Part 150 NEM ChecklistPROGRAM REQUIREMENT
YES
NO
SUPPORTING PAGES/RIEVIEW COMMENTS
1. Submiffing And Identifying The NEW
A. Submission is properly identified:
3. Revision to NEMs FAA previously determined to be in compliance
with Part 150?
B. Airport and Airport Operator's name are identified?
C. NCP is transmitted by airport operator's dated cover letter, describing
it as a Part 150 submittal and requesting appropriate FAA determination?
II. Consultation: (150.21(b), A150,105(a)]
A. Is there a narrative description of the consultation accomplished,
including opportunities for public review and comment during map
B. Identification of consulted parties:
1. Are the consulted parties identified?
2. Do they include all those required by 150.21 (b) and Al 50.105(a)?
3. Agencies in 2., above, correspond to those indicated on the NEM?
C. Does the documentation include the airport operator's certification,
and evidence to support it, that interested persons have been afforded
adequate opportunity to submit their views, data, and comments during map
development and in accordance with 150.21 (b)?
D. Does the document indicate whether written comments were
received during consultation and, if there were comments, that they are on
file with the FAA regional airports division manager?
111111. General Requirements: [150.21]
A. Are there two maps, each clearly labeled on the face with year
(existing condition year and one that is at least 5 yeals into the future)?
B. Map currency:
1. Does the year on the face of the existing condition map graphic
match the year on the airport operator's NEM submittal letter?
2. Is the forecast year map based on reasonable forecasts and
other planning assumptions and is it for at least the fifth calendar year after
the year of submission?
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 above is no, the airport operator must
verify in writing that data in the documentation are representative of existing
condition and at least 5 years' forecast conditions as of the date of
Issued |nWashington, DC—APP-0U0.March 1S8S Page 1.1-1of5
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT
YES
NO
SUPPORTING PAGES/REVIIEW COMMENTS
Ill. General Requirements: [150.21 ] [continued]
C. If the NEM and NCP are submitted together:
1. Has the airport operator indicated whether the forecast year map is
based on either forecast conditions without the program or forecast
conditions if the program is implemented?
2. If the forecast year map is based on program implementation:
a. Are the specific program measures that are reflected on the map
b, Does the documentation specifically describe how these
measures affect land use compatibilities depicted on the map?
3. If the forecast year NEM does not model program implem�n—tation,
the airport operator must either submit a revised forecast NEM showing
program implementation conditions [131 50.3(b), 150.35(f)] or the sponsor
must demonstrate the adopted forecast year NEM with approved NCP
measures would not change by plus/minus 1.5 DNL? (150.21 (d))
IV. Map Scale, Graphics, And Data Requirements: [A150.101, A150.103,
A. Are the maps of sufficient scale to be clear and readable (they must
not be less than 1 " to 2, 000'), and is the scale indicated on the maps?
(Note (1) if the submittal uses separate graphics to depict flight tracks
andlor noise monitoring sites, these must be of the same scale, because
they are part of the documentation required for NEMs.)
(Note (2) supplemental graphics that are not required by the regulation
do not need to be at the I" to 2, 000'scale)
B. Is the quality of the graphics such that required information is clear
and readable? (Refer to C. through G., below, for specific graphic depictions
that must be clear and readable)
Issued |nWashington, DC—APP-8OO'March 108Q Page 11-2of5
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT
YES
NO
SUPPORTING PAGES/REVIEW COMMENTS
IV. Map Scale, Graphics, And Data Requirements: [Al 50.101, Al 50. 103,
Al 50,105,150.21 (a)] [continued]
C. Depiction of the airport and its environs:
1. Is the following graphically depicted to scale on both the existing
condition and forecast year maps?
a. Airport boundaries
b. Runway configurations with runway end numbers
2. Does the depiction of the off -airport data include?
a. A land use base map depicting streets and other identifia6l—e
geographic features
b. The area within the DNL' 65 dB (or beyond, at local discretion)
c. Clear delineation of geographic boundaries and the names of all
jurisdictions with planning and land use control authority within the DNL 65
dB (or beyond, at local discretion)
D. 'I.Continuous contours for at least the DNL 65, 70, and 75 dB?
2. Has the local land use jurisdiction(s) adopted a lower local
standard and if so, has the sponsor depicted this on the NEMs?
3. Based on current airport and operational data for the existing
condition year NEM, and forecast data representative of the selected year for
the forecast NEM?
E. Flight tracks for the existing condition and forecast year timeframes
(these may be on supplemental graphics which must use the same land use
base map and scale as the existing condition and forecast year NEM), which
are numbered to correspond to accompanying narrative?
F. Locations of any noise monitoring sites (these may be on
supplemental graphics which must use the same land use base map and
scale as the official NEMs)
G. Noncompatible land use identification:
1. Are noncompatible land uses within at least the DNL 65 dB
noise contour depicted on the map graphics?
2. Are noise sensitive public buildings and historic properties
identified? (Note: If none are within the depicted NEM noise contours, this
should be stated in the accompanying narrative text.)
3. Are the noncompatible uses and noise sensitive public
buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map legend?
4. Are compatible land uses, which would normally be
considered noncompatible, explained in the accompanying narrative?
`[CNELfor California airports]
Issued |nWashington, DC—APP-00O.March 188S
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT
YES
NO
SUPPORTING PAGES/REVIIEW COMMENTS
A. 1. Are the technical data and data sources on which the NEMs are
based adequately described in the narrative?
2. Are the underlying technical data and planning assumptions
B. Calculation of Noise Contours:
1. Is the methodology indicated?
a. Is it FAA approved?
b. Was the same model used for both maps? (Note: The same
model also must be used for NCP submittals associated with NEM
determinations already issued by FAA where the NCP is submitted later,
unless the airport sponsor submits a combined NEMINCP submittal as a
replacement, in which case the model used must be the most recent version
at the time the update was started.)
c. Has AEE approval been obtained for use of a model other than
those that have previous blanket FAA approval?
2. Correct use of noise models:
a. Does the documentation indicate, or is there evidence, the airport
operator (or its consultant) has adjusted or calibrated FAA -approved noise
models or substituted one aircraft type for another that was not included on
the FAA's pre -approved list of aircraft substitutions?
b. If so, does this have written approval from AEE, and is that
written approval included in the submitted document?
3. If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative indicate that Part
150 guidelines were followed?
4. For noise contours below DNL 65 dB, does the supporting
documentation include an explanation of local reasons? (Note: A narrative
explanation, including evidence the localjurisdiction(s) have adopted a noise
level less than DNL 65 dB as sensitive for the local community(ies), and
including a table or other depiction of the differences from the Federal table,
is highly desirable but not specifically required by the rule. However, if the
airport sponsor submits NCP measures within the locally significant noise
contour, an explanation must be included if it wants the FAA to consider the
measure(s) for approval for purposes of eligibility for Federal aid.)
Issued |nWashington, DC—APP'6O0 Morch1QOS Page 11-4of5
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT
YES
NO
SUPPORTING PAGES/REVIEW COMMENTS
Al 50.103] [continued]
C. Noncompatible Land Use Information:
1. Does the narrative (or map graphics) give estimates of the number
of people residing in each of the contours (DNL 65, 70 and 75, at a minimum)
for both the existing condition and forecast year maps?
2. Does the documentation indicate whether the airport operator used
Table 1 of Part 150?
a. If a local variation to table I was used:
(1) Does the narrative clearly indicate which adjustments were
made and the local reasons for doing so?
(2) Does the narrative include the airport operator's complete
substitution for table 1 ?
3. Does the narrative include information on self- generated or
ambient noise where compatible or noncompatible land use identifications
consider non -airport and non -aircraft noise sources?
4. Where normally noncompatible land uses are not depicted as such
on the NEMs, does the narrative satisfactorily explain why, with reference to
the specific geographic areas?
5. Does the narrative describe how forecast aircraft operations,
forecast airport layout changes, and forecast land use changes will affect
land use compatibility in the future?
A. Has the operator certified in writing that interested persons have been
afforded adequate opportunity to submit views, data, and comments
concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft maps and forecasts?
B. Has the operator certified in writing that each map and description of
consultation and opportunity for public comment are true and complete
under penalty of 18 U.S.C. § 1001?
Issued |nWashington, DC—APP-GU0 K8orch1S8S Page 1.1-5of5