- Guidance and Policy
- Attachment A: Format for Subpart C, part 161
 | Download
MS Word Document (161guid.zip 17k) |
Letter issued January 19, 1996, from Northwest Mountain Regional Administrator to President of Jackson Hole Airport Board:
[Amendments to Grandfathered or Exempted Restrictions Not Exempt from ANCA]
- ì[certain] noise abatement
measures are proposals that would further reduce access to the airport beyond
that already established in the Special Use Agreement. Thus, each would
be subject to the former Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (recodified
at P.L. 103-272), 49 USC 47521 (hereinafter referred to as ëANCAí),
as implemented by 14 CFR Part 161. Although the Special Use Agreement is
grandfathered because it was in effect prior to the enactment of ANCA, any
amendments to the use agreement that further reduce airport access would
require the airport operator to comply with Part 161 prior to implementation.
(14 CFR 161.3 ëThis part also applies to airports enacting amendments
to airport noise and access restrictions in effect on October 1, 1990, but
amended after that date, where the amendment reduces or limits aircraft
operations or affects aircraft safety.í) The proposed access restriction
measures do not qualify for grandfathering or exemption under the intergovernmental
agreement provision of ANCA and 14 CFR Part 161.î
[Funding Part 161 Study is Permissible if Included in a Part 150 Study]
- ìWe believe Part 161 studies
must be tied to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 to be eligible for
AIP [Airport Improvement Program funding]. This can be done in two ways:
ì(1) The Part 161 study is part of the scope of work of a Part 150 study and funded as airport noise compatibility planning; or,
ì(2) The Part 161 study is a recommended measure in a Part 150 program and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a noise project. ì
Letter dated September 22, 1995, from Manager, Hawaii Airports District Office, to Airports Administrator, Hawaii DOT, Airports Division:
[Stage 2 Phaseout and Federal Preemption Issues Addressed - State of Hawaii]
- ìYou request that we clarify
the statement ë...the FAA has serious concerns about the underlying
assumptions that the State of Hawaii has authority to implement a local
phase out requirementí. The statement reflects FAAís concern
that a proposal to phase out operations by all Stage 2 airplanes at Kahului
Airport using the same deadlines that apply to operations by Stage 2 airplanes
in the contiguous United States under the Federal transition schedule, 14
CFR Part 91, would be Federally preempted under 49 USC 47521 et seq. [ANCA],
particularly 49 USC 47528(e), and 49 USC 47530. ... ëCongressí
decision to exempt and cap the number of Stage 2 aircraft operations that
may operate in Hawaii and between Hawaii and areas outside the contiguous
United States, in our view, expresses an intent to permit Stage 2 operations
to continue in Hawaii beyond the year 2000 because of the unique role aviation
plays thereí (FAA May 1, 1995 letter ..)
ìA local phase out requirement at Kahului Airport is preempted under the Act because Congress twice clearly considered and rejected the concept of including Hawaii in the national transition schedule. The Actís provisions for phase out of operations by Stage 2 airplanes by the year 2000 and for non-addition of Stage 2 airplanes applies only to the contiguous 48 states. ì
- ìGeneral guidance concerning
compliance with Part 161 is set forth in ëAttachment Aí to this
letter. [copy attached]
ì... as a matter of policy we strongly encourage the State of Hawaii, in its capacity as the airport proprietor, to consider the use of voluntary agreements to achieve its noise abatement objectives. Voluntary agreements may be negotiated with aircraft operators to provide noise relief in a way that avoids undue economic burden. In contrast to mandatory restrictions, such arrangements are not subject to Part 161 analysis requirements.
ìThe plain language of ANCA, as amended in 1991, raises an issue concerning whether Congress intended to permit the State of Hawaii to apply at its airports the schedule for transition to quieter aircraft that currently applies to the contiguous 48 states.
ìIn 1990, Congress adopted ANCA to require the airlines to phase out operations by the loudest aircraft, Stage 2 civil subsonic turbojet weighing more than 75,000 pounds, by the year 2000. Congress also directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations establishing interim dates for a national transition schedule to quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Congress explicitly provided that Hawaii was exempt and that the phaseout did not apply to Stage 2 aircraft used solely for air transportation outside the 48 contiguous United States (See, 49 USC 46530, formerly Section 9308(d) of ANCA.)
ìIn 1991, Congress amended ANCA with regard to the State of Hawaii. Congress established a cap, as of November 5, 1990, on the number of Stage 2 aircraft that may be operated within Hawaii and between Hawaii and points outside the contiguous United States (See 49 USC 47528(e), formerly Section 9308(i) of ANCA.) Congressí decision to exempt and cap the number of Stage 2 aircraft operations that may operate in Hawaii and between Hawaii and areas outside of the contiguous United States, in our view, expresses an intent to permit Stage 2 operations to continue in Hawaii beyond the year 2000 because of the unique role aviation plays there. The cost-benefit analysis for any phaseout proposal should address why a local phaseout requirement is not Federally preempted.
ìEven if Hawaiiís statutory exemption does not preempt a local phaseout schedule, such a proposal must be adopted in compliance with ANCA. Both the plain meaning and the legislative history of ANCA support interpretation of ANCA to require compliance for all restrictions on operations by Stage 2 aircraft proposed after October 1, 1990.î
[ANCA Applies to Eligible Airports]
- ìThe ANCA applies to airports
eligible to receive Federal funds and passenger facility charges. The ANCA
(section 9304(e)) states that ëSponsors of facilities operating under
airport aircraft noise or access restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft operations
that first became effective after October 1, 1990, shall not be eligible
to impose a passenger facility charge under section 1113(e) of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 and shall not be eligible for grants authorized by
section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982...unless such
restrictions have been agreed to by the airport proprietor and aircraft
operators or the Secretary has approved the restrictions...or the restrictions
have been rescinded.í
ìWe recommend advising the airport operator that imposition of restrictions subject to ANCA without complying with Part 161 would affect the airportís eligibility to receive Federal funds and passenger facility charges indefinitely, unless restrictions imposed in violation of ANCA are rescinded.î
[Taxi and Runup Procedures May be Subject to ANCA]
- ì... the owner of ... airport
has limited authority under Federal law to restrict access to the airport.
It may adopt rules establishing permissible levels of noise at the airport
provided those rules are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and do not impose
an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce. In addition, to maintain
eligibility to receive Federal grant funds under the [AIP] or approval to
impose and use a passenger facility charge [PFC], airport sponsors are required
to propose airport noise and access restrictions in compliance with the
[ANCA]. Section 161.7(a) of [Part 161] defines procedures for taxiing and
engine run-ups that limit the total numbers or hours of aircraft operations
as airport noise or access restrictions that must be adopted in compliance
with ANCA.î
[FAA Internal Procedure - Early Notice]
- ìThis is a reminder to advise
you that early contact with headquarters is vital whenever an airport noise
or access restriction is being proposed or is in question. This early contact
includes, for example, inquiries from airport operators about what they
must do to comply with Part 161, noise and access restrictions in Part 150
noise compatibility programs, or written complaints from pilots or other
airport users that an airport is imposing a noise or access restriction
not in compliance with ANCA. ì
[ANCA and Part 161 Apply to Any Stage 2 or Stage 3 Aircraft, Regardless of Weight]
- ìThis is in response to your
[request for] an interpretation of the scope of applicability of [FAR] Part
161. You specifically asked if ... ëthe 161 process is not involved
in establishing noise restrictions or curfews on airports for aircraft of
75,000 pounds or lighter.í
ì[This is] not correct. The [ANCA]required that ëAfter December 31, 1999, no person may operate ... in the United States any civil subsonic turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds unless such aircraft complies with the Stage 3 noise levels...í In a separate section of the Act, the Congress also required that there be established by regulation a ënational program forreviewing airport noise and access restrictions on operations of Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft.í In the latter requirement for a national program to review restrictions, the Congress did not make a distinction based on aircraft weight. The ... part 161, ... applies to an airport imposing a noise or access restriction on any Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft.
ì... Both the Act and part 161 afford aircraft less than 75,000 pounds the same protection under ANCA as aircraft greater than 75,000 pounds. For proposed restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft, separate detail with respect to the restrictionís effect on aircraft less than 75,000 pounds is required, if the restriction applies to that class. For proposed restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft, this distinction is made by the term ëaviation user classí as defined in section 161.5.î
[No FAA Listing Available of Pre-ANCA Restrictions]
- ì...you requested information
on those airports that had noise restrictions in force before Part 161 became
effective. The [FAA] maintains no such listing. As advised in a recent telephone
conversation ..., you may wish to contact airport aviation interest groups
such as the National Business Aircraft Association or the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association which have gathered this type of data for their use.î
[Effects on Grants During Informal Resolution]
- ìWe have made and are continuing
to make every effort to resolve this matter through informal resolution.
We have no current plans to stop payments under previously executed grant
agreements. However, we have an obligation to be extremely cautious about
issuing new AIP grants which would be in jeopardy of imminent termination
if informal resolution is unsuccessful.
ìWe have previously advised you that the Countyís temporary suspension of the 1991 Noise Ordinance...is unacceptable pursuant to 161.501(b). Unacceptable for the same reason is the one-year suspension proposed....
ì...an acceptable alternative would be a letter authorized by the ... County Board of Supervisors to the FAA committing not to enforce the ordinance as provided in 161.501(b), until advised by the FAA that the County would be in compliance with ANCA and Part 161. This alternative would allow the FAA to proceed with PFC approval and would immediately remove any cloud of doubt over AIP funding.
ìAfter issuing a letter of nonenforcement, ... County would have the leeway to decide whether to prepare a Part 161 analysis and begin that process (with the option of doing the Part 161 analysis within the context of a Part 150 study funded by the FAA), to work towards an FAA determination of substantial compliance with ANCA, to continue efforts to make a case that the ordinance is exempted under ANCA, or to recast the ordinance into a voluntary program of noise abatement. Any of these options may potentially bring the County into compliance with ANCA and Part 161....î
[Making Voluntary Measures Mandatory Invokes ANCA]
- ìANCA applies to airports
imposing restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft operations proposed after October
1, 1990. This includes airports enacting amendments to restrictions adopted
prior to October 1, 1990, where the amendments are proposed after that date
and limit or restrict operations or safety. ... The [Noise Compatibility
Program (NCP)] states that the nighttime restrictions proposed -- and --
adopted on August 17, 1988, were voluntary. ... Since the mandatory measures
in the NCP were not proposed before October 1, 1990, the NCP measures are
not ëgrandfatheredí under ANCA.
ì... Once the restrictions were adopted and implemented as voluntary, no ëproposedí mandatory restrictions remained that could form a basis for grandfathering subsequent restrictions. ... Amendment of the current restrictions to convert them into mandatory requirements will clearly limit or restrict aircraft operations because it will tighten the current restrictions. See 14 C.F.R. 161.201(a)(2).
ìThe Authority appears to believe that it proposed the mandatory restrictions within the meaning of ANCA by including them as recommendations in the NCP. This is based on a misunderstanding of NCPs. The NCP is a planning document similar to a master plan study. The NCP is not a means for legally proposing noise and access restrictions. To comply with ANCA, the FAA requires evidence of a proposed restriction within draft ordinances or other draft regulatory documents.
[Cannot meet ANCA by Proposing Restriction in NCP. NCP is Planning, not Regulatory]
ìThe Authority also maintains that even if ANCA applies, these restrictions were adopted in compliance with 14 C.F.R. Part 161 because the Authority included them in an NCP prepared pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 150. This is not correct because, while there is some overlap between Part 161 and Part 150, the former has distinct notice and analysis requirements. Due to the overlap, the Authority will be able to use and supplement much of the notice and analysis prepared in the NCP to satisfy Part 161 (see 161.211).î
[When Restriction Evaluated in a Part 150, Notice Requirements of Both Regulations Must be Satisfied]
- ì[T]he 1990 Act contains
narrow and specific exemptions that limit application of the procedural
and substantive requirements in the statute. Specifically, sections 2153(a)(2)(C)(v)(I)
and (II) provide an exemption where noise or access restrictions have been
suspended as the result of litigation. Sections 161.7(b)(5) and (6) of the
implementing regulations repeat the statutory exemption.
[ANCA Specific Exemption Demonstrated at Tahoe]
ìParticularly, the City may not adopt restrictions that prohibit airport operations in effect as of November 5, 1990. See 49 U.S.C. App. section 2153(a)(2)(C)(v)(II). Restrictions that do not reinstate previous restrictions or limitations, replace a disallowed restriction, or that impose restrictions or reduce aircraft operations below those permitted on November 5, 1990, would not be covered by the statutory exemption. The City would be required to comply with the 1990 Act and Part 161 before imposing any non-exempt restriction.
[Where Part 161 Does and Does Not Apply to Amendments]
ì[W]e are aware of the unique role that the court has defined for TRPA in the Tahoe Basin. ..Nevertheless, the fact that TRPA environmental thresholds may form the basis of actions taken by the City to implement those thresholds does not remove those actions from the scope of the 1990 Act and Part 161. Because the City implements airport restrictions as the airport owner and operator, the City is subject to the 1990 Act and Part 161. Regardless of TRPAís input and role, the City would be required to comply with the 1990 Act and Part 161 before imposing airport noise or access restrictions. However, as a result of express statutory exemptions in the 1990 Act, certain actions by the City that otherwise would be subject to the 1990 Act and Part 161 are specifically excluded.
[Airport Operator May Not Impose Restrictions Until ANCA and Part 161 are Satisfied, even if a Local Governing Body Requires it.]
ìThe FAA is concerned about the interpretation of section 161.101(d)... Simply including the restrictions in operating leases does not remove such restrictions from FAA review or insulate restrictions from the statutory and regulatory requirements. The definition of ënoise or access restrictioní expressly includes provisions in leases that affect the operations of Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft. 14 CFR section 161.5. Both the 1990 Act and part 161 would permit the City and individual aircraft operators to enter into separate, voluntary agreements that would restrict aircraft operations at the...Airport. Part 161, Subpart B. In order to impose such restrictions, the City would be required to follow the procedures in Subpart B (agreements), Subpart C (Stage 2 restrictions) or Subpart D (Stage 3 restrictions) of Part 161, or negotiate individual agreements that would bind only the aircraft operators that have entered into such agreement with the City.î
[Leases May Be Regulatory and Subject to ANCA and Part 161.]
- ìANCA does not apply to restrictions
on operations by propeller driven aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less
because none of these aircraft are classified as Stage 2 or 3, and ANCA
governs restrictions on operations by Stage 2 and 3 aircraft.
[ANCA Applies ONLY to Stage 2 and Stage 3 Aircraft]
ìThe previously-adopted EPNdB limits need not undergo the process established under the [ANCA]. The factors relevant to our determination on West Maui include:
ì(1) the airport is currently privately-owned and private use, (2) the restriction was adopted well before the transfer of ownership and does not appear to have been put into effect with the intent of circumventing ANCA, and (3), in these circumstances, the transfer of ownership will make the airport available for public use for the first time. A major purpose of ANCA is to prevent the proliferation of uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation that could impede the national air transportation system. The relaxation of existing restrictions and improvement of the availability of airports for public use is consistent with this purpose. In these circumstances, it would not serve the purpose of ANCA to interpret ANCA to apply because the transfer, even with the existing restriction in place, represents an overall improvement in airport access. We do not here address the applicability of ANCA to use restrictions under other circumstances.
[Applicability of ANCA where there is new access (Private use to Public Use with Grandfathered Restrictions)]
ìWe also wish to point out that, if the State proposes to implement new restrictions or to tighten existing ones, it will be required to comply with ANCA and 14 CFR Part 161.î
[Changes to Grandfathered Restrictions Subject to ANCA]
[Procedures for Evaluating Grandfathered Restrictions in a Part 150]
- ìFAA should advise sponsors
undertaking a Part 150 study that restrictions which were proposed or in
effect prior to the dates set forth in ANCA are not required to be presented
in the airport operatorís recommendation section for FAA approval.
At a minimum, pre-existing restrictions must pass two tests: The airport
operator must provide evidence that the restriction passes the ëgrandfatherí
tests set forth in Part 161, and the airport-land use incompatibility conditions
which led to the imposition of the restriction must be presented in the
Part 150 studyís discussion of existing airport conditions. In the
development of the maps, the restriction must be presented as an existing
condition. Existing restrictions which are presented in this manner should
not be carried over into the airport operatorís recommendations section
of the Noise Compatibility Program.
ìOn the other hand, the airport operator should be made aware of the benefits of evaluating pre-existing noise and access restrictions. If a restriction has been in effect fora long period of time, the airport operator may wish to use the Part 150 forum to evaluate its continued effectiveness in light of the passage of time, in light of other options which may not have been examined prior to implementing the restriction, and in light of the mandatory phase out of Stage 2 aircraft by the year 2000. Analysis and submittal in a Part 150 document would also provide the airport operator the advantage of FAA views with regard to laws which predated the [ANCA]. If the airport operator wishes to submit the pre-existing conditions for FAA approval, it should be carried over into the recommendations section of the NCP. The NCP must include a thorough analysis of any measure, whether it is a pre-existing use restriction or a newly proposed measure, in order for the FAA to determine that the measure complies with the analysis and approval requirements of 14 CFR Part 150.
ìRegardless of whether the airport operator wishes FAA approval of a long-standing use restriction, the airport operatorís documentation still must provide evidence that the restriction is ëgrandfatheredí under ANCA. Evidence that a restriction is grandfathered could be presented in the form of a restriction which was proposed in an ordinance before a governing body which was empowered to act on that ordinance (Stage 2), or an existing ordinance which was in place prior to ANCA applicability dates, or a restriction which was included in executed airport use agreements and leases which were in effect prior to passage of ANCA (Stage 3). Being discussed or analyzed in a planning document prior to the ANCA dates is not sufficient to demonstrate that the restriction was proposed or in effect prior to ANCA.
[Evidence of Grandfathered Status Required in a Part 150]
ìIf a grandfathered restriction is proposed to be modified in the Part 150, that restriction is considered to be a new restriction and must satisfy part 161 requirements. FAA headquarters and regional staff will evaluate the modification to determine if it is a relaxation of an existing restriction, in which case Part 161 would not apply.î
[Amendments in a Part 150 to a Grandfathered Restriction is subject to ANCA]
- ìYour first concern, how
to properly express within the ordinance its intended effect of restricting
only Stage 2 aircraft, is clearly warranted. Since the focus of the ordinance
would be the reduction of aircraft noise in your community, basing it on
a maximum decibel level at the airport rather than on characterizations
of aircraft as Stage 2 or Stage 3 would serve this purpose. However, since
some Stage 3 aircraft actually emit more sound energy than some Stage 2
aircraft because of weight factors considered in the noise certification
process, a caveat in a decibel level based ordinance to exempt Stage 3,
regardless of maximum decibel level cited, raises the issue of unjust discrimination.
Concerns on the part of aircraft operators that the ordinance was based
on non-noise criteria and discriminates against some Stage 2 airplanes,
by allowing operation of certain noisier Stage 3 airplanes, could be anticipated.
If legal recourse were sought, the ordinance may be overturned as unjustly
discriminatory.
[Excluding Stage 3 from a Restriction May be Unjustly Discriminatory.]
ìIf your intent is to draft a decibel-level ordinance not subject to 14 CFR Part 161, Subpart D, then you must select a decibel level high enough that no Stage 3 aircraft capable of operating at the airport would be affected. Advisory Circular 36-3F,... provides an assured means of identifying such a decibel level. If your ordinance should propose a decibel-level that would affect operations by both Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft, then it must be implemented in accordance with 14 CFR Part 161, Subparts C and D. Subpart D requires thorough economic analysis and [FAA] approval of restrictions on Stage 3 operations. Alternatives would be an ordinance, or preferably a voluntary agreement, which restricts only Stage 2 aircraft. Most lighter than transport category, non-turbojet, general aviation aircraft are not classified as either Stage 1, 2, or 3, and would be exempted, while the Stage 2 turbojets would be restricted. This would still require full compliance with Subpart C of Part 161, including full economic analysis of your restriction.
[Decibel Level vs. "Stage" Restriction]
ìYour other concern, whether Subpart C requires adoption of an ordinance to await expiration of the 180-day period, is one of statutory and regulatory interpretation. Section 9304(c) requires an airport operator to publish a ëproposed noise or access restriction,í and prepare and make economic analysis and certain other information ëavailable for public comment at least 180 days before the effective date of the restriction.í Because Section 9304(c) uses the term ëproposedí restriction and contemplates that the ëproposed restrictioní be made available for comment before the restriction takes effect, the Act clearly contemplates that the restriction remain as proposed for 180 days of meaningful comment. The ordinance is not ëproposedí in the truest sense of the word if it has already been adopted by the governing body. We read ëavailability for commentí in the Act to require the airport operator to afford the airport community and aircraft operators meaningful opportunities for comment. Meaningful opportunities to comment are clearly undermined if delayed until after the legislative process is completed and the ordinance is adopted.
[Ordinance May Not be Adopted Before Stage 2 Restriction "Hold" Period Ends.]
ìTherefore the Act and Section 161.203 ... intend that the airport operators await the end of the 180-day period to adopt and implement ordinances proposed in accordance with [ANCA].î
[Proposed Before ANCA But Not Put Into Effect: Partially Grandfathered (Stage 2 Restriction with Evidence of "Proposed"; Stage 3 is not Grandfathered Because not in Effect)]
- ìThe noise ordinance, proposed
prior to the effective date of the [ANCA] would affect both Stage 2 and
Stage 3 aircraft operations (determined through cross checking ACís
36-3 and 36-1 with the list of aircraft in Table B-1 of the NCP). Section
161.3, Applicability, of 14 CFR Part 161...states that:
ëThis part applies to airports imposing restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft operations proposed after October 1, 1990, and to airports imposing restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft operations that became effective after October 1, 1990.í
ìBased on the dates provided in the ordinance data submitted...the provisions of Part 161 apply to the restriction insofar as it affects the operation of Stage 3 aircraft. ... The required analysis of the noise and access restriction (section 161.305) must satisfy [the six statutory] conditions, as specified in the attached Part 161. If the airport operator and aviation users cannot reach agreement consistent with the provisions of Subpart B of Part 161, the above criteria must be satisfied and the proposal submitted to the FAA for review and approval in accordance with provisions of Subpart D of Part 161. The cost and benefit analysis must consider the restrictionís impacts in light of the national transition schedule set forth in Part 91. The Part 161 process must be complied with in addition to the provisions contained in Part 150; however, the Part 150 process may be used to satisfy public comment provisions as specified in section 161.321 of Subpart D, and the Part 161 analysis may be developed during the Part 150 process, as long as it meets approval requirements of both rules.î
- ìAlthough FAA has no approval
authority for Stage 2 proposed noise and access restrictions, we have the
responsibility both under existing law and as a commenting agency under
Part 161 to provide the airport operator with FAAís views and policy
regarding the proposal and its supporting documentation. In the case of
[this airport], the documentation laced economic analysis required by the
[ANCA], as explained in substantial detail in the FAAís comments
to the airport operator.
[FAA Commenting Role for Stage 2]
ìThe attached review comments were prepared in conjunction with Airports ...Region and Airports District Office.... The process was very time consuming and laborious, as evidenced by the extensive comments provided to the airport operator. Review Teams consisting of regional representative(s) and ... headquarters offices will be set up to complete the process for each proposal submitted under 14 CFR part 161. Now is not too soon to consider your regionís process for that time when your region will be participating on the Part 161 Review Team.
[Part 161 Team Process: HQ-Region-ADO]
ìThe lack of a cost/benefit analysis means that the submitted information does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 161.205 and any restriction adopted on the basis of this work would appear not to be in compliance with the [ANCA]. If such a finding of noncompliance were made, it would affect [the airport operatorís] eligibility for PFCs and AIP funding.î
[Incomplete Analysis Does Not Meet Regulatory Requirements]
REQUIREMENTS FOR A STAGE 2 RESTRICTION:
Notice and analysis made available not less than 180 days prior to set effective date.
161.203 requires evidence that airport operator:
- Published: local newspapers
- Posted: at airport
- Directly notify in writing: parties listed in Part 161.
161.203 requires evidence that the notices: provided a minimum 45 days to comment from the date of notice (at which time all required information is to be completed and made available)
161.205 requires:
- analysis of anticipated or actual costs and benefits of proposal
- description of alternative restrictions (comparing costs and benefits to proposal)
- description of nonrestrictive alternatives comparing costs and benefits to proposal
- (a) complete text of the proposed restriction, including
the proposed wording (required by Subpart C, 161.203(c) and (d)). Note:
The phrase ìand any submitted alternativesî is unique to Stage
3 restriction analysis requirements; it refers to alternative restriction
proposals that the airport operator would have the FAA approve if its preferred
Stage 3 restriction does not meet the six statutory conditions for approval.
(b) maps denoting the boundaries and study area (required by Subpart C, 161.205(b))
(c) an analysis of the noise environment (required by Subpart C, 161.205(b)). Note: An environmental assessment or information supporting a categorical exclusion in accordance with FAA orders and procedures regarding compliance with NEPA is unique to Stage 3 restriction analysis requirements. There is no Federal action as defined by the environmental regulations governing NEPA for a Stage 2 restriction.
(d) A separate Summary of the detailed analysis of 161.305(e)is required when an analysis under Section 161.305(e) is prepared.
(e) an analysis of the restriction, demonstrating by substantial evidence that the statutory conditions are met. The analysis must be sufficiently detailed to allow the FAA to evaluate the merits of the proposed restriction (This is recommended by Subpart C, 161.205(c).)
161.205 requires that "currently accepted economic methodology" be followed and that the methods used to analyze the costs and benefits of proposal and alternatives be specified.
161.205 requires that "separate detail on the costs and benefits of the proposed restriction with respect to the operations of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds if the restriction applies to this class." (If this class is exempted from a proposed Stage 2 restriction, there would be "benefits" to that class. A separate analysis demonstrating the noise impacts generated by that class and providing reasons for their exemption would be required to demonstrate that exempting the class is not unjustly discriminatory against any other user class.)
161.207 requires that a public docket or other method has been made available for comments.
161.209 provides requirements for changes to a proposed restriction, and any follow-on work required, including:
- notifying interested parties (including any additional parties who commented that were not initially notified--161.209(a))
- any additional analyses
- changes to original data as a result of new information
- Note: If change is not "substantial", no additional comment timeframe or effective date is required
- to reinitiate notice (161.203), including any additional commenter now considered an "interested party" (161.209)
- to include the appropriate additional information (161.209(c)) to notified parties and include a new effective date of not less than 180 days from the date the new information is made available for public comment
- to provide for another minimum 45-day comment period.