[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14701-14705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6754]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 150

[Docket No. 28149]


Policy on Approval and Funding of Part 150 Program Noise 
Mitigation Measures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Proposed policy; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice requests comments on a proposed change in the 
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) policy concerning approval and 
eligibility for Federal funding of certain noise mitigation measures. 
The proposed policy would increase the incentives for airport operators 
to prevent the development of new noncompatible land uses around 
airports and assure the most cost effective use of Federal funds spent 
on land use measures. The revised policy would more clearly distinguish 
between measures that are appropriate for application to existing 
noncompatible development and measures that are appropriate for 
application to new noncompatible development. This differentiation 
between the use of remedial measures for existing noncompatible 
development and preventive measures for new noncompatible development 
is necessary for the FAA to determine the appropriate approval or 
disapproval of actions on proposed land use measures in an airport's 
noise compatibility program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice should be mailed, in triplicate, to 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Chief Counsel, 
Attn.: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28149, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Room 915G, Washington, DC 20591. Comments may be inspected in Room 
915G between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., weekdays, except Federal 
holidays.
    Commenters who wish the FAA to acknowledge the receipt of their 
comments must submit with their comments a pre-addressed, stamped 
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket 
No. 28149.'' The postcard will be date-stamped by the FAA and returned 
to the commenter.

for further information contact:Mr. William W. Albee, Policy and 
Regulatory Division (AEE-300), Office of Environment and Energy, FAA, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3553, facsimile (202) 267-5594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program (14 CFR part 150, 
hereinafter referred to as part 150 or the part 150 program) was 
established under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 
(49 U.S.C. 47501 through 47509, hereinafter referred to as ASNA). The 
part 150 program allows airport operators to submit noise exposure maps 
and a noise compatibility program to the FAA voluntarily. According to 
the ASNA, a noise compatibility program sets forth the measures that an 
airport operator has taken or has proposed for the reduction of 
existing noncompatible land uses and the prevention of additional 
noncompatible land uses within the area covered by noise exposure maps.
    The ASNA embodies strong concepts of local initiative and 
flexibility. The submission of noise exposure maps and a noise 
compatibility program is left to the discretion of local airport 
operators. Airport operators may also choose to submit noise exposure 
maps without preparing and submitting a noise compatibility program. 
The types of measures that airport operators may include in a noise 
compatibility program are not limited by the ASNA, allowing airport 
operators substantial latitude to submit a broad array of measures--
including innovative measures--that respond to local needs and 
circumstances.
    The criteria for approval or disapproval of measures submitted in a 
part 150 program are set forth in the ASNA. The ASNA directs the 
Federal approval of a noise compatibility program, except for measures 
relating to flight procedures: (1) If the program measures do not 
create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce; (2) if the 
program measures are reasonably consistent with the goal of reducing 
existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of 
additional noncompatible land uses; and (3) if the program provides for 
its revision if necessitated by the submission of a revised noise 
exposure map. Failure to approve or disapprove a noise compatibility 
program within 180 days, except for measures relating to flight 
procedures, is deemed to be an approval under the ASNA. Finally, the 
ASNA sets forth broad eligibility criteria, consistent with the ASNA's 
overall deference to local initiative and flexibility. The FAA is 
authorized, but not obligated, to fund projects via the Airport 
Improvement Program (AIP) to carry out measures in a noise 
compatibility program that are not disapproved by the FAA.
    In establishing this new program, which became embodied in FAR part 
150, the ASNA did not change the legal authority of state and local 
governments to control the uses of land within their jurisdictions. 
Public controls on the use of land are commonly exercised by zoning. 
Zoning is a power reserved to the states under the U.S. Constitution. 
It is an exercise of the police powers of the states that designates 
the uses permitted on each parcel of land. This power is usually 
delegated in state enabling legislation to local levels of government. 
Neither the FAA nor any other agency of the Federal government has 
zoning authority.
    Many local land use control authorities (cities, counties, etc.) 
have not adopted zoning ordinances or other controls to prevent 
noncompatible development (primarily residential) within the noise 
impact areas of airports. An airport's noise impact area, identified 
within noise contours on a noise exposure map, may extend over a number 
of different local jurisdictions that individually control land uses. 
For example, at five airports recently studied, noise contours overlaid 
portions of from two to twenty-five different jurisdictions.
    While airport operators have included measures in noise 
compatibility programs submitted under part 150 to prevent the 
development of new noncompatible land uses through zoning and other 
controls under the authorities of appropriate local jurisdictions, 
success in implementing these measures has been mixed. A study 
performed under contract to the FAA, completed in January 1994, 
evaluated sixteen airport case studies for the implementation of land 
use control measures. This study found that of the sixteen airports, 
six locations have implemented the recommended zoning measures, seven 
locations have not implemented the recommended zoning measures, and 
three are in the process of implementation.
    Another recent independent study evaluated ten airports that have 
FAA approved part 150 programs in place and found that four locations 
have [[Page 14702]] prevented new noncompatible land use development 
and six locations have not prevented such new development. At the 
latter six locations the study reported that twenty-six nonairport 
sponsor jurisdictions have approved new noncompatible development and 
twenty-eight nonairport sponsor jurisdictions and one airport sponsor 
jurisdiction have vacant land that is zoned to allow future 
noncompatible development.
    The independent study identified the primary problem of allowing 
new noncompatible land uses near airports to be in jurisdictions that 
are different from the airport sponsor's jurisdiction. This is 
consistent with observations by the FAA and with a previous General 
Accounting Office (GAO) report that observed that the ability of 
airport operators to solve their noise problems is limited by their 
lack of control over the land surrounding the airports and the 
operator's dependence on local communities and states to cooperate in 
implementing land use control measures, such as zoning for compatible 
uses.
    The FAA's January 1994 study explored factors that contribute to 
the failure to implement land use controls for noise purposes. A major 
factor is the multiplicity of jurisdictions with land use powers within 
airport noise impact areas. The greater the number of different 
jurisdictions, the greater the probability that at least some of them 
will not implement controls. Some jurisdictions have not developed 
cooperative relationships with the airport operator, which impedes 
appropriate land use compatibility planning. Some jurisdictions are not 
aware of the effects of aircraft noise and of the desirability of land 
use controls. This appears to be caused by a lack of ongoing education 
and communication between the airport and the jurisdictions, and to be 
worsened by lack of continuity in local government.
    Some jurisdictions do not perceive land use controls as a priority 
because the amount of vacant land available for noncompatible 
development within the airport noise impact area is small, perhaps 
constituting only minor development on dispersed vacant lots, or 
because the current demand for residential construction near the 
airport is low to nonexistent. In such areas land use control change 
are not considered to have the ability to substantially change the 
number of residents affected by noise. Jurisdictions may also give 
noise a low priority compared to the economic advantages of developing 
more residential land or the need for additional housing stock within a 
community. A zoning change from residential to industrial or commercial 
may not make economic sense if little demand exists for this type of 
development opportunity. Therefore, a zoning change is viewed as 
limiting development opportunities and diminishing the opportunities 
for tax revenues.
    In some cases, compatible land use zoning has met with organized 
public opposition by property owners arguing that the proposed zoning 
is a threat to private property rights, and that they deserve monetary 
compensation for any potential property devaluation. Further, basic 
zoning doctrine demands that the individual land parcels be left with 
viable economic value, i.e., be zoned for a use for which there is 
reasonable demand and economic return. Otherwise, the courts may 
determine a zoning change for compatibility to be a ``taking'' of 
private property for public use under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution, requiring just compensation.
    One or more of the factors hindering effective land use controls 
may be of sufficient importance to preclude some jurisdictions from 
following through on the land use recommendations of an airport's part 
150 noise compatibility program. When either an airport sponsor's or a 
nonairport sponsor's jurisdiction allows additional noncompatible 
development within the airport's noise impact area, it can result in 
noise problems for the people who move into the area. This can, in 
turn, result in noise problems for the airport's operator in the form 
of inverse condemnation or noise nuisance lawsuits, public opposition 
to the expansion of the airport's capacity, and local political 
pressure for airport operational and capacity limitations to reduce 
noise. Some airport operators have taken the position that they will 
not provide any financial assistance to mitigate aviation noise for new 
noncompatible development. Other airport operators have determined that 
it is a practical necessity for them to include at least some new 
residential areas within their noise assistance program to mitigate 
noise impacts that they were unable to prevent in the first place--
particularly if they have airport expansion plans. Over a relatively 
short period of time, the distinctions blur between what is ``new'' and 
what is ``existing'' residential development with respect to airport 
noise issues.
    Airport operators currently have the local discretion to include 
new noncompatible land uses, as well as existing noncompatible land 
uses, within their part 150 noise compatibility programs and to 
recommend that remedial land use measures--usually either land 
acquisition or noise insulation--be applied to both situations. These 
recommendations have been considered to be approvable by the FAA under 
part 150. The part 150 approval enables noise mitigation measures to be 
eligible for Federal funding, although it does not guarantee that 
Federal funds will be provided.

Proposed Change in Policy

    At issue is whether the FAA should revise its part 150 approval 
policy and its AIP noise set aside funding policy so as to approve and 
fund only preventative noise mitigation measures for new noncompatible 
land use development. The FAA's goal is to have a policy in place that 
provides airport operators with the maximum possible incentive 
available under the ASNA and the part 150 program, and the FAA with the 
maximum possible leverage to prevent the introduction of additional 
noncompatible development within an airport's noise contours. The FAA 
also seeks to make the most cost-effective use of limited Federal 
dollars that have been set aside for projects to implement part 150 
programs. It is the FAA's intent to revise its policy within the 
parameters of the ASNA, but future legislative initiatives should not 
be ruled out.

Discussion

    The continuing development of noncompatible land uses around 
airports is not a new problem. The FAA, airport operators, and the 
aviation community as a whole have for some years expended a great deal 
of effort to deal with the noise problems that are precipitated by such 
development.
    With respect to the part 150 program and Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) noise grants, the FAA considered in the 1989-1990 time 
frame whether to disallow federal assistance for new noncompatible 
development. The choice posed at that time was either (1) allow Federal 
funding for airport operator recommendations in part 150 programs that 
included new noncompatible land uses within the parameters of land use 
measures targeted for financial assistance from the airport (e.g., 
acquisition, noise insulation), or (2) disallow all Federal funding for 
new noncompatible development that local jurisdictions fail to control 
through zoning or other land use controls. No other alternatives were 
considered.
    The FAA selected the first option--to continue to allow Federal 
funds to be [[Page 14703]] used to mitigate new noncompatible 
development as well as existing noncompatible development if the 
airport operator so chose. Several factors supported this decision. One 
factor was lack of authority by airport operators to prevent new 
noncompatible development in nonairport sponsor jurisdictions, although 
airport sponsors bear the brunt of noise lawsuits. Intense local 
opposition to an airport can be detrimental to its capacity, especially 
if any expansion of airport facilities is needed. The FAA also 
considered the plight of local citizens living with a noise impact that 
they may not have fully understood at the time of home purchase. Land 
use noise mitigation measures, funded by the airport either with or 
without Federal assistance, may be the only practical tool an airport 
operator has to mitigate noise impacts in a community. The FAA was 
hesitant to deny airport operators and the affected public Federal help 
in this regard. In addition, the FAA gave deference to the local 
initiative, the flexibility, and the broad eligibility for project 
funding under the ASNA.
    Since this review in 1989-1990, the FAA has given extensive 
additional consideration to the subject of noncompatible land uses 
around airports. In 1993, the FAA established a study group on 
Compatible Land Use to assist in the development of a national strategy 
to prevent and reduce noncompatible land uses. Pending review of 
recommendations from this study group on future initiatives that may 
require legislation, the FAA is considering whether immediate modest 
changes in part 150 policy and funding, within the parameters of 
existing legislation, would be an appropriate interim step. The 
proposal presented here involves a more measured and multi-faceted 
approach than the proposal considered in 1989-1990.
    A primary criterion in the ASNA for the FAA's approval of measures 
in an airport's part 150 noise compatibility program is that the 
measures must be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of 
reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the 
introduction of additional noncompatible land uses. Until now, the FAA 
has applied this criterion as a whole when issuing determinations under 
part 150; that is, if a measure either reduces or prevents 
noncompatible development, no matter when that development occurs, it 
may be approved as being reasonably consistent. No distinction has been 
made by the FAA between remedial land use measures that reduce 
noncompatible development and preventive land use measures that prevent 
noncompatible development. Airport operators may, therefore, recommend 
and receive FAA approval under part 150 for remedial acquisition or 
soundproofing of new residential development.
    The FAA is now considering whether it would be more prudent to 
distinguish between (1) Land use measures that are reasonably 
consistent with the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses 
(i.e., remedial measures) and (2) land use measures that are reasonably 
consistent with the goal of preventing the introduction of additional 
noncompatible land uses (i.e., preventive measures). Using such a 
distinction, airport operators would need to clearly identify within 
the area covered by noise exposure maps the location of existing 
noncompatible land uses versus the location of potentially new 
noncompatible land uses. Many airport operators currently record this 
distinction in their noise exposure map submissions, when identifying 
noncompatible land uses. Potentially new noncompatible land uses could 
include (1) areas currently undergoing residential or other 
noncompatible construction; (2) areas zoned for residential or other 
noncompatible development where construction has not begun; and (3) 
areas currently compatible but in danger of being developed 
noncompatibly within the time frame covered by the airport's noise 
compatibility program.
    The purpose of distinguishing between existing and potential new 
noncompatible development is for airport operators to restrict their 
consideration of remedial land use measures to existing noncompatible 
development and to focus preventive land use measures on potentially 
new noncompatible development. The most commonly used remedial land use 
measures are land acquisition and relocation, noise insulation, 
easement acquisition, purchase assurance, and transaction assistance. 
The most commonly used preventive land use measure are comprehensive 
planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, easement acquisition 
restricting noncompatible development, revised building codes for noise 
insulation, and real estate disclosure. Acquisition of vacant land may 
also be a preventive land use measure. Often, combinations of these 
measures are applied to assure the maximum compatibility.
    In a revised FAA policy, airport operators would not be limited to 
applying the most commonly used land use measures in their noise 
compatibility programs. Local flexibility to recommend other measures, 
including innovative measures, under part 150 would be retained. 
However, all land use measures applied to existing noncompatible 
development must clearly be remedial and serve the goal of reducing 
existing noncompatible land uses. Similarly, all land use measures 
applied to potential new noncompatible development must clearly be 
preventive and serve the goal of preventing the introduction of 
additional noncompatible land uses.
    Any FAA determinations issued under part 150 would be consistent 
under this policy. The FAA's approval of remedial land use measures 
would be limited to existing noncompatible development. The FAA's 
approval of preventive land use measures would be applied to potential 
new noncompatible development. The FAA recognizes that there will be 
gray areas which will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis 
within these policy guidelines. For example, minor development on 
vacant lots within an existing residential neighborhood, which clearly 
is not extensive new noncompatible development, may for practical 
purposes need to be treated with the same remedial measure applied to 
the rest of the neighborhood. Another example would be a remedial 
situation in which noise from an airport's operation has significantly 
increased, resulting in new areas that were compatible with initial 
conditions becoming noncompatible. Airport operators would be 
responsible for making the case for exceptions to the policy guidelines 
in their part 150 submittals.
    Federal funding of noise projects through the noise set aside of 
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) would follow the same policy as 
the FAA's part 150 determinations--remedial funding for existing 
noncompatible development and preventive funding for potential new 
noncompatible development. The FAA would apply the same policy to those 
few types of noise projects, such as soundproofing of schools and 
health care facilities, that are eligible for AIP funds under the noise 
set aside without an approved part 150 program.
    The impact of revising the FAA's policy on part 150 land use 
determinations and AIP funding would be to preclude the use of the part 
150 program and AIP funds to remediate new noncompatible development 
within the noise contours of an airport after the effective date of 
such a policy revision. By precluding this option while at the same 
time emphasizing the array of preventive land use measures 
[[Page 14704]] that may be applied to potential new noncompatible 
development, the FAA seeks to focus airport operators and local 
governments more clearly on using these Federal programs to the maximum 
extent to prevent noncompatible development around airports, rather 
than attempting to mitigate noise in such development after the fact. 
The FAA has determined that such a policy will better serve the public 
interest. Unlike the FAA's previous consideration of this issue in 
1989-1990, Federal funding would be available to assist airport 
operators in dealing with new noncompatible development that is not 
being successfully controlled by local jurisdictions, so long as the 
airport's methods prevent the noncompatible development rather than 
mitigating it after development has occurred. This should be a more 
cost effective use of limited Federal dollars since remedial land use 
measures generally cost more for a given unit than preventive measure.
    In selecting a date to implement this policy revision, the FAA must 
balance a desire to implement a perceived beneficial program change as 
rapidly as possible with practical transition considerations of ongoing 
part 150 programs. One approach would be to implement it on an airport-
by-airport basis, selecting either the date of the FAA's acceptance of 
an airport's noise exposure maps or the date of the FAA's approval of 
an airport's noise compatibility program under part 150.
    This approach would have the advantage of directly tying this 
policy to a point in time for which an airport operator has defined, in 
a public process, the size of the airport's noise impact area and has 
consulted with local jurisdictions on measures to reduce and prevent 
noncompatible land uses. There are, however, disadvantages to this 
approach. Approximately 200 airports have participated in the part 150 
program, beginning in the early 1980's. Thus, selecting either the 
noise exposure map's acceptance date or the noise compatibility 
program's approval date for these airports, which includes the great 
majority of commercial service airports with noise problems, means 
either applying this policy revision retroactively or applying it 
prospectively at some future date as such airports update their maps 
and programs.
    Retroactive application has been suggested, which could present 
serious legal issues. There is also an equity issue in applying new 
policy retroactively, especially in view of the FAA's reaffirmation of 
the 1989-1990 policy. This alternative would require the FAA and 
airport operators to review previous part 150 maps and programs, 
historically reconstructing which land use development was ``existing'' 
at that time and which development is ``new'' since then, to 
potentially withdraw previous FAA part 150 determinations approving 
remedial measures for ``new'' development, and not issue new AIP grants 
for any ``new'' development (which by 1995 may have already been built 
and in place for a number of years and be regarded locally as an 
integral part of the airport's mitigation program for existing 
development). There is the further practical consideration of benefits 
to be achieved. It may now be too late to apply preventive land use 
measures to noncompatible land uses that have been developed since an 
airport's noise exposure maps have been accepted or noise compatibility 
program has been approved. If remedial land use measures are now 
determined not to be applicable to such areas, the areas would be left 
in limbo, having had no advance warning of a Federal policy revision.
    There are also disadvantages to applying this policy revision 
prospectively on an airport-by-airport basis as an airport either 
updates a previous part 150 program or completes a first-time part 150 
submission. The major disadvantages would be in the timeliness of 
implementing the policy revision and the universality of its coverage. 
Since part 150 is a voluntary program, airport operators may select 
their timing of entry into the program and the timing of updates to 
previous noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs. The 
result would be a patchwork implementation, with some airports 
operating under the new policy regarding part 150 land use measures and 
funding and other airports operating under the old policy for an 
unspecified number of years. An unintended and counterproductive side 
effect could be the postponement by some airports of updated noise 
exposure maps and noise compatibility programs in order to maintain 
Federal funding eligibility under the previous policy.
    A better option appears to be to select one prospective date 
nationwide as the effective date for this policy revision rather than 
to implement it based on an individual airport's part 150 activities, 
either maps or program. A specific date would insure nationwide 
application on a uniform basis and would provide a more timely 
implementation than prospective airport-by-airport implementation 
dates. A specific date would also eliminate any perceived advantages in 
postponing new or updated part 150 programs. The selection of a 
specific date could either be (1) the date of issuance of a final 
policy revision following evaluation of comments received on this 
proposal or (2) a date, 180 days to a year after publication of the 
revised policy, allowing some amount of transition time for airport 
operators to accommodate previously approved part 150 programs, recent 
part 150 submissions, or those programs or submissions under 
development.
    While the date of issuance of a policy revision has the advantage 
of timeliness, this may be outweighed by the disadvantage of too abrupt 
a transition from one policy to another without giving airport 
operators and local communities a chance to react. The FAA currently 
anticipates implementing a transition period from the date of issuance 
of a policy revision of at least 180 days to avoid disrupting airport 
operators' noise compatibility programs that have already been 
submitted to the FAA and undergoing statutory review. Provision for 
this period plus an additional margin of time beyond 180 days would 
allow airport operators adequate opportunity to amend previously 
completed noise compatibility programs or programs currently underway, 
in consultation with local jurisdictions, to make the appropriate 
adjustments in remedial and preventive land use measures in the 
programs. The revision of land use strategies submitted in a part 150 
program cannot be accomplished overnight. Accordingly, the FAA is 
seeking comment on how long to extend a transition period beyond the 
180 days noted--to a possible maximum of an additional 180 days, or 12 
months from the date of issuance of the policy revision. Any time frame 
implemented will be established only after the careful consideration of 
public comments on this proposal.
    The potential future expenditure of AIP funds for projects to 
remediate new noncompatible development during a transition period is 
believed to be minimal, based upon the FAA's review of the sample of 
airports included in the FAA's recent study and in an independent 
study, as well as general program knowledge. Not all airports have a 
problem of continuing uncontrolled noncompatible development. Among 
those that do have a problem, not all of them offer to provide remedial 
financial assistance for the new development, as shown in their part 
150 submissions. Even in those cases where financial assistance for 
remediation is recommended for new noncompatible development, it is 
[[Page 14705]] generally limited in scope and identified as a lower 
priority than funding remediation for existing noncompatible 
development. Further, funding for such new noncompatible development 
may only be anticipated in the latter years of an airport's part 150 
program when it may not be needed because of shrinking noise contours 
resulting from the national transition to the use of Stage 3 aircraft.
    Since part 150 is a voluntary program, each airport operator has 
the discretion to make its own determinations regarding the impact of a 
revised policy on its noise compatibility program. If an impact is 
found, each operator could determine whether to immediately amend its 
program during the allowed transition period or to wait until the 
program is otherwise updated. However, any remedial land use measures 
for noncompatible development that are allowed to occur within the area 
of an airport's noise exposure maps after the effective date of a 
revised policy would not be approved under part 150 and would have to 
be funded locally, since they would no longer be eligible for AIP 
assistance from the noise set aside.
    Accordingly beginning (not more than 12 months from the date of 
issuance of a revised policy), the FAA will approve under part 150 only 
remedial land use measures for existing noncompatible development and 
only preventive land use measures in areas of potential new 
noncompatible development. As of the same date, criteria for 
determining AIP eligibility under the noise set aside that are 
consistent with this policy will be applied by the FAA. Specifically, 
no remedial land use measures for new noncompatible development that 
occur after the effective date of the revised policy be eligible for 
AIP funding under the noise set aside, regardless of previous FAA 
determinations under part 150, the status of an individual airport's 
part 150 program, or whether the project is eligible for AIP funding 
under the noise set aside without a part 150 program.

Alternatives to the Proposed Policy

    Depending on the comments received in response to this proposal, 
the FAA will consider several alternatives to the proposed policy 
revision, as listed below. All comments received on these alternatives, 
as well as other suggestions, will be considered prior to the adoption 
of any policy revision. Comments should focus on the extent to which an 
alternative would assist in preventing the development of new 
noncompatible land uses around airports and in assuring cost effective 
use of Federal funds spent on land use measures for noise purposes.
    1. Retain the present policy of approving and funding under part 
150 remedial land use measures without regard to the date the 
noncompatible development occurs.
    2. Retain the present policy of approving and funding under part 
150 remedial land use measures for those areas not under the control of 
either the airport of the airport's sponsor and for which the airport 
operator has taken earnest but unsuccessful steps to persuade the 
controlling jurisdiction to prevent the addition of new noncompatible 
development. New noncompatible development in areas under the land use 
control jurisdiction of either the airport or the airport operator 
would not be approved under part 150 nor be eligible for funding under 
the AIP.
    3. Retain the present policy only with respect to noncompatible 
land uses that will remain within the DNL 65 dB contour after the 
transition to an all Stage 3 fleet.
    4. Retain the present policy with respect to part 150 approval, but 
eliminate Federal funding eligibility for remedial measures for new 
noncompatible development.
    5. Implement the proposed policy on an airport-by-airport basis, 
selecting either the date of the FAA's acceptance of an airport's noise 
exposure maps or the date of the FAA's approval of an airport's noise 
compatibility program under part 150. Includes consideration of whether 
implementation should be retroactive or prospective.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 14, 1995.
Paul R. Dykeman,
Acting Director of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 95-6754 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M