### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

DOCUMENTED CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Slot Management and Transparency Rule for Newark Liberty International Airport, John
F. Kennedy International Airport, and LaGuardia Airport 

## ( RIN 1 2120-AJ89)



### Description of the Action:

Th e p u r p o se o f this rulemaking is to replace the current tempo rary orders , set to expire in 201 6

, limitin g scheduled operations at LaGuardia Ai rport (LGA), John F. Kennedy Internation al Airport (JFK), and Newark Libe rty I n ternational Air p o rt (EWR ) with a permanent rule. Under the existing Orders, the hourly scheduled operations are alread y limited to 81 at JFK, 81 at EWR, and 71 at LGA, and unscheduled operations are lim ited to 3 at LGA. Th is proposal, if adopted, would replace those Orders and continue the ex is tin g limits on scheduled operations in addition

to limiting unscheduled operations to 2 p er hour at JFK and 1 at EWR and establishing daily

sch ed uled operations limits.

The proposed rule would permit a secondary market for U.S. and foreign air carriers to buy, sell, trade, and lease slots amongst each other. This would allow carriers serving or seeking to serve the New York City (NYC) area airports to excha nge slots as their busines s models and strategic goals require. The rule also proposes changes to the use-or-lose requirement. Carriers would be required to use an allocated slot at least 80% of the time for which it is allocated during the scheduling season, and a slot must be used for the same flight or series of flights throughout the period for which it is allocated. This is di fferent from the current requirement under the temporary orders where carriers have the ability to spread flights ove r a set of slots to achieve the 80% usage.

Environmental Review: The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, (NEPA) and the CEQ implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, re quire an environmental review as part of the rulemaking process. The FAA determined th at the proposed action was within the scope of the following categorical exclusions: paragraphs 312d and 312f of Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.” FAA reviewed the list of impact categories in FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures , in consideration of the proposed action and found th at two impact categor ies required screening (noise and air quality) to ensure no extraordinary circumstances ex ist that would require FAA to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Enviro nmental Impact Statement. Extraordinary circumstances exist when the proposed action (1 ) involves any of a number of circumstances outlined in FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 304a. through 304k., and (2) may have a significant effect. When conducting this review, the FAA co mpared the expected impacts of the proposed rule to the environmental impacts of the No Action alternative. 2 

### For both the No Action and the

1 RIN is the Regulatory Identification Number for this Department of Transportation rulemaking project.

2 The No Action alternative presumes that the existing temporary rule (described as the temporary Orders in the NPRM) would continue into the future. This is a conservative No Action alternative approach. If FAA used
expiration of the temporary rule as the No Action alternative, then the No Action alternative would be an

### proposed action alternatives, the noise analyses summarized belo w used actual 24 hour flight operation schedules for each NY/NJ airport in 2 008, and the forecast aviation activity levels for these airports in 2012 and 2017

. The emissions analyses used estimated annual operations for each of these analysis years. The data used in the analyses were obtai ned from the FAA System and Policy Analysis group (APO-200).

Noise. The FAA prepared an environmental noise analysis using the FAA Area Equivalent Method (AEM) 7.0 model. A proposed regulatory action or other change at an airport is considered to result in significant noise impacts, relative to No Action, if the noise around an airport increases by at least DNL 1.5 dB at DNL 65 dB or above. In AEM, this is illustrated by a

17% increase in the DNL 65 dB contour area. The New York congestion rule noise analysis was completed for the baseline year of 2008, the proposed implementation year 2012, 3 

### and a 5 year

future forecast in 2017. The results showed a decrease in contour size at EWR, JFK, and LGA when compared to the No Action and proposed ru le scenarios for the years affected by the proposed rule (see Table 1). Therefore, the pr oposed permanent congestion rule for EWR, JFK, and LGA does not require an Environmental A ssessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from a noise perspective, as ther e is not a significant increase in aircraft noise due to the proposed rule.

2012 2017

DNL Level EWR JFK LGA EWR JFK LGA

65 -6.15% -5.30% -3.10% -5.65% -4.56 -2.85%

60 -5.93% -5.32% -3.27% -5.41% -4.56 -2.97%

55 -5.70% -5.34% -3.43% -5.18% -4.56 -3.07%
Table 1. The Percent Change in Cont our Areas for the Propos ed Action when Compared to the No Action



### Emissions. The FAA prepared an air quality anal ysis using the FAA Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS v 5.1.3) model. EWR, JF K, and LGA are located in the same urban airshed that the EPA has designated a degraded air quality status for the following National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): (1) nonattainment status for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, (2) maintenance status for the 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS, and (3) nonattainment status for the 24-hour partic ulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 

### ) NAAQS.

A proposed action would be considered to result in extraordinary circ umstances if the total airport emissions within the NY urban airshed in creases above EPA’s de minimis thresholds for volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO

x 

### ) as ozone precursor pollutants, CO, and PM 2.5 

### (reference General Conformity Rule, 40 CFR Part 93 § 93.153). The New York congestion rule air quality analysis was comp leted for the baseline year of 2008, the proposed implementation year 2012, and a 5-year future forecast in 2017. Both 2012 and 2017 were analyzed for the No Action alternative and th e proposed rule. Positive numbers indicate

unconstrained operation scenario as occurred in 2007 with the expiration of the High Density Rule. Comparing the
proposed rule to the unconstrained scenario would result in more substantial environmental benefits than what

has been analyzed in this document.

3 Although implementation did not occur in 2012, use of this implementation year does not affect the

environmental impact analysis because the temporary rule is still in place.

### emission increases from the No Action alterative to the proposed rule, while negative numbers

indicate emission reductions. The results show n in the table 2 below indicate the collective reduction in emissions at EWR, JFK, and LGA. Therefore, th e proposed permanent congestion rule for EWR, JFK, and LGA does not require an EA or an EIS, as there is not a significant

increase in emissions.

2012 2017

Short Tons

per year VOC NO

x 

### CO PM 2.5 

### VOC NO

x 

### CO PM 2.5



### Total

Emissions

Differences

from all Airports -30.97 -40.70 -143.91 -1.26 -56.64 -346.30 -363.93 -5.64

EPA de

minimis

threshold 4 

### 50 100 100 100 50 100 100 100

Table 2. The Percent Change in Cont our Areas for the Propos ed Action when Compared to the No Action



### Declaration of Exclusion: The FAA has reviewed the above referenced pro posed action and analyses, and determined that, it is categorically excluded from further e nvironmental review according to Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Pr ocedures,” paragraph 312d and 312f.

Paragraph 312d states that “I ssuance of regulatory documents (e.g., Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, and issuance of Fina l Rules) covering administrative or procedural requirements (Does not include Air Traffic pro cedures; specific Air Traffic pro cedures that are categorically excluded are identified under paragraph 311 of th is order.)” are categor ically excluded from further environmental review. Paragraph 312f states that “Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment)” are categorically excluded from further environmental review.

Based on the above analysis, implementati on of the proposed Slot Management and Transparency Rule is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the human environment. Therefore, such implementation will not involve extraordinary circumstances as defined in paragraph 304 of Order 1050.1E.

Determination: After careful and thorough consid eration of the facts contained herein, the FAA finds that the proposed Federal action does not re quire preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and F AA’s Order 1050.1E. The implementation of the proposed action will not individually or cumula tively have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has examined possible ex traordinary circumstances that would warrant preparation of an EA and EIS and determin ed that no such circumstances exist.

4 40 CFR Part 93 Section 93.153: Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation

Plans