[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65872-65876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9122]


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

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 Richland-
Lexington 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 
Richland-Lexington 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 non-compatible 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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 full-length 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.

[[Page 65874]]

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.

[[Page 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 one-half 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 noise-sensitive 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.

[[Page 65876]]

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