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 (RIN1

 2120-AJ89)

Description of the Action: 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to replace the current temporary orders, set to expire in 2016, 

limiting scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA), John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) with a permanent rule. Under 

the existing Orders, the hourly scheduled operations are already limited to 81 at JFK, 81 at EWR, 

and 71 at LGA, and unscheduled operations are limited to 3 at LGA. This proposal, if adopted, 

would replace those Orders and continue the existing limits on scheduled operations in addition 

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

scheduled 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 exchange slots as their business 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 different from the current requirement under the 

temporary orders where carriers have the ability to spread flights over 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, require an environmental review as part of 

the rulemaking process. The FAA determined that 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 that two impact categories required screening 

(noise and air quality) to ensure no extraordinary circumstances exist that would require FAA to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental 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 compared 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 below used actual 24 hour flight 

operation schedules for each NY/NJ airport in 2008, 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 obtained 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 rule scenarios for the years affected by the 

proposed rule (see Table 1). Therefore, the proposed permanent congestion rule for EWR, JFK, 

and LGA does not require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) from a noise perspective, as there 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 Contour Areas for the Proposed Action when Compared to the No Action 

Emissions. The FAA prepared an air quality analysis using the FAA Emissions Dispersion 

Modeling System (EDMS v 5.1.3) model. EWR, JFK, 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 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

A proposed action would be considered to result in extraordinary circumstances if the total 

airport emissions within the NY urban airshed increases above EPA’s de minimis thresholds for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as ozone precursor pollutants, 

CO, and PM2.5 (reference General Conformity Rule, 40 CFR Part 93 § 93.153). The New York 

congestion rule air quality analysis was completed 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 the 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 shown in the table 2 below indicate the collective 

reduction in emissions at EWR, JFK, and LGA. Therefore, the 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 NOx CO PM2.5 VOC NOx CO PM2.5

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 

threshold4

50 100 100 100 50 100 100 100 

Table 2. The Percent Change in Contour Areas for the Proposed Action when Compared to the No Action 

Declaration of Exclusion: 

The FAA has reviewed the above referenced proposed action and analyses, and determined that, 

it is categorically excluded from further environmental review according to Order 1050.1E, 

“Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 312d and 312f. 

Paragraph 312d states that “Issuance of regulatory documents (e.g., Notices of Proposed 

Rulemaking, and issuance of Final Rules) covering administrative or procedural requirements 

(Does not include Air Traffic procedures; specific Air Traffic procedures that are categorically 

excluded are identified under paragraph 311 of this order.)” are categorically 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, implementation 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 consideration of the facts contained herein, the FAA finds that the 

proposed Federal action does not require preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the 

requirements of NEPA, CEQ regulations, and FAA’s Order 1050.1E. The implementation of the 

proposed action will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 

environment. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances that would warrant 

preparation of an EA and EIS and determined that no such circumstances exist. 

                                                            

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

Plans