[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 14, Volume 3]

[Revised as of January 1, 2006]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 14CFR161.305]



[Page 197-200]

 

                     TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

 

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

                               (CONTINUED)

 

PART 161_NOTICE AND APPROVAL OF AIRPORT NOISE AND ACCESS RESTRICTIONS

--Table of Contents

 

    Subpart D_Notice, Review, and Approval Requirements for Stage 3 

                              Restrictions

 

Sec. 161.305  Required analysis and conditions for approval of proposed 

restrictions.



    Each applicant proposing a noise or access restriction on Stage 3 

operations shall prepare and make available for public comment an 

analysis that supports, by substantial evidence, that the six statutory 

conditions for approval have been met for each restriction and any 

alternatives submitted. The statutory conditions are set forth in 49 

U.S.C. App. 2153(d)(2) and paragraph (e) of this section. Any proposed 

restriction (including alternatives) on Stage 3 aircraft operations that 

also affects the operation of Stage 2 aircraft must include analysis of 

the proposals in a manner that permits the proposal to be understood in 

its entirety. (Nothing in this section is intended to add a requirement 

for the issuance of restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft to those of subpart 

C of this part.) The applicant shall provide:

    (a) The complete text of the proposed restriction and any submitted 

alternatives, including the proposed wording in a city ordinance, 

airport rule, lease, or other document, and any sanctions for 

noncompliance;

    (b) Maps denoting the airport geographic boundary, and the 

geographic boundaries and names of each jurisdiction that controls land 

use within the airport noise study area;

    (c) An adequate environmental assessment of the proposed restriction 

or adequate information supporting a categorical exclusion in accordance 

with FAA orders and procedures regarding compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321);

    (d) A summary of the evidence in the submission supporting the six 

statutory conditions for approval; and

    (e) An analysis of the restriction, demonstrating by substantial 

evidence that the statutory conditions are met. The analysis must:

    (1) Be sufficiently detailed to allow the FAA to evaluate the merits 

of the proposed restriction; and

    (2) Contain the following essential elements needed to provide 

substantial evidence supporting each condition for approval:



[[Page 198]]



    (i) Condition 1: The restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and 

nondiscriminatory. (A) Essential information needed to demonstrate this 

condition includes the following:

    (1) Evidence that a current or projected noise or access problem 

exists, and that the proposed action(s) could relieve the problem, 

including:

    (i) A detailed description of the problem precipitating the proposed 

restriction with relevant background information on factors contributing 

to the proposal and any court-ordered action or estimated liability 

concerns; a description of any noise agreements or noise or access 

restrictions currently in effect at the airport; and measures taken to 

achieve land-use compatibility, such as controls or restrictions on land 

use in the vicinity of the airport and measures carried out in response 

to 14 CFR part 150; and actions taken to comply with grant assurances 

requiring that:

    (A) Airport development projects be reasonably consistent with plans 

of public agencies that are authorized to plan for the development of 

the area around the airport; and

    (B) The sponsor give fair consideration to the interests of 

communities in or near where the project may be located; take 

appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, to the extent 

reasonable, to restrict the use of land near the airport to activities 

and purposes compatible with normal airport operations; and not cause or 

permit any change in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce 

the compatibility (with respect to the airport) of any noise 

compatibility program measures upon which federal funds have been 

expended.

    (ii) An analysis of the estimated noise impact of aircraft 

operations with and without the proposed restriction for the year the 

restriction is expected to be implemented, for a forecast timeframe 

after implementation, and for any other years critical to understanding 

the noise impact of the proposed restriction. The analysis of noise 

impact with and without the proposed restriction including:

    (A) Maps of the airport noise study area overlaid with noise 

contours as specified in Sec. Sec. 161.9 and 161.11 of this part;

    (B) The number of people and the noncompatible land uses within the 

airport noise study area with and without the proposed restriction for 

each year the noise restriction is analyzed;

    (C) Technical data supporting the noise impact analysis, including 

the classes of aircraft, fleet mix, runway use percentage, and day/night 

breakout of operations; and

    (D) Data on current and projected airport activity that would exist 

in the absence of the proposed restriction.

    (2) Evidence that other available remedies are infeasible or would 

be less cost-effective, including descriptions of any alternative 

aircraft restrictions that have been considered and rejected, and the 

reasons for the rejection; and of any land use or other nonaircraft 

controls or restrictions that have been considered and rejected, 

including those proposed under 14 CFR part 150 and not implemented, and 

the reasons for the rejection or failure to implement.

    (3) Evidence that the noise or access standards are the same for all 

aviation user classes or that the differences are justified, such as:

    (i) A description of the relationship of the effect of the proposed 

restriction on airport users (by aviation user class); and

    (ii) The noise attributable to these users in the absence of the 

proposed restriction.

    (B) At the applicant's discretion, information may also be submitted 

as follows:

    (1) Evidence not submitted under paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this 

section (Condition 2) that there is a reasonable chance that expected 

benefits will equal or exceed expected cost; for example, comparative 

economic analyses of the costs and benefits of the proposed restriction 

and aircraft and nonaircraft alternative measures. For detailed elements 

of analysis, see paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.

    (2) Evidence not submitted under paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) of this 

section that the level of any noise-based fees that may be imposed 

reflects the cost of mitigating noise impacts produced



[[Page 199]]



by the aircraft, or that the fees are reasonably related to the intended 

level of noise impact mitigation.

    (ii) Condition 2: The restriction does not create an undue burden on 

interstate or foreign commerce. (A) Essential information needed to 

demonstrate this statutory condition includes:

    (1) Evidence, based on a cost-benefit analysis, that the estimated 

potential benefits of the restriction have a reasonable chance to exceed 

the estimated potential cost of the adverse effects on interstate and 

foreign commerce. In preparing the economic analysis required by this 

section, the applicant shall use currently accepted economic 

methodology, specify the methods used and assumptions underlying the 

analysis, and consider:

    (i) The effect of the proposed restriction on operations of aircraft 

by aviation user class (and for air carriers, the number of operations 

of aircraft by carrier), and on the volume of passengers and cargo for 

the year the restriction is expected to be implemented and for the 

forecast timeframe.

    (ii) The estimated costs of the proposed restriction and alternative 

nonaircraft restrictions including the following, as appropriate:

    (A) Any additional cost of continuing aircraft operations under the 

restriction, including reasonably available information concerning any 

net capital costs of acquiring or retrofitting aircraft (net of salvage 

value and operating efficiencies) by aviation user class; and any 

incremental recurring costs;

    (B) Costs associated with altered or discontinued aircraft 

operations, such as reasonably available information concerning loss to 

carriers of operating profits; decreases in passenger and shipper 

consumer surplus by aviation user class; loss in profits associated with 

other airport services or other entities: and/or any significant 

economic effect on parties other than aviation users.

    (C) Costs associated with implementing nonaircraft restrictions or 

nonaircraft components of restrictions, such as reasonably available 

information concerning estimates of capital costs for real property, 

including redevelopment, soundproofing, noise easements, and purchase of 

property interests; and estimates of associated incremental recurring 

costs; or an explanation of the legal or other impediments to 

implementing such restrictions.

    (D) Estimated benefits of the proposed restriction and alternative 

restrictions that consider, as appropriate, anticipated increase in real 

estate values and future construction cost (such as sound insulation) 

savings; anticipated increase in airport revenues; quantification of the 

noise benefits, such as number of people removed from noise contours and 

improved work force and/or educational productivity, if any; valuation 

of positive safety effects, if any; and/or other qualitative benefits, 

including improvements in quality of life.

    (B) At the applicant's discretion, information may also be submitted 

as follows:

    (1) Evidence that the affected carriers have a reasonable chance to 

continue service at the airport or at other points in the national 

airport system.

    (2) Evidence that other air carriers are able to provide adequate 

service to the airport and other points in the system without 

diminishing competition.

    (3) Evidence that comparable services or facilities are available at 

another airport controlled by the airport operator in the market area, 

including services available at other airports.

    (4) Evidence that alternative transportation service can be attained 

through other means of transportation.

    (5) Information on the absence of adverse evidence or adverse 

comments with respect to undue burden in the notice process required in 

Sec. 161.303, or alternatively in Sec. 161.321, of this part as 

evidence that there is no undue burden.

    (iii) Condition 3: The proposed restriction maintains safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace. Essential information needed to 

demonstrate this statutory condition includes evidence that the proposed 

restriction maintains safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace 

based upon:

    (A) Identification of airspace and obstacles to navigation in the 

vicinity of the airport; and

    (B) An analysis of the effects of the proposed restriction with 

respect to



[[Page 200]]



use of airspace in the vicinity of the airport, substantiating that the 

restriction maintains or enhances safe and efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. The analysis shall include a description of the 

methods and data used.

    (iv) Condition 4: The proposed restriction does not conflict with 

any existing Federal statute or regulation. Essential information needed 

to demonstrate this condition includes evidence demonstrating that no 

conflict is presented between the proposed restriction and any existing 

Federal statute or regulation, including those governing:

    (A) Exclusive rights;

    (B) Control of aircraft operations; and

    (C) Existing Federal grant agreements.

    (v) Condition 5: The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed restriction. Essential information needed 

to demonstrate this condition includes evidence that there has been 

adequate opportunity for public comment on the restriction as specified 

in Sec. 161.303 or Sec. 161.321 of this part.

    (vi) Condition 6: The proposed restriction does not create an undue 

burden on the national aviation system. Essential information needed to 

demonstrate this condition includes evidence that the proposed 

restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation 

system such as:

    (A) An analysis demonstrating that the proposed restriction does not 

have a substantial adverse effect on existing or planned airport system 

capacity, on observed or forecast airport system congestion and aircraft 

delay, and on airspace system capacity or workload;

    (B) An analysis demonstrating that nonaircraft alternative measures 

to achieve the same goals as the proposed subject restrictions are 

inappropriate;

    (C) The absence of comments with respect to imposition of an undue 

burden on the national aviation system in response to the notice 

required in Sec. 161.303 or Sec. 161.321.