65872 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 

under the Sections 412 and 414 of the 

Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 

U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures 

governing proceedings to enforce these 

provisions. Answers may be filed within 

21 days after the filing of the 

application. 

Docket Number: OST–2006–26088. 

Date Filed: October 11, 2006. 

Parties: Members of the International 

Air Transport Association. 

Subject: TC23 Mail Vote 508, Between 

Europe and South Asian Subcontinent, 

(Memo 0150), 

Intended effective date: 1 November 

2006, (Memo 0150). 

Docket Number: OST–2006–26089–1. 

Date Filed: October 11, 2006. 

Parties: Members of the International 

Air Transport Association. 

Subject: TC23/TC123 Europe-South 

West Pacific, Expedited Resolution 

002dp, Between Europe and South 

Asian Subcontinent, (Memo 0108), 

Intended effective date: 1 November 

2006. 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E6–19033 Filed 11–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Approval of Noise Compatibility 

Program, Columbia Metropolitan 

Airport, Columbia, SC 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces its 

findings on the Noise Compatibility 

Program submitted by the RichlandLexington Airport District under the 

provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation 

Safety and Noise Abatement Act, 

hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Act)’’ and 

14 CFR part 150. These findings are 

made in recognition of the description 

of Federal and nonfederal 

responsibilities in Senate Report No. 

96–52 (1980). On July 29, 2005, the FAA 

determined that the noise exposure 

maps submitted by the RichlandLexington Airport District under Part 

150 were in compliance with applicable 

requirements. On September 18, 2006, 

the FAA approved the Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport noise 

compatibility program. Most of the 

recommendations of the program were 

approved. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of the FAA’s approval of the Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport Noise 

Compatibility Program is September 18, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bonnie Baskin, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Atlanta Airports 

District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

Campus Building, Suite 2–260, College 

Park, Georgia 30337, phone number: 

404–305–7152. Documents reflecting 

this FAA action may be reviewed at this 

same location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice announces that the FAA has 

given its overall approval to the Noise 

Compatibility Program for Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport, effective 

September 18, 2006. 

Under Section 47504 of the Act, an 

airport operator who has previously 

submitted a Noise Exposure Map may 

submit to the FAA a Noise 

Compatibility Program which sets forth 

the measures taken or proposed by the 

airport operator for the reduction of 

existing non-compatible land uses and 

prevention of additional non-compatible 

land uses within the area covered by the 

Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires 

such programs to be developed in 

consultation with interested and 

affected parties including local 

communities, government agencies, 

airport users, and FAA personnel. 

Each airport noise compatibility 

program developed in accordance with 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 

150 is a local program, not a Federal 

Program. The FAA does not substitute 

its judgment for that of the airport 

operator with respect to which measure 

should be recommended for action. The 

FAA’s approval or disapproval of FAR 

Part 150 program recommendations is 

measures according to the standards 

expressed in FAR Part 150 and the Act, 

and is limited to the following 

determinations: 

a. The Noise Compatibility Program 

was developed in accordance with the 

provisions and procedures of FAR Part 

150; 

b. Program measures are reasonably 

consistent with achieving the goals of 

reducing existing non-compatible land 

uses around the airport and preventing 

the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; 

c. Program measures would not create 

an undue burden on interstate or foreign 

commerce, unjustly discriminate against 

types of classes of aeronautical uses, 

violate the terms of airport grant 

agreements, or intrude into areas 

preempted by the Federal government; 

and 

d. Program measures relating to the 

use of flight procedures can be 

implemented within the period covered 

by the program without derogating 

safety, adversely affecting the efficient 

use and management of the navigable 

airspace and air traffic control systems, 

or adversely affecting other powers and 

responsibilities of the Administrator 

prescribed by law. 

Specific limitations with respect to 

FAA’s approval of an airport Noise 

Compatibility Program are delineated in 

FAR Part 150 § 150.5. Approval is not a 

determination concerning the 

acceptability of land uses under Federal, 

State, or local law. Approval does not by 

itself constitute an FAA implementing 

action. A request for Federal action or 

approval to implement specific noise 

compatibility measures may be 

required, and an FAA decision on the 

request may require an environmental 

assessment of the proposed action. 

Approval does not constitute a 

commitment by the FAA to financially 

assist in the implementation of the 

program nor a determination that all 

measures covered by the program are 

eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the 

FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, 

requests for project grants must be 

submitted to the FAA Airports District 

Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 

The Richland-Lexington Airport 

District submitted to the FAA on April 

13, 2005, the Noise Exposure Maps, 

descriptions, and other documentation 

produced during the noise compatibility 

planning study conducted from 

September 17, 2001, through March 21, 

2006. The Columbia Metropolitan 

Airport Noise Exposure Maps 

determined by FAA to be in compliance 

with applicable requirements on July 

29, 2005. Notice of this determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 29, 2005. 

The Columbia Metropolitan Airport 

study contains a proposed Noise 

Compatibility Program comprised of 

actions designed for phased 

implementation by airport management 

and adjacent jurisdictions from March 

21, 2006 to the year 2011. It was 

requested that FAA evaluate and 

approved this material as a Noise 

Compatibility Program as described in 

Section 47504 of the Act. The FAA 

began its review of the Program on 

March 22, 2006, and was required by a 

provisions of the Act to approve or 

disapprove the program with 180 days 

(other than the use of new or modified 

flight procedures for noise control). 

Failure to approve or disapprove such 

program within the 180-day period shall 

be deemed to be an approval of such 

program. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 65873 

The submitted program contained 

nineteen (19) proposed actions for noise 

mitigation on and off the airport. The 

FAA completed its review and 

determined that the procedural and 

substantive requirements of the Act and 

FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The 

overall program, therefore, was 

approved by the FAA effective 

September 18, 2006. 

Outright approval was granted for 

twelve of the specific program elements. 

One was approved in part. Several 

measures were disapproved pending 

submission of additional information to 

make and informed analysis. One 

measure was disapproved because it 

was not a noise mitigation measure. 

Operational Measures 

OC–1. Flight Track Modifications—

Arriving Turbojet and Heavy Turboprop 

Aircraft 

When air traffic, weather, and safety 

conditions permit, arriving heavy 

turboprop and turbojet aircraft should 

be aligned with the runway centerline 

approximately 3 to 4 miles from the 

runway end for Runways 11, 29, and 5. 

This measure is to adjust aircraft flight 

tracks to reduce the areas that would be 

exposed to aircraft overflights, 

especially those operations at low 

altitudes. The benefits from 

implementation include a reduction in 

low altitude close-in approach turns 

over noise sensitive uses, including 

Three Fountains, Cedar Estates, and 

South Congaree. While there would be 

no change in the size of the noise 

contour as a result of implementation of 

this measure, this will help expose a 

smaller population to individual 

overflight events that were consistently 

noted in public meetings as creating 

significant adverse reaction by area 

residents. The procedure also places 

arriving aircraft over airport property to 

the greatest extent possible. These 

procedures could be formalized in the 

form of a published approach procedure 

that standardizes the specific elements 

of the procedures, such as in the form 

of a Standard Terminal Arrival Route 

(STAR). (NCP, pages 4–8, and 68–69; 

Figures 5– (from Volume Two, 2–5, 7–

2 and 7–3.)) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of Part 150 pending 

submission of additional Information to 

make an informed analysis. There is 

insufficient information to determine 

the number of persons benefited (either 

by changes to the DNL noise contour or 

appropriate supplemental metric 

showing dB noise reduction), versus 

people that maybe newly added due to 

changes in flight tracks. 

OC–2. Flight Track Modifications—

Departing Turbojet and Heavy 

Turboprop Aircraft 

When air traffic, weather and safety 

conditions permit, turbojet and heavy 

turboprop aircraft, including military C–

17 and C–130 aircraft, departing 

Runway 29 should maintain runway 

heading and not initiate turns until after 

crossing Old Barnwell Road. Turbojet 

and large turboprop aircraft departing 

Runway 11 should not initiate turns 

until crossing Interstate 26. Departures 

on Runway 23 should maintain runway 

heading one mile beyond the southern 

end of Runway 23. The procedure has 

the aircraft gaining altitude over airport 

owned property to the greatest extent 

possible prior to initiating turns. This 

results in a reduction in low altitude 

close in departure turns over noise 

sensitive uses including the residential 

concentrations of Three Fountains, 

Cedar Estates, and South Congaree. This 

will help expose a smaller population to 

individual overflight events that were 

consistently noted in public meetings as 

creating significant adverse reaction by 

area residents. (NCP, pages 8–11 and 

69–70; and Figures 7–3 and 7–4.) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of Part 150 pending 

submission of additional information to 

make an informed analysis. There is 

insufficient information to determine 

the number of persons benefited (either 

by changes to the DNL noise contour or 

appropriate supplemental metric 

showing dB noise reduction), versus 

people that may be newly added due to 

changes in flight tracks. 

OC–3. Noise Abatement Departure 

Profile (NADP) 

Turbojet aircraft departing Runway 5 

and 23 should utilize the ‘‘Close-in’’

NADP. Benefits relate to reduction in 

noise from aircraft departures within the 

communities located in close proximity 

to the ends of Runway 5–23, including 

Churchill Heights to the north and 

residences situated in the vicinity of 

Pine Street to the south. (NCP, pages 

11–13, and 70). 

FAA Action: Approved as an 

informal, voluntary measure when air 

traffic and airspace safety and efficiency 

and weather conditions permit. 

Appropriate use of NADPs have been 

shown to be noise beneficial. 

OC–4. Nightime Runway Use 

Modifications Subject to Airfield 

Enhancements 

To establish a nighttime noise 

abatement preferential runway use 

program, it is recommended that a fulllength parallel taxiway south of runway 

11–29 be approved as an eligible item 

by the FAA specifically to reduce noise 

impacts on the sensitive communities 

located within the 06 DNL contour 

immediately north of Runway 5–23. 

Design and construction costs will be 

determined subject to the approval of 

this item as part of the NCP. (NEM, 

Figures 5–11 and 5–12; NCP, pages 13–

14, 18, and 71; Figures 7–5A, 7–5B, and 

7–6.) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of FAR Part 150. The NCP 

does not provide noise benefit 

information on the nighttime 

preferential use of Runway 11. The 

graphics referenced are not sufficient to 

demonstrate a noise benefit. (Different 

land use base maps, scales, and graphics 

were not used to compare information, 

making it difficult to determine the 

required information.) Additional 

information on the location of homes 

and the number of persons benefited, 

and whether there would be newly 

impacted noise-sensitive airways, is 

required. The FAA notes that 

construction of a full parallel taxiway 

was proposed in the Airport’s master 

plan for other purposes. 

OC–5. Military Flight Training Noise 

Reduction 

(a) It is recommended that the Airport 

request that military touch and go 

operations be voluntarily reduced, 

eliminated, or limited to daylight hours. 

(b) If the flight training cannot be 

eliminated altogether, the Airport 

should provide to the operators of these 

aircraft the location of noise sensitive 

uses surrounding the airport. This 

should help the military operators to 

conduct training in such a manner that 

noise sensitive areas are avoided to the 

extent that it is technically feasible. (c) 

This procedure would reduce the 

number of large military aircraft 

operating patterns over residential areas 

during day and nighttime hours. (NCP, 

pages 18–19, and 72.) 

FAA Action: Disapproved pending 

submission of additional information to 

make an informed analysis. (a) There is 

no evidence of contact with the military 

to determine their willingness to carry 

out this measure on a voluntary basis, 

as proposed. (Part 150.23(c)) (b) There is 

no information on where noise sensitive 

uses would be located in any printed 

handout information. The extended 

flight tracks at OC–1 and OC–2 are not 

approved in this Record of Approval 

due to insufficient analysis. (c) There is 

no information on the number of 

homes/noise-sensitive sites currently 

within, versus removed from, the flight 

track corridors as a result of this 

measure or other noise metric benefits. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
65874 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 

OC–6. Construction of Ground Run-Up 

Enclosures to Reduce Engine 

Maintenance Noise 

Given the routine nighttime 

maintenance at Columbia Metropolitan 

Airport, it is recommended that a pen 

type enclosure be approved as an 

eligible item by the FAA and that the 

final decision on whether to construct 

such an enclosure be made by the 

Airport following an analysis of the 

associated costs and benefits, as 54 

homes and 125 people will benefit from 

this measure if implemented. (NCP, 

pages 21–26, and 72–73; Figures 7–7, 

7–8, and 7–9.) 

FAA Action: Approved for further 

study. The study should include 

information on speech interference and 

sleep disturbance, and should show 

benefits in terms of numbers of homes 

or other noise-sensitive sites benefited 

versus newly disturbed by the 

relocation of ground run-ups and 

aircraft taxiing to a proposed new 

location. If the study demonstrates, from 

the cost/benefit analysis, that a pen type 

enclosure would be beneficial to the 

surrounding airport community, the 

Airport may recommend construction of 

the enclosure in a supplement or 

amendment to this NCP. 

OC–7. Public Relations Programs 

This measure is designed to improve 

communication about the NCP programs 

to the general public and to those pilots 

operating at Columbia Metropolitan 

Airport: 1. The Airport should continue 

to update the noise information on the 

Airport’s Internet Site and to include 

information about the current noise 

complaint procedures; 2. The FAA 

should approve the purchase of three 

portable noise monitors. These would 

be used to monitor aircraft noise at the 

request of citizens, elected officials, 

airport tenants or other reasons. Some 

monitoring may involve indoor-outdoor 

attenuation information where 2–3 

monitors may be needed 

simultaneously; and 3. The Airport 

should purchase and install lighted 

noise abatement procedure reminder 

signs at each runway end (a total of four 

signs). This is to inform airport users 

regarding the recommendations of this 

study. Sample language may include 

‘‘please follow noise abatement 

procedures.’’ (NCP, pages 27–29, and 

73.) 

FAA Action: Approved. Eligibility for 

Federal funding of three probable noise 

monitors will be determined at the time 

of application. For purposes of aviation 

safety, this approval does not extend to 

the use of monitoring equipment for 

enforcement purposes by in-situ 

measurement of any pre-set noise 

thresholds and shall not be used for 

mandatory enforcement of any 

voluntary measure. Noise abatement 

procedure reminder signs must not be 

construed as mandatory air traffic 

procedure. The content and location of 

airfield signs are subject to specific 

approval by appropriate FAA officials 

outside of the FAR Part 150 process and 

are not approved in advance by this 

determination. 

Land Use Measures 

LU–1. Comprehensive Planning 

Airport staff should strive to be an 

active participant in the comprehensive 

planning process for nearby 

jurisdictions. It is recommended that 

this Part 150 Study, including its 

implementation recommendations, 

either be referenced in each 

jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan or 

specific elements of the FAR Part 150 be 

incorporated into the plan to provide 

the basis for other land use management 

approaches. During the comprehensive 

planning process, the determination of 

future land uses should consider the 

2007 noise exposure map developed in 

this study (NCP, pages 34–36 and 

77–78). 

FAA Action: Approved. This is within 

the authority of the local land use 

jurisdictions; the Federal government 

does not control local land use. 

LU–2. Discretionary Project Review 

The use of discretionary project 

review of development, rezoning, 

subdividing, special use, conditional 

use and variance requests is 

recommended for implementation by 

nearby jurisdictions. The Airport staff 

should work with local permitting, 

zoning, and planning bodies to assist in 

the evaluation of noise impacts on 

projects under review. A detailed 

checklist will be developed for project 

reviews, (NCP, pages 36–37, and 

78–79). 

FAA Action: Approved. This is within 

the authority of the local land use 

jurisdictions; the Federal government 

does not control local land use. 

LU–3. Noise Overlay Zoning 

In the vicinity of Columbia 

Metropolitan Airport, it is 

recommended that each jurisdiction 

without noise overlay zoning 

(Springdale, Pineridge, South Congaree, 

West Columbia, and Cayce) implement 

a noise overlay zone, like Lexington 

County’s modified noise overlay zones 

at pages 40–42. The Lexington County 

zones use the NEF metric. NEF 40 is 

equivalent to DNL 65; NEF–30 is 

equivalent to DNL 55. Lexington County 

should revise its current ‘‘Noise Overlay 

Zone.’’ (NCP, pages 38–42, and 79–80; 

Figure 8–2.) 

FAA Action: Approved. This approval 

is limited to potential noncompatible 

land uses within the 2007 and 2022 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours 

depicted on the accepted NEMs. The 

Federal government has no authority to 

control land use. The local governments 

have the authority to implement this 

proposed land use measure. Note that 

while FAA once used the NEF noise 

metric; FAA has adopted the DNL 

metric. Therefore, the NEF metric is a 

local standard. Outside the DNL 65 dB 

contour, FAA, as a matter of policy, 

encourages local efforts to prevent new 

noncompatible development 

immediately abutting the DNL 65 dB 

contour and to provide a buffer for 

possible growth in noise contours 

beyond the forecast period. 

LU–4. Compatible Use Zoning 

All jurisdictions should monitor 

zoning within the 65 DNL contour and 

in areas off the ends of runways for 

roughly one mile which are subject to 

significant arrival and departure 

overflight activity and prevent any 

rezoning that allows development of 

incompatible uses, mainly residential 

uses, schools, churches, hospitals, 

nursing homes, auditoriums, and 

concert halls. A further 

recommendation included the Airport 

entering into discussions with the Town 

of South Congaree to request that they 

consider expanding the existing 

commercial node at the intersection of 

Edmund Highway and Pine Street 

towards the north along Pine Street and 

Edmund Highway. These proposed 

measures would require Airport staff to 

monitor zoning in nearby areas and to 

continue to work with officials from all 

six jurisdictions previously identified in 

the Study. (NCP, pages 42–44, and 80–

82; Figures 2–6 and 9–1; Table 8.2.) 

FAA Action: Approved. The Federal 

government has no authority to control 

land use. The local governments have 

the authority to implement this 

measure. This Part 150 program is 

limited to potential noncompatible land 

uses within the DNL 65 dB and higher 

noise contours. Outside the DNL 65 dB 

contour, FAA, as a matter of policy, 

encourages local efforts to prevent new 

noncompatible development 

immediately abutting the DNL 65 dB 

contour and to provide a buffer for 

possible growth in noise contours 

beyond the forecast period. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 65875 

LU–5. Zoning Changes, Residential 

Density 

It is recommended that residential 

densities be addressed by adjusting 

individual residential densities in 

current zoning ordinances if the noise 

overlay zoning is not enacted. Where 

vacant land is partially within the DNL 

65 dB, and the parcel extends beyond 

that contour, it is recommended that 

compatible uses be developed within 

the DNL 65 dB, and that residential, or 

public use, or other uses incompatible 

with higher noise levels be built in the 

lesser noise contour (Planned Unit 

Development). This could be extended 

to areas located beneath and within onehalf mile either side of the extended 

runway centerline out to a distance of 

one to one and one-half miles from the 

end of a runway. In combination with 

the noise overlay zoning 

recommendation, areas within the NEF–

3O/DNL 55 dB to DNL 65 dB, it is 

recommended lower density noisesensitive development occur within the 

areas impacted by the 2007 noise 

contour (from 10 units per acre to 4 

units per acre). Consideration should be 

given to the potential use of cluster 

development techniques where 

appropriate in these same areas and 

where community support exists. If 

noise overlay zoning is not 

implemented, this should be 

incorporated into existing zoning near 

the airport for areas inside the 2007 55 

DNL contour. (NCP, pages 44–46, and 

82.) 

FAA Action: Approved. This approval 

is limited to potential noncompatible 

land uses within the 2007 and 2022 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours 

depicted on the accepted NEMs. The 

Federal government has no authority to 

control land use. The local governments 

have the authority to implement this 

proposed land use measure. This Part 

150 program is limited to potential 

noncompatible land uses within the 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours. 

Note that while FAA once used the NEF 

noise metric, FAA has adopted to DNL 

metric. Therefore, the NEF metric is a 

local standard. Outside the DNL 65 dB 

contour, FAA, as a matter of policy, 

encourages local efforts to prevent new 

noncompatible development 

immediately abutting the DNL 65 dB 

contour and to provide a buffer for 

possible growth in noise contours 

beyond the forecast period. 

LU–6. Environmental Zoning 

IT is recommended that the Airport 

support local jurisdictions in the 

continued use of environmental controls 

to limit development in nearby 

environmentally sensitive areas; this 

primarily includes the floodplain and 

wetland areas in Lexington County, and 

South Congaree and Pine Ridge. (NCP, 

pages 47–48, and 83.) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of FAR Part 150. The NCP 

describes this as an environmental 

protection measure, not a noise 

mitigation measure. Part 150 is strictly 

a noise compatibility program, not a 

broader environmental program. 

Existing controls appear to prohibit 

development in these areas for other 

reasons. 

LU–7. Subdivision Regulation Changes 

As a measure to ensure future land 

development compatibility, subdivision 

regulations should require a statement 

be recorded on the subdivision plat that 

identifies the potential for aircraft 

operational activity and possible noise 

impacts for plats that fall within the 55 

DNL or higher on the 2007 NEM or NEF 

30 if noise overlay zoning is 

implemented. It is recommended that 

the Airport encourage and work through 

local jurisdictions to consider noise 

impacts when parcels are being 

proposed for subdivision. (NCP, pages 

48–49, and 83–84.) 

FAA Action: Approved. This approval 

is limited to potential noncompatible 

land uses within the 2007 and 2022 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours 

depicted on the accepted NEMs. The 

Federal Government has no authority to 

control land use. The local governments 

have the authority to implement this 

proposed land use measure. This Part 

150 program is limited to potential 

noncompatible land uses within the 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours. 

Note that while FAA once used the NEF 

noise metric, FAA has adopted the DNL 

metric. Therefore, the NEF metric is a 

local standard. Outside the DNL 65 dB 

contour, FAA as a matter of policy 

encourages local effects to prevent new 

noncompatible development 

immediately abutting the DNL 65 dB 

contour and to provide a buffer for 

possible growth in noise contours 

beyond the forecast period. 

LU–8. Dedicated Noise and Avigation 

Easements 

Noise and avigation easements are 

recommended as a condition of 

approval for re-zonings, subdivision 

plats and issuance of building permits 

on existing zoned and platted property 

for incompatible residential properties 

and other noise sensitive uses inside the 

2007 65 DNL or within the proposed 

Airport Noise Overlay Zoning areas. An 

executed easement is also recommended 

for any approval zoning variance 

request that creates a noise 

incompatibility. (NCP, pages 49–50, and 

84.) 

FAA Action: Approved. This approval 

is limited to potential noncompatible 

land uses within the 2007 and 2022 

DNL 65 dB and higher noise contours 

depicted on the accepted NEMs. FAA’s 

policy is that new noise sensitive land 

uses should be prevented from 

developing around airports. In cases 

where prevention is not feasible because 

the airport sponsor does not control 

land uses, they should be rendered 

compatible with noise exposure levels 

through measures such as avigation 

easements during construction. 

Additionally, the FAA published a 

policy (See 63 FR 16409–16414, dated 

April 3, 1998) stating it will fund only 

preventive mitigation after October 1, 

1998. No remedial mitigation would be 

available for new noise-sensitive 

structures built after October 1, 1998. 

LU–9. Fair Disclosure Regulations 

It is recommended that the Airport 

undertake an informal disclosure 

program including mailing a realtor 

notification brochure, publishing results 

of this Study in local media, and placing 

copies of this Study at each 

jurisdiction’s administrative office. This 

program should include information 

related to the South Carolina Residential 

Property Condition Disclosure Act. 

(NCP, pages 51–52, and 84–86; and, 

Figure 9–2.) 

FAA Action: Approved. 

LU–10. Fee Simple Acquisition Program 

This Study identified two parcels: 

Parcel A and B (south of Runway 5) as 

candidates for voluntary acquisition. 

Parcel A (4.9 acres) has one residential 

structure. Parcel B is 55 acres and has 

no noncompatible land use. (NCP pages 

52–56, and 87; and, Figure 8–3.) 

FAA Action: Disapproved for 

purposes of FAR Part 150, pending 

submission of additional Information to 

make an informed analysis. There is 

insufficient evidence these parcels are 

likely to be developed incompatibly. 

Other measures in the NCP are intended 

to reduce the likelihood of incompatible 

development on vacant parcels. It is 

noted Parcel A is not located within the 

current conditions DNL 65 contour, and 

Parcel B is partially impacted by the 

DNL 65 dB noise contour but its current 

use is compatible with the airport. The 

need for this property as part of a future 

runway extension project may be 

evaluated outside of the FAR Part 150 

process. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
65876 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices 

LU–11. Voluntary Soundproofing 

Program 

Soundproof residences and public 

uses buildings on a voluntary basis 

(where it is cost effective and 

technically feasible) and it is 

recommended that in exchange for the 

property owner executing a noise and 

avigation easement. Soundproofing 

program would be based on 2002 NEM 

until activity meets 2007 N7EM 

forecasts (map dates represent years 

2006 and 2011 respectively per sponsor 

letter dated 03/21/06). The incompatible 

areas (including 18 private residences 

and a commercial day care center) 

within the 2002 NEM 65 DNL contour 

should be considered for participation 

in a federally funded, voluntary 

soundproofing program. It is 

recommended that in exchange for 

soundproofing that the property owner 

execute a noise and avigation easement. 

This easement could also be signed in 

lieu of having improvements made to 

the home or building on the property. 

Executing an avigation easement would 

not be a mandatory requirement of the 

soundproofing program. A homeowner 

eligible for the program (within the DNL 

noise contour) would be permitted to 

sell a noise and avigation easement to 

the Airport Sponsor instead of 

participating in sound attenuation, 

should they choose not to participate or 

if their residence does not qualify for 

participation in the program. (NCP, 

pages 58–63, and 88–89; and, Figures 8–

4, and 8–5.) 

FAA Action: Approved. The voluntary 

sound insulation within the DNL 65 dB 

noise contour is approved. The specific 

identification of structures 

recommended for inclusion in the 

program and specific definition of the 

scope of the program will be required 

prior to approval for Federal funding. 

This includes a determination of which 

NEM applies at the time of grant 

application, and evidence the day care 

manager holds good title to the building 

proposed for sound attenuation. 

Provisions will be included in the scope 

of work to allow eligible homeowners to 

sell an easement to the airport sponsor 

should they not choose sound 

insulation program or if their residence 

does not qualify. The FAA’s policy is 

that no structures built after October 1, 

1998, are eligible for Federal funding for 

remedial mitigation (see FAA policy at 

63 FR 16409). 

LU–12 Noise and Avigation Easement 

Purchase 

It is recommended that the Airport 

undertake the acquisition of avigation 

easements in the 2007 noise impact area 

as a secondary measure to provide those 

property owners who may not qualify or 

opt to not participate in the 

soundproofing program with an option 

as well as providing the airport with the 

protection afforded by the easement 

with non-suit covenant. (NCP, pages 63–

64, and 89.) 

FAA Action: Approved. This approval 

is limited to potential noncompatible 

land uses within the DNL 65 dB higher 

noise contours. Disapproved for 

purposes of Part 150 with respect to 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

Funding outside the DN7L 65 dB noise 

contour. Section 189 of Public Law 108–

176, Vision 100-Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act, December 12, 

2003, specifically prohibits FAA 

approval of Part 150 program measures 

that require AIP funding to mitigate 

aircraft noise outside DNL 65 dB—

(through Fiscal Year 2007). Section 189 

does not preclude the use of airport 

revenue outside DNL 65 dB. Mitigation 

within the 2007 NEM 65 dB noise 

contour area is subject to a showing the 

NEMs are applicable at the time of grant 

application. Provisions will be included 

in the scope of work to allow any 

homeowner eligible for the program to 

sell a noise and avigation easement to 

the Airport Sponsor should they choose 

not to participate in the sound 

insulation program or their residence 

does not qualify for participation in the 

program. Also, the FAA’s policy is that 

no structures built after October 1, 1998 

are eligible for Federal funding for 

remedial mitigation (see FAA policy at 

63 FR 16409). 

These determinations are set forth in 

detail in a Record of Approval signed by 

the FAA on September 18, 2006. The 

Record of Approval, as well as other 

evaluation materials and the documents 

comprising the submittal, are available 

for review at the FAA office listed above 

and at the administrative office of the 

Richland-Lexington Airport District. 

The Record of Approval also will be 

available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/ 

airports_airtraffic/airports/ 

environmental/airport_noise/part_150/ 

states/. 

Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on October 25, 

2006. 

Scott Seritt, 

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office. 

[FR Doc. 06–9122 Filed 11–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Availability of Draft Advisory 

Circulars, Other Policy Documents and 

Proposed Technical Standard Orders 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: This is a recurring Notice of 

Availability, and request for comments, 

on draft advisory circulars (ACs), other 

policy documents, and proposed 

technical standard orders (TSOs) 

currently offered by Aviation Safety. 

SUMMARY: The FAA’s Aviation Safety, 

an organization responsible for the 

certification, production approval, and 

continued airworthiness of aircraft, and 

certification of pilots, mechanics, and 

others in safety related positions, 

publishes proposed non-regulatory 

documents that are available for public 

comment on the Internet at http:// 

www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. 

DATES: We must receive comments on or 

before the due date for each document 

as specified on the Web site. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on 

proposed documents to the Federal 

Aviation Administration at the address 

specified on the Web site for the 

document being commented on, to the 

attention of the individual and office 

identified as point of contact for the 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See 

the individual or FAA office identified 

on the Web site for the specified 

document. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final 

advisory circulars, other policy 

documents, and technical standard 

orders (TSOs) are available on FAA’s 

Web site, including final documents 

published by the Aircraft Certification 

Service on FAA’s Regulatory and 

Guidance Library (RGL) at http:// 

www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. 

Comments Invited 

When commenting on draft ACs, 

other policy documents or proposed 

TSOs, you should identify the 

document by its number. The Aviation 

Safety organization will consider all 

comments received on or before the 

closing date before issuing a final 

document. You can obtain a paper copy 

of the draft document or proposed TSO 

by contacting the individual or FAA 

office responsible for the document as 

identified on the Web site. You will find 

the draft ACs, other policy documents 

and proposed TSOs on the ‘‘Aviation 

Safety Draft Documents Open for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES