### 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
Av iation 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 F AA 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 de scribed in FAA
1050.1 Desk Reference in order to rule out the need f or 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 aroun d 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

- 114Environmental 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 pre ferred 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 be low in Tables 1. The results of AEM indicate
that DNL noise contours will decrease in area for t he preferred alternative compared to both the No Action alternative and Alternative 1 (the curren t condition) in both 2017 and 2022.

% Change of Proposed (Level 2) vs. No Action (Unrestricted) % C hange 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 t he Proposed Action when Compared

to the No Action Alternative and the Current Condit ions 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-h our ozone. The area is also designated as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and for partic ulate 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 Qualit y Standards of the proposed action was evaluated. FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Too l (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 nonattainme nt or maintenance under the Clean Air Act. The review of air quality changes considered emissi ons 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 propose d action to cause exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FAA Order 1 050.1F, Chapter 4-4.3, Exhibit 4-1, defines significant impacts as emissions that would cause a n area to exceed one or more of the NAAQSs during the time periods analyzed, or to increase th e frequency or severity of any such existing
violations.

The emissions were evaluated by comparing the Prefe rred alternative (Alternative 2) scenarios
with the No Action alternative scenario and current conditions (Alternative 1). The differences inemissions between all the alternative s 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 Co ntrol 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 s cenarios 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 NO x 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

- 114CO VOC NO x 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 NO x 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 Gases 1
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 greenhou se gas (GHG) and climate change in NEPA reviews 2

.

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. T he 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 1050.1 F 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 whet her a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an EA or an EIS. FAA Order 1050.1 F inclu des criteria and list of circumstances that the Agency considers when determining if ex traordin ary 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 Revi sed 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

- 1142017 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 i ndustry (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 e missions 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 factor s 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 p aragraph 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 environmen t)

. 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

- 1141) 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 Endangere d 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 marin e 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 segmen ts 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 t he 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

- 11411) be likely to be inconsistent wi th 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 tho rough 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 1050.1 F . The implementation of the

p referred 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 circumstan ces exist.

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

- 114