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
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.
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.
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