background image

798 

14 CFR Ch. I (1–1–24 Edition) 

§ 161.305 

prominent location accessible to air-
port users and the public; and directly 
notify in writing the following parties: 

(1) Aircraft operators providing 

scheduled passenger or cargo service at 
the airport; operators of aircraft based 
at the airport; potential new entrants 
that are known to be interested in 
serving the airport; and aircraft opera-
tors known to be routinely providing 
nonscheduled service that may be af-
fected by the proposed restriction; 

(2) The Federal Aviation Administra-

tion; 

(3) Each Federal, state, and local 

agency with land-use control jurisdic-
tion within the airport noise study 
area; 

(4) Fixed-base operators and other 

airport tenants whose operations may 
be affected by the proposed restriction; 
and 

(5) Community groups and business 

organizations that are known to be in-
terested in the proposed restriction. 

(c) Each notice provided in accord-

ance with paragraph (b) of this section 
shall include: 

(1) The name of the airport and asso-

ciated cities and states; 

(2) A clear, concise description of the 

proposed restriction (and any alter-
natives, in order of preference), includ-
ing a statement that it will be a man-
datory Stage 3 restriction; and where 
the complete text of the restriction, 
and any sanctions for noncompliance, 
are available for public inspection; 

(3) A brief discussion of the specific 

need for, and goal of, the restriction; 

(4) Identification of the operators and 

types of aircraft expected to be af-
fected; 

(5) The proposed effective date of the 

restriction, the proposed method of im-
plementation (e.g., city ordinance, air-
port rule, lease, or other document), 
and any proposed enforcement mecha-
nism; 

(6) An analysis of the proposed re-

striction, in accordance with § 161.305 of 
this part, or an announcement regard-
ing where the analysis is available for 
public inspection; 

(7) An invitation to comment on the 

proposed restriction and the analysis, 
with a minimum 45-day comment pe-
riod; 

(8) Information on how to request a 

copy of the complete text of the re-
striction, including any sanctions for 
noncompliance, and the analysis (if not 
included with the notice); and 

(9) The address for submitting com-

ments to the airport operator or air-
craft operator proposing the restric-
tion, including identification of a con-
tact person. 

(d) Applicants may propose alter-

native restrictions, including partial 
implementation of any proposal, and 
indicate an order of preference. If al-
ternative restriction proposals are sub-
mitted, the requirements listed in 
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(6) of this 
section should address the alternative 
proposals where appropriate. 

§ 161.305 Required analysis and condi-

tions for approval of proposed re-
strictions. 

Each applicant proposing a noise or 

access restriction on Stage 3 oper-
ations shall prepare and make avail-
able for public comment an analysis 
that supports, by substantial evidence, 
that the six statutory conditions for 
approval have been met for each re-
striction and any alternatives sub-
mitted. The statutory conditions are 
set forth in 49 U.S.C. App. 2153(d)(2) and 
paragraph (e) of this section. Any pro-
posed restriction (including alter-
natives) 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 en-
tirety. (Nothing in this section is in-
tended to add a requirement for the 
issuance of restrictions on Stage 2 air-
craft to those of subpart C of this part.) 
The applicant shall provide: 

(a) The complete text of the proposed 

restriction and any submitted alter-
natives, including the proposed word-
ing in a city ordinance, airport rule, 
lease, or other document, and any 
sanctions for noncompliance; 

(b) Maps denoting the airport geo-

graphic boundary, and the geographic 
boundaries and names of each jurisdic-
tion that controls land use within the 
airport noise study area; 

(c) An adequate environmental as-

sessment of the proposed restriction or 

background image

799 

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT 

§ 161.305 

adequate information supporting a cat-
egorical exclusion in accordance with 
FAA orders and procedures regarding 
compliance with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321); 

(d) A summary of the evidence in the 

submission supporting the six statu-
tory 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: 

(i) 

Condition 1: The restriction is rea-

sonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscrim-
inatory. 

(A) Essential information 

needed to demonstrate this condition 
includes the following: 

(

1

) Evidence that a current or pro-

jected noise or access problem exists, 
and that the proposed action(s) could 
relieve the problem, including: 

(

i

) A detailed description of the prob-

lem precipitating the proposed restric-
tion with relevant background infor-
mation on factors contributing to the 
proposal and any court-ordered action 
or estimated liability concerns; a de-
scription of any noise agreements or 
noise or access restrictions currently 
in effect at the airport; and measures 
taken to achieve land-use compat-
ibility, such as controls or restrictions 
on land use in the vicinity of the air-
port and measures carried out in re-
sponse 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 consider-

ation to the interests of communities 
in or near where the project may be lo-
cated; take appropriate action, includ-
ing 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 air-
port operations; and not cause or per-

mit any change in land use, within its 
jurisdiction, that will reduce the com-
patibility (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 restric-
tion for the year the restriction is ex-
pected to be implemented, for a fore-
cast timeframe after implementation, 
and for any other years critical to un-
derstanding the noise impact of the 
proposed restriction. The analysis of 
noise impact with and without the pro-
posed restriction including: 

(

A

) Maps of the airport noise study 

area overlaid with noise contours as 
specified in §§ 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 with-
out 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 imple-
ment. 

(

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 re-
striction. 

background image

800 

14 CFR Ch. I (1–1–24 Edition) 

§ 161.305 

(B) At the applicant’s discretion, in-

formation 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 ex-
ample, comparative economic analyses 
of the costs and benefits of the pro-
posed restriction and aircraft and non-
aircraft alternative measures. For de-
tailed elements of analysis, see para-
graph (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 
by the aircraft, or that the fees are rea-
sonably 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 informa-

tion needed to demonstrate this statu-
tory condition includes: 

(

1

) Evidence, based on a cost-benefit 

analysis, that the estimated potential 
benefits of the restriction have a rea-
sonable chance to exceed the estimated 
potential cost of the adverse effects on 
interstate and foreign commerce. In 
preparing the economic analysis re-
quired by this section, the applicant 
shall use currently accepted economic 
methodology, specify the methods used 
and assumptions underlying the anal-
ysis, and consider: 

(

i

) The effect of the proposed restric-

tion on operations of aircraft by avia-
tion user class (and for air carriers, the 
number of operations of aircraft by 
carrier), and on the volume of pas-
sengers and cargo for the year the re-
striction is expected to be implemented 
and for the forecast timeframe. 

(

ii

) The estimated costs of the pro-

posed restriction and alternative non-
aircraft restrictions including the fol-
lowing, as appropriate: 

(

A

) Any additional cost of continuing 

aircraft operations under the restric-
tion, including reasonably available in-
formation concerning any net capital 
costs of acquiring or retrofitting air-
craft (net of salvage value and oper-
ating 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 en-
tities: and/or any significant economic 
effect on parties other than aviation 
users. 

(

C

) Costs associated with imple-

menting nonaircraft restrictions or 
nonaircraft components of restrictions, 
such as reasonably available informa-
tion concerning estimates of capital 
costs for real property, including rede-
velopment, soundproofing, noise ease-
ments, and purchase of property inter-
ests; and estimates of associated incre-
mental recurring costs; or an expla-
nation of the legal or other impedi-
ments to implementing such restric-
tions. 

(

D

) Estimated benefits of the pro-

posed restriction and alternative re-
strictions that consider, as appro-
priate, anticipated increase in real es-
tate values and future construction 
cost (such as sound insulation) savings; 
anticipated increase in airport reve-
nues; quantification of the noise bene-
fits, such as number of people removed 
from noise contours and improved 
work force and/or educational produc-
tivity, if any; valuation of positive 
safety effects, if any; and/or other qual-
itative benefits, including improve-
ments in quality of life. 

(B) At the applicant’s discretion, in-

formation may also be submitted as 
follows: 

(

1

) Evidence that the affected car-

riers have a reasonable chance to con-
tinue 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 sys-
tem without diminishing competition. 

(

3

) Evidence that comparable services 

or facilities are available at another 
airport controlled by the airport oper-
ator in the market area, including 
services available at other airports. 

background image

801 

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT 

§ 161.309 

(

4

) Evidence that alternative trans-

portation service can be attained 
through other means of transportation. 

(

5

) Information on the absence of ad-

verse evidence or adverse comments 
with respect to undue burden in the no-
tice process required in § 161.303, or al-
ternatively in § 161.321, of this part as 
evidence that there is no undue burden. 

(iii) 

Condition 3: The proposed restric-

tion maintains safe and efficient use of 
the navigable airspace. 

Essential infor-

mation needed to demonstrate this 
statutory condition includes evidence 
that the proposed restriction main-
tains safe and efficient use of the navi-
gable airspace based upon: 

(A) Identification of airspace and ob-

stacles to navigation in the vicinity of 
the airport; and 

(B) An analysis of the effects of the 

proposed restriction with respect to 
use of airspace in the vicinity of the 
airport, substantiating that the re-
striction maintains or enhances safe 
and efficient use of the navigable air-
space. The analysis shall include a de-
scription of the methods and data used. 

(iv) 

Condition 4: The proposed restric-

tion does not conflict with any existing 
Federal statute or regulation. 

Essential 

information needed to demonstrate 
this condition includes evidence dem-
onstrating that no conflict is presented 
between the proposed restriction and 
any existing Federal statute or regula-
tion, including those governing: 

(A) Exclusive rights; 
(B) Control of aircraft operations; 

and 

(C) Existing Federal grant agree-

ments. 

(v) 

Condition 5: The applicant has pro-

vided adequate opportunity for public 
comment on the proposed restriction. 

Es-

sential information needed to dem-
onstrate this condition includes evi-
dence that there has been adequate op-
portunity for public comment on the 
restriction as specified in § 161.303 or 
§ 161.321 of this part. 

(vi) 

Condition 6: The proposed restric-

tion 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 cre-
ate 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 re-

spect to imposition of an undue burden 
on the national aviation system in re-
sponse to the notice required in 
§ 161.303 or § 161.321. 

§ 161.307 Comment by interested par-

ties. 

(a) Each applicant proposing a re-

striction shall establish a public dock-
et or similar method for receiving and 
considering comments, and shall make 
comments available for inspection by 
interested parties upon request. Com-
ments must be retained as long as the 
restriction is in effect. 

(b) Each applicant shall submit to 

the FAA a summary of any comments 
received. Upon request by the FAA, the 
applicant shall submit copies of the 
comments. 

§ 161.309 Requirements for proposal 

changes. 

(a) Each applicant shall promptly ad-

vise interested parties of any changes 
to a proposed restriction or alternative 
restriction that are not encompassed in 
the proposals submitted, including 
changes that affect noncompatible land 
uses or that take place before the effec-
tive date of the restriction, and make 
available these changes to the proposed 
restriction and its analysis. For the 
purpose of this paragraph, interested 
parties include those who received di-
rect notice under § 161.303(b) of this 
part, or those who were required to be 
consulted in accordance with the pro-
cedures in § 161.321 of this part, and 
those who commented on the proposed 
restriction. 

(b) If there are substantial changes to 

a proposed restriction or the analysis 
made available prior to the effective 
date of the restriction, the applicant 
proposing the restriction shall initiate