FAA

Airspace Policy, Environmental Policy Team (AJV-114)

Environmental Review of Proposed Change of Operating 

Authorization Requirement at Newark Liberty 

International Airport

Proposed Action

The proposed action would change the current requirement for an airline to obtain a Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Operating Authorization (slot) at Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR) in advance of a scheduled arrival or departure of a commercial flight in the slot 

controlled hours from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time. The proposed FAA action would change 

the current Level 3 designation at EWR, which requires an advance airport runway slot in a 

specific half-hour period, to Level 2, which establishes a formal yet voluntary process for FAA

review of schedules and voluntary revision of schedules by airlines.

Alternatives Analyzed

The FAA reviewed alternatives:

• The No Action Alternative allows the current Level 3 Slot Control Rule to expire and move 

EWR into an unrestricted environment with no cap on operations levels. 

• Alternative 1 (Level 3) essentially retains the current Level 3 Slot Control Rule at EWR. 

• Alternative 2 (Level 2) establishes a Level 2 (Voluntary) Schedule Facilitation Program at 

EWR. 

The FAA Office of Forecast and Performance Analysis reviewed historical and current operations 

and developed annual/daily operations forecast for each alternative for years 2017 and 2022. 

The forecasts show an increase in the number of flights as the level of restriction is relieved (i.e., 

the least number of flights under Alternative 1 and the most number of flights under the No Action 

Alternative, respectfully. The environmental review was conducted using these alternatives.

Noise

The FAA conducted noise screening using Area Equivalent Method (AEM), as described in FAA 

1050.1 Desk Reference in order to rule out the need for more detailed noise analysis. 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.

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 1 of 8

AJV-114
 

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 2 of 8

AJV-114 

The aircraft types in the operations forecasts were reviewed and matched to the aircraft types 

within AEM; if the aircraft type was unavailable in AEM, the aircraft substitution list within the AEM

spreadsheet was used to find a suitable substitute. The aircraft types and operational counts 

were entered into the AEM spreadsheet using the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) compared 

with both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 (the current condition) for both 2017 and 

2022. 

The results of each of these scenarios are shown below in Tables 1. The results of AEM indicate 

that DNL noise contours will decrease in area for the preferred alternative compared to both the 

No Action alternative and Alternative 1 (the current condition) in both 2017 and 2022. 

% Change of Proposed (Level 2) 

vs. No Action (Unrestricted) 

% Change of Proposed (Level 2) 

vs. Current Conditions (Level 3)

DNL Level 2017 2022 2017 2022

65 -0.2% -0.5% -9.5% -9.2%

60 -0.1% -0.4% -9.8% -9.7%

55 0.0% -0.2% -10.1% -10.2%

50 0.1% -0.1% -10.5% -10.8%

45 0.2% 0.1% -10.8% -11.4%

Table 1. The Percent Change in Contour Areas for the Proposed Action when Compared 

to the No Action Alternative and the Current Conditions Alternative.

Air Quality 

EWR is located in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Connecticut nonattainment area, which is 

designated as a marginal nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone. The area is also designated as a 

maintenance area for carbon monoxide and for particulate matter (2.5 micrograms (μg) per cubic 

meter). The area is designated attainment for the remaining criteria pollutants. In accordance 

with the 

The potential impact on National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the proposed action was 

evaluated. FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) version 2b Service Pack 2 (SP2) 

was used to estimate potential emission changes of criteria pollutants of concern for the area in 

which EWR is located that is designated nonattainment or maintenance under the Clean Air Act. 

The review of air quality changes considered emissions from aircraft engines. These estimates 

were then compared with de minimis thresholds under the general conformity provisions (40 CFR 

Part 93) to determine the potential for the proposed action to cause exceedances of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FAA Order 1050.1F, Chapter 4-4.3, Exhibit 4-1, defines 

significant impacts as emissions that would cause an area to exceed one or more of the NAAQSs 

during the time periods analyzed, or to increase the frequency or severity of any such existing 

violations. 

The emissions were evaluated by comparing the Preferred alternative (Alternative 2) scenarios 

with the No Action alternative scenario and current conditions (Alternative 1). The differences in 
emissions between all the alternatives were compared to the de minimis thresholds with respect 

to all relevant pollutants. 

The emissions resulting from current conditions (Alternative 1) or preferred alternative (Alternative 

2) when compared to taking no action (i.e., unrestricted by letting current order expire) are below 

General Conformity de minimis thresholds with respect to all relevant pollutants. Therefore, there 

is no potential for significant air quality impacts under either scenario. Either Alternative 1 or 

Alternative 2 results in a reduction of criteria pollutant emissions, compared to taking no action.

The comparison of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 is also made since the current condition is the 

Level 3 Slot Control Rule and could be replaced with the Level 2 Slot Control Rule at EWR. 

Implementing a Level 2 Slot Control Rule will result in increased emissions compared to the 

current Level 3 Slot Control Rule at EWR. However, the resulting increase in emissions is in 

General Conformity relative to de minimis thresholds with respect to all relevant pollutants. 

Therefore, there is no potential for significant air quality impacts.

Tables 3 and 4 list the predicted annual emission inventory results for the three scenarios 

evaluated along with the applicable de minimis thresholds for the analysis years 2017 and 2022, 

respectively.

Table 3. EWR 2017 Annual Emissions Inventory (tons per year) 

CO VOC NOx SOx PM 2.5

Alternative 1 - current 

conditions 2,540.5 415.8 2,499.8 266.3 23.9

No Action - Order Expires 2,668.4 433.8 2,638.5 279.9 24.9

Alternative 1 vs. No Action 

Comparison -127.9 -18.1 -138.6 -13.6 -1.0

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

Alternative 2,586.2 421.8 2,554.6 272.1 24.3

No Action - Order Expires 2,668.4 433.8 2,638.5 279.9 24.9

Alternative 2 vs. No Action 

Comparison -82.2 -12.0 -83.9 -7.7 -0.6

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

Alternative 2,586.2 421.8 2,554.6 272.1 24.3

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 3 of 8

AJV-114
CO VOC NOx SOx PM 2.5

Alternative 1 - current 

conditions 2,540.5 415.8 2,499.8 266.3 23.9

Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 

Comparison

45.7 6.0 54.7 5.8 0.4

Applicable De Minimis

Threshold

100 50 100 100 100

Table 4. EWR 2022 Annual Emissions Inventory (tons per year)

CO VOC NOx SOx PM 2.5

Alternative 1 current conditions 2,961.7 432.4 2,802.1 307.9 26.4

No Action - Order Expires 3,144.5 455.5 3,009.5 328.0 27.9

Alternative 1 vs. No Action 

Comparison -182.8 -23.1 -207.4 -20.1 -1.5

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

Alternative 3,028.7 440.2 2,880.7 316.2 27.0

No Action - Order Expires 3,144.5 455.5 3,009.5 328.0 27.9

Alternative 2 vs. No Action 

Comparison -115.8 -15.3 -128.8 -11.8 -0.9

Alternative 2 - Preferred 

Alternative 3,028.7 440.2 2,880.7 316.2 27.0

Alternative 1 - current 

conditions 2,961.7 432.4 2,802.1 307.9 26.4

Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 1 

Comparison

67.0 7.7 78.6 8.3 0.6

Applicable De Minimis 

Threshold

100 50 100 100 100

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 4 of 8

AJV-114
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases1

The impact of proposed Federal actions on climate change is of growing public concern. The 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued a Revised Draft Guidance for Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts that describes how federal agencies should 

consider the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change in NEPA reviews2

. 

Due to reductions in aircraft activity between the No Action versus Alternative 1 scenarios and the 

No Action and Alternative 2 scenarios, reductions in fuel burn and CO2 are projected in 2017 and 

2022. Therefore, less CO2 would be emitted by aircraft under the implementation of Level 2 Slot 

Controls or Level 3 Slot Controls compared the unrestricted No Action scenario (Order Expires). 

Due to the increase in aircraft activity between the Alternative 2 and the Alternative 1 scenarios 

there would be an increase fuel burn and CO2. The values for each scenario and comparison of 

Alternatives are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. EWR 2017 and 2022 Annual CO2 Inventory 

(Metric Tons per year) 

2017 2022

Fuel Burn (Metric 

Tons)

CO2 

(Metric 

Tons)

Fuel Burn(Metric 

Tons)

CO2 

(Metric 

Tons)

Alternative 1 - Level 3 206,111 650,281 238,301 751,838

No Action - Order 

Expires

216,609 683,402 253,870 800,958

Alternative 1 vs. No 

Action Comparison -10,498 -33,121 -15,569 -49,120

Alternative 2 - Level 2 210,616 664,494 244,703 772,037

1 Climate change is not a factor that is considered in determining extraordinary circumstances pursuant to NEPA. 

Categorical exclusions listed in FAA Order 1050.1F are for types of actions that the FAA has found do not normally have 

the potential for individual or cumulative significant impacts on the human environment. Extraordinary circumstances are 

factors or circumstances the FAA considers when determining whether a normally categorically excluded action may have 

a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an EA or an EIS. FAA Order 1050.1F includes 

criteria and list of circumstances that the Agency considers when determining if extraordinary circumstances are present. 

Although Climate Change is not analyzed for applicability for categorical exclusions, Climate Change is included here 

solely to be consistent with FAA’s earlier notice regarding the proposed change of operating authorization requirement at 

EWR.

2 CEQ Revised Draft Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts, released on December 

18th, 2014. 

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 5 of 8

AJV-114

 
2017 2022

Fuel Burn (Metric 

Tons)

CO2 

(Metric 

Tons)

Fuel Burn(Metric 

Tons)

CO2 

(Metric 

Tons)

No Action - Order 

Expires

216,609 683,402 253,870 800,958

Alternative 2 vs. No 

Action Comparison -5,993 -18,908 -9,167 -28,921

Alternative 2 - Level 2 210,616 664,494 244,703 772,037

Alternative 1 - Level 3 206,111 650,281 238,301 751,838

Alternative 2 vs. 

Alternative 1 

Comparison

4,505 14,213 6,402 20,199

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that aviation accounts "for about 3 percent of 

total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human sources" compared with other industrial 

sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (23%) and industry (41%). 

When viewed in the context of available information, the CO2 emissions attributable to the EWR 

preferred alternative (Level 2) show reductions, compared to the unrestricted scenario. Although 

there is an increase in CO2 emissions when the preferred alternative is compared to Level 3 Slot 

Control (Alternative 1), the amount of emissions is less than 21,000 metric tons. The U.S. 

General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that aviation accounts "for about 3 percent of total U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions from human sources" compared with other industrial sources, 

including the remainder of the transportation sector (23%) and industry (41%). There are no 

significance thresholds for aviation GHG emissions, nor has the FAA identified specific factors to 

consider in making a significance determination for GHG emissions. There are currently no 

accepted methods of determining significance applicable to aviation given the small percentage 

of emissions they contribute.

Conclusion

The FAA has reviewed the preferred alternative and has determined that it is within the scope of 

a Categorical Exclusion under paragraph 5-6.6.f of FAA Order 1050.1, "Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures," paragraph 5-6.6.f. Specifically, paragraph 5-6.6.f states that

"Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if implemented may cause a 

significant impact on the human environment). The FAA has examined extraordinary 

circumstances and has determined that the preferred alternative would not:

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 6 of 8

AJV-114
1) Cause an adverse effect on cultural resources protected under the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.; 

2) have the potential to cause a significant impact on properties protected under Section 

4(f);

3) have the potential to cause a significant impact, ecological, or scenic resources of 

Federal, state, tribal, or local significance (e.g., federally listed or proposed endangered, 

threatened, or candidate species, or designated or proposed critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544);

4) have the potential to cause a significant impact on the following resources: resources 

protected by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-667d; wetlands; 

floodplains; coastal zones; national marine sanctuaries; wilderness areas; National 

Resource Conservation Service-designated prime and unique farmlands; energy supply 

and natural resources; resources protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 

U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287, and rivers or river segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory (NRI); and solid waste management;

5) cause a division or disruption of an established community, or a disruption of orderly, 

planned development, or an inconsistency with plans or goals that have been adopted by 

the community in which the project is located;

6) cause an increase in congestion from surface transportation (by causing decrease in 

level of service below acceptable levels determined by appropriate transportation agency, 

such as a highway agency);

7) have the potential to cause a significant impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas;

8) have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality or a violation of Federal, 

state, tribal, or local air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-

7671q;

9) have the potential to cause a significant impact on water quality, sole source aquifers, a 

public water supply system, or state or tribal water quality standards established under 

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j-26;

10) cause impacts on the quality of the human environment that are likely to be highly 

controversial on environmental grounds, as defined in paragraph 5 2.b of FAA Order 

1050.1F; 

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 7 of 8

AJV-114
11) be likely to be inconsistent with any Federal, state, tribal, or local law relating to the 

environmental aspects of the proposed action; or

12) otherwise have the potential to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively create a significant 

impact on the human environment.

After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the FAA finds that the 

preferred alternative does not require preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the 

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

preferred alternative 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. 

Environmental Review Operations EWR Issued on March 31, 2016 Page 8 of 8

AJV-114