788 

14 CFR Ch. I (1–1–19 Edition) 

§ 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. 

VerDate Sep<11>2014 

08:20 May 17, 2019

Jkt 247048

PO 00000

Frm 00798

Fmt 8010

Sfmt 8010

Y:\SGML\247048.XXX

247048