Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 14701

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on March

7, 1995.

Henry A. Armstrong,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6688 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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
14702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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
14704 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 134

RIN 1515–AB68

Country of Origin Marking

Requirements for Watches

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department

of Treasury.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document provides

advance notice of a proposal to amend

the Customs Regulations to prescribe

specific rules regarding the country of

origin marking of watches to ensure that

the marking is conspicuous and legible.

The purpose of this document is to

assist in determining whether a

rulemaking is needed to ensure a

uniform standard for conspicuous and

legible country of origin marking for

watches, and if needed, the contents of

that rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 4, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

(preferably in triplicate) may be

addressed to the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, Franklin Court, 1301

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,

DC. 20229. Comments submitted may be

inspected at the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, Franklin Court, 1099

14th Street, Suite 4000, Washington,

DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Burton Schlissel, Special Classification

and Marking Branch, Office of

Regulations and Rulings (202–482–

6980).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides

that, unless excepted, every article of

foreign origin (or its container) imported

into the U.S. shall be marked in a

conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly,

and permanently as the nature of the

article (or its container) will permit, in

such manner as to indicate to the

ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the

English name of the country of origin of

the article. Part 134, Customs

Regulations (19 CFR part 134),

implements the country of origin

marking requirements and exceptions of

19 U.S.C. 1304. Under § 134.41(b),

Customs Regulations (19 CFR

134.41(b)), a country of origin marking

is considered conspicuous if the

ultimate purchaser in the United States

is able to find the marking easily and

read it without strain.

It has come to the attention of the

Customs Service that over the years

watches have been imported into the

United States with very tiny country of

origin markings. Usually these markings

are in very small letters on the bottom

of the dial (face) of the watch. Generally,

these markings are exceptionally

difficult to find and read. In fact, the

country of origin markings on many

watches are so tiny that a magnifying

glass is needed in order to read them.

Country of origin markings on watches

which are so difficult to find and read