N-D and WE would indirectly impact Section 303(c) sites from aircraft noise. Refer to Section
5.7 of the FEIS for further information.
10-2 Comment
In the absence of a Section 4(f) Evaluation and a selected alternative, we (DOI) reserve our comments
until a preferred alternative has been selected and a Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared. It appears
that several historic properties are within this project area and may be affected by at least increased noise
pollution.
Response
As stated in Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS, the FAA has selected Alternative W1-A1 as the Preferred
Alternative for the proposed project at PTIA. This alternative would not have a direct or indirect impact to
Section 303(c) resources. This alternative will have an indirect adverse impact from noise to one (1)
historic architectural property covered under Section 106, the Campbell-Gray Farm, which is eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The FAA, in consultation with the NCSHPO, has
determined that this property would be adversely affected by Alternative W1-A1, and a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) (Appendix G of this EIS) has been entered into by the FAA, SHPO and PTAA to
mitigate the adverse noise impacts.
The FAA and SHPO have also concurred that the adverse effect to this property under Section 106 does
not constitute a constructive use under Section 303(c) because it does not substantially impair the historic
integrity of the site under which it was listed (Criterion C). Therefore Section 303(c) does not apply, and
Alternative W1-A1 would not result in indirect Section 303(c) impacts, and a separate Section 303(c)
Evaluation is not warranted.
10-3 Comment
We (DOI) are opposed to environmental approval of this project until a Section 4(f) Evaluation has been
prepared and reviewed by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Response
Comment noted. Please see responses to Comment 10-2.
database-1 01 801.xis

Piedmont Triad International Airport
' 11. Historic Architectural and Archeological
11-1 Comment
' Campbell-Gray Farm, southwest corner of junction NC 68 and US 421 has been determined to be eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Response
This statement is correct, as noted at Section 4.2.4.4 of the FEIS.
11-2 Comment
There are seventeen recorded archeological sites located within the project study area, sixteen in the area
of Brush Creek and one in the Horsepen Creek vicinity.
Response
These are previously recorded sites. Additional archaeological studies within the Area of Potential Effect
(APE) for the preferred alternative, as previously agreed upon by the FAA and the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), were conducted after the publication of the DEIS. The FAA has
consulted with the SHPO concerning the findings of these studies. The SHPO has concurred with FAA's
findings that none of the sites identified within the archaeological APE require further investigation, or are
eligible for listing in the National Register. See Appendix A for agency coordination.
11-3 Comment
There are no recorded sites within the Deep River area, but this area has never been surveyed for
archaeological resources and is expected to contain such sites.
Response
No further archaeological survey is being conducted in the Deep River area, as this area has previously
been disturbed by construction.
11-4 Comment
The structures at 2308 Fleming Road include a log house comprised of two log houses (one of which may
be late 18th or ear;y 19th century) which were pushed together possibly c. 1870s) and 2 log outbuildings...
The just released EIS impact statement does not include these structures although they stand next to the
proposed 65 DNL noise contour. Further, they were within the proposed 65 DNL noise contour last year at
a public exhibition hosted by the FAA in Greensboro.
Response
The structures at 2308 Fleming Road have not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the
National Register. This resource is not located with the Area of Potential Effect of the undertaking.
11-5 Comment
If the hub opens in 2005, a major decline in the student enrollment at Guilford College will occur. This will
seriously jeopardize the future well-being of this historic academic institution listed on the National
Register. The adverse effect caused by the cargo hub would cause permanent damage to this historic site
and sound insulation would affect the integrity of the structures.
Response
The noise at the Guilford College Historic District would exceed 65 DNL only under Phases 1 and 2 of
1 Alternative N-D. Further, the noise would exceed 65 dB for Alternative N-D only at the southwestern
corner of the approximately 280-acre historic district. This corner is open lawn flanked by West Market
Street and New Garden Road. The increase of noise at this edge of the campus would not constitute a use
or constructive use of the historic district. The 1990 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
nomination for the historic district found it to be of statewide religious, educational, and college campus
design significancy under NRHP Criteria A and C. The increase in noise under Alternative N-D would not
substantially diminish protected activities, features, or attributes of the historic district. A quiet setting.at its
' southwestern corner, which is adjacent to a busy intersection, is not a generally recognized feature or
attribute of the historic district's architectural or historic significance. Further, the noise will not exceed 65
dBA under the preferred alternative (W1-A1) or the other three alternatives.
database_101801.xls
11-6 Comment
How will the public be able to review the archeological survey before the release of the FEIS?
Response
In order to protect archaeological sites, North Carolina law prohibits the release of site location information
to the general public. However, the archaeological survey was reviewed and assessed by professional I
archaeologists at the North Carolina SHPO and its findings are summarized in the FEIS.
11-7 Comment
The Knight Barn on the east side of SR 2137, 0.1 mile south of SR 2278 is not listed or mentioned in the
DEIS. This resource needs to be reviewed to determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register.
Response
The Knight Barn has not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. This
resource is not located with the Area of Potential Effect of the undertaking.
11-8 Comment 0
Campbell-Gray Farm has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places and is within the 65 DNL contour. How do you mitigate the sound burden?
Response
The FAA has determined that the undertaking would have an indirect adverse effect upon the Campbell-
Gray Farm due to significant increases in noise, and the North Carolina SHPO has concurred with this '
determination. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been executed by the FAA, SHPO and PTAA to
address the adverse noise impact on this resource. Please see Chapter 6.0, Mitigation, of the FEIS and
the MCA in Appendix G of the FEIS. 1

database-1 01 801.xis
rl
t
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
12. Biotic Communities
12-1 Comment
What are the impacts on wildlife and their habitat?
Response
Please refer to Sections 5.9.3.1 through 5.9.4.6 of the FEIS for details on primary and secondary impacts
to wildlife and their habitat. Also refer to Section 5.10 for details on primary and secondary impacts to state
and Federal protected species and Section 5.11 for wetland impacts.
12-2 Comment
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources requests the following information be included in the
EIS:a.The total forest land acreage by type;b. The production of the forest soils impacted by the proposed
project; c. The provisions the contractor will take to utilize merchantable timber;d. Methods to comply with
open burning regulations;e. The provisions the contractor will take to prevent erosion; and f. The impact
upon existing greenways.
Response
a. The total forest land acreage by type within the entire Detailed Study Area is shown in Table 4.4.1-1 and
by Alternative in Table 5.9.4-1. b. Determining the production of forest soils was deemed unnecessary for
this project (pers. Comm. with Bill Pickens, 10/29/2000 - See phone record (Appendix A). c. d. e. PTAA is
committed to insuring the lumber contractor will sell merchantable timber and comply with appropriate laws
and regulations regarding woodland burning, and implement proper provision for the prevention of erosion
and damage to forestland outside the impact area. f. There are no greenways in the Generalized or
Detailed Study Areas.
12-3 Comment
U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Fisheries
Service has stated that the proposed project will not impact fishery resources for which the National Marine
Fisheries is responsible.
Response
Comment noted.
12-4 Comment
The proposed action would likely degrade or eliminate important habitat for many ecologically valuable
aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species.
Response
Please refer to sections 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the FEIS for details on potential impacts to wildlife habitats
and animal species.
12-5 Comment
Any development in or around the preferred project site is likely to permanently affect the local fauna by
habitat loss, fragmentation or degradation.
Response
Please refer to Sections 5.9, 5. 10, and 5.11 in the FEIS for details on what the projected impacts to local
fauna and habitat will be.
12-6 Comment
The proposed runway would mean cutting vast amounts of trees and the destruction of many animal
habitats.
Response
Details of the acreages of impact to wildlife habitat is found in Section 5.9 of the FEIS. Also, Table 5.9.2-1
summarizes the acreage of impact by each existing habitat type.
database_101801.x1s
12-7 Comment I
Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted.
Response
The requested information is provided in Sections 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 of the FEIS.

1

database 101801.xis
1
F11

D

1
s

Piedmont Triad International Airport
13. Endangered and Threatened Species
13-1 Comment
Bald eagle nests in the area should be a part of the EIS.
Response
The locations of one active and one inactive bald eagle's nest are discussed in Section 4.4.3.2 and shown
in Figure 4.4.3-1 of the FEIS. Eagle habitat located within the FEIS Study Area is discussed in Sections
5.10.3 and 5.10.4.
13-2 Comment
Based on information provided in the DEIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that this project is not
likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
currently proposed for Federal listing under the (Endangered Species) Act. We believe that the
requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied.
Response
Comment noted. Please refer to Appendix A for agency coordination.
13-3 Comment
We (the Sierra Club Piedmont Plateau Group) do not believe the conclusion that this added activity
(increased aircraft operations) would not affect the bald eagles nesting in the area. This much noise has to
impact them as well as the humans living here. I would hate to see this project drive out this nesting pair
when we have worked so long to bring them back. We believe additional expert, unbiased study of the
impact on the eagles is needed.
Response
The Department of Interior "concurs with the FAA's findings that this project is not likely to adversely affect
any Federally listed species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for
Federal listing under the Act" (See Appendix A of the FEIS).
13-4 Comment
The EIS states that there is potential for red wolves in our region, but the red wolf has been extinct here
since colonial times. The red wolf presently occurring in North Carolina have been reintroduced into Hyde
County, which is the easternmost county of our state. There is no potential of the red wolf occurring in this
area.
Response
References to the Red Wolf and other Federal species that are located more than two counties away from
the FEIS Study Area have been removed from the FEIS.
13-5 Comment
The EIS mentions a record of a red wolf occurrence in Harnett County. Neither the State Museum of
Natural Sciences nor the Natural Heritage Program have any knowledge of this record. There is no
reference cited.
Response
Please see response to Comment 13-4. Information on Red Wold sitings in Harnett County was
downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency site at www.epa.gov/espp/database.htm.
13-6 Comment
American chaff seed is listed as another species, but it occurs in the sandhills and savannahs and
pinelands with high fire frequency. The detailed study area does not support savannah or sandhill pineland
habitat.
Response
Reference to the American chaff seed has been removed from the FEIS.
database_101801.xis
13-7 Comment
Missing from the EIS is the bog turtle, Clemes mulenburgi, a Federally listed species that occurs within 30
miles of the site.
Response
Reference to the Bog Turtle (Clemes mulenburgi) has been added to the FEIS in Section 4.4.3.2 and
Section 5.10.3.1.
13-8 Comment
The source used for the wildlife section largely depends on a 1981 work titled, "Field Guide to North
American Wildlife, Eastern Edition." Such a reference has no place in a document of this type since there
are many, many more specific references readily available from a wide variety of places, including the web.
Response
Comment noted. The "Field Guide to North American Wildlife, Eastern Edition" was used to obtain
background information on wildlife habitats for the DEIS. An EIS can include general information about
wildlife habitat, therefore this reference was considered acceptable for use. More site specific information
obtained through direct correspondence with the Natural Heritage Program and Fish and Wildlife Service
and their web sites have been cited in the FEIS (Please see FEIS Section 4.4.3).
13-9 Comment
The EIS omits the four-toe salamander, which has a high potential of occurring in the area.
Response
State listed species, such as the four-toed salamander, that have not been documented within Guilford
County were not included in the FEIS.
13-10 Comment
A figure in the EIS shows the existing bald eagle nest outside of the study area, when it actually occurs
inside the boundary shown in the figure.
Response
Figure 4.4.3-1 of the FEIS shows the locations of the active (Latitude 36 degrees 09'38" N and Longitude
79 degrees 51'05" W) and inactive (Latitude 36 degrees 11' 55" N and Longitude 79 degrees 53'32" W)
eagle's nests. This information was provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Please see Appendix A of the FEIS).

13-11 Comment
Grouse is mentioned as a common species for the area, but grouse do not even occur here. They are
found in far western Piedmont counties and mountains.
Response
Reference to the grouse has been removed from the FEIS.

13-12 Comment
The potential for ephemeral pools is not addressed. Apparently, the site was visited in February, 1999.
Average rainfall in February, 1999, was 1.5 inches, but the 48-year average for February is 3.3 inches.
Under these conditions, it would be very difficult to assess the presence of ephemeral pools or ephemeral
pool species. Our region has already lost 90 percent of our ephemeral pools.
Response '
An impermeable substrate such as a hardpan of clay or rock located in a flattened upland area is
necessary to form an upland ephemeral pool (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The project area substrate is
inappropriate for this type of system to form. Additionally, wetlands within the Airport property were
surveyed in March and April, 1999, by LAW Engineering Services. Adjacent upland areas were also
traversed by LAW Engineering during the wetland survey. A field reconnaissance of the study area
wetlands was also conducted by staff of the USACE, who verified the wetland boundaries (Please see
USACE correspondence in Appendix A). No ephemeral pools were observed.
database_101801.xis I
13-13 Comment
What steps have been taken to identify the potential harm that night time noise and light will have on the
breeding habitats of the Bald Eagle and possible adverse affects on the young hatchlings?
Response
After reviewing the DEIS, the Department of Interior has concurred with the FAA's findings that the project
alternatives are na; likely to result in any adverse affects to Federally listed species. Please see Appendix
A of the FEIS.
13-14 Comment
Were the studies conducted when the birds could have been expected to be in the area?
Response
The analysis of noise impacts was based on computer modeling using the INM and not on noise monitoring
data. Noise monitoring studies were not conducted at the eagles nest locations or for any other species
located within or near the Generalized Study Area. Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS discusses the potential for
noise related impacts to the Bald Eagle. Also, please see response to Comment 13-13.
13-15 Comment
Do you honestly believe that eagles with a nest within 2.5 miles of the runway will not venture into the
study area which is only a quarter-mile away?
Response
The active eagle's nest is located approximately 3.9 miles off the end of existing Runway 5/23, and 3.8-4.1
miles off the end of the proposed runway. The DEIS states that there is a "moderate potential" for the bald
eagle to occur within the Detailed Study Area. "Moderate Potential" is defined as preferred habitat available
with no record of documentation nor observation on site (see Section 4.4.3.2 of the FEIS). There are no
large lakes or open rivers within the Detailed Study Area which would provide a more attractive foraging
area and preferre6 nabitat than that which is available outside the limits of the Study Area. However, due to
the proximity of the active nest, the bald eagle was rated as "moderate potential of occurrence" (See
Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS). Section 5.10.3.1- Birds, states the "bald eagle has the potential to
occasionally forage or migrate through the Detailed Study Area". It was concluded in the DEIS that bald
eagles will move through the "Detailed Study Area" to access additional feeding areas and that the
proposed project and reasonable alternatives would not have a significant impact on them.
13-16 Comment
Will the DEIS be revised to accurately state the proximity of the eagle's nest to the end of the runway?
Response
The active eagle's nest is located approximately 3.9 miles off the end of existing Runway 5/23 (see Section
4.4.3.2 and Figure 4.4.3-1 in the FEIS) and approximately 3.8-4.1 miles off the end of the proposed
runway. The FEIS states the proximity of the active bald eagle's nest (Latitude 36 degrees 9.38 minutes N
and Longitude 79 degrees 51. 05 minutes W) to the Detailed Study Area, not the end of the runway. The
nest location information was derived from the FWS, NC Natural Heritage Program and NC Wildlife
Resource Commission. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS.
13-17 Comment
Will you continue with this expansion of the airport and the formation of the cargo hub with nighttime
operation if it pose6 a threat to the Bald Eagle, which is an endangered species?
Response
Please see Section 5.10.3.1 of the FEIS for a discussion of the anticipated noise levels at the bald eagle
nest location. Additionally, the Department of Interior has concurred with the FAA's findings that the
proposed project and reasonable alternatives are not likely to result in any adverse affects to Federally
listed species. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS. The bald eagle was downgraded to threatened in July
1995.
database 101801.xis
13-18 Comment
Works by Weakly (1998) and Schafale and Weakly (1990) are missing from the DEIS.
Response
Habitat descriptions in the DEIS were based on field observations of specific vegetation compositions in
the Detailed Study Area. While specific classifications found within Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina (Third Approximation) (Schaflae and Weakley 1990) were not used,
information contained in this document was utilized in the assessment of the various community types
found within the Detailed Study Area.
13-19 Comment I
Outdated scientific names are used (ground cedar clubmoss described as Lycopodium flavbelliforne,
should be updated to Diphasiastrum digitatum).
Response I
The scientific name for cedar clubmoss (Diphasiastrum digitatum) has been updated in the FEIS. Please
see Section 4.4.1.1 of the FEIS.
13-20 Comment
The DEIS contains an inaccurate assessment of potential habitat for American chaffseed (Schwalbea
americana). This habitat occurs in the Sandhills in savannahs and pinelands with high fire frequency.
Response
Reference to the American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) has been removed from the FEIS.
13-21 Comment ?.
The mole salamander and the purple fringless orchid are listed as having only moderate potential of
occurrence. These species may have a high potential of occurring in the study area.
Response
"Moderate potential of occurrence" is defined as preferred habitat available, but no documentation or
observation of the species within the study area (see Section 4.4.3.2 of the FEIS) as is the case with the
mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) and the purple fringeless orchid (Platanthera peromoena).
13-22 Comment I
Pheasants are also mentioned as a common species for the area (see Section 4.4.1.2), but they are an
Asian species that are released for game hunting and are not part of the native fauna of the area.
Response I
Reference to Pheasants have been removed from the FEIS.
13-23 Comment J
Lake Higgins provides habitat for the Federally threatened bald eagle.
Response
While Lake Higgins may provide feeding habitat for the Federally threatened bald eagle, it is located more
than 2.5 miles from proposed airport improvements. The Department of Interior has concurred with the
FAA's findings that the proposed project and reasonable alternatives are not likely to result in any adverse
affects to Federally listed species. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS.
13-24 Comment
Include descriptions of fish and wildlife resources within the project area and a listing of Federally or state
designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. When practicable, potential borrow area
to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories.
Response
Based on information provided in the DEIS, the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with FAA's
determination that the Preferred Alternative is not likely to adversely affect any Federally-listed species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal listing under the
(Endangered Species) Act. The USFWS further has stated that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act
have been satisfied based on the information contained in the DEIS.
database 101801.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
14. Wetlands
14-1 Comment
Please pay close attention and do not destroy wetlands in the area.
Response
Comment noted. Federal and state regulations require avoidance, minimization or compensation of
impacts and mitigation measures for those impacts that are unavoidable. The FEIS contains a discussion
of potential impacts to wetlands in Section 5.11, and a mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts to wetlands
in Section 6.3.
14-2 Comment
Water quality permits from appropriate agencies will be required for disturbance and loss of wetlands by
the proposed project.
Response
The FAA acknowledges that a Federal USACE 404 permit and state Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will be required for the proposed project. These requests are currently under review by
appropriate resource agencies.
14-3 Comment
Examine additional design and/or site alternatives that would eliminate the need to impact Brush Creek
and a 100-foot undisturbed vegetated riparian buffer along the creek or associated wetlands.
Response
There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed project that do not affect Brush Creek wetlands.
Please see Section 3.2 and 3.3 of the FEIS which discusses why other alternatives are not practicable, and
Section 6.3 which discusses measures to mitigate impacts.
14-4 Comment
The EIS should mitigate for development impacts on wetlands.
Response
A Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan has been developed and submitted as part of the Section 404/401
process to the USACE, EPA and NCDENR. This plan includes both on-site and off-site mitigation. A
summary of this plan is contained in Section 6.3. of the FEIS.
14-5 Comment
Include descriptions, maps and project activities, such as fill or channel alteration of any streams or
wetlands affected by the project. Also, identify the Federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
Response
Sections 5.9 and 5.11 of the FEIS disclose the types of impacts that would occur to Biotic Communities
and Wetlands with the implementation of each of the alternatives. Figures 5.9.2-1 through 5.9.2-6 of the
FEIS depict the impact areas for each alternative. Tables 5.9.2-1 and 5.11.2-1 summarize the impacted
acres by land cover type. The 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-
87-1) was used to identify and delineate jurisdictional wetlands.
14-6 Comment
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission offers several generalized recommendations. Utility
lines should be placed in or adjacent to upland areas. It is recommended that a minimum 100-foot buffer of
natural vegetation be left between construction corridors and the banks of perennial streams. Trees and
shrubs should be retained or established as buffers. Buffers should also be left along intermittent drains or
streams.
I database 101801.xls
Response
During the final design stage of the preferred alternative, the PTAA will, to the extent practicable, minimize
impacts to natural areas located adjacent to the construction corridors along the banks of perennial
streams. However, the project must also be designed to meet FAA safety standards (AC 150/5200-33)
which may prohibit the use of or planting of certain trees and other vegetation in applicable areas located
adjacent to the construction corridor and active aircraft movement areas because of their potential to act as
a wildlife attractant and/or hazard to aviation.
14-7 Comment
Disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original soils and contours, reseeded, and be allowed to
revert to natural wetland vegetation.
Response
Please see response to Comment 14-4.
14-8 Comment
The wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed project include a permanently flooded stream and
floodplain system of Brush Creek and its' associated tributaries. The functions of these wetland areas
include groundwater purification and recharge, flood and stormwater abatement, sediment retention and
wildlife habitat.....These wetlands serve as a valuable storage area for storm and flood waters by holding
the water temporarily and releasing it slowly, as well as serving as important habitat for wildlife. The
proposed activities will likely reduce or eliminate these significant biological functions.
Response
Please see response to Comment 14-4.
14-9 Comment
The USDO1 strongly recommend mitigating on-site within the project area for the impacted wetlands,
including establishing vegetated buffer zones and replanting native woodland vegetation. In addition, we
recommend the acreage of converted riparian habitat be mitigated at an appropriate ratio: 2:1 restoration,
4:1 enhancement, and 10:1 preservation.
Response
Comment noted. Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS which contains a summary of the Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Plan for wetland impacts that has been submitted to the USACE, EPA and NCDENR. This plan
includes both on-site and off-site mitigation.
14-10 Comment
Total wetland acreages do not include stream relocation impacts (although pond acreages were included).
Total wetland acreages should reflect all three categories (floodplain, wetlands, streams and ponds), since
waterways are also considered wetlands. The FEIS should show both dissected (individual) and lumped
(total) values for these wetland categories and report totals (or individuals and totals) in summary tables
such as Table S-2.
Response
The FEIS contains estimates of wetland impacts in terms of total acreage, linear feet of streams and
floodplains in Table S-2.
14-11 Comment
The quality of the wetlands directly and indirectly impacted should be better documented... Also, the
specific functions of the wetlands (water quality, habitat, ground-water recharge, etc.) should be provided in
the FEIS.
Response
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural resources (NCDENR) Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) rankings for each wetland/stream, by alternative, has been summarized in Table 5.11.2-2
of the FEIS.
database_101801.xls

1
I

1

14-24 Comment
Within the DEIS, the discussion of potential stream and wetland mitigation sites is severely limited.... the
DEIS does not provide enough detail for us (NCDENR) to endorse any of the DEIS's potential mitigation
sites at this time.
Response
Section 6.2.6 of the DEIS discussed possible mitigation measures which could be implemented to mitigate
wetland impacts. These measures were common for all of the reasonable alternatives. Section 6.3 of the
FEIS contains a detailed mitigation plan that is specific to the Preferred Alternative which is under review
by appropriate resource agencies.
14-25 Comment
Based upon the description provided in the DEIS, an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required for this project.
Response
Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been requested and submitted by the PTAA and is under
review by Division of Water Quality (designated DWQ Project No. 00-0846). The PTAA has also prepared
and submitted a Section 404 permit application which is currently under review by the USACE.
14-26 Comment
The delineation of the wetland/waters impacts accomplished should be verified by the USACOE for both
acres of jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional linear footage of waters during this review.
Response
The wetland jurisdictional delineation used for the purposes of impact evaluation in the DEIS and FEIS was
verified by the USACE on January 19, 1999 for both acres of jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional linear
footage. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS.
14-27 Comment
NWI data indicate wetland resources within the proposed site development area.
Response
Section 4.4.2, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides a description of the existing wetland and open water
resources found within the Generalized Study Area.
14-28 Comment
The EIS should include a detailed assessment of existing natural resources within areas of potential
development and should discuss the potential of mitigating development to wetlands, waters, and high
quality upland habitat.
Response
Section 4.4, Natural Environment, of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the existing natural
resources within the Detailed Study Area. Sections 5.9, Biotic Communities, 5.10, Threatened and
Endangered Species, and 5.11, Wetlands, provide detailed descriptions of the projected impacts to the
various natural resources from each of the alternatives. Section 6.3. of the FEIS provides a detailed
description of the proposed mitigation for impacts to wetlands resulting from the construction and operation
of the Preferred Alternative.
14-29 Comment
Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be revegetated.
Response
Section 4.4.2, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides detailed descriptions of the existing wetlands and streams
within the Detailed Study Area. Included within this section of the FEIS are tabulations of linear feet of
streams. Section 5.11, Wetlands, of the FEIS provides a detailed description of the projected impacts to
wetlands resulting from the various alternatives evaluated in detail as part of the FEIS. Section 6.3 of the
FEIS provides a detailed description of the proposed mitigation program for impacts to wetlands resulting
from the construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative.
database_101801xts
1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
15. Farmlands
15-1 Comment
The correct agency name referenced in Appendix A, Agency Correspondence, letters dated 9/11/99 and
8/27/99 should be Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Response
Comment noted. This edit has been made in the FEIS.

1,

I database 101801AS
L-1
Piedmont Triad International Airport
16. Energy and Natural Resources
16-1 Comment
NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ARE RECORDED UNDER THIS CATEGORY.
Response

r

1

I database_101801.xis
1
u

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
17. Light Emissions
17-1 Comment
The runway and cargo hub will result in significant lighting impacts to nearby residential communities.
Response
Future light emission levels from airborne aircraft, airfield, landside, and surface transportation
improvements associated with the build alternatives would result in minor light emission impacts. Shielding
and screening techniques and the surrounding vegetation will decrease light emissions impacts to
residential areas. See Sections 5.17 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
17-2 Comment
Impacts from light emissions are sufficient to warrant special study.
Response
According to FAA Order 5050.4A, "Only in unusual circumstances, as for example when high intensity
strobe lights would shine directly into people's homes will the impact of light emissions be considered
sufficient to warrant special study." Airfield lighting associated with proposed project at PTIA would not
directly illuminate into people's homes. A vegetation buffer, located between the airport property and
residential dwellings located along Phillipsburg Court and Lytham Court would diffuse light emissions
generated by the proposed lightning.
17-3 Comment
How does the FAA factor in light emissions as a detriment to nearby homeowners? Not just light from the
hub facility, but also light emissions from the new cloverleaf interchange.
Response
The FEIS detailed the site location, description and mitigation measures of lights and lighting systems
associated with the airfield, landside, and surface transportation improvements. See Sections 5.17.4,
5.17.5 and 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
17-4 Comment
Included among these long term visual impacts would be the ongoing onslaught of air freighter headlights
along the whole length of the final approach glide paths between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. During this period the
night sky would become a Coney Island display of floating headlights, intruding on what was once a scene
of natural peace, while the landing aircraft would illuminate the properties below.
Response
Aircraft landing lights are designed to illuminate the area in front of the aircraft. This is to aid air traffic
controllers and other aircraft in the vicinity with their visual reference of the aircraft. As aircraft fly over
residential areas that are on the centerline of the runway, it can be anticipated that the lights from the
aircraft will illuminate the sky; however, direct illumination downward is not anticipated.
17-5 Comment
Was light from the 1,500+ vehicle FedEx parking lot, nighttime lights around the facility, and normal
operating runway lights included in the DEIS?
Response
Evaluations of Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D, W1-A1, and WE included light emission impacts associated
with the sorting facility building, customer and employee parking lots, and airfield lighting. See Section
5.17.4 and 5.17.5 of the FEIS for further information.
17-6 Comment
Was the light impact analysis conducted with the understanding that most all of the trees will be removed
between the Cardinal Commons and the expanded airport?
11 database 101801.xis
Response I
Impacts from lighting associated with the various alternatives were determined by evaluating the individual
lighting systems to be developed at PTIA and measuring distance, light angle, and intensity as they relate
to the surrounding light-sensitive land uses. Each alternative's intensity of light emissions described
vegetative buffers adjacent to residential areas as part of potential light emission impacts. See Section
5.17 of the FEIS for further information.
17-7 Comment W
How can a 330 acre sorting facility result in a "minor light emission impact'?
Response I
As described in Section 5.17 of the FEIS, all alternatives would result in minor light emission impacts.
None of the alternatives would shine directly into people's homes due to the distance, vegetation, and
shielding and screening of lights to reduce light emission impacts.
17-8 Comment
How do shielding and screening techniques minimize light emissions impact on surrounding residential
areas?
Response
Shielding and screening of lights are designed and placed so that light is directed downward or away from
light-sensitive areas. See Section 5.17 of the FEIS for further information.
1
t

1

database 101801.xis 11
1

t

LI

1

1

Piedmont Triad International Airport
18. Solid Waste Impacts
18-1 Comment
On Page S-31, what is included in the insignificant solid waste impact conclusion? Are the 16,308 new
households on Page S-24 included?
Response
Page S-24 refers to "16,308 new jobs in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019" as a result of
each of the Build Alternatives. The Solid Waste Impact analysis used estimates from the City of
Greensboro Municipal Solid Waste division. The City's estimates of life spans of landfill phases take into
account population growth in the City of Greensboro and County of Guilford. See Section 5.18.2 of the
FEIS for more information.
18-2 Comment
I did not get the impression that any demolition solid waste collection and transport would be put out for
competitive bids but that the same private waste carrier would be used.
Response
Waste Industries, Inc. currently provides municipal solid waste (MSW) collection for the PTAA. It is outside
the scope of this FEIS and is a local responsibility to outline the procurement process of future MSW
collection contracts.
18-3 Comment
What amount of solid waste would be projected from such demolition in this artificially restricted area and
from an artificially narrowed group of homes?
Response
The amount of construction and demolition debris from existing homes can not be quantified at this time.
However it is anticipated that the amount of debris generated could be accommodated at the White Street
Landfill without resulting in significant impacts to the remaining landfill capacity. See Section 5.18.4 of the
FEIS for more information.
18-4 Comment
I am a bit skeptical of a uniform 13,415 cubic yards of Solid Waste for Phase 1 in all 5 alternative plans as
if the C&D Solid Waste portion of the 13,415 cubic yards would be absolutely identical regardless of which
of these 5 Alternatives might be accepted.
Response
The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in each alternative was estimated based on the
monthly MSW generated by a FedEx facility of similar size and capacity as that planned for the Mid-
Atlantic Hub (FedEx, July 30, 1999). In addition, each alternative plans for the completion of approximately
60 percent of the proposed FedEx facility in Phase 1. Therefore, Phasel of each alternative includes the
airport's generation of MSW and 60 percent of the estimated MSW generated by the built-out Fed Ex Mid-
Atlantic Hub. See Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS for more details. As noted in the FEIS, the amounts of
construction and demolition debris generated by the alternatives would vary.
18-5 Comment
On page 5-174, there should be 178 acres in undeveloped landfill at the White Street Landfill instead of
188.
Response
Comment noted. The last sentence of the third paragraph in Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS has been revised
to read - "Future phases of the landfill have not yet been developed for the remaining 178 acres of land
designated to hold MSW."
database 101801.xis
18-6 Comment
No mention is made in the DEIS concerning the fact at the White Street Landfill that only a designated area
is available to C&D Solid Waste and that a private C&D permit issued as of January 1998 for 5 years
expires in January 2003.
Response
Comment noted. This information has been included in the FEIS
.
18-7 Comment
It needs to be highlighted that landfill capacity is indeed an issue for the Piedmont Triad. Our area has
experienced a population boom, and it is projected that the Greensboro landfill will be full by the year 2008.
Some have projected that the landfill will be full by 2005. It is misleading to indicate that the landfill has
adequate capacity.
Response
According to the City of Greensboro, the White Street Landfill's Phase III will have a life span of 7.25 years,
or until March 2004. Future phases of the landfill have not yet been developed for the remaining 178 acres
of land designated to hold MSW. See Section 5.18.2 of the FEIS for more information. According to the
City of Greensboro, the White Street Landfill has adequate capacity until 2007 to accommodate the
increase in MSW as a result of the proposed project. The City of Greensboro does not predict landfill
capacity past the year 2007 for customers outside the city limits.
18-8 Comment
The Final EIS should provide a more realistic picture of existing and projected landfill capacity to
accommodate this project.
Response
Information regarding the existing and projected landfill capacity was obtained from the City of Greensboro,
owner and operator of the White Street Landfill. All estimates were based on the best available
information. See Section 5.18 of the FEIS for more information.
1
n

database_101801.xis I
Piedmont Triad International Airport
' 19. Construction Impacts
19-1 Comment
I am concerned about construction impacts, such as water runoff, associated with the proposed project.
Response
Construction impacts from surface water runoff are discussed in Section 5.19 of the FEIS. Construction
impact mitigation measures are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
19-2 Comment
We are concerned about the proximity and negative health and environmental effects associated of the
intense construction with the proposed project.
Response
The contractors will be required to adopt and implement a number and variety of mitigation measures that
are intended to minimize the potential impacts to the environment and the neighboring communities. See
Section 6.3 of this EIS for further information.
19-3 Comment
Contractors should comply with open burning provisions during land clearing. Adequate wetting,
reseeding, and covering of disturbed areas should be utilized during earth moving operations to mitigate
any adverse impact from fugitive dust emissions.
Response
The PTAA does not anticipate the open burning of debris during the land clearing or construction
processes. However, if open burning is required, the PTAA and/or the selected contractor will obtain all
required local and state regulatory authority permits prior to the initiation of open burning activities. Other
Best Management Practices (BMP's) and mitigation measures such as wetting of erosive surfaces and
covering of disturbed areas will be used throughout the construction period to help minimize the impacts
associated with fugitive dust.
19-4 Comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Response
An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed by the contractor prior to the initiation of
construction activity.
19-5 Comment
During construction phases, a possible mitigation measure would be to give special consideration to
contractors that use equipment that produce lower emissions through diesel retrofit or other technologies.
Response
PTAA will consider the use of low-emitting construction equipment, methods and techniques and a means
of encouraging contractors to help minimize the potential environmental impact.
19-6 Comment
I am concerned about the construction noise and dust and the steady stream of trucks damaging our roads
and causing congestion, basically making life miserable.
Response
See response to Comment 19-2.

I database_101801.x1s
19-7 Comment I
Traffic delays from construction will be a major loss of time and ultimately a loss of money in the economy.
Response
The vast majority of the construction activities will occur on airport property except for roadway
improvements off-;airport. Employees and raw materials traveling to and from the construction site will use
public roadways, but this impact will be temporary. Construction impacts associated with off-airport
roadway improvements will be minimized by the development and implementation of a Traffic
Maintenance Plan.
19-8 Comment
If our homes are not purchased prior to construction, will there be any requirement for the construction
companies and/or airport to clean our windows and wash our houses and cars periodically throughout
construction?
Response
Presently, there are no plans for the construction companies or the airport to clean the outside of houses,
windows or cars during the construction process. Rather, the control of dust and other construction-related
emissions through the use of BMP's is expected to make this unnecessary.
19-9 Comment I
Will there be any restrictions on the hours that construction can take place during the construction phase of
the operation?
Response
The PTAA will work with local municipalities and the individual contractors to establish and meet
construction schedules and any work restriction provisions that are made part of the construction permits.
19-10 Comment
Was noise generated by construction factored into the DEIS noise contour?
Response
Construction-related noise was not factored into the noise contours shown in the EIS.
19-11 Comment
Are there any economic penalties to the airport or contractor if construction limitations are not observed?
Response
The contractors that work on the project are contractually bound to perform in full accordance with the
contract documents. Payment for these services can be withheld should the work not be completed
satisfactorily, on-time, or in ways that contravene the contracts.
19-12 Comment
Will air quality, because of dust and diesel exhaust, be monitored and reported during construction?
Response
Presently, there are no specific plans to monitor dust or diesel exhaust levels during the construction
process. Rather, the control of dust and other construction-related emissions through the use of BMP's is
expected to make this unnecessary.
19-13 Comment
Where in the EIS study do you mention the impact of construction on Phillipsburg Ct.?
Response
Construction impacts to specific communities is not included in the EIS.

database_101801.xis I
19-14 Comment
How will all aspects of the construction (disruption of roads, congestion, high dust levels, pollution, health
for children and adults, noise, etc.) that affects the extremely close street of Phillipsburg Ct. be addressed
in the EIS?
Response
Please see response to Comment 19-2.
19-15 Comment
It is our firm belief that we cannot continue to safely live in our home through the construction of this
project. How can the FAA expedite the purchase of our home?
Response
The PTAA plans to purchase homes that would need to be acquired to construct the proposed project and
those homes that are within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. If the commentator's
home meets either of these qualifications, they can let their intentions to quickly sell their home be known
to the PTAA. PTAA will determine when and how soon the purchase of homes will occur.
19-16 Comment
If an environmental document is required to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act requirements, the
document must be submitted as part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
Response
Comment noted. See response to Comment 19-4.
1

1

I database 101801.xis
Piedmont Triad International Airport
20. Other Environmental Considerations
20-1 Comment
Can the EIS truly measure the amount of noise and air pollution as well as impacts to property values?
Response
The FEIS uses "state-of-the-art" analyses prepared by qualified technical professionals to evaluate the
impacts of the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. Although not in the DEIS, the impacts to
20-2 Comment
RESERVED
Response
20-3 Comment
RESERVED
Response
20-4 Comment
How many times has the FAA or the consultant found a proposed airport expansion environmentally
unsound and insisted on significant modifications?
Response
The FAA treats each project individually and performs individual environmental evaluation reviews to them.
The purpose of the EIS process is to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts associated with a
proposed qualifying airport development project and to render an environmental determination in the form
of a ROD. Due to FAA's obligation to comply with special Federal protective environmental laws that
require the avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts, many projects that are proposed in the
initial stages of the EIS process undergo some form of modification in order to minimize impacts to the
human and natural environment.
20-5 Comment
FedEx is an environmentally sound company with some of the strongest standards in the industry today.
Response
Comment noted.
20-6 Comment
Environmental considerations outweigh the economic benefits.
Response
The FAA considers both environmental and socioeconomic impacts to the human environment in the
evaluation of alternatives and in the decision making process that leads to its Record of Decision.
20-7 Comment
Every time a tree is cut down, a tree must be planted.
Response
Comment noted. The proposed mitigation program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3
of the FEIS.
t
property values have been included in Section 5.3 and Appendix E of the FEIS.
database_101801.x1s
20-8 Comment
It seems unrealistic that no substantive projects are planned within the foreseeable future for the greater
Greensboro area. The FEIS should revisit this and further discuss the potential Federal or non-Federal
projects and their specific impacts (particularly those impacts similar to the proposed action) within a 10-15
year horizon.
Response
Section 5.23 of the FEIS has been expanded to include a discussion of Federal and non-Federal surface
transportation, land development and public works improvements within the FEIS Generalized Study Area.
Projects that are c :sclosed and discussed in this revised section consist of projects that are included in an
approved growth management plan for the area.
20-9 Comment
We (EPA) appreciate that at least two projects were referenced regarding cumulative impacts (pg. 5-210).
These were the completed FAA Categorical Exclusion (CE) regarding the Runway 14 Safety Area and the
Western Greensboro Urban Loop highway project. Although descriptive, these summaries did not provide
environmental impact information that may be cumulative to the proposed action such as noise, water
quality and wetland impacts. The FEIS should discuss these potential cumulative impacts.
Response
A discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the Runway 14 Safety Area project and the
Western Greensboro Urban Loop highway project have been added to Section 5.23 of the FEIS.
20-10 Comment
North Carolina State Constitution, Article 14, Section 5 states we must conserve and protect land, water,
air, and parks for the people of North Carolina. The state seems to have given this responsibility to the
FAA and they (FAA) do not live up to the constitutional mandate of this state.
Response
In accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, it is the FAA's responsibility to evaluate and disclose any
potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed qualifying airport development project, and to
render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of Decision (ROD). The ultimate
responsibility for constructing and operating a proposed project however'lies with the sponsoring entity
(Authority, Board, City, County, etc.), and not the FAA.
20-11 Comment
Housing for FedEx's employees would only lead to more destruction of wooded areas.
Response a
The induced socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 5.4 and Appendix E
of the FEIS. As indicated in these sections, the majority of FedEx employees would be part-time
employees who would already live in the Triad. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project
would result in a significant increase in the construction of new homes for FedEx employees.

20-12 Comment
The EIS should give the best possible estimate of cumulative effect on the environment of all facets of the
proposed project (water supply, hazardous waste management, air quality, etc.).
Response
Please see response to Comment 20-8.

20-13 Comment
The environmental impact is based on general guidelines from the NCDENR and is not site-specific to this
project. How can the FAA make a recommendation on a project of this magnitude without establishing site-
specific data?
Response
The evaluation of environmental impacts in the FEIS is based on CEQ regulations, FAA guidelines
contained in FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D, coordination with the FHWA and NCDENR, and input from
Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the interested public during the EIS scoping process.
database 101801.xis I
t

1

n

fl
D_j

Piedmont Triad International Airport
21. Public Involvement
21-1 Comment
Citizens were never informed through public hearings, community notification or community input of any
airport development plans until the announcement of the expansion was made.
Response
The decision to bring FedEx to PTIA was made by the PTAA. Since PTIA's request for environmental
approval in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds to implement the proposed development, the
FAA has issued a Notice of Intent to prepare and EIS, advertised and held a Scoping Meeting, two Public
Information Workshops, a Public Hearing, and has had an open 60-day comment period.
21-2 Comment
The scoping meeting room for public comments was too small for citizens to hear what was being said.
Response
The scoping meeting room was anticipated to adequately supply enough square-footage to support the first
public meeting. Due to the large number of attendees, subsequent public meetings were held at larger
locations. For instance, Guilford High School was the location for the Public Information Workshop and
Greensboro Coliseum held the second Workshop and Public Hearing.
21-3 Comment
I am upset that I was not part of any decision making process for something that affects me so directly.
Response
Federal, state, and local agencies as well as the general public have been given opportunities to express
comments and concerns on the proposed development at PTIA since the EIS process was started. All
letters, e-mails, and petitions have been read by the FAA, are a part of the EIS, and have been
incorporated into this Comment/Response Database. Decision making is reserved to the Federal agency
involved with input from interested parties.
21-4 Comment
Public involvement and comments are important to represent the community's best interests.
Response
Public involvement and comments are an important part of representing the community's best interests.
FAA has advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of the EIS. The Scoping Meeting in August
1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public Workshop/Hearing in May 2000 as well as
allowing an open 60-day comment period on the EIS.
21-5 Comment
The Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has informed the citizens about the happenings at PTIA.
Response
Comment noted.
21-6 Comment
The Scoping Meeting and Public Information Workshop were very informative to the residents of the Triad.
Response
Comment noted.
21-7 Comment
The Piedmont Quality of Life Coalition, a recognized organization with members from 20 neighborhoods,
was not put on the distribution list for the Early Notification Package and Scoping Meeting Invitations.
database_101801.xls
Response I
Federal, state, or local governmental agencies were the only representatives who received letters on the
announcement of the Agency Scoping Meeting. Advertisements were place in local papers prior to the
Public Scoping Meeting held in August 1998 for the general public and citizens organizations to attend.
Those in attendance was incorporated into a master mailing list for future information regarding the
proposed project. See Chapter 7 of the FEIS for further information on Coordination and Public
Involvement.
21-8 Comment
The Greensboro Chamber of Commerce has not informed the citizens about the happenings at PTIA.
Response
The FAA has advertised all public meetings, allowed agencies and the general public to comment on the
project, and met in open forums to best communicate information with the public.
21-9 Comment
How can you have citizen participation when there are no public records of what PTAA has planned?
Response
The proposed parallel runway has been included in PTIA's Master Plan and ALP and has been public
record since 1968. The general public has been able to review this document at the PTAA Administrative
Office upon request.
21-10 Comment
Since the workshop for November (1998) was not held, someone from the FAA should come here and
discuss our concerns?
Response
FAA advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of the EIS public involvement plan. The Scoping
Meeting in August 1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public Workshop/Hearing in May
2000 as well as the open comment period on the EIS were all part of FAA's public involvement process.
21-11 Comment
FAA should keep the communities adequately informed.
Response
The FAA's public involvement plan has included open public meetings including advertisements and
handouts, newsletters, a world wide web page, and ongoing comment periods to keep the community
informed regarding the environmental evaluation process.
21-12 Comment I
FAA should allow the public a minimum of 60 days to review the Draft EIS and the Final EIS before the
FAA takes action or hold a public hearing.
Response.
FAA has complied with the time requirements set forth in both CEQ and FAA Order 5050.4A. The DEIS
was published on April 6, 2000, and the original comment period was scheduled to end on June 7, 2000, a
period of 45 days. A 15-day extension was requested by NCDENR was granted by the FAA which
extended the comment period by 15 days to June 22, 2000, for a total DEIS comment period of 60 days.
21-13 Comment I
Information at the workshop (4/26/99) was too general, unhelpful, misleading, and biased.
Response
Information presented at the 4/26/99 workshop was preliminary in nature and was meant to show the public
the progress of the study to date. The public was informed at the meeting which information was still
considered to be preliminary.
database_101801.xis I
7

t

r
J

1

21-14 Comment
Information shown at the workshop has serious discrepancies.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-13.
21-15 Comment
Members of the study agency conducting the EIS admit that the issues of concern to residents of NW
Greensboro are not a part of the study.
Response
The FAA has considered issues of concern from interested parties. FAA officials have read all letters, e-
mails, oral transcripts, and petitions regarding comments and concerns related to proposed project at PTIA
and have included this information as part of the EIS study.
21-16 Comment
It was difficult to hear the person by the boards. 1 expected individual presentations in a group setting.
Response
The format of the Public Information Workshops was selected to allow the attendees to view the materials
at their leisure and talk to study team members. In addition, the format allowed for the attendees to talk
among themselves and study team members in an open forum. The Public Hearing was conducted in a
format that allowed for a public forum during which all speakers' comments could be clearly heard by all.
21-17 Comment
I do not trust the FAA, PTIA, or the consultant.
Response
Comment noted.
21-18 Comment
I do not feel that one public workshop supports all of the FAA claims of public involvement for a project of
this magnitude.
Response
FAA advertised and conducted 3 public meetings as part of a public involvement plan for the EIS. The
Scoping Meeting in August 1998, Public Information Workshop in April 1999, and Public
Workshop/Hearing in May 2000 as well the open comment period on the EIS were all part of the EIS public
involvement plan.
21-19 Comment
Comments made on the proposed actions at PTIA should be a part of the EIS.
Response
All comments from Federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as the public are considered
and treated equally by the FAA. All comments have been read, coded, and included into this
Comment/Response Database. All comment letters will be made available in supplemental documents to
the FEIS and distributed to local libraries and PTAA for public review.
21-20 Comment
Public notice of the Scoping Meeting for August 17, 1998 was not in compliance with the instructions stated
in Preliminary Scope of Services: Task 1.5 Preparation of Pre-Scoping Materials. The notice was placed in
the Business section under 430. Auctions and 510. Pet Supplies/Services. In addition, the Greensboro
News & Record does not reach all the general public - the High Point Enterprise is the paper for High
Point.
Response
The public notice of the Scoping meeting for August 1998 was published in the Greensboro News and
Record, High Point Enterprise, and Winston-Salem Journal. See Appendix L of the EIS for further
information.
database_101801.xls
21-21 Comment
Public involvement procedures, under 40 CFR Part 93.156, include making available the draft conformity
determination with supporting documentation available for review, must make public its conformity
determination in a daily newspaper for circulation in the area affected by action, and provide 30 days for
comments prior to taking any formal action on the draft conformity determination.
Response
The mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the Clean Air Act is the General Conformity process
which is the responsibility of the FAA. This insures that the FAA does not approve, fund, or permit any
project or action that is not consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP); a plan developed by the
state to attain and maintain the ambient Air Quality Standards. The General Conformity process has been
completed for this project. Several versions of the Draft General Conformity Report have been published
and reviewed by appropriate resource agencies and the public. A copy of the Final General Conformity
Determination is contained in Appendix F of the FEIS.

21-22 Comment
Members of PTAA are comprised of appointees from the City of Greensboro, City of High Point, City of
Winston-Salem and include Guilford County and Forsyth County. Therefore, this is the general public
which the FAA is required to notify.
Response
See response to Comment 21-20.
21-23 Comment
Our public officials and the FAA are not listening to us.
Response
See response to Comment 21-3.
21-24 Comment
PTIA has a way of treating people very unfairly, intimidating them, and harassing them too, after de-valuing
their home.
Response
Comment noted.
21-25 Comment
Residents of north High Point are due the same time and consideration that PTAA has given to civic
groups from other areas impacted.
Response
Comment noted. FAA has given equal consideration to all parties involved in this project.

21-26 Comment
You claimed that community concerns would be addressed at this meeting (4/26/99), but you have not
directly answered any of the more important problems the public has raised. You are ignoring the public.
Response
FAA's Public Information Workshop held on April 26, 1999 included information on the affected
environment or existing conditions. Questions posed by the attendees relating to the impacts of the
alternatives were unable to be answered at that time. In addition, the FAA was not that far into the analysis
at that point of the EIS process.
21-27 Comment
Mr. Brill's arrogant and contemptuous treatment of the people who asked him questions regarding this
project were a clear indication of the lack of respect and concern your agency has for the citizens.
Response
Comment noted.
21-28 Comment
There is not an opportunity for people to speak in a public forum.
_101801X
database
Response
The format of the Public Information Workshops was selected to allow the attendees to view the materials
at their leisure and talk to study team members. In addition, the format allowed for the attendees to talk
among themselves and study team members in an open forum. The Public Hearing on the DEIS was held
in a format that allowed interested parties to speak in a public forum.
21-29 Comment
Please add me to your mailing list to receive future newsletters.
Response
All persons who signed in at the Scoping Meeting, Public Information Workshop, or Public Hearing or who
have otherwise indicated a wish to be added to the mailing list have been added.
21-30 Comment
Why has a Citizen's Advisory Committee never been established?
Response
The FAA is not required to establish a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for an EIS project. CAC's are
more typically part of a Master Plan or FAR Part 150 noise study.
21-31 Comment
Since the Triad has collected over 6,000 signatures opposing the FedEx hub to PTIA, why won't the FAA
acknowledge their concern and opposition to this hub instead of writing grossly inaccurate statements like,
much of the Triad area appears supportive of the proposed development due to its potential positive
economic impacts"?
Response
The Degree of Controversy section of the EIS does disclose local concern and opposition by stating that,
"there has been local controversy concerning the implementation of the proposed project." The FAA does
recognize that there have been many comments "for' and "against" the proposed development at PTIA.
However, the FAA seeks specificity of comments regarding either the adequacy of the EIS or the merits of
the alternatives discussed or both. The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects
FAA's interpretation of comments that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's
mission to disclose all available information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision
can be made.
21-32 Comment
How many signatures would the FAA require to stop this proposed FedEx hub at PTIA?
Response
All comment submittals have been reviewed and considered equally by the FAA. See response to
' Comment 21-31.
21-33 Comment
Why weren't letters from the public put in Volume 3 of the DEIS and politicians letters placed in prominent
positions, presenting an illusion of support for the project? All letters should be included in the FEIS.
Response
Due to the numerous amount of letters received by the FAA on the proposed project at PTIA, public letters
were not included in the three main volumes of the DEIS. Only Federal, state, and local governmental
agency letters were included in Volume 3 of the DEIS. However, all comment letters were reviewed by the
FAA. All comments received on the DEIS will be made available for public and agency review in a
supplemental volume to the FEIS.
r 21-34 Comment
Residents and taxpayers most affected by this project should be allowed to meet with FedEx officials for a
question and answer meeting.
Response
This comment has been passed on to the PTAA for consideration.
database 101801.xis
21-35 Comment
You should be required to speak to someone in every household within 20 miles of the airport.
Response
FAA's NEPA Public Involvement Plan allows the public opportunities to voice their comments regarding the
environmental impacts that might result from the proposed project at PTIA. A comment period has been
open from the start of the project, open meetings such as the Scoping Meeting, Public Information
Workshop, and Public Hearing have all informed the FAA on a variety of comments and concerns of the
public.
21-36 Comment
Questions I submitted previously were not answered.
Response
Comment letters, e-mail, petitions, and oral transcripts received by the FAA over the course of the EIS
study have been cataloged, summarized, and responded to in this Comment/Response Database.
21-37 Comment
The FAA has not fulfilled its mandate to hold open workshops.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-28.
21-38 Comment
Why was my letter and my friends' letters to Tommy Roberts not in the draft?
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-33.
21-39 Comment
There was no public involvement before the April 13, 1998 announcement. Federal Express requested
complete secrecy from the public and this a civil rights violation of the public's right-to-know.
Response
See response to Comment 21-1.
21-40 Comment
The people most affected by the Federal Express hub were kept in the dark, surrounding communities had
no voice as to location of the hub and runway.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-3.
21-41 Comment
The Piedmont Triad Authority Board continues to deny public comment at their monthly board meetings.
Response
Since the May 23, 2000 PTAA board meeting, the public has been allowed to voice their concerns at
monthly PTAA board meetings.
21-42 Comment
URSGreiner and the FAA have paid no more than lip service to public involvement. There has been NO
exchange of information with the FAA, and citizens have experienced difficulty obtaining public documents
from your office.
Response
The public has been involved in the EIS process from the beginning. Three public meetings and ongoing
comment periods have allowed the FAA to interact and exchange information with the public. The
Executive Summary is available on the web at www.ptia.org and copies of the EIS are located in local
libraries.
database 101801.xls I
21-43 Comment
There were no public hearings prior to the announcement of this proposed project.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-1.
21-44 Comment
Why were numerous speakers from outside of Guilford County allowed to tout solely the economic benefits
for their counties that the Hub might bring? These people never mentioned anything about the
environmental impact of the project. They took up a great deal of time in which many residents could have
voiced their public comments about the dire environmental consequences to Guilford County. Was this
normal procedure in EIS public hearings to allow various parties to make public comments that do not
pertain to environmental impacts?
Response
The EIS documents many subjects from noise, socioeconomic and other environmental impacts. The
public hearing allowed any person to speak on his/her own concerns. All persons who completed speaker
registration cards at the public hearing on May 23, 2000 were given the opportunity to speak on the DEIS.
Court reporters and written comment forms were also available at the hearing to comment on the DEIS.
9 21-45 Comment
When the EIS says "that the larger Triad area appears supportive...", you are obviously referring to people
in the "larger Triad area" who hold opinions about the project. Can you please reference the data to
support your statement? I am not aware of any public opinion polls or surveys regarding FedEx.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-31.
21-46 Comment
Does the FAA plan to conduct a survey to actually determine residents' opinions?
Response
No, the FAA does not plan on conducting a surrey as part of this EIS. The FAA welcomes comments from
interested parties on either the adequacy of the EIS or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both.
21-47 Comment
You ought to be fair, up front and not require these people fight you - we are not, necessarily, opposed to
Fed Ex coming to the Triad. But if you do not provide fairness in your plan, you automatically acquire
many vocal opponants.
Response
The FAA has conducted a broad, exhaustive, technically accurate fair evaluation of the proposed project in
the DEIS and FEIS documents, and has fully considered all information submitted by agencies and the
general public.
21-48 Comment
Stop treating the people as idiots or sheep to be led around. We are not stupid! Our money is what is
paying for this mess!
Response
Comment noted.
21-49 Comment
It is my assertion that the degree of controversy has been understated by the DEIS and that the effected
population has not been fairly or adequately enumerated or represented by the public agencies involved.
Among these agencies are the Greensboro and High Point City Councils, the local Chambers of
Commerce, the PTAA and State government officials in Raleigh.
I database 101801.xis
Response
The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments
that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available
information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made.
21-50 Comment
The property owners who have chosen to make their residence in the area under the glide-paths had no
knowledge or warning about the proposed Fed Ex development. I therefore assert that they should have
the greater voice in deciding any mitigation efforts, which should include the limitation of nighttime landings
and take-offs.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-1. Also, Section 6.3 of the FEIS presents the proposed Mitigation
Program for the Preferred Alternative, which include a proposed noise abatement plan. The feasibility of
using nighttime operational restrictions as a noise abatement measure are discussed in Section 6.2.1 of
the FEIS.

21-51 Comment
Volume 43-Appendix L of the DEIS, noting support and non-support of this project, tends to show bias
strongly in favor of airport expansion. Whereas letters of support are printed fully, comments of non-
support are laboriously cross-coded. Preferential treatment was given to the 17 identical form letters from
citizens to Walt Cockerham dated June 11, 1998. The handling of this situation makes us wonder about
the credibility of the study. We would prefer that the methods used by URS Greiner in presenting
information were not so seemingly biased and more independent.
Response
Appendix L of the DEIS contains Scoping meeting information held on August 17, 1998. Only comment
letters from Federal, state and local government agencies were included into the DEIS. Comment letters
attached to Mr. Cockerham's letter (SL0024) were not coded nor include into the Comment/Response
Database. All comment letters received were summarized and included in the Comment/Response
Database. Copies of all letters received over the course of the EIS study are included in a supplemental
reference volume to the FEIS.
21-52 Comment ,
Will the FAA please explain why it thinks much of the Triad supports this project when voters indicated
otherwise for a similar project? Please provide data to support the opinion presented in "Degree of
"
Controversy.
Response
The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments
that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available
information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made. The data
supporting this statement is contained in the Comment Database in Appendix O of the FEIS.

21-53 Comment
Will the FAA please require the consultants to notify the public, or at least those on the FAA's mailing list
for this project, whenever meetings are to be held with one stakeholder group (PTIA, FedEx, etc.)?
Response
FAA allows its consultants to meet with the PTAA and other parties in order to obtain information relevant
to the EIS analysis. Since this is an ongoing process, with most interaction taking place on the telephone
and via E-Mail, it would be impractical to notify everyone on the mailing list whenever a meeting or other
form of interaction was to take place.

21-54 Comment
Will the FAA require the consultants to meet with representatives of the stakeholder groups which were not
given the opportunity to meet with the consultants during the EIS draft preparation?

Response ,
Individual stakeholder meetings are not part of the FAA Public Involvement Plan for this EIS.
database 101801.xis
21-55 Comment
Will the FAA publish in the FEIS a list of dates, attendees, and topics for the unpublicized meetings that
took place between the consultants, FedEx, and PTIA representatives during the preparation of the EIS?
Response
This information will not be included in the FEIS.
'
21-56 Comment
Why does the FAA accept comments from speakers who are not residents of the area negatively impacted
by the proposed airport expansion?
Response
Please see resporse to Comment 21-44.

21-57 Comment
Are comments from non-residents given the same weight as those from residents?
Response
All comments from Federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as the public are treated
equally by the FAA.
21-58 Comment
Will the FAA provide a breakdown between non-resident and resident responses when it gives its count of
"for" and "against" responses?
Response
The FAA has chosen this Comment/Response Database system to record and respond to comments made
on the proposed project. The database will not provide a breakdown of "residents" and "non-residents" or
"for" or "against" comments. The FAA is interested in comments regarding the adequacy of the EIS and/or
the merits of the alternatives discussed.
21-59 Comment
The citizens' letters have been reduced to a confusing list of names with numbers pointing to generic
statements. You completely destroyed the meaning and the impact of the letters by coding them this way.
Response
The FAA has received over 3,500 letters, petitions, and oral comments since the start of the project. Due
to the large number of comments submitted, all comments received by the FAA have been consolidated,
summarized and responded to in this Comment/Response Database. This method provides concise
responses and reduces duplicative efforts. In accordance with CEQ regulations, FAA must assess and
consider comments both individually or collectively. In addition, all substantive comments received on the
draft statement or summaries therefore where the response has been exceptionally voluminous are to be
attached to the Final EIS.
i 21-60 Comment
After the FAA public workshop on April 26th, 1999, several members of this community who stayed until
the very end of the Public Information Workshop saw FAA officials and members of URS Greiner leave
with members of the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce and the Airport Authority. Why is one select
group of wealthy people given preferential treatment and access to Federal officials?
Response
Members of the EIS Team consisting of the FAA, URS and PTAA left the April 26th, 1999 meeting together
to conduct a "debriefing" meeting. Issues discussed during this meeting included the attendance, the major
issues of public concern, the appropriateness of the meeting venue, and a discussion of the next steps in
the EIS process.
21-61 Comment
Had residents been informed by PTAA regarding the project and its flight paths, attendance at the public
meetings would have been greater.
I database 101801.xis
Response I
FAA used newspaper advertisements, newsletters and the internet to inform the general public as to what
was going to be presented at the public meetings.
21-62 Comment
Information provided at the workshop (4/26/99) can be distributed in other ways.
Response '
Comment noted.
21-63 Comment
The web site is not being updated monthly as indicated in the newsletter.
Response
The web site was updated when pertinent information became available. It was updated after the Public i
Information Workshop and then updated with the Executive Summary in April 2000. The web site is one i
part of the FAA's Public Involvement Plan. The public was also kept informed through newsletters
announcing the Public Hearing and advertisements of the Public Hearing published in local newspapers.
21-64 Comment
I would like graphics be mailed to me.
Response
The EIS has been distributed to local public libraries and the PTAA Administrative Office for public review.
In addition, any person who wishes to receive a copy of the DEIS has been given the opportunity to
purchase the document. The FAA does not typically send out individual copies of graphics.
21-65 Comment
Please show the comment/response statistics by zip code or county.
Response
Comment letters have been categorized by name, whether it was a public or agency letter and whether it
was received as part of Scoping, between Scoping and the Draft EIS, or after the Draft EIS was published,
not by zip code or county.
21-66 Comment
Comment/response statistics at the Workshop (4/26/99) did not show the thousands of petition signatures
and the true emotion of the community.
Response
Comment/response statistics displayed at the Public Information Workshop (4/26/99) included comment
letters received during the scoping process (August 17, 1998 to August 31, 1998). Petitions "for' or
"against" the project were not submitted to the FAA until after the scoping process had ended. All petitions
have been included into DEIS and FEIS Comment/Response Database.
21-67 Comment
A comment blasting FedEx that never mentioned specifically that the author was opposed to FedEx was
not recorded as a comment opposed to FedEx. This is not reasonable.
Response
The coding of letters did not record the intent of the text. The comment codes documented the stated
comments and concerns submitted to the FAA.
21-68 Comment
Comment/response charts do not represent the feeling of the community.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-66.
database 101801.xis I
21-69 Comment
Put FAA information out for evaluation/comment on the Internet.
Response
The Executive Summary of the EIS has been placed on the internet on the PTIA web page (www.ptia.org).
Due to the voluminous nature of the text and the complexity of the graphics putting the entire DEIS on the
' internet was considered impracticable.
21-70 Comment
The information packet does not contain all of the boards at the workshop. Please send me this
information so that I may critique it on my own time.
Response
The FAA made a decision to only put key issue information in the Workshop Handout. The requested
supplemental board material was not converted to handout format and is not available for distribution.
21-71 Comment
Your staff refused to respond to specific questions and often gave evasive, misleading and untruthful
answers.
Response
Comment noted.
21-72 Comment
Someone should verify that comments are from legitimate persons.
Response
Checking persons names would not allow the FAA to carefully consider comments related to the project in
a timely manner.
21-73 Comment
Inadequate reporting of last round of responses Cockerham's letter appears 12 times, all the negative
responses are on a list of names and numbers rather than letters included. Why?
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-51.
21-74 Comment
Provide the dates used in determining the values in each of the displays at the Public Hearing.
Response
Data used for the displays at the Public Hearing was collected and analyzed from July 1998 to March
2000. All reference materials are documented in Chapter 9 of the FEIS.

21-75 Comment
Were any of the charts at the Public Hearing the same displays at the Public Information Workshop?
Response
The information provided at the Public Hearing updated and improved upon the information provided at the
Public Workshop.

I database 101801.xis

Piedmont Triad International Airport
22. Cost Considerations
22-1 Comment
The FedEx hub ar-d third runway at PTIA are an excessive and wasteful cost to taxpayers.
Response
Comment noted.
22-2 Comment
It's unlawful and wrong to use federal tax money to supplement private enterprise.
Response
The proposed improvements to the PTIA will be funded through numerous sources and will result in
benefits to all airport users.
22-3 Comment
The project will not provide enough economic benefit to warrant the expense of the third runway.
Response
The PTAA has prepared a Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) for the proposed project and has submitted the
report to the FAA. A copy of this report is available at the Administrative Office of the PTAA and at the
Atlanta Office of the FAA.

22-4 Comment
Proposed development at PTIA would generate animosity between local businesses because FedEx will
receive tax breaks that other local businesses did not receive.
Response
FAA's review of the comments received during the EIS process indicates that the business community in
the Triad supports the proposed project at PTIA.
22-5 Comment
Tunneling under and bridging over existing roadways will be an excessive cost to taxpayers.
Response
Comment noted. The tunnel and taxiway connector bridges associated with Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D
and WE are necessary to not disrupt traffic flows along Bryan Blvd. Alternative W1-A1 does not contain a
tunnel due to the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and taxiway connector bridges are necessary to not disrupt
traffic entering and exiting the airport; however, Alternative W1-A1 surface transportation construction
costs of approximately $38 million are nearly identical to Alternative's W2-A and W3-A.
22-6 Comment
A runway for the convenience of a specific company is for private, not public purposes, and therefore does
not qualify for [AAP] funds.
Response
Please see response to Comment 22-2.
22-7 Comment
The FedEx mid-Atlantic hub at PTIA will invest nearly $300 million and employ up to 1,500 persons over a
5-year period.
Response
Comment noted.

22-8 Comment
It is hard to believe that a $300 million project that includes a 9,000-foot runway and 1,000,000 sq. foot
facility is needed for an additional 20 to 24 flights.

database 10180 1.xls
Response
The $300 million cost estimate is for the development of the sorting/distribution facility and other
improvements. The cost for the new runway, taxiways, roadway improvements and other associated PTIA
improvements would be an additional expense that would vary from $221 million to $414 million depending,
on the alternative. The need for the proposed project is fully described in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, of
the FEIS.
22-9 Comment
The alternative submitted by the citizens of Greensboro would have a higher benefit-to-cost ratio than the
proposed project?
Response
A Benefit-Cost Analysis for the citizens alternative that followed FAA approved guidelines was not
submitted to the FAA for comparative purposes either during Scoping or after publication of the DEIS.
22-10 Comment
Why isn't the less costly alternative a better use of tax dollars?
Response
The FAA considers numerous factors in the evaluation of alternatives for a proposed project. Although an
alternative may cost less to construct, it may also result in greater environmental and/or social impacts.
The FAA strives to reach a balance. However, this combination of factors is not always available. Please
see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS for more information.
22-11 Comment t
Public transportation must have extensive government subsidy:
Response
Comment noted.
22-12 Comment
Based on a study we have completed, the proposed project will buy 4,884 homes at a cost of
$755,955,498. These figures were compiled by using a list of tax values and a Guilford County map where
lines were drawn to 1, 2, 3, and 4 miles from the end of the proposed runway. From the centerline of the
third runway, lines were drawn one mile on either side, out to the four-mile markers.
Response
As presented in Snotion 6.3.1 and Appendix E, Section 7 of the FEIS, the PTAA would offer to purchase
all homes within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. This would constitute a total of 53
homes offered to be purchased due to noise created by the Preferred Alternative. The cost of acquiring
these homes would range from approximately $2.1 to $3.4 million for both Phases 1 and 2. These values
are based on current assessed and recent sales values for properties in the affected areas as derived from
current county-wide tax assessment data. It is estimated that an additional $1.2 million would be needed to
pay for costs associated with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of
1970. FAA estimates the total costs for acquisition would range from $3.3 to $4.5 million dollars.
22-13 Comment
Alternative West 1 is less than just the cost of the runway alone in Alternative North 3.
Response
Comment noted.
22-14 Comment
It is important to consider whether the economic benefits outweigh the costs. Another criterion is
operational efficiency including cost per flight.
Response
Please see response to Comment 22-3.
database 10180I.As I

II
t
i
r

t

1
Pi

22-15 Comment
The proposed third runway will be used almost exclusively for FedEx thereby not meeting the criteria of
BCR and cost per flight.
Response
Please see response to Comments 22-2 and 22-3.
22-16 Comment
A study paid for by the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce projected an economic impact of $2.4 billion
over the next ten years. FedEx has projected an economic impact of only $1.4 billion over ten years.
Response
As discussed in Section 5.4.4 and Appendix E of the FEIS, the proposed project would produce a regional
benefit based on potential employment growth on the order of 16,300 additional employees, generating
increased wages and salaries over the period 2004 to 2019 on the order of $4.4 billion. Fiscal benefits,
discussed in Section 5.4.5 and Appendix E, Section 6.0 of the FEIS, could reach a total of nearly $15.4
million for the six counties making up the Socioeconomic Study Area.
22-17 Comment
Total cost of the project is climbing and will likely approach $1 billion. That equates to $666,666.67 per job
if indeed 1,500 are created.
Response
The cost for the new runway, taxiways, roadway improvements and other associated PTIA improvements
would cost between $221 million and $414 million depending on the alternative selected. The development
of the sorting/distribution facility and other FedEx improvements is estimated to be approximately $300
million.
22-18 Comment
If the FAA approves the project, it will fund 90% of the cost. The other 10% will come from state, local, and
airport authority budgets, thus raising the cost of FedEx jobs and the payback period.
Response
FAA may provide 90 percent of the funding for the eligible improvements including the runway, taxiways,
lighting and NAVAI DS. The PTAA will pay for the remaining 10 percent of these projects. It is expected that
FHWA and NCDOT would provide funding for the surface transportation improvements associated with the
proposed project. Development of the FedEx sort/distribution facility will be paid for by FedEx.
22-19 Comment
FAA will supply $171 million of the construction cost. This money comes from the Aviation Trust Fund.
This fund is generated through a $3 use tax collected from airline tickets. It would take 58 years to repay
this fund.
Response
Please see response to Comment 22-18. FAA has not made a commitment to fund the proposed project,
plus the trust fund receives more than just a use tax.
22-20 Comment
If FedEx does have 10 flights per night, five nights a week on the proposed runway, the cost per flight over
a ten-year period will be $23,269 per flight if the cost is $605 million. If the cost becomes $1 billion, then
the cost will be $38,462 per flight.
Response
FedEx is projected to operate 48 operations per night in Phase 1, and 126 per night in Phase 2. The cost
on a per flight basis has not been broken down.
database 101801.xls
22-21 Comment I
The actual cost to the taxpayer will be nominal, especially since incentives can not be directly equated to
taxpayer costs.
Response
Comment noted.
22-22 Comment I
Dollars not committed from the aviation trust fund for Greensboro will be committed to another community,
for another project and will be lost forever to PTI.
Response
Comment noted.
22-23 Comment
Identifying the total cost in public funds has not been done or if it has it is a well guarded secret. Our local
newspaper writes about FedEx building a $300,000,000 hub. In the next sentence they write about PTIA
building a $300,000,000 hub with airport funds. Where is the money coming from? How much money is
going to be spent?
Response
Please see responses to Comments 22-17 and 22-18.
22-24 Comment
We do not support public tax dollars to solicit private business.
Response
Comment noted.
22-25 Comment
How much more will the added roads, sewers, water, and other infrastructure needed for the forecast ripple
effect cost the taxpayer?
Response
Appendix E, Sectinn 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future
revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the
proposed project. This analysis considers the costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of
population growth and is based on historical records for the study area. The analysis includes impacts from
induced population growth as a result of the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA.

22-26 Comment
What would be directly allowed for same to an artificially narrowed group of homeowners in overall cost
projections built into the DEIS for acquisition of their homes?
Response
The PTAA has developed a noise mitigation program that proposes to voluntarily acquire all homes (53)
within the 70 DNL noise contour of the Preferred Alternative. The cost to acquire these 53 homes is
estimated to be between $3.4 and $4.5 million.

22-27 Comment
What would be directly projected in the costs of demolition and clearing of the sites, hauling away of
rubble, and fees connected to use of a qualified dump to receive same from an artificially narrowed group
of homes as well as other costs associated with soundproofing some other homes within an artificially
restricted area, and whether such separate category costs will be even clearly estimated and separately
shown, which I am not aware they were in this DEIS and wonder if they even will be in the FEIS?
i]
dalabase_101801.xis I
Response
The cost to demolish the 53 homes that would be acquired for noise mitigation purposes is included in the
$3.4 to $4.5 million cost estimate (see response to Comment 22-26). The sound insulation program
proposed by the PTAA would include 209 homes and have a cost of approximately $6.3 million. Costs for
the individual alternatives is included in Chapter 3, Alternatives of the FEIS. Costs for the proposed PTAA
Mitigation Program are included in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
22-28 Comment
I think if such a hub is forced upon so many of us taxpayers who are opposed to it, a large Performance
Bond against its obligations under this 20 year proposed lease should be required of FedEx. Absent of a
Performance Bond, is the FAA prepared to back up any recommendations you have made in favor of this
hub by then stepping in and guaranteeing the balance of the unpaid 20 year lease to protect the solvency
of this airport?
Response
The financial solvency of the proposed air cargo sorting/distribution facility is the responsibility of FedEx.
The role of the FAA in the EIS process is to evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in terms of
potential environmental and social impacts and render an environmental determination in the form of a
Record of Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor whether to construct and operate the proposed
improvements. The FAA will not be a party to a Performance Bond or other financing regarding the
PTAA/FedEx lease arrangements.
22-29 Comment
The EIS does not question whether the project is truly a public facility qualifying for public federal funding
and for evaluation based on criteria for public transportation facilities.
Response
The new runway, taxiways, and NAVAID portion of the proposed project, which are eligible for Federal
funding, will be available for use by all airport users, and will not be for the exclusive use of FedEx. Please
see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need, of the FEIS for more information.
22-30 Comment
The sorting facility is being funded by a revenue bond and not Federal funds. Therefore, the inclusion,
analysis, and evaluation of a sorting facility funded with private funds and leased to a private corporation in
the EIS is improper.
Response
Although the proposed sorting/distribution facility is being privately funded, it is considered by the FAA to
be a "connected action" to the proposed new runway project in terms of timing and proximity, and FAA is
obligated, under Federal regulations, to evaluate the environmental and social impacts associated with it.
22-31 Comment
In the FEIS, the FAA should be obligated to note whether the PTAA has sufficient financial resources to
execute a mitigation program of this magnitude.
Response
It has been PTAA's position that with sufficient Federal participation through the AIP program and other
Federal sources, as well as with participation from the NCDOT and FHWA for roadway projects, the
proposed mitigation program described in FEIS Section 6.3 is financially feasible.
PJ
I database_101801.x1s
Piedmont Triad International Airport
23. EIS Process and Scope
23-1 Comment
Please let factual information rule this process, not emotional distortions.
Response
Information documented in the EIS is based on factual information collected by the FAA from Federal,
state, and local agencies as well as the PTAA.
23-2 Comment
The EIS should be done in a timely fashion.
Response
FAA is responsible for complying with the NEPA process which includes and exhaustive analysis of
alternatives and impacts using the most up-to-date analytical tools and data. While it is a goal of the FAA to
complete a project such as this EIS in a timely manner, the FAA does not sacrifice quality work for a
speedy turn-around.
' 23-3 Comment
The EIS study should consider the impacts this project will have on the residents of nearby communities.
Response
The EIS used three study areas, the Socioeconomic Study Area, the Generalized Study Area and the
Detailed Study Area to determine potential impacts on nearby communities. The Socioeconomic Study
Area encompassed a six-county area and was established to evaluate potential social and economic
impacts. The Generalized Study Area encompassed approximately 80 square miles around the PTIA, was
established based on the extent of the future DNL 65 dBA noise contours of the reasonable alternatives,
and was primarily used for the noise and land-use impact analysis. The Detailed Study Area encompassed
the areas that would be physically disturbed by the reasonable alternatives and was established for
environmental considerations that dealt with more specific, direct impact issues such as wetlands,
floodplains, biotic communities, and farmlands. Please see Sections 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 for
further information on these three study areas.
23-4 Comment
The FAA, in my opinion, does not have the expertise to conduct and assess effects of environmental
agents on human health, nor do they have the personnel with qualifications to oversee and assure its
' quality of the analysis conducted by the consultant, an aeronautical engineering company with limited
expertise in the biological sciences. There are other Federal agencies that would be better suited for this
role.
Response
The FAA is the lead Federal agency for any proposed project that occurs at an airport that receives or is
requesting Federal funding. The FAA has Environmental Program Specialists and other environmental
professionals who are fully trained and qualified to manage the NEPA process, oversee technical
consultants and assure that quality work is prepared. In addition, the FAA distributes the EIS to a variety of
Federal, state, and local agencies such as the EPA, Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
' FHWA, and NCDENR for review comments in their area of expertise. The qualifications of the individuals
participating in the EIS are listed in Chapter 8 of this FEIS.
23-5 Comment
The consultant has a conflict of interest and not the expertise or quality control to assure fair, independent,
and unbiased revi :w that needs to be done.

I database_101801.xis
Response I
The FAA required each of the consultants assisting in the EIS preparation to sign Disclosure Statements
revealing any potential conflicts of interest associated with the PTIA EIS. FAA reviewed these Disclosure
Statements and found that none of the consultants have a conflict of interest for this project. The FAA and
the consultant team have fully complied with the NEPA process, FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D, as
well as applicable Federal, state, and local laws to produce a technically competent, fair and unbiased
document.
23-6 Comment
Could you please document the expertise of the individuals who will be conducting this analysis and
indicate their experience and research credentials in regards to the toxicology of environmental agents on
human health?
Response I
A complete list of preparers and their credentials are provided in Chapter 8 of the FEIS.
23-7 Comment
The fact that a detailed project schedule has already been prepared and published is concerning. Their
time limits have been set without input from the people who will be negatively impacted by the proposed
action.
Response
Both the FAA and the consultant team routinely prepare and update detailed project schedules for
complicated projects such as this EIS. The schedule for this EIS includes several opportunities for public
input and comment, including during Scoping, two Public Workshops, a Public Hearing, and opportunity to
comment on the FEIS.
23-8 Comment
Deadline for submission of public comments in the scoping phase should be extended.
Response
Public comment periods are a part of the FAA Public Involvement Plan. All comment letters, petitions, oral
transcripts and a-mails received by the FAA have been consolidated into this Comment/Response
Database.
23-9 Comment
The Greensboro Urban Metropolitan Planning Organization will monitor the EIS Process.
Response
Comment noted.
23-10 Comment ,
An EIS should be performed as a result of the proposed action.
Response
FAA is currently conducting an EIS for the proposed developments at PTIA.
23-11 Comment
Agencies who present their views in the Agency Meeting should not be permitted to have their officials or
members present the same views of the agency in the Public Meeting. This practice gives them double
representation and is unfair.
Response '
FAA's Public Involvement Plan has encouraged agency and general public participation throughout the EIS
process. Any individual is allowed to comment on the project as many times he/she desires. The FAA
treats all comments on the proposed project equally.
23-12 Comment
PTAA is holding us hostage by not providing residents with immediate action.
Response
PTAA is adhering to the FAA's direction and the NEPA process and is not able to proceed with any of the
alternatives until after the FAA's Record of Decision is published.
,
,o,ao
database , x
' 23-13 Comment
Scope of the EIS must be expanded to include those on/off airport actions shown on the Airport Layout
Plan which will result from the proposed project.
Response
The EIS includes an evaluation of potential impacts associated with the direct, connected and cumulative
projects, both on and off-airport property, that are associated with the proposed project in terms of both
timing and proximity.
' 23-14 Comment
FedEx is a major customer of the consultant which represents a conflict of interest to do the EIS. Please
explain the process for selection of the consultant.
Response
The FAA worked with the PTAA to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), which was circulated in national
trade publications. Consultants with expertise in conducting FAA EIS projects responded to the RFP with a
Statement of Qualifications (SOQ), which included a description of the consultants' experience in similar
type projects and qualifications of individuals who would be involved in the project. The FAA and the PTAA
reviewed the SOQ's that were submitted and developed a "Short-List' of firms which were thought to be
qualified to undertake the project. The FAA and PTAA then conducted interviews of the Short-Listed firms.
After the interviews, the FAA ranked the firms in order of the most qualified to assist them in the
preparation of the EIS, and directed the PTAA to begin contract negotiations with the highest ranked firm.
In terms of potential conflicts of interest, the selected consultant had done some previous work for FedEx
(over 10 years ago), but had never worked for or with the PTAA before. The FAA reviewed the consultants
Disclosure Statement (see response to Comment 23-5) and determined that the selected consultant did not
have a conflict of interest for this project.
23-15 Comment
This process includes a lot of research and evaluation which seems to be done very well and thoroughly.
Response
Comment noted.
23-16 Comment
Information presented at the workshop (4/26/99) was outdated and did not relate to the new runway and its
environmental consequences.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-26.
23-17 Comment
County Commissioner Walt Cockerham has a seat on the Airport Board and represents a conflict of
interest.
Response
The FAA considers all comments received during the EIS process on an equal basis. FAA's environmental
determination on the proposed project will be issued in the form of a Record of Decision (ROD) after the
issuance of the Final EIS. County commissioners and airport board members are not a part of the Federal
' decision making process.

database 101801.xis
23-18 Comment ,
What difference does an Environmental Impact Statement make?
Response
'
The FAA reviewed PTIA
s 1994 ALP and determined that an EIS would be the most appropriate document
for the agency to prepare to fulfill its obligations under NEPA and FAA Orders 1050.1 D and 5050.4A. The
EIS process provides officials and decision-makers, as well as members of the public, with an opportunity
to participate in the EIS process and to understand the potential environmental impacts associated with a
proposed project. It also insures that other Federal, state and local agencies with specific expertise are
involved in the evaluation of impacts, that potential impacts are avoided if possible or minimized to the
greatest extent, and that a mitigation program would be implemented by the airport sponsor, if unavoidable ,
impacts are found and a decision were made to proceed with the project.
23-19 Comment
RESERVED
Response ,
23-20 Comment
RESERVED
Response

23-21 Comment
The study area should be extended to 10-12 miles from PTIA.
Response
The EIS used three study areas, the Socioeconomic Study Area, the Generalized Study Area and the
Detailed Study Area. The Socioeconomic Study Area encompassed a six-county area and was established

to evaluate potential social and economic impacts. The Generalized Study Area encompassed ,
approximately 80 square miles around the PTIA, was established based on the extent of the future 65 DNL
noise contours of the reasonable alternatives, and was primarily used for the noise and land-use impact
analysis. The Detailed Study Area encompassed the areas that would be physically disturbed by the
reasonable alternatives and was established for environmental considerations that dealt with more specific,
direct impact issues such as wetlands, floodplains, biotic communities, and farmlands. Please see
Sections 4.2.1.2, 1.2.1.3, and 4.2.1.4 for further information on these three study areas.

23-22 Comment
FAA, PTAA, local officials and the consulting firm are interested in making the expansion happen. This is a
conflict of interest and misrepresentation of the citizens of Greensboro.
Response I
The PTAA, as the sponsor of the proposed project, is interested in making the expansion happen. FAA's
review of the comments received during the EIS process indicates that local officials have expressed
mixed feelings on the proposed project. The FAA's interest lies in complying with the provisions of NEPA
whenever an airport sponsor seeks Federal funding to implement projects depicted on an approved ALP. It
is both the FAA's and the consultant's interest to objectively evaluate the proposed project and to disclose
g prep S have a
conflict of interest for this project.
?J

all potential environmental and social impacts. The FAA has reviewed the consultant's Disclosure I
Statements and found that none of the consultants assisting the FAA in the preparation of the EI
database_101801.xls I
' 23-23 Comment •
Where are the independent parties and democratic processes to assess the Environmental Impact
Statement?
Response
The FAA utilized ti ie services of an independent consultant who does not have an interest in the outcome
of the project to assist in the preparation of the EIS. Chapter 8 of the FEIS provides a listing of all Federal,
state, and local government agencies and representatives who were sent copies of the DEIS and FEIS for
their review and comment. Also, please see response to Comment 29-56.
23-24 Comment
Consultants have told us that there have never been studies which will represent the quality of life living
close to a cargo complex like this, which make the whole EIS process a sham.
' Response
Quality of life is measured in many different ways based on individual priorities. The consultants may have
indicated that there is not a specific impact category contained in FAA Orders 5050.4A or 1050.1 D that is
' titled "Quality of Life". However, by looking at the overall impacts of a proposed project through the EIS
process, an individual can understand the impacts to specific impact categories that may be of particular
interest in the gauging of his/her Quality of Life issues.
23-25 Comment
Federal authorities who are doing an analysis of the proposed project should leave no stone unturned to be
certain that it is established what exactly will be effected with the FedEx facility here in terms of the
environment.
Response
The NEPA process and FAA's data collection and impact analysis in the EIS over the past two years fully
discloses impacts associated with the proposed alternatives. The analyses contained in the EIS along with
comments and concerns from agencies and the public will assist the FAA in preparing a Record of
Decision for the proposed project.
23-26 Comment
' The consultant had been on the distribution list of the 1990 Master Plan, and I'd like [to know] what role
they played in drafting that Master Plan?
Response
The FAA's consultant did not participate in any way in the preparation of the 1990 Master Plan.
' 23-27 Comment
Your Scoping process does not represent the community's interests and violates your own statutes.
' Response
The Scoping process conducted by the FAA followed Federal regulatory guidelines as described in CEQ.
Opportunity was provided to both governmental/regulatory agencies and the general public to determine
' the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed
project. The public involvement plan established by the FAA has encouraged the public to participate in the
EIS process and to submit comments throughout the course of the study. All comments received were
' treated equally by the FAA.
23-28 Comment
Explain how your Scoping process served community interest in Memphis and Indianapolis, where people
as far as 5 miles out have successfully sued over noise issues, nor have you explained how your Scoping
process served the needs of the community in Louisville, Kentucky where an entire town had to be moved.

I database 101801.xis
Response '
As described in the response to Comment 23-27, the purpose of the Scoping process is to determine the
scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed project.
In addition, scoping invites the participation of affected Federal, state, and local agencies and other
interested persons as well as other criteria set forth in CEQ 1501.7. The Scoping process, as conducted by
the FAA for the PTIA EIS, is not applicable to the individual situations in Memphis, Indianapolis and
Louisville.
23-29 Comment
Why does the EIS not include all.aspects of dangers? Must the public request them?
Response
The EIS was prepared to disclose any potential environmental impacts associated with improvements to
PTIA that are depicted on the airports' approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). FAA safety criteria were taken '
into account during the development of the ALP and the proposed improvements as depicted meet these
criteria. Safety, or "aspect of danger' referenced by the commentator is not a specific category included in
FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D on which the EIS document was based. The public can request that this
issue be considered in the EIS during the Scoping process.
23-30 Comment
I want the FAA to agree to further study the impact of this expansion on our community.
Response
The FAA has conducted a detailed analysis of the impacts of the proposed project in the EIS document in
accordance with CEQ and FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D guidelines.
23-31 Comment
I would like to see the EIS contain a comparison of an existing hub that has been in operation for a period
of 5 to 10 years (of environmental, economic, transportation, etc.) to what it was prior to the hub's
existence.
Response
Appendix "E" of the FEIS contains a Case Study Analysis of other FedEx air cargo hubs that have been in
operation for several years. This analysis discusses potential impacts and trends in terms of social and
socioeconomic factors. Because potential environmental impacts are so site specific, a comparison of
potential impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA to other locations was not considered to be
relevant by the FAA and was not prepared for this EIS.
23-32 Comment
How many projects have been declined since 1980? Total proposed? Total declined? How many projects
were declined as a result of the public comment phase?
Response
The FAA does not maintain statistics on how many proposed airport projects have been proposed,
declined or significantly modified since 1980.
23-33 Comment
An outside agency, such as the EPA, would provide a more objective analysis of the EIS.
Response
The FAA is the lead Federal agency for any proposed project that occurs at an airport that receives or is
requesting Federal funding. Federal, state, and local governmental agencies, including the EPA,
participated in Scoping and have received and commented on the DEIS. Their comments and concerns
are addressed in the FEIS.
23-34 Comment '
Who is calling the shots on this study? is the FAA in charge, or is the Piedmont Triad International Airport
Authority (PTAA) in charge? '
database_101801.xis I

t

1

F

1
J
1

L
Response
The FAA is the lead Federal agency for the EIS and as such is fully responsible for its scope and content.
The DEIS, FEIS and subsequent Record of Decision are all developed by the FAA. The PTAA is the
project sponsor who has submitted the new runway portion of its ALP to the FAA for environmental
approval in connection with its intent to seek Federal funds to implement the proposed developments. The
EIS is conducted under what is referred to as a "Third-Party Agreement" wherein the FAA is in charge of
the study, the consultant assists the FAA in the preparation of the EIS and the Airport Sponsor provides
input to the FAA as needed. In most instances, the Airport Sponsor receives a grant from the FAA to pay
for the study. In some instances, the Airport Sponsor initially pays for the study itself and then requests
reimbursement from the FAA after the study is complete. The latter method is being used in this EIS.
23-35 Comment
URS Greiner has worked closely with FedEx and the FAA on other projects; is paid by the PTAA and is
therefore not in a position to make unbiased judgments with regard to effects of this development.
Response
URS does regularly work with the FAA on airport NEPA projects across the country. URS last worked
directly for FedEx over ten years ago. The EIS is conducted under what is referred to as a "Third-Party
Agreement" wherein the FAA is in charge of the study, the consultant assists the FAA in the preparation of
the EIS and the Airport Sponsor provides input and assistance to the FAA as needed. For this EIS, the
PTAA is paying for the study itself and will request reimbursement from the FAA after the study is
complete. So essentially, it is the FAA who is paying for the study.
23-36 Comment
What is the FAA's position in regard to a level "playing field" for both sides?
Response
The FAA retains an unbiased position with regard to the evaluation of alternatives and analysis of potential
environmental impacts throughout the EIS process. FAA considers all comments received during the EIS
process equally.
23-37 Comment
The EIS statement is flawed when inaccurate sound, water and social issues are not fully explained in
laymen's terms to the public.
Response
The FAA makes every attempt to present the information in the EIS in a manner such that it can be fully
comprehended by all readers. However, due to the nature of the technology used in some of the analyses,
this goal is not always achieved. One of the reasons that the FAA conducted public Scoping as well as
Information Workshops and a Public Hearing was to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and
clarify any information contained in the EIS document that was unclear or hard to understand.
23-38 Comment
The LWVPT request that another EIS be done by the Environmental Protection Agency before further
action is taken.
Response
Please see response to Comment 23-33.
23-39 Comment
I request that URS Greiner, Inc. be dismissed and the study be voided and began again.
Response
Please see response to Comment 23-5.
database_101601.xls
h
Piedmont Triad International Airport
24. Quality of Life
24-1 Comment
' The proposed Fed Ex facility and third parallel runway will destroy the quality of life in the area adjacent to
PTIA and the Triad area.
Response
The environmental and social impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives
are presented in Chapter 5 of the FEIS.
' 24-2 Comment
We are concerned of the potential impacts to the quality of life in neighborhoods near PTIA.
Response
Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of the FEIS discloses the environmental and social impacts
associated with the proposed project and reasonable alternatives. In addition, Chapter 6, Mitigation, of the
FEIS outlines the mitigation program proposed by the PTAA to mitigate impacts associated with the
Preferred Alternative.
24-3 Comment
The FedEx sorting facility will maintain and/or improve the quality of life in the Triad.
Response
Comment noted.
24-4 Comment
FedEx means overcrowded schools.
Response
Direct and indirect social and socioeconomic impacts associated with the alternatives were analyzed for a
six county study area in the FEIS. Impacts to specific school systems were not identified in the EIS.
However, the FAA has coordinated with local government officials regarding potential infrastructure
impacts from induced development attributed to the introduction of the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA. Sections
5.3 and 5.4 as well as Appendix "E" of the FEIS provide further information.
' 24-5 Comment
The Greater Kerne sville area will be a better place to live because of FedEx's presence here.
Response
Comment noted.
24-6 Comment
I firmly believe that a regional hub at our Greensboro airport will have a positive impact on future growth
and the quality of life of our community in variety of ways.
Response
Comment noted.
24-7 Comment
Nighttime jet flight tracks and noise, traffic congestion, and air pollution will have a negative impact on our
quality of life.
Response
Comment noted. The FEIS identifies the noise contours and proposed flight tracks associated with each
alternative in Section 5.1 and Appendix C, respectively. Surface transportation impacts can be found in
Section 5.21 of the FEIS.
database 101801.xis
nl
u
Piedmont Triad International Airport
25. Floodplains
25-1 Comment
Construction of the FedEx hub will increase the flooding situation for homes and golf course of the
Cardinal.
Response
Increased runoff volumes generated from the new impervious surfaces will be stored in detention ponds
where discharge can be controlled such that it will be equal to, or less than, pre-development flow rates.
Please see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for more information on mitigation measures.
' 25-2 Comment
The EIS should include possible impacts to floodplains in the area.
Response
Floodplain impacts were evaluated and are discussed in Section 5.12, Floodplains, in the FEIS. Measures
to mitigate unavoidable floodplain impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are presented in
' Section 6.3 of the !FEIS.
25-3 Comment
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, we (DOI) recommend making strong efforts to protect the
floodplain community and the associated wildlife from degradation by avoiding or minimizing wetland
impacts.
Response
The initial development and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project took into account the
avoidance and minimization of floodplain impacts. However, all of the reasonable alternatives would result
in unavoidable impacts to 100-year floodplain areas. PTAA's proposed Mitigation Program for the
Preferred Alternative, contained in Section 6.3 of the FEIS, has identified mitigation measures to protect
beneficial floodplain values.
' 25-4 Comment
An essential component of the detailed hydraulic analysis (discussed in Section 6.2.7.1 of the DEIS) is a
baseline flood study of Brush Creek between Old Oak Ridge Road and Fleming Road to determine existing
' conditions and the impact of post development conditions on the Brush Creek 100 year base flood
elevation (BFE). Every effort must be made to insure that peak flows from post development conditions will
not cause any rise in the BFE.
' Response
The FEIS identified detention ponds, floodplain compensation and culverts as appropriate mitigation
measures to ensure peak flows from post development conditions will not cause any rise in the BFE. A
detailed hydraulic analysis of Brush Creek will be conducted during the design phase of the project.
25-5 Comment
Include specific measures that will be used to address stormwater at the source and include specific
measures that will be used to protect stream corridors, riparian habitat and a minimum of a 100-year
floodplain.
Response
Specific stormwater controls for the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
7-
L?
I database_101801.As

Piedmont Triad International Airport
26. Environmental Justice
26-1 Comment
Re-routing air traffic is social and environmental injustice.
Response
Comment noted. The effects of rerouting air traffic are disclosed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the FEIS.

11

11

26-2 Comment
FedEx is one of the top fifteen companies in the nation hiring, promoting, and retaining minorities.
Response
Comment noted.
26-3 Comment
The proposed project will not effect any lower socioeconomic areas.
Response
Comment noted. Please see the Environmental Justice discussions in Section 5.3 and of Appendix "E",
Section 8.0 of the FEIS.
26-4 Comment
The EJ analysis should insure that affected minority and low-income populations in the area are not
disproportionately impacted through alternative selection, runway orientation, flight paths, hours of
operation and other operational and land use considerations.
Response
The FAA conducted land use surveys and interviewed local public officials to determine whether there
were any concentrations of minorities and low-income households that would be affected. No pockets of
minorities or low-income households were found. See Section 8 of Appendix E of the FEIS.
26-5 Comment
The DEIS does not appear to contain site specific demographic U.S. Census data i.e. demographic
percentages for the specific Census Block Group and its possible Sub-Groups containing the project site.
The FEIS should provide such information for all minorities.
Response
The FAA used U.S. Census Block Group data from the 1990 census supplemented with land use surveys
and consultation with local public officials to determine minority and low income populations in the
Generalized Study Area. Please see Appendix E, Section 8 of the FEIS for details on the Environmental
Justice analysis.
26-6 Comment
Consistent with Executive Order 12898, another component of Environmental Justice are low-income
populations. As in the case for minorities, the percentage of low-income populations of the site should be
compared to percentages of nearby areas using Census data for area designations such as Block Groups,
etc.
Response
Please see response to Comments 26-4 and 26-5.
26-7 Comment
The FEIS should provide a low-income percentage for Guilford County (see Table 4.2.2-11).
Response
Table 5.3.3-2 of the FEIS states that 9.7 percent of the Guilford County 1990 population was below
poverty.
I database 101801.xls
26-8 Comment
Under the Environmental Justice section, will the FAA explain why and how the skin color and income of
those affected by an airport expansion influence the FAA's decisions regarding mitigating measures?

Response I
Section 8.0 of Appendix E of the FEIS explains environmental justice and how the analysis was conducted.
Federal agencies are mandated by Executive Order 12898 to conduct environmental justice analysis and
determine whether minorities or low-income households would be disproportionately and adversely '
affected by a proposed project that would receive Federal funding.
26-9 Comment I
Revise the last sentence of the third paragraph on page 4-6 to read "Study Area has a larger percentage of
white and a smaller minority population than the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area".
Response
The suggested edit has been made in the FEIS.
26-10 Comment
A FedEx hub would have a major impact to such programs such as Workforce Development, Business
Development, and Minority and Women Business Enterprise.
Response
Comment noted.

database_101801.xis

11

1
u

Piedmont Triad International Airport
27. Surface Transportation
27-1 Comment
I am concerned about the additional truck traffic that will congest the highways that already cannot handle
' the traffic today.
Response
The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the
' weekend and 125 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 1 (year 2005). The air cargo sorting and
distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225 trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks
per day during the weekday in Phase 2 (year 2009). When compared to the average daily traffic volumes
projected along roadways in the vicinity of PTIA, the additional trucks associated with the air cargo sorting
and distribution facility comprise a small percentage (less than 5%) of these volumes. In addition, package
' processing at the air cargo sorting and distribution facility would occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
4:00 a.m. the following morning; therefore, the additional truck traffic in the vicinity of PTIA would not be
operating during peak hours, or the most congested times of the day.
It is important to note that the NCDOT Statewide Planning Branch traffic projections anticipated substantial
future growth for the airport area and that the total, overall traffic on the area roadways in the future is
predicted to be relatively the same, with or without the proposed air cargo hub.

27-2 Comment
The NCDOT is working closely with officials of the PTIA on this project.
Response
Comment noted.
' 27-3 Comment
NCDOT is extremely pleased to be a part of this project and we remain supportive of the authoritative
' efforts. We are confident that the current communication between state transportation officials, airport
authority officials, and other interested parties will continue and we look forward to actively participating.
Response
Comment noted.
27-4 Comment
The superb highway infrastructure surrounding PTIA can handle the introduction of additional traffic
' generated by FedEx.
Response
Comment noted. Section 5.21 and Technical Appendix I of the FEIS contain an analysis of the affects of
the proposed project on the local roadway system. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the
proposed project would not have a substantial adverse affect on the capacity of the roadway network in the
airport area.

27-5 Comment
Improved commercial shipping services are expected to and from PTIA with area businesses.
Response
Comment noted.
' 27-6 Comment
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) needs to adopt this environmental document so coordination
with FHWA is important.
I database 101801.x1s
Response
The FHWA was invited to participate as a cooperating agency and accepted that responsibility with respect
to the preparation of this environmental evaluation in accordance with CEQ regulations. The FAA has
coordinated with and FHWA has been involved with the development and review of both the DEIS and the
FEIS.
27-7 Comment ,
Residents from the east side of town will not be able to afford the transportation cost associated with
traveling to and from work.
Response ,
The surface transportation improvements, such as construction of a new interchange for Bryan Boulevard
and Old Oak Ridge Road, expected to occur under the Build Alternatives would generally improve the
overall transportation system in the vicinity of PTIA. In addition, the surface transportation improvements
under the Build Alternatives are anticipated to improve travel patterns from those under the No-Action
Alternative. (Refer to Section 5.21 of the FEIS for further information.) The proposed project is not
expected to change the cost of traveling to and from work. ,
27-8 Comment
I am concerned about the additional traffic caused by the proposed project and the possible congestion,
delays, and increase in traffic accidents.
Response
It is anticipated that land development and population growth would continue to increase in the project '
study area under the No-Action Alternative, which assumes that the air cargo facility would not be
developed at PTIA. Under the No-Action Alternative, industrial, manufacturing and commercial
development would occur within and around PTIA. As a result, traffic volumes would continue to increase.
(See Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS) The projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility site
includes 996 total employees by the year 2005 and 2,650 total air cargo facility employees by the year
2019. While the overall regional growth estimated for the Greensboro Urban Area may not have assumed
that such a major activity center, such as the Mid-Atlantic Hub, would develop at PTIA, the overall regional
growth estimate does assume that growth would occur in the Greensboro Urban Area and at PTIA. (See
Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.) Phase 1 (year 2005) of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility is

estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the weekend and 125 trucks per day during the wee ,
Phase 2 (year 2009) of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225
trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks per day during the weekday. Package processing at the
air cargo facility would occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. the following morning;
therefore, the truck traffic associated with the proposed project is not expected to operate during peak '
hours, or the most congested times of the day. In addition, the surface transportation improvements under
the Build Alternatives are anticipated to improve travel patterns from those under the No-Action Alternative.
(Refer to Section 5.21 of the FEIS for further information.) With the expected growth in traffic volumes, the
possibility of an increase in the accident rate will also increase. By providing improvements to the existing
surface transportation network such that it is more capable of handling the projected traffic increases, the
traffic accident rate should be maintained at the lowest level comparable with roadway design and traffic
volume.
The PTIA cooperated with the Cities of High Point and Greensboro and Guilford County with the
preparation of the 1986 Airport Land Use Plan and is now working with the local governments to update the
existing plan as noted in Section 4.2.1.4 of the FEIS.
27-9 Comment '
The Triad has been blessed with the existing road infrastructure that will handle the proposed Fed Ex traffic
and the proposed major interstate will be beneficial to the Triad upcoming plans. '
Response
Please see response to Comment 27-4.
database_101801.x1s I
27-10 Comment
The EIS should include impacts of road closings, traffic, and circulation.
Response
Section 5.21 and Technical Appendix I of the FEIS addresses surface transportation, including road
closings, traffic, and circulation, associated with the proposed project.
27-11 Comment
Coordination with the NCDOT is important in order to avoid costly mistakes.
Response
Current communication between the FAA, FHWA, state transportation officials, airport authority officials,
and other interested parties will continue throughout the EIS development and review process in an effort
to proactively coordinate efforts of all parties involved in transportation development.
27-12 Comment
Construction of the western portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Western Loop) between 1-40 and Bryan
' Blvd. will be accelerated to serve the new FedEx facility.
Response
The portion of the Greensboro Western Urban Loop between 1-40 and Bryan Boulevard has been
accelerated as an incentive for FedEx to locate in the Triad area. Construction is scheduled to begin in
2002 with a 2005 completion date.
27-13 Comment
Roadway improvements for FedEx puts Guilford County over budget for roadway construction over the
next ten years and is preventing other improvements that are considered more critical.
' Response
The PTAA included several development projects on the PTIA ALP in anticipation of the long-term capacity
needs of PTIA, without the introduction of FedEx at the airport. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix
I for further information.) The PTAA's proposed improvements in the Master Plan Update (MPU) were
designed to provide airside, landside and surface transportation facilities that allow the airport to be
operated in an efficient manner. Surface transportation improvements in the vicinity of PTIA would provide
' improved access to the airport as a result of the new airport expansion. The development of an air cargo
sorting and distribution facility at PTIA is accelerating the proposed surface transportation improvements
included on the PTIA ALP. Roadway improvements for Guilford County are determined based on a needs
' assessment for the county. Priorities for roadway improvements are then adjusted accordingly.
27-14 Comment
The only presentation that was made on surface transportation issues at the public information workshop
was with the proposed project.
Response
The surface transportation graphics shown at the Public Information Workshop held on April 26, 1999 were
representative of the surface transportation improvements associated with each alternative, including the
No-Action Alternative. The Build Alternative shown at the Public Information Workshop was the alternative
' depicted in the PTIA's 1994 Airport Layout Plan. At the time of the Public Information Workshop, a
preferred alternative had not been selected by the FAA.
27-15 Comment
Your proposal provides for FedEx truck traffic to enter PTIA area only; it does not address the general road
needs as recommended by Mr. Wyman of the county transportation department.
Response
As recommended by Mr. Wyman, discussion regarding off-airport surface transportation improvements has
been included in Appendix I of the FEIS.
' 27-16 Comment
Appendix I does not include the impact of the 16,308 new households described in the document. This
must be included in the final version of the EIS.
database ,0,80,x'
Response
The DEIS indicated that the employment generated by the Build Alternatives would create 16,308 new jobs
in the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. This induced employment would result in 10,872
new households within the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area by 2019. The evaluation of surface
transportation impacts in the FEIS was limited to roadways within the Generalized Study Area, and did not
include the Six-County Socioeconomic Study Area . The impacts associated with the roadway projects are
disclosed in Sections 5.21, 5.23 and Appendix I of the FEIS.
27-17 Comment
What is the purpose of Appendix I, Surface Transportation Impact Analysis?
Response
As a cooperating agency for the EIS, the FHWA is responsible for reviewing the surface transportation
components of the proposed project. Appendix I of the EIS contains technical material, documentation and
analysis relevant to the proposed surface transportation improvements that were too voluminous to put in
the main volume of the DEIS and FEIS.
27-18 Comment
Comparison of existing traffic count with projected would have been helpful - only projected was available
here today.
Response
The surface transportation graphics shown at the Public Hearing held on May 24, 2000 included Future No-
Action Alternative and Future Build Alternative traffic volumes. The existing traffic volumes were not
shown on a large graphic because these volumes included initial assumptions that had changed since the
DEIS; however, a copy of the DEIS, including a map depicting the existing traffic volumes, was made
available at the Public Hearing. Updated traffic volumes, including existing, have been obtained and are
included in the FEIS.
27-19 Comment
Since roadway projects are associated with the PTIA proposal and since FHWA is a cooperating agency to
the FAA for the DEIS, the FEIS should substantiate the decision that transportation conformity does not
apply for this proposed project.
Response
Although not required, Section 5.5 of the EIS and the second revised Draft Conformity Determination have
been revised to clarify that transportation conformity does not apply to the relocation of a portion of Old
Oak Ridge Road and modification of existing N. and S. Triad Boulevards because the projects are not
regionally significant. Transportation conformity requirements are satisfied for the other two roadway
projects associated with Alternative W1-A1, relocation of Bryan Boulevard and the new Bryan
Boulevard/Old Oak Ridge Road interchange because these projects are included in the 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program for Guilford County.

1

27-20 Comment I
If the third runway was always planned as the airport authority claims, why was Bryan Blvd. built where it
is?
Response
A widely-spaced parallel runway located on the west side of the existing airport facilities has been depicted
on PTIA's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) since 1968. The location of the proposed runway associated with
Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, N-D and WE does not have an impact on Bryan Boulevard, with the exception
of having to construct bridges for the connector taxiways and a tunnel near Regional Road. Bryan
Boulevard would have to be relocated under Alternative W1-A1, which is only one of the alternatives under
consideration by the FAA.
27-21 Comment
What is the basis for directing mixed use growth around various nodes throughout the Triad from years '
2006 through 2025 for purposes of transportation modeling? Is this growth strategy or merely an
aspiration?
database_101801.As

0
t

0

L

Response
The basis for directing mixed use growth around various centroids throughout the Triad from years 2006
through 2025 for purposes of transportation modeling is to direct growth in a manner that minimizes
congested vehicle miles traveled and resulting emission problems while leaving transit a viable option.
(Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.)
27-22 Comment
The FEIS should contain the updated traffic forecast for the No-Action Alternative, including the new
interchanges at Bryan Blvd. and Old Oak Ridge Rd. and the relocation of Regional Road. Furthermore, the
report should make it clear that the No-Action ground transportation improvements have been included in
the areas' approved transportation plan (and TIP, if applicable).
Response
Initially, the updated traffic forecast for the FEIS No-Action Alternative included the new interchange at
Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road, as well as the relocation of Regional Road. However, the No-
Action Alternative has been re-evaluated and.no longer includes surface transportation improvements.
(Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for information regarding the surface transportation
improvements included in area transportation plans.)
27-23 Comment
The discrepancies between build-out employment numbers among the alternatives should be resolved and
a consistent set of numbers should be used for the FEIS analysis.
Response
The FEIS includes consistent buildout employment numbers for the build alternatives, including 996 total
air cargo facility employees by the year 2005 and 2,650 total air cargo facility employees by the year 2019.
(Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.)
27-24 Comment
The FEIS should explain how the 2019 traffic projections were adjusted upward using the 2025 projections
with the projected air cargo facility employment.
Response
The updated traffic volumes obtained for the FEIS did not require the 2019 traffic projections to be adjusted
upward using the 2025 projections with the air cargo facility employment. Instead, a growth rate between
the 2005 and 2019 projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility employment was utilized to project
air cargo facility employment by the year 2025. Straight line interpolation was utilized for the base year
1994 and the future year 2025, with air cargo facility employment, to determine the traffic projections for the
horizon year 2005 and the future year 2019 for each of the build alternatives. (See Section 2.2 of the FEIS
Appendix I.)
27-25 Comment
The FEIS should explain why it is expected that interpolating between the 2019 adjusted traffic projections
and the 1994 base year traffic to project horizon year 2005 traffic would provide a more accurate
prediction? More accurate than what?
Response
The updated traffic volumes obtained for the FEIS did not require the 2019 traffic projections to be adjusted
upward using the 2025 projections with the air cargo facility employment. Instead, a growth rate was
utilized to project air cargo facility employment by the year 2025. Applying the air cargo facility
employment growth rate to the future year 2025 traffic projections prior to the use of straight line
interpolation to determine the traffic projections for the horizon year 2005 and the future year 2019 would
insure that the traffic projections for the years 2005 and 2019 would include enough trips on local roadways
to accommodate the projected buildout estimate of the air cargo facility anticipated for each year. (Refer to
Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.)
database 101801.xls
27-26 Comment '
It is not necessarily true that "any provisions for or enhancements to roadway or intersection projects that
permit free flow and high-speed travel would have corresponding benefits to air quality". The MOBILE 5
emission factors for NOx and VOC's have minima in the intermediate speed ranges and increase at higher
'
speeds.
Response
According to the MOBILE emissions model, VOC emissions diminish with increased vehicle speed and
maneuverability. NOx emissions likewise follow this trend, but the benefits level off at speeds above 40
mph. Notwithstanding these relationships, improved traffic operating conditions generally improve air
quality conditions. '
27-27 Comment
Traffic projections for the No-Action and Build Alternatives are the same. How can this be? ,
Response
Because of substantial growth that is projected to occur in the PTIA area, it was initially assumed by
Statewide Planning that the No-Action Alternative would include the same increased traffic projections for
the airport area as those projected with the introduction of the air cargo sorting and distribution facility. This
was based on the assumption that even if the FedEx did not come to the Triad, some other development
would occur that would generate comparable levels of traffic. Therefore, the traffic projections prepared for
the No-Action Alternative as it relates to the build alternative vary only slightly. This was due to the
location of the proposed air cargo sorting and distribution facility site and the way in which traffic is
anticipated to access this site. (Refer to Appendix I of the FEIS for further information.) However, the No- '
Action Alternative traffic projections have been re-analyzed by Statewide Planning since the issuance of
the DEIS. The revised traffic projections are presented in Appendix I of the FEIS.
27-28 Comment I
The EPA leverages highway funds to ensure clean air. Guilford County will lose those Federal funds if the
FedEx project is built. '
Response
See response to Comment 7-20.
27-29 Comment
Why did the DEIS have no information on the projected increase in the number of trucks which FedEx
would bring to the area?
Response
Since the DEIS, the projected number of trucks which FedEx would bring to the area has been updated.
The air cargo sorting and distribution facility is estimated to generate 100 to 150 trucks per day during the
weekend and 125 trucks per day during the weekday in Phase 1 (year 2005). The air cargo sorting and
distribution facility is estimated to generate 150 to 225 trucks per day during the weekend and 188 trucks
per day during the weekday in Phase 2 (year 2009). (See Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I.)

27-30 Comment
Roads will increase my miles to work. Are you going to pay me for this with all the choices except W1-A1?
Response
See response to Comment 27-7. '
27-31 Comment
Why does the ALP not include the roadway improvements associated with the EIS?

Response '
The 1994 conditionally approved ALP depicts the closure of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road, and the
improvements at North Triad Boulevard and South Triad Boulevard. The new interchange at Old Oak

Ridge Road and Bryan Boulevard was added to subsequent versions of the PTIA ALP that were developed '
by the PTAA.
database 101801.xis I
' 27-32 Comment
Both the relocation of Old Oak Ridge Road and construction of a new interchange at Old Oak Ridge Road
' and Bryan Blvd. are unnecessary for the existing safe operation of the airport and should not be included in
the No-Action Alternative.
Response
' Comment noted. Since the DEIS, the No-Action Alternative has been re-evaluated and no longer includes
surface transportation improvements. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative in the FEIS will not include any
surface transportation improvements.
27-33 Comment
In Section 2.2 of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum, it is stated that it is the mission of the
PTAA to continue to allow PTIA to be a major employment center and economic generator in the Triad.
' However, state legislation does not mention the purported "mission" either directly or implicitly in any of the
appropriate legislation that sets forth and defines the PTAA's authority. This brings the question of
technical accuracy to this technical memorandum.
' Response
The statement made in Section 2.2 of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum of the DEIS is
intended to mean that allowing PTIA to be a major employment center and economic generator in the Triad
is a goal, purpose or responsibility of the PTAA. This should not necessarily be associated with the
legislation establishing the PTAA as an "Authority" in North Carolina.
27-34 Comment
Why were future year traffic estimates for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D based on 1,500 employees
while Alternative W1-A1 were based on 2,400 employees and Alternative WE was based on 4,300 trips?
Response
The future year traffic estimates for Alternatives W2-A, W3-A, and N-D, Alternative W1-A1, and Alternative
WE were obtained at different stages during the planning phase. When traffic data was obtained for an
alternative, the most current air cargo facility employment numbers were utilized. Future year traffic
estimates for the alternatives were obtained at three different stages during the planning phase, resulting in
three different estimates of air cargo facility employment. However, Appendix 1 of the FEIS includes one
' estimate of the air cargo facility employment for the build alternatives. (Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS
Appendix I for further information.)
27-35 Comment
Why does the No-Action Alternative include the projected air cargo sorting/distribution facility employment?
' Response
Please see response to Comment 27-27.
27-36 Comment
Why do figures such as 2.2-5 not include the existing section of Regional Road between Bryan Blvd. and
Market Street?
Response
When traffic forecasts were originally obtained for the No-Action Scenario in the DEIS Appendix I, it was
assumed that the closure of a portion of Regional Road from U.S. 421 (West Market Street) to Bryan
Boulevard would occur in the near future. Therefore, the closure of this portion of Regional Road was
considered an existing condition and was not included on the traffic figures, such as Figure 2.2-5. (See
Section 1.2.4.1 of the DEIS Appendix I.) However, the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional
Road from Lebanon Road to Bryan Boulevard is nearly complete; therefore, the future year traffic forecasts
(and figures) in the FEIS Appendix I will include the closure and relocation of a portion of Regional Road
between Lebanon Road and Bryan Boulevard. However, the existing year (1998) traffic forecast (and
' figure) included in the FEIS Appendix I will include the existing section of Regional Road between Bryan
Boulevard and U.S. 421 (West Market Street). (See Figure 2.2-1 in the FEIS Appendix I.)
I database 101801.xis
27-37 Comment ,
The Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum should analyze the safety factor of added tractor
trailers because North Carolina is the fourth worst state when it comes to the number of fatal and non-fatal
truck accidents.
'
Response
See response to Comment 27-1.
,
27-38 Comment
There are no supporting facts or figures to support the claim that land uses and development activities in
the vicinity of PTIA under Alternative W2-A are expected to be similar in type and magnitude.
Response
The PTAA indicated that had the PTIA not become the site for the Mid-Atlantic Hub, the PTAA anticipated
that another hub of some sort would have developed at PTIA; thus creating similar land uses and
development activities in the vicinity of PTIA. (See Section 5.21 of the FEIS and Section 2.2 of the FEIS
Appendix I.)
'
27-39 Comment
Will the NCDOT be required to conduct a separate EIS for the relocation of Bryan Blvd. and construction of
a single airport interchange?

Response '
The FEIS has been structured such that each of the build alternatives has associated or "connected"
roadway improven gents that are considered part of the proposed alternative. Under Alternatives W2-A, W3-

A, N-D and N-E, these projects consist of the relocation of a portion of Old Oak Ridge Road and the 1
development of a new interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road. Under Alternative W1-
A1, the connected roadway projects include the relocation of approximately 2 miles of Bryan Boulevard
and the construction of an interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road. The impacts
associated with the roadway projects for each of the alternatives have been fully evaluated and addressed
in the FEIS. Therefore, a separate NEPA document for these surface transportation improvements will not
be required. In addition, the FHWA will adopt the FAA's EIS and issue their own Record of Decision based
on the impacts disclosed in the FEIS.
27-40 Comment '
Given the single airport interchange is inside the new runway's RPZ and next to the runoff zone, what is
the plan to provide airport access if the interchange becomes blocked or destroyed by an aircraft runoff
event?
Response
The proposed new interchange for Bryan Boulevard and Old Oak Ridge Road is within the Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ) for Alternative W2-A and partially within the RPZ for Alternative W1-A1. According '
to FAA design and safety guidelines, roadways are an acceptable land use within an RPZ. The FAA is not
aware of any definitive "plan" to provide an alternate airport access route in the event of an incident
involving the new interchange. Alternate access would be determined on a case by case basis, depending '
on the nature of the incident. The interchange is not within the RPZ for Alternatives W3-A, N-D or N-E.
27-41 Comment I
Cost estimates for roadway improvements under each alternative should be provided in the Final EIS.
Response
The cost estimates for roadway improvements are included in the total costs disclosed for the individual
alternatives. Please see Chapter 3, Alternatives, of the FEIS.
27-42 Comment I
Alternatives N-D and WE call for the closure of local streets. The closing of Ballinger Road would alter
traffic patterns east of the Urban Loop between Ballinger Road and Friendly Road. I
Response
Discussions regarding the closure of local streets associated with Alternatives N-D and WE are provided in
Section 5.21 of the FEIS.
database_101801AS
' 27-43 Comment
' The DEIS does not state whether or not Alternatives N-D and WE impact (1) the proposed northern
extension of Chimney Rock Road to be constructed in the conjunction with the Western Urban Loop ; and
(2) the Western Urban Loop.
Response
Construction of Alternative N-D and Alternative WE would impact the proposed northern extension of
Chimney Rock Road and the Greensboro Western Urban Loop. If Alternative N-D or Alternative WE were
selected as the preferred alternative, design modifications would be necessary in order to locate the
Greensboro Western Urban Loop and the extension of Chimney Rock Road out of the runway protection
zone associated with the proposed runway. (See Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS.)
' 27-44 Comment
In Appendix 1, Page 1-2, include the status of the Inman Road Interchange (i.e. this interchange will be
eliminated).
' Response
The No-Action Alternative includes the closure of the interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Inman Road.
Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.
27-45 Comment
All traffic assumptions as they relate to the air cargo facility should be similar for all of the alternatives, so
' we (FHWA) can identify which roadway improvements will serve better the anticipated surface
transportation needs.
Response
' The updated traffic volumes prepared for the FEIS include similar traffic assumptions as they relate to the
air cargo facility, including one estimate of the air cargo facility employment for all of the build alternatives.
(Refer to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.)
27-46 Comment
We (FHWA) need to have a clear understanding of which interchanges will be modified, added or deleted
in order to make appropriate traffic distribution assumptions.
Response
The No-Action Alternative does not include surface transportation improvements associated with the
proposed project at PTIA. However, the No-Action Alternative, as well as the build alternatives, include the
' closure of the interchange at Bryan Boulevard and Inman Road. The elimination of the Bryan
Boulevard/Inman Road interchange is associated with the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop (TIP
Project No. U-2524) and is due to the close proximity of the Bryan Boulevard/Inman Road interchange to
the proposed Greensboro Western Urban Loop/Bryan Boulevard interchange. In addition, the build
alternatives include various connected actions detailed in Section 5.21 and Appendix I of the FEIS.
27-47 Comment
For the purposes of the surface transportation technical memorandum it will be useful to compare between
an absolute no action alternative, a no FedEx action alternative and the direct actions alternative.
Response
Initially, in previous meetings with the FHWA, PTAA, and FAA representatives, it was agreed that a
comparison between a no FedEx action alternative and the direct action alternatives would be evaluated
for purposes of this document. An absolute No Action Alternative would not be addressed in Appendix I;
however, the Purpose and Need in the document would reflect that the surface transportation
improvements proposed as a part of the No-Action Alternative would provide improved access to the
airport as a result - the new airport expansion. However, since the DEIS, the No-Action Alternative has
been re-evaluated and no longer includes surface transportation improvements. Therefore, the No-Action
Alternative is truly a "No-Build" Alternative.
1 database 101801 S
27-48 Comment I
Page 1-3, under Section 1.2.4, add to the third sentence from the bottom "...PTAA whether or not the
proposed direct actions were implemented to accommodate the present and future traffic needs of the
PTIA."
Response
Text has been eliminated due to restructuring of the Surface Transportation Technical Memorandum
(Appendix 1).
27-49 Comment
It is our (FHWA) understanding that although the April 2000 DEIS only considers airport-related noise
(does not address highway related noise), this analysis of the Highway related noise will be completed
before the Final EIS and the results will be included in the Final document.
Response
The highway related noise analysis has been completed and is provided in Sections 5.1 and 5.21 of the
FEIS.
,
27-50 Comment
It is our (FHWA) understanding that a capacity analysis technical memorandum is being prepared and it
will be submitted to NCDOT and FHWA for review.
Response
A capacity analysis technical memorandum, or support documentation for the highway capacity analyses in
Appendix I, was submitted to the NCDOT and FHWA for review on January 17, 2001. This support

documentation is referenced in Appendix I and includes a memo to file with the computer generated ,
capacity analyses runs attached. The computer generated capacity analyses runs include the mainlines
and intersections analyzed for the No-Action and Build Alternatives under existing (1998), horizon (2005),
and future (2019) conditions. A capacity analysis of the proposed interchanges would be conducted during
the preliminary design phase of the project.
27-51 Comment '
The DEIS evaluates those on and off-airport impacts directly related to the proposed project and the
actions necessary to mitigate those short and long-term impacts. A "connected action" not considered in
the DEIS are those off-airport surface transportation improvements shown on the 1994 Airport Layout Plan
(ALP) and other roadway improvements and enhancements currently being reviewed by the Greensboro
MPO and High Point MPO for possible inclusion in their respective Long Range Transportation Plans
(LRTP). These projects should be evaluated in the FEIS.
'
Response -
The FEIS Appendix I discusses the on and off-airport surface transportation improvements shown on the
1994 ALP. The FEIS Appendix I also discusses other roadway improvements included on the Airport Area ,
Traffic and Circulation Plan prepared by the Guilford County Planning & Development Department. (Refer
to Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I for further information.) Other roadway projects included in the 2000
TIP that are not related to the proposed project at PTIA are considered cumulative actions and are
discussed in Section 5.23, Cumulative Impacts.
27-52 Comment
FAA is requested to provide additional information on local and regional transportation impacts, particularly
those impacts brought about by spin-off employment growth and related population increases that the
DEIS projects to occur by 2019 as a result of the development of the proposed Fed Ex Air Cargo Hub. This
information should emphasize the impacts of such employment and population growth on High Point's
existing highway network and public transit system.
J
database_101801.xis
Response
As stated in Section 2.2 of the FEIS Appendix I, the DEIS assumes that 90 percent of the total employment
generated by the Build Alternatives and predicted for the Piedmont Triad Region would occur within the Six-
' County Socioeconomic Study Area. Guilford County is projected to capture 58 to 60 percent of the
induced population and employment as discussed in Section 5.4.5.1 of the FEIS. It is not possible to
' forecast the exact location within Guilford County of this induced residential and industrial development.
Similarly, it is not possible to forecast the exact location within Guilford County of the local and regional
transportation impacts. However, it is expected that the transportation impacts on the highway network in
the vicinity of PTIA and Greensboro would increase due to the development of the proposed FedEx Air
Cargo Hub at PTIA.
Consequently, the transportation impacts on the highway network are expected to decrease as you move
' further away from the PTIA and Greensboro. Changes to the existing highway network and public transit,
in terms of utilization and ridership, are expected to vary proportionately with anticipated population
increases. Effects on local and regional transportation are expected to vary proportionately with spin-off
employment growth and related population increases projected to occur by 2019.
27-53 Comment
' The document should address mitigation measure due to the highway portion as well as PTIA-produced
noise.
Response
' Mitigation measures with regard to highway noise impacts associated with the proposed project are
addressed in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
' 27-54 Comment
The concern is we've got a very limited area, and I think to make any road improvements in the
development out hore needs planning.
' Response
Comment noted.
27-55 Comment
The Greensboro Department of Transportation looks forward to being a willing and active participant
throughout the entire EIS process.
Response
' Comment noted.
u

r
database-101801.xis

Piedmont Triad International Airport
' 28. Design Art and Architecture
28-1 Comment
NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ARE RECORDED UNDER THIS CATEGORY.
Response

u

I database 101801.x1s

?u

1

ri
II

Piedmont Triad International Airport
29. Other
29-1 Comment
Improving the city and county's infrastructure and public services should take precedence over expanding
PTIA.
Response
Comment noted.
29-2 Comment
Senator Fairchild, who is on the appropriations committee for FAA funding should be required to abstain
from voting for this funding.
Response
Funding for a proposed project such as the one at PTIA is determined at the Regional level of the FAA and
is not the subject of a Senate vote.
29-3 Comment
Pollution levels should be studied at my home.
Response
Impacts to specific residential dwellings are not a part of this EIS. The EIS includes analysis of Noise
(Section 5.1), Air Quality (Section 5.5), and Water Quality (Section 5.6) impacts within the Generalized and
Detailed Study Areas. Refer to the sections above for information on pollution associated with all
alternatives.
29-4 Comment
During the EIS review, we (U.S. Congressmen) know that you will hear many of these same concerns and
we are hopeful that every effort will be made to resolve these differences.
Response
All written comment letters and oral transcripts have been reviewed by the FAA over the course of the EIS.
The FAA has made every effort to comply with Federal, state and local laws and regulations that apply to
the proposed project.
29-5 Comment
People are just as important as other natural resources.
Response
Comment noted.
29-6 Comment
Please be sure that these comments are included as part of the record for the EIS study. If you could
inform our office (U.S. Congressmen) upon completion of this study and FAA's decision we would be most
grateful.
Response
All written comment letters and oral transcripts are part of the FEIS. See supplemental documentation for
all public letters and transcripts. An executive summary of the FEIS will be sent to North Carolina
Congressmen.
29-7 Comment
The EIS needs to be concerned with the health and safety of citizens.
Response
Comment noted.
database 101801.x1s
29-8 Comment I
I would greatly appreciate any assistance the FAA may provide in making the new FedEx facility a reality.
Response
Comment noted.
29-9 Comment ,
I trust your organization will support the necessary infrastructure to allow this project to move forward.
Response
The FAA supports and funds the development of aviation infrastructure as needed and as funding
becomes available. Development of off-airport infrastructure is the responsibility of other Federal, state and
local governments.

29-10 Comment
The proposed project should appeal to other airlines and in turn positively impact the availability of flights
and fares.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-20.
r
29-11 Comment
Expansion of PTIA has been public knowledge for many years.
Response
Please see responses to Comment 29-13 and 29-24.
29-12 Comment
Infrastructure improvements associated with the Hub will bring great benefits to PTIA and to the region for
many years to come. These improvements will enhance transportation facilities for existing companies and
assist our region in attracting new investment.
Response
Comment noted.
29-13 Comment I
PTIA's 30-year old Master Plan is invalid and should be re-done to account for the changed conditions in
the airport area.
Response
PTAA's Master Plan Update (MPU) published in December 1994 supplemented information in the previous
1990 MPU. The 1994 MPU is the current 20-year plan for the Piedmont Triad International Airport and
includes an Airport Layout Plan. See Chapter 2.0, Purpose and Need, of the EIS for further information. i
29-14 Comment
PTIA has always taken a reasonable approach to growth and I am confident that this plan has been well
thought out.
Response
Comment noted.
29-15 Comment
Infrastructure improvements associated with the Hub will bring great educational benefits to the
communities in Guilford County.
Response
Comment noted.
29-16 Comment
Implementation of the FedEx facility will generate opportunities for local college students both in school
and after graduation and colleges will provide an ample opportunity to train for the skills needed.
database_101801AS ,

1

Response
The proposed project at PTIA would create jobs within Guilford County and surrounding counties. See
Section 5.4, Induced Socioeconomic Impacts, of the FEIS for further information.
29-17 Comment
Local charities will benefit from addition of a great corporate citizen.
Response
Comment noted.
29-18 Comment
It is recognized that there will be those who do not agree, but I would urge you and your associates at the
FAA to look at the broader view for what is and will be the common good generated by this new runway.
Response
The FEIS discloses the benefits and impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives.
29-19 Comment
Those neighboring PTIA property should have known that living close to an airport would eventually
become a problem with future airport development.
Response
' Please see responses to Comments 29-13 and 29-24.
29-20 Comment
Proposed construction will hopefully increase passenger service in the Triad.
Response
It is not known at this time whether the proposed project would have the potential of increased passenger
service, generate more direct flights, or positively impact the availability of flights and fares.
29-21 Comment
Proposed construction will hopefully generate more direct flights out of the Triad.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-20.
29-22 Comment
Triad residents will acquire legal services to recoup any personal loss.
Response
Comment noted.
29-23 Comment
' I understand and sympathize with those whose homes will be affected by locating a third runway at PTIA,
but I also realize that the airport was located there years ago and that the benefits of this project will help
all the citizens of the Triad.
' Response
Comment noted.
29-24 Comment
Residents neighboring PTIA knew in advance the potential of future airport development affecting the
residents.
' Response
The development of a new runway parallel to existing Runway 5/23 has been included in PTIA's Master
Plan and depicted in various forms on the PTIA ALP since 1968. Both the ALP and PTIA Master Plans
' have been available for public review at the Airport Administration Office.
database 101801.xis
29-25 Comment
Employers have been discouraging relocating personnel from buying property in the northwest.
Response
Comment noted.
29-26 Comment
PTIA wants to give off the appearance that they are a large entity when in fact they are no where near that
designation.
Response
Comment noted.
29-27 Comment
Why is PTIA considered an International Airport? How many international flights leave this airport?
Response
An international airport is defined as an airport with U.S. Customs facilities. Because PTIA has several
charter flights a year and maintains a Customs Facility, it is designated as an International Airport.
29-28 Comment
Residents living within the "window rattling zone" do not want PTIA development to continue
Response
Comment noted.
29-29 Comment
FedEx will the create the ability to ship daily.
Response
Comment noted.
29-30 Comment
The City of Greensboro will participate financially in the development of a certain private and/or
infrastructure improvements to promote economic development.
Response
Comment noted.
29-31 Comment
I trust that the FAA will correct their mistakes prior to the release of the Draft EIS.
Response
Comment noted.
29-32 Comment
To ignore all the benefits that FedEx can offer this region in order to satisfy a small group of people is a
mistake and costly to our future.
Response
The FEIS discloses the benefits and impacts associated with the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives. The FAA will take these factors into account in its Record of Decision after the FEIS is
published.
29-33 Comment
If this project is approved, it should be contingent upon orders being placed immediately for new aircraft
comparable in size to the 727, for use upon the opening of the facility.
Response
FAA cannot require a private company to purchase newer aircraft as a stipulation of opening the proposed
air cargo hub facility at PTIA.
database_101801.xls

L J

1

J

1

29-34 Comment
A policy of true Stage 3 aircraft and using the smallest aircraft on the runway could go a long way toward
reducing the impact of the operation. This should be a part of the business negotiations between the
airport authority and FedEx, not necessarily a regulation that might violate Federal law.
Response
29-35 Comment
The public has been given a massive amount of misinformation and somebody needs to collate and deliver
accurate information in a way the general public can understand.
Response
The FAA has compiled accurate information on the impacts associated with the proposed project and
reasonable alternatives in the DEIS and FEIS documents. The FAA makes every attempt to present the
information in the EIS in a manner such that it can be fully comprehended by all readers. However, due to"
the nature of the technology used in some of the analyses, this goal is not always achieved. One of the
reasons that the FAA conducted public Scoping as well as Information Workshops and a Public Hearing
was to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and clarify any information contained in the EIS
document that was unclear or hard to understand.
29-36 Comment
If the bulk of operations are shifted to 14/32, aircraft using this runway will be subject to a significantly
higher number of days to cross winds and possible wind shear conditions.
Response
Comment noted.
29-37 Comment
Long-term effects of locating FedEx will have a negative impact on the quality of life and it will not promote
growth in the Triad.
Response
Comment noted. The proposed project would create additional employment, new households, and
increased population. See Section 5.4, Induced Socioeconomic Impacts, of the FEIS for further
information.
29-38 Comment
The third parallel runway will increase the attractiveness of PTIA for increased flight operations which will
enable the area to attract more conventions and other events.
Response
Please see response to Comment 21-20.
29-39 Comment
Residents in the Triad are required to use special gasoline.
Response
The FAA is not aware of any regulations requiring special gasoline to be used in the Triad.
29-40 Comment
Residents should not complain because when Continental had its mini hub at PTIA there were no
complaints.
Response
Comment noted.
29-41 Comment
The only way to stop the proposed project is by raising money for litigation.
Response
Comment noted.
I database-1 01 801.x1s
29-42 Comment ,
If the proposed project is carried out, the FAA will constantly be reminded of what a bad decision they
made to bring FedEx to the Triad.
Response
It was not FAA's decision to bring FedEx to the Triad. This was a decision made by the PTAA. The role of
the FAA in the EIS process is to evaluate an airport sponsors' proposed project in terms of potential
environmental and social impacts and render an environmental determination in the form of a Record of
,
Decision. It is ultimately up to the airport sponsor and local communities whether to construct and operate
the proposed improvements.

29-43 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-44 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-45 Comment
Has FedEx agreed to pay for any lawsuits that arise due to noise? '
Response
The FAA is not aware of any agreements to pay for lawsuits that arise due to the proposed project at PTIA.
29-46
Comment
Have concessions been made to any residents?
Response
The FAA is not aware of any concessions that the PTAA has made to homeowners.
29-47 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-48 Comment
Has the FAA successfully gotten FedEx to cut the weight of the cargo crates to an acceptable weight?
Response
The weight of cargo carried by FedEx aircraft is the responsibility of FedEx and not the FAA.
29-49 Comment
Is daylight flying time between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.?
Response
The INM model considers 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. as daytime and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as nighttime. Please see
Section 5. 1, Noise, of the FEIS for further information.
29-50 Comment
The tower chief gets stuck when attempting to land aircraft efficiently. I sometimes get 4 - 5 aircraft within 5
minutes of each other landing over my home.
Response
The FAA ATCT directs aircraft in an efficient manner as possible. The proposed project at PTIA would
provide the ATCT with greater flexibility in terms of handling arrival and departure flows of aircraft.

H

1
1
database 101801.xis I

29-51 Comment
While the noble PQLC tells us they are trying to save us from additional taxes with their right hand, their left
hand is reaching into our back pocket and grabbing our tax dollars to buy their houses and save
themselves from their decision to purchase a home near an airport.
Response
Comment noted.
29-52 Comment
FAA should carefully consider the human, environmental, and financial aspects of FedEx locating its Mid-
Atlantic hub in Greensboro.
Response
FAA has carefully documented the affects of implementing the proposed project in the DEIS and FEIS
documents. One of the purposes of the environmental impact statement and consultation process is to
provide officials and decision-makers, as well as members of the public, with an understanding of the
potential environmental impacts of a proposed project. Environmental impacts are evaluated as fully and
as fairly as non-environmental considerations. The FAA's objective is to enhance environmental quality
and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that might result from implementing a proposed
Federal action.
29-53 Comment
Proposed improvements to the Piedmont Triad International Airport has been assigned State Application
Number 99-E-0000-0111.
Response
Comment noted.
29-54 Comment
Construction of the third runway and roads necessary for FedEx has already begun. PTIA is currently
moving and adding large amounts of fill dirt in the area that the proposed runway is to be constructed. This
area is located at the southwestern quadrant where Bryan Blvd. and Regional Road intersect and is
adjacent to Brush Creek. This is a violation of FAA and DOT regulations.
Response
Construction of the proposed third runway and roadway projects has not started. The construction
activities referenced are associated with the extension of the Runway 14 RSA. This project is not related to
the proposed parallel runway and was previously approved by the FAA in a document entitled " Piedmont
Triad International Airport: Categorical Exclusion, Runway 14 Safety Area" dated May 7, 1998. See
Section 5.23, Cumulative Impacts, and Appendix A of the FEIS for further information.
29-55 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-56 Comment
Citizens should be able to vote on this project.
Response
The decision to hold a public vote on the proposed project is one that is not within the FAA's jurisdiction. It
would be the responsibility of the PTAA and surrounding municipalities, as well as the State of North
Carolina to determine whether a vote should be held.
29-57 Comment
RESERVED
' Response
database_101801.xis
29-58 Comment '
RESERVED
Response

29-59 Comment
RESERVED '
Response
29-60 Comment
FAA, PTAA, local government, etc. are profit driven, biased representatives that have not taken the
environmental impact into proper consideration.
Response
The FAA is a Federal agency and is not a "for profit" organization. FAA has conducted a complete and
unbiased evaluation of the proposed project in the DEIS and FEIS documents and has complied with its' ,
responsibilities under CEQ, NEPA and FAA Orders 5050.4A and 1050.1 D to disclose potential
environmental impacts and provide mitigation measures to mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
29-61 Comment
I am opposed to the greater industrial development in this area.
Response
Comment noted.
29-62 Comment
RESERVED
Response

29-63 Comment
The FedEx proposed development will cause long term infrastructure problems.

Response ,
Appendix E, Section 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future
revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the
proposed project. This analysis considers the costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of
population growth and is based on historical records for the study area. The analysis includes impacts from
induced population growth as a result of the introduction of the air cargo sorting/distribution facility at PTIA
.
29-64 Comment
More'street names should be added to your maps.
Response
FAA has added more street names to figures within the FEIS to assist readers in their understanding of the
document.
29-65 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-66 Comment j
It would only be fair to fly the number of flights in at the times they will be flown.
Response
The FAA has not received any indication from either the PTAA or FedEx that actual tests of fully loaded
aircraft would be conducted, nor can the FAA require that these tests be performed.
database 10180I.As
29-67 Comment
RESERVED
Response
' 29-68 Comment
It is unfortunate that the profiteering and larger ego of FedEx and PTAA are putting families through this
predicament.
Response
Comment noted.
29-69 Comment
' Airport officials are given authority to do as they please regarding the community's welfare without having
to answer to anyone.
Response
The PTAAs' responsibility is to ensure that the airport is operated in an efficient manner and to decide
when and what type of improvements to the facility are needed to meet the air service needs of the
travelling public. Whenever appropriate, the PTAA coordinates their actions closely with local governments
' and the public.
29-70 Comment
Airports must be equipped with energy efficient catapults to accelerate jets to take off speeds, so jets do
not operate in their least effective mode as often.
Response
Catapult technology is not utilized by commercial airports or airlines at this time and will not be used in the
foreseeable future.
29-71 Comment
The proposed project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental Review
Process and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. More specific comments will be
provided during the environmental review process.
Response
Comment noted.
29-72 Comment
The EIS should include all infrastructure impacts associated with the proposed development.
Response
' Chapter 5 of the FEIS includes an evaluation of impacts from the direct, connected, and cumulative
projects proposed at PTIA. Infrastructure impacts associated with the direct and connected actions are
discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.22. Infrastructure impacts associated with the cumulative actions are
discussed in Section 5.23.
29-73 Comment
' This project will impact 1 geodetic survey marker. The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted.
Response
FAA has contacted the N.C. Geodetic Survey concerning the geodetic survey marker. Neither the
proposed project nor the reasonable alternatives would impact the geodetic survey marker located on PTIA
property. Please see Appendix A of the FEIS for further information.
' 29-74 Comment
RESERVED
Response
database_101801.xis
29-75 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-76 Comment
The Environmental Impact Statement's position is not a negative if FedEx addresses the issues as they
state they will.
Response
The FAA will require that the PTAA implement the Mitigation Program outlined in Section 6.3 of the FEIS
by including this program in its' Record of Decision, when issued. It will then be the responsibility of the
PTAA to implement and maintain the mitigation program.

29-77 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-78 Comment

RESERVED ,
Response

29-79 Comment
The Boeing 727 was not designed to be a cargo aircraft plane.
Response
The 8727 has numerous design configurations and is commonly used as a cargo aircraft throughout the
world. ,
29-80 Comment
I am concerned about having a cargo hub here altering the wartime targeting status of the Triad. Will the

hub place us all at a greater risk in a wartime environment? '
Response
The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential change in wartime targeting status of the PTIA with
the implementation of the proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS.
29-81 Comment
What is the cost of the study and who pays for it? I
Response
The cost of the EIS study to-date is $2.1 million. The study has been paid for by the PTAA. However, after
the FAA issues its' Record of Decision, the PTAA will request reimbursement from the FAA for the costs I
associated with the EIS study.
29-82 Comment
The "Degree of Controversy" paragraph on Page S34 trivializes the impact to people. Why? Is the intent of
this document to cover up the fact that many people think this hub is wrong?
Response
The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments
that had been received as of the publication of the DEIS. It is FAA's mission to disclose all available
information concerning the proposed project so that an informed decision can be made.
29-83 Comment
The summary of the DEIS is unbelievably simplistic and does not address the full environmental impacts. ,
database_101801.xls --
' Response
The Executive Summary is designed to concisely summarize the main points and key issues that are
' presented in the EIS document. Please refer to Volume 1: Documentation, of the FEIS for more detailed
information concerning Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Affected Environment, Environmental
Consequences, and Mitigation measures.
' 29-84 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-85 Comment
' Are you ready for the lawsuits that are going to happen here from health problems related to noise, air, and
water pollution?
Response
Comment noted.
29-86 Comment
' Who is going to be accountable for all of the major problems that will come to Greensboro with FedEx? the
City, County, State government or the FAA?
Response
' Please see response to Comment 2942.
29-87 Comment
Who is going to pay for the medical bills caused by the added pollution by FedEx?
Response
1 Please see response to Comment 29-42.
29-88 Comment
People impacted by the hub's operations will receive mitigating funds.
Response
A Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3.1 of the FEIS.
29-89 Comment
People living outside the area effected by the project should not be able to voice their opinion on the
project.
Response
The FAA accepts and considers all comments received on the proposed project or the EIS process on an
equal basis.
29-90 Comment
Many negative effects can be reduced or avoided through implementation of a mitigation program.
Response
FAA's initial development of alternatives to the proposed action considered the avoidance and minimization
of environmental impacts. For those impacts that are unavoidable, a Mitigation Program for the Preferred
Alternative has been developed and is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS.
29-91 Comment
' FedEx guarantees overnight delivery, what difference will a local hub make?
Response
FedEx has proposed the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA to serve as its new east coast sorting and distribution
facility. This facility would handle small packages being shipped between Maine and Puerto Rico that are
currently being routed through the Memphis FedEx Hub. This will free-up some capacity at Memphis and
allow FedEx to increase its market share.
' database 101801.As
29-92 Comment '
We don't want FedEx sending 126 cargo flights over our home every night.
Response
Comment noted. ,
29-93 Comment
The FAA should postpone any decision on the FedEx hub until all concerns, issues, and questions
regarding the EIS can be resolved, the public has a full understanding of the noise and pollution impacts
and the solutions in writing on the options, and an explanation of the methodology used for decision
making processes in a manner the general public can understand.
Response
FAA's environmental determination on the proposed project, which will take the form of a Record of
Decision (ROD), will not be made until the FEIS has been published, and a 30-day review period for
agency, government and the public has been provided.
29-94 Comment

All correspondence between the FAA, PTIA, and FedEx should be made public and the citizens of the '
community have the opportunity to hold their leaders accountable.
Response ,
All information pertinent to FAA's decision making process for this EIS is being maintained in a project file
in the Atlanta Office of the FAA and may be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. After
the conclusion of the EIS process, this documentation will take the form of an Administrative Record. ,
29-95 Comment
The FAA should have intervened when the Airport Authority denied a seat to a qualified citizen with a
contrary opinion.
Response
The FAA has no authorit
over the ele
ti
f
b
t
th
PTAA
'
y
c
on o
mem
ers
o
e
.
29-96 Comment
A public statement should be made by FedEx that they will not be given any exemptions or special ,
considerations by the FAA or the local governments with respect to noise and air pollution.
Response
The FAA will not give any exemptions or special considerations to FedEx with respect to noise and air
pollution. The Mitigation Program presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS will be implemented by the PTAA
and will apply to all users of the airport.
,
29-97 Comment
If the cargo planes were to fly directly over your house (FAA) from 2:00 am to 5:00 am everyday, would
you be for or against the FedEx hub? '
Response
Comment noted.

29-98 Comment
I do not want planes flying over my home at all hours of the night.
Response
Comment noted.
29-99 Comment

I believe that the DEIS is heavily weighted to the advantage of PTAA without sound, realistic ,
measurements of the noise contours, pollution and environmental impact.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-60.
database_101801.x1s I

29-100 Comment
The DEIS is a shoddy piece of work with biased and scientifically weak results. Maps are incorrect,
projected models are subjective and the overall tone reveals a heart of corruption.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-60.
29-101 Comment
On September 1999 at the Memphis Hub of FedEx, a wing flap fell off a FedEx plane and landed in a
nearby resident's yard. This is but an example of why the hub should not be built at P.T.I.
Response
Comment noted.
29-102 Comment
Mitigation is not the answer in achieving an end by unjust means.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-90.
29-103 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-104 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-105 Comment
The noise, pollution, and numerous other negative characteristics of this industry makes FedEx an
unwelcome neighbor.
Response
Comment noted. Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, describes various environmental and non-
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA.
29-106 Comment
National Geodetic Survey information should be reviewed for identifying the location and designation of
any geodetic control monuments that maybe affected by the planning process. If there are any planned
activities which will disturb or destroy these monuments, NGS requires not less than 90 days notification in
advance of such activities in order to plan for their relocation. NGS recommends that funding for this
project includes the cost of any relocation(s) required.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-73.
' 29-107 Comment
Does increased drug trafficking come with FedEx?
Response
The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential for increases in drug trafficking associated with the
proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS.
29-108 Comment
Has the FAA looked into the personal gain to Airport Authority members in this?
Response
The FAA did not conduct an analysis of the potential for personal gain to Airport Authority members
associated with the proposed project. This is outside the scope of the EIS.
database 101801.xis
29-109 Comment '
What guarantee do we have that we won't be effected as everyone keeps telling us. How can I live 0.5 mile
from the end of a runway and not be affected?
Response
The FAA cannot guarantee whether or not someone would be adversely affected by the proposed project.
The FAA has established "Thresholds of Significance" for various environmental impact categories which
set guidelines against which impacts are measured. The impacts disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS
documents are based on these thresholds. In the case of the noise analysis, if a home has been
determined to be outside the 65 DNL noise contour, it is not considered to be significantly impacted by the
FAA. However, this does not mean the there could not be a perceived affect of increased noise. ,
29-110 Comment
Once the FedEx hub is operational, those estimates in the EIS will show to be fiction rather than fact,
causing the community to pay more as a whole.
Response ,
The evaluation of impacts contained in the FEIS is based on the best information and latest technical
analytical tools available to the FAA. The impacts as disclosed in the FEIS should accurately represent the
actual impacts that take place after the proposed project is operational, unless significant changes in the ,
proposed project occur after the ROD is issued.
29-111 Comment
PTAA should have a member on the board who lives near the airport and would represent the interests of
residents who live near the airport.
Response
FAA has communicated this comment to PTIA for their consideration. It is not the responsibility of the FAA
to appoint or vote on current or potential PTAA members.
29-112 Comment i
Please send me a copy of the PTIA DEIS, FEIS and the Record of Decision. It is my understanding that the
FAA must send me a copy upon request.
Response
Federal guidelines state that the FAA can provide interested parties copies of the DEIS at a nominal cost.
The commentator can contact the FAA Environmental Program Specialist in the Atlanta Office of the FAA
to obtain details as to cost and availability of the DEIS documents. The FAA has placed public review
copies of the DEIS and FEIS in local libraries including the Greensboro Public Library, High Point Public
Library, Forsyth County Library, and Guilford College Branch Library as well as in the PTAA administrative
offices. The Record of Decision will be placed at these same locations for public review.

29-113 Comment
Include the study titled "Federal Express in the Piedmont Triad - Economic Impact and Opportunities" in
the record for the DEIS.
Response ,
Comment noted. The study, "Federal Express in the Piedmont Triad - Economic Impact and Opportunities"
is in the record for the FEIS. Please refer to Chapter 9 of the FEIS.

29-114 Comment
We do not need more jobs, traffic, carpetbaggers.
Response

Comment noted. '

database 101801.xis

Ll
?J

F

29-115 Comment
Noise, water, air iF:_ ues are very troubling.
Response
Comment noted. See Sections 5.1 (Noise), 5.5 (Air Quality), and 5.6 (Water Quality) of the FEIS for more
information. Also, refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.3 for mitigation measures that will be implemented to
reduce environmental impacts associated with the proposed project at PTIA.
29-116 Comment
We should not have the attitude that we need the Fed Ex's of the world to make us a great place.
Response
Comment noted.
29-117 Comment
Fed Ex is an intrusive business.
Response
Comment noted.
29-118 Comment
The DEIS does not raise any air, noise or water concerns that cannot be mitigated by conscientious
planning by the airport, government agencies and FedEx.
Response
A Mitigation Program for the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. This program,
when implemented by the PTAA, will greatly reduce the impacts associated with the proposed project.
29-119 Comment
I have children that I do not want to be damaged by the increased air and water pollution that the FedEx
expansion would cause.
Response
Comment noted. Please refer to Sections 5.5 and 5.6, respectively, for Air Quality and Water Quality
impacts.
29-120 Comment
The DEIS does not address the consequences of the added air and water pollution from the project and its
ripple effects. Sprawl impacts, water and sewer consumption from the ripple effect, loss of wetlands, the
economic cost of the ripple effect and the tax burden that (the project) will bring are not addressed.
Response
Section 5.23 of the FEIS discloses the environmental impacts associated with the cumulative projects.
Appendix E, Section 6, Fiscal Impact Analysis, of the FEIS contains an analysis of the future
revenues/expenditures in the Six County Socioeconomic Study Area as a result of implementation of the
proposed project and its associated induced development or "ripple effects". This analysis considers the
costs of infrastructure improvements as a function of population growth and is based on historical records
for the study area..
29-121 Comment
The FAA is directed by Congress to "encourage development of All-Cargo Transportation Systems
provided by private enterprise." Given such a mandate, the FAA cannot conduct an impartial
environmental study. The FAA is clearly motivated to ignore, hide, and downplay any problems that may
hinder it in promoting cargo hubs. Acting as judge in its own case, the FAA has violated a fundamental
principle of justice and has denied due process.
Response
Please see responses to Comments 29-60, 23-36 and 23-5.
database 101801.xls
29-122 Comment '
There is no mention of the health effects on area residents of either the increased noise or the increased
levels of pollutants from the proposed additional aircraft traffic. It is well known that ozone and other
pollutants are associated with respiratory ailments and other diseases in humans. Similarly, noise has '
been shown to have negative effects on humans.
Response
The FAA has an established policy of using the DNL 65 dBA as the "Threshold of Significance" for aircraft- ,
generated noise impacts. The FAA considers noise levels below this threshold as being normally
compatible with noise-sensitive residential land use. The PTAA has committed to the development of a
noise mitigation pl-n to reduce noise impacts to the area surrounding PTIA. This program includes '
acquisition of residential parcels within the 70 and 75 DNL noise contours as well as soundproofing
residences within the 65 DNL noise contour. In terms of air quality, the proposed project was found by the
FAA to be in conformity with the SIP, therefore it would not result in significant air quality impacts. Please '
see Section 6.3 of the FEIS for further information.
29-123 Comment '
What will be the impact on our children in 10 years?
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-122. '
29-124 Comment
Harm is defined very narrowly while benefit is defined broadly, which not only makes the entire project
seem more attractive than it likely is but also greatly diminishes the projected positive impact of any
mitigation measures.
Response
Comment noted..
29-125 Comment
If Fed Ex is planning an International Hub for PTIA then many of the basic calculations in the DEIS would
be obsolete.
Response
FedEx has proposed the Mid-Atlantic Hub at PTIA to serve as its new east coast sorting and distribution
facility. This facility would handle small packages being shipped between Maine and Puerto Rico that are
currently being routed through the Memphis FedEx Hub. The FAA has not received any information
indicating the FedEx facility at PTIA would be used for international service.
29-126 Comment
The EIS does not provide valid discussion and information the Airport Authority and others need to make
an informed decision.
Response
Please see response to Comment 29-52. '
29-127 Comment
I request that the EIS include a discussion of the fact that results can only be confident at the 95 percent
level out to two standard deviations away on either from the calculated value.
Response
The evaluation of impacts contained in the FEIS is based on the best information and latest technical '
analytical tools available to the FAA in accordance with regulations (CEQ 1502.24). The impacts as
disclosed in the FEIS accurately represent the anticipated impacts that take place after the proposed
project is operational, unless significant changes in the proposed project occur after the ROD is issued. ,
29-128 Comment
I would like medical experts to review the EIS in terms of the adverse effects of the project on various '
segments of the population.
database_101801.xls

1

Response
FAA has distributed the EIS to local libraries and copies are available at the PTAA Administrative Office for
public review. In addition, the FAA has an ongoing comment period that has given agencies and any
individual in the general public the opportunity to comment on the EIS.
29-129 Comment
Throughout the report data are given and outcomes determined without explanation of how the data were
gathered or what statistical models were used to interpret these data.
Response
Each section within Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of the EIS contains a methodology that
describes how data was obtained and used in analyzing the impacts of the alternatives. Additional
information is provided as necessary in the EIS Technical Appendices.
29-130 Comment
We believe that the cost of the full documentation should be affordable and/or readily available on the
Internet. In addition, we would like to point out that the Executive Summary did not include the full "picture"
of the "On-Site Runway and..." (following page S-8) nor the legend that would explain the diagrams.
Response
Comment noted. The complete EIS documentation is available at local libraries as well as the
Administrative Office of the PTAA for public review. The PTIA web site (www.gsoair.org) does contain a
link to the Executive Summary of the EIS. Figure S-2 on the web site displays the existing layout of the
airport and various combinations of runway alternatives and air cargo facility locations that were part of the
alternatives evaluation process. The legend for Figure S-2 is located in the lower right-hand corner of the
page. The DEIS was available for $201.17 (without shipping costs), while the Executive Summary was
available for $10 (without shipping costs). The voluminous nature of the text and complexity of the
graphics did not allow putting the entire EIS on the internet.
29-131 Comment
RESERVED
Response
29-132 Comment
Given the serious negative impacts associated with the type of expansion proposed for the FedEx hub,
particularly with respect to air quality, the Conservation Council urges you to make the health of the
citizens of Greensboro and the quality of North Carolina's natural resources a priority by not approving the
project.
Response
Comment noted.
29-133 Comment
Can anyone "overrule" our decision that mitigation or abatement is unacceptable?
Response
The FAA has worked in conjunction with the PTAA to develop the proposed Mitigation Program for the
Preferred Alternative, which is contained in Section 6.3 of the FEIS. Implementation of this program by the
PTAA will satisfy the mitigation requirements of the FAA, EPA, USACE and NCDENR, which are the
Federal and state jurisdictional agencies responsible for ensuring the mitigation of adverse affects that
would occur at PTIA as a result of the proposed project.
29-134 Comment
Both of these well-qualified experts (Dr. Bronzaft - noise, Mr. Piazza - air quality) have found serious
deficiencies with the DEIS. Please direct your responses to their comments to me.
database 10180I.As
Response I
The FAA has set-up this Comment/Response Database to respond to comments from agencies and the
general public in an accurate and efficient manner. Responses to comments are not directed to one
individual but to any person reading the document. Please use the index of general public names to search '
for the comment letter and associated comment codes and responses.
29-135 Comment
The entire DEIS dismisses the impacts on people. The following statements are supportive of this
conclusion. Under Degree of Controversy (p. 34 of Executive summary), it is noted that : "Many of these
concerns have been voiced by the communities closest to PTIA. However, much of the larger Triad area
appears supportive of the proposed development..." Yes, indeed, it is customary that people believe they
will be losing a decent'quality of life," and possibly their health, will fight to protect themselves.
Response
The statements made in the DEIS regarding public controversy reflects FAA's interpretation of comments
that had been received as of the publication of the nFIS It is FAA'c miccinn to Hict-irmin oil woihhlc