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