Vol. 80 Friday, 

No. 142 July 24, 2015 

Part II 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Final Order 1050.1F Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures; Notice 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44208 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[FAA–2013–0685] 

Final Order 1050.1F Environmental 

Impact: Policies and Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has revised its 

procedures for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) by issuing Order 1050.1F, 

Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures. Order 1050.1F cancels 

Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures. The revisions 

in Order 1050.1F include reorganization 

of the Order to make it easier to use, 

clarification of requirements, additions 

to the list of Categorical Exclusions 

(CATEXs), updating of policies and 

procedures to be consistent with recent 

guidance, addition of provisions for 

emergency actions, and updating of 

terminology to incorporate the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen). The FAA issued a notice and 

request for comment in the Federal 

Register on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 

49596). All comments received were 

considered in the issuance of the final 

Order. This notice summarizes the 

changes made to Order 1050.1E and 

includes responses to substantive 

comments received. 

DATES: Order 1050.1F is effective July 

16, 2015. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NEPA and 

the implementing regulations 

promulgated by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code 

of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 

1500–1508) establish a broad national 

policy to protect the quality of the 

human environment and provide 

policies and goals to ensure that 

environmental considerations and 

associated public concerns are given 

careful attention and appropriate weight 

in all decisions of the Federal 

government. Section 102(2) of NEPA 

and 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3 require 

Federal agencies to develop and, as 

needed, revise implementing 

procedures consistent with the CEQ 

Regulations. 

The FAA’s previous NEPA Order, 

Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, provided the 

FAA’s policy and procedures for 

compliance with (a) the CEQ 

Regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA; (b) 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Order 5610.1C, Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts, 

and (c) other applicable environmental 

laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and 

policies. The FAA proposed to replace 

Order 1050.1E with Order 1050.1F and 

incorporate certain changes based on 

notice and request for comment 

published in the Federal Register (78 

FR 49596, August 14, 2013). All 

comments received were considered in 

the issuance of the final Order 1050.1F. 

This notice provides a synopsis of the 

changes adopted including those 

additional changes resulting from 

comments received. The Order is 

distributed throughout the FAA by 

electronic means only. The Order is 

available for viewing and downloading 

by all interested persons at http://

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_ 

order/. If the public is not able to use 

an electronic version, they may obtain a 

photocopy of the Order, for a fee to 

cover the cost of reproducing copies, by 

contacting the FAA’s rulemaking docket 

at the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Attn: Rules Docket (AGC–200)—Docket 

No. FAA–2013–0685, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. 

In November 2014, DOT issued 

guidance on implementing Section 1319 

of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP–21), 42 U.S.C. 

4332a. The guidance, which applies to 

all DOT components, including the 

FAA, is available at http://www.dot.gov/ 

sites/dot.gov/files/docs/MAP-21_1319_

Final_Guidance.pdf. Section 1319(a) of 

MAP–21, which relates to the use of 

errata sheets for environmental impact 

statements and largely mirrors the CEQ 

regulations on that topic (see 40 CFR 

1503.4(c)), was already reflected in the 

draft Order 1050.1F published for 

public comment. The FAA has made 

minor changes to the final Order 

1050.1F to ensure it is not in conflict 

with Section 1319(b) of MAP–21, which 

requires DOT, to the maximum extent 

practicable, to expeditiously develop a 

single document that consists of a final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and a Record of Decision (ROD), unless 

certain conditions exist. The FAA will 

be issuing additional guidance on 

implementing Section 1319(b) of MAP– 

21 and will update Order 1050.1F as 

appropriate to reflect that guidance. In 

the meantime, the FAA will comply 

with Section 1319(b) to the extent 

applicable. 

Synopsis of Changes From Order 

1050.1E: The final Order 1050.1F 

incorporates all changes proposed in 78 

FR 49596. Additional changes and 

clarifications were added to the final 

Order in response to comments received 

as a result of the Federal Register notice 

and deliberative discussions with the 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation, CEQ, and internal 

elements of the FAA. References 

throughout the Preamble refer to 

paragraph references for Order 1050.1F 

unless otherwise noted. These changes 

include: 

The information contained in 

Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E, 

Analysis of Environmental Impact 

Categories, has been moved to the 

1050.1F Desk Reference. This was done 

to allow for updates to the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference, as needed. Any FAA-specific 

analysis, modeling, and documentation 

requirements that were contained in 

Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E have 

been moved to Appendix B of FAA 

Order 1050.1F, Federal Aviation 

Administration Requirements for 

Assessing Impacts Related to Noise and 

Noise-Compatible Land Use and Section 

4(f) of the Department of Transportation 

Act (49 U.S.C. 303). 

The Order has been restructured to 

reduce redundancies and improve 

clarity. Order 1050.1F is divided into 

eleven chapters as opposed to the five 

chapters of 1050.1E. The numbering and 

structure are changed to more closely 

follow FAA Order 1320.1, FAA 

Directives Management. In addition, 

systematic editorial changes have been 

applied to ensure 1050.1F is consistent 

with the FAA’s plain language 

guidelines as established in FAA Order 

1000.36, FAA Writing Standards (e.g., 

changes use of the term ‘‘shall’’ to 

‘‘should’’ or ‘‘must,’’ as appropriate). 

The language referring to the 

applicability of the Order and CEQ 

Regulations to FAA actions has been 

modified for clarity to state ‘‘[t]he 

provisions of this Order and the CEQ 

Regulations apply to actions directly 

undertaken by the FAA and to actions 

undertaken by a non-Federal entity 

where the FAA has authority to 

condition a permit, license, or other 

approval.’’ This change has been made 

throughout the Order, where applicable. 

The FAA’s policy statement (see 

Paragraph 1–8) has been updated to 

include the FAA’s goals of ensuring 

timely, effective, and efficient 

environmental reviews and includes a 

discussion of NextGen. The policy 

reflects established expedited 

environmental review procedures and 

processes including the legislative 

provisions in the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 

112–95 (‘‘FAA Reauthorization of 2012’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’) to expedite the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44209 

environmental review process for 

certain air traffic procedures. 

The titles and roles of FAA Lines of 

Businesses and Staff Offices (LOB/SOs) 

have been updated to reflect changes to 

the FAA’s organizational structure and 

responsibilities since publication of 

FAA Order 1050.1E (see Paragraph 

2–2.1.b). These revisions include: 

Removing Aviation Policy, Planning, 

and Environment (AEP) and 

International Aviation (AIP), since these 

divisions have been combined to form a 

new office known as Policy, 

International Affairs and Environment 

(APL); revising Office of Financial 

Services (ABA) to Office of Finance and 

Management (AFN), revising Regulation 

and Certification (AVR) to Aviation 

Safety (AVS); revising the text to reflect 

that the Office of Corporate Learning 

and Development is now located under 

Human Resource Management (AHR); 

and adding the staff office NextGen 

(ANG). 

The Order breaks out the roles and 

responsibilities of the FAA (see 

Paragraph 2–2.1), applicants (see 

Paragraph 2–2.2), and contractors (see 

Paragraph 2–2.3) into separate 

paragraphs for easy reference and 

transparency. 

A paragraph on the roles and 

responsibilities under the State Block 

Grant Program has been added to the 

Order (see Paragraph 2–2.1.e). This 

language is also currently located in the 

Office of Airports NEPA procedures in 

FAA Order 5050.4B, National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Implementing Instructions for Airport 

Projects, but has been added to Order 

1050.1F as it involves multiple FAA 

Lines of Businesses LOBs. 

The similarities and differences 

between Environmental Assessments 

(EAs) and EISs are clarified throughout 

Order 1050.1F. The terminology ‘‘EIS or 

EA’’ has been replaced with ‘‘NEPA 

documentation’’ when guidance would 

apply to either type of document to help 

clarify Paragraph 206a of Order 1050.1E, 

which states that requirements that 

apply to EISs may also be used for the 

preparation of EAs. Alternatively, when 

guidance is specific to an EA or to an 

EIS, but not to both, the appropriate 

type of document is stated. 

A discussion of Environmental 

Management Systems (EMS) has been 

added to highlight the importance of 

EMS and the potential benefit of 

aligning NEPA with the elements of 

EMS (see Paragraph 2–3.3). 

The discussion on mitigation has been 

reorganized and updated to be 

consistent with CEQ’s guidance on 

Appropriate Use of Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Clarifying the 

Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings 

of No Significant Impact, 76 FR 3843 

(January 21, 2011) (see Paragraphs 2– 

3.6, 4–4, 6–2.3, and 7–1.1.h). The 

proposed changes also clarify which 

projects may warrant environmental 

monitoring and the type and extent of 

such monitoring. 

The list of actions normally requiring 

an EA has been modified to reflect the 

FAA’s experience. 

Actions newly identified as normally 

requiring an EA are: 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(13): Establishment 

or modification of an Instrument Flight 

Rules Military Training Route (IR MTR); 

and 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(16): Formal and 

informal runway use programs that may 

significantly increase noise over noise 

sensitive areas. 

Actions normally requiring an EA that 

have been amended include: 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(2) modifies the 

language of 401b of 1050.1E to include 

all types of certificates for aircraft types 

for which environmental regulations 

have not been issued, and new amended 

engine types for which emission 

regulations have not been issued where 

an environmental analysis has not been 

prepared in connection with a 

regulatory action. 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(10), formerly 401k 

of Order 1050.1E, was changed to limit 

the typical EA to new commercial 

service airport locations that would not 

be located in a Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA). In addition, the description 

of a new runway was limited by stating 

that the new runway is at an existing 

airport that is not located in an MSA. 

Major runway extension projects were 

removed from this list and added to the 

list of actions that typically require an 

EIS. This is because the definition of 

major runway extension includes 

runway extensions that cause a 

significant adverse environmental 

impact. 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(11) changes 

Paragraph 401l of Order 1050.1E to 

provide more clarity when the issuance 

of operations specifications normally 

requires an EA; specifically, any 

approval of operations specifications 

that may significantly change the 

character of the operational 

environment when authorizing 

passenger or cargo service, or 

authorizing an operator to serve an 

airport with different aircraft when that 

service may significantly increase noise, 

air, or other environmental impacts, 

normally requires an EA. 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(12) combines 

Paragraphs 401m and 401n from Order 

1050.1E and includes a caveat that 

certain procedures may be categorically 

excluded under new legislative CATEXs 

in the FAA Reauthorization of 2012. 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(14) modifies 

Paragraph 401p of Order 1050.1E to 

remove the four requirements for the 

notice of proposed rulemaking for 

Special Use Airspace (SUA) projects 

since these criteria are not based on 

environmental impacts, but on the 

process for establishing a SUA. The new 

paragraph describes SUA actions as 

normally requiring an EA (unless 

otherwise explicitly listed as an 

advisory action (see Paragraph 2–1.2.b, 

Advisory Actions) or categorically 

excluded (see Paragraph 5–6, the FAA’s 

List of Approved Categorical 

Exclusions)). 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(15) modifies 

Paragraph 401c of Order 1050.1E to 

clarify the type of commercial space 

launch actions that normally require an 

EA. The proposed paragraph states 

issuance of any of the following requires 

an EA: (a) A commercial space launch 

site operator license for operation of a 

launch site at an existing facility on 

disturbed ground where little to no 

infrastructure would be constructed 

(e.g., co-located with a Federal range or 

municipal airport); or (b) A commercial 

space launch license, reentry license, or 

experimental permit to operate a vehicle 

to/from an existing site. 

The Order has added the following 

examples of actions normally requiring 

an EIS (see Paragraph 3–1.3.b): 

(1) Unconditional Airport Layout Plan 

(ALP) approval of, or federal financial 

participation in, the following categories 

of airport actions: 

(a) Location of a new commercial 

service airport in an MSA; 

(b) A new runway to accommodate air 

carrier aircraft at a commercial service 

airport in an MSA; and 

(c) Major runway extension 

(2) Issuance of a commercial space 

launch site operator license, launch 

license, or experimental permit to 

support activities requiring the 

construction of a new commercial space 

launch site on undeveloped land. 

The Order expands the discussion of 

programmatic NEPA documents and 

tiering to provide more guidance on the 

use of programmatic NEPA documents 

(see Paragraph 3–2). The discussion is 

consistent with CEQ’s guidance on 

Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA 

Reviews (December 18, 2014) at http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

docs/effective_use_of_programmatic_

nepa_reviews_final_dec2014_

searchable.pdf. 

A statement was added to the Order 

that FAA LOB/SOs will, whenever 

possible, use the FAA NEPA Database to 

track projects and make final documents 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

available to others in the FAA (see 

Paragraph 3–3). 

A new chapter was added to describe 

environmental impact categories, 

significance thresholds, and factors to 

consider in determining the significance 

of environmental impacts (see Chapter 

4). The environmental impact categories 

were originally contained in Appendix 

A of Order 1050.1E. There are some 

additions and modifications to the list 

of environmental impact categories. 

Climate has been added to the list of 

impact categories to be considered in 

the FAA’s NEPA documents. Climate 

was previously addressed in FAA Order 

1050.1E Guidance Memo #3, 

Considering Greenhouse Gases and 

Climate under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 

Interim Guidance. Noise and noisecompatible land use have been 

combined into a single environmental 

impact category to provide better 

context and clarity. The remaining land 

use topics are discussed as a separate 

category. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants has 

been renamed Biological Resources. 

Light Emissions and Visual Impacts has 

been renamed Visual Effects. Water 

Resource impacts have been combined 

to include water quality, wetlands, 

floodplains, surface waters, 

groundwater, and wild and scenic 

rivers. Construction and secondary 

impacts have been removed as separate 

categories and instead are to be 

analyzed within each applicable 

environmental impact category. Further 

guidance on environmental impact 

category analysis is contained within 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

A table has been provided, Exhibit 

4–1, that summarizes the significance 

thresholds that were formerly described 

under individual environmental impact 

categories in Appendix A of FAA Order 

1050.1E. This table also includes factors 

to consider in making determinations of 

significant impacts. These factors to 

consider are not exhaustive. There may 

also be other factors that should be 

evaluated when making a determination 

of significance. There are three 

modifications to the significance 

thresholds found in Appendix A of 

Order 1050.1E: (1) Air Quality threshold 

includes ‘‘or to increase the frequency 

or severity of any such existing 

violations’’ to help clarify that increase 

in the frequency or severity of any 

existing violations would also be 

considered a trigger; (2) Surface Waters 

now includes ‘‘contaminate a public 

drinking water supply such that public 

health may be adversely affected’’ as a 

threshold, and (3) Groundwater 

includes ‘‘contaminate an aquifer used 

for public water supply such that public 

health may be adversely affected’’ as a 

threshold. (See Exhibit 4–1, Significance 

Determination for FAA Actions). 

The list of extraordinary 

circumstances for CATEXs (see 

Paragraph 5–2.b) has been modified. 

National marine sanctuaries and 

wilderness areas have been added to the 

list of resources that must be considered 

in evaluating actions for extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude the 

use of a CATEX for a proposed action. 

The Order makes other text revisions, 

including modifying (1) the description 

of wild and scenic rivers to be 

consistent with CEQ’s memorandum 

Interagency Consultation to Avoid or 

Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the 

Nationwide Inventory (August 10, 1980); 

and (2) the description of hazardous 

materials to specify projects likely to 

cause environmental contamination by 

hazardous materials, or likely to disturb 

an existing hazardous material 

contamination site such that new 

environmental contamination risks are 

created. 

The FAA’s guidance regarding 

CATEX documentation has been 

updated to be consistent with CEQ’s 

2010 Guidance on Establishing, 

Applying, and Revising Categorical 

Exclusions under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, 75 FR 75628 

(December 6, 2010) (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘CEQ’s CATEX Guidance’’) (see 

Paragraph 5–3). These updates include: 

Clarifying when and what level of 

documentation is needed in the 

application of a CATEX and explaining 

what to include in CATEX 

documentation. 

A new paragraph has been added to 

the Order providing information on 

combining a decision document with a 

CATEX (CATEX/ROD) (see Paragraph 

5–3.e). CATEX/RODs are not commonly 

used, but may be advisable in certain 

circumstances. 

Guidance on public notification of 

CATEXs has been added, consistent 

with CEQ’s CATEX Guidance (see 

Paragraph 5–4). 

New CATEXs have been added to the 

Order for actions which the FAA has 

determined do not have the potential to 

significantly affect the environment 

individually or cumulatively, absent 

extraordinary circumstances. The 

following CATEXs have been added: 

Paragraph 5–6.3.i adds a CATEX for 

the unconditional approval of an ALP, 

Federal financial assistance, or FAA 

projects for the installation of solar or 

wind powered energy, provided the 

installation does not involve more than 

three total acres and would not have the 

potential to cause significant impacts on 

bird or bat populations. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.bb adds a CATEX for 

an unconditional ALP approval or 

Federal financial assistance for actions 

related to a purchase of land for a 

runway protection zone (RPZ) or other 

aeronautical purpose, provided there is 

no land disturbance. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.cc adds a CATEX for 

an unconditional ALP approval or 

Federal financial assistance to 

permanently close a runway and use it 

as a taxiway at small, low activity 

airports provided any changes to lights 

or pavement would be on previously 

developed airport land. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.dd adds a CATEX for 

FAA construction, reconstruction or 

relocation of a non-Radar, Level 1 air 

traffic control tower at an existing visual 

flight rule (VFR) airport, or FAA 

unconditional approval of an ALP and/ 

or Federal funding provided the action 

would occur on a previously disturbed 

area of the airport and not: (1) Cause an 

increase in the number of aircraft 

operations, a change in the time of 

aircraft operations, or a change in the 

type of aircraft operating at the airport; 

(2) cause a significant noise increase in 

noise sensitive areas; or (3) cause 

significant air quality impacts. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.ee adds a CATEX for 

environmental investigation of 

hazardous waste or hazardous substance 

contamination on previously developed 

land provided the work plan or 

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for 

the project integrates current industry 

best practices and addresses, as 

applicable, surface restoration, well and 

soil boring decommissioning, and the 

collection, storage, handling, 

transportation, minimization, and 

disposal of investigation derived wastes 

and other Federal or state regulated 

wastes generated by the investigation. 

The work plan or SAP must be 

coordinated with and, if required, 

approved by the appropriate or relevant 

governmental agency or agencies prior 

to commencement of work. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.ff adds a CATEX for 

remediation of hazardous wastes or 

hazardous substances impacting 

approximately one acre in aggregate 

surface area provided remedial or 

corrective actions must be performed in 

accordance with an approved work plan 

(i.e., remedial action plan, corrective 

action plan, or similar document) that 

documents applicable current industry 

best practices and addresses, as 

applicable, permitting requirements, 

surface restoration, well and soil boring 

decommissioning, and the 

minimization, collection, any necessary 

associated on-site treatment, storage, 

handling, transportation, and disposal 

of Federal or state regulated wastes. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44211 

work plan must be coordinated with, 

and if required, approved by, the 

appropriate governmental agency or 

agencies prior to the commencement of 

work. As a matter of policy, actions 

under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) and 

corrective actions under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

generally do not require separate 

analysis under NEPA or the preparation 

of a NEPA document. The FAA will rely 

on CERCLA processes for environmental 

review of actions to be taken under 

CERCLA, and will address NEPA values 

to the extent practicable. As a matter of 

law, there is a statutory conflict between 

NEPA and CERCLA; NEPA, therefore, 

does not apply to CERCLA cleanup 

actions. The FAA may rely on the 

CERCLA process for RCRA corrective 

action if the action is to be taken under 

a compliance agreement for an FAA site 

on the CERCLA National Priorities List 

that integrates the requirements of 

RCRA and CERCLA to such an extent 

that the requirements are largely 

inseparable in a practical sense. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.f adds a CATEX for 

actions to increase the altitude of SUA. 

In addition, two legislative CATEXs, 

provided in Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012, are added (see 

Paragraphs 5–6.5.q and 5–6.5.r). One 

allows for a CATEX for Area 

Navigation/Required Navigation 

Performance (RNP) procedures 

proposed for core airports and any 

medium or small hub airports located 

within the same metroplex area that are 

identified by the Administrator, and for 

RNP procedures proposed at 35 noncore airports selected by the 

Administrator, subject to extraordinary 

circumstances. The second provides a 

CATEX for any navigation performance 

or other performance based navigation 

procedure (PBN) developed, certified, 

published, or implemented that, in the 

determination of the Administrator, 

would result in measurable reductions 

in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide 

emissions, and noise on a per flight 

basis as compared to aircraft operations 

that follow existing instrument flight 

rules procedures in the same airspace 

irrespective of the altitude. 

Four CATEXs have been substantially 

modified: 

Paragraph 5–6.4.e (formerly Paragraph 

310e of Order 1050.1E), is modified to 

include widening of a taxiway, apron, 

loading ramp, or runway safety area 

(RSA) including an RSA using 

Engineered Material Arresting System 

(EMAS), or widening of an existing 

runway. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.i (formerly Paragraph 

310i of Order 1050.1E) is modified to 

allow for financial assistance for or 

unconditional approval of an ALP for 

the demolition or removal of non-FAA 

owned buildings and structures on 

airports except those of historic, 

archeological, or architectural 

significance as officially designated by 

Federal, state, tribal or local 

governments. This CATEX also adds the 

expansion of a facility or structure 

where no hazardous substance 

contamination or contaminated 

equipment is present on the site. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.u (formerly 

Paragraph 310u in Order 1050.1E) is 

expanded to include unconditional 

approval of an ALP for the installation, 

repair, or replacement of on-airport 

aboveground storage tanks or 

underground storage tanks. The CATEX 

further clarifies that the closure and 

removal applies to the fuel storage tank, 

and remediation applies to the 

contaminants resulting from the use of 

the fuel storage tank. It also clarifies that 

distribution systems are not within the 

scope of the CATEX. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.l (formerly Paragraph 

311l in Order 1050.1E) is modified to 

allow for Federal financial assistance, 

unconditional ALP approval, or other 

FAA action to establish a displaced 

threshold on an existing runway. It 

further states that removal or 

establishment of a displaced threshold 

is allowed within the scope of the 

CATEX provided the action does not 

require establishing or relocating an 

approach light system that is not on 

airport property or an instrument 

landing system. 

Several CATEXs have been slightly 

modified as follows: 

Paragraph 5–6.2.c (formerly Paragraph 

308c in Order 1050.1E) is modified to 

include operating certificates. This is a 

clarification since these certificates are 

similar to the other types of certificates 

already contained in Paragraph 308c of 

Order 1050.1E. 

Paragraph 5–6.2.d (formerly 

Paragraph 308d in Order 1050.1E) has 

been modified to clarify that [these 

types of actions] do not have the 

potential to cause significant impacts. 

Paragraph 5–6.3.h (formerly 

Paragraph 309h in Order 1050.1E) is 

revised for clarity. The terminology 

‘‘launch facility’’ is changed to 

‘‘commercial space launch site.’’ The 

FAA regulations at 14 CFR part 107, 

Airport Security, have been withdrawn 

and no longer apply. Therefore, 

reference to this regulatory provision 

has been removed. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.f (formerly Paragraph 

310f in Order 1050.1E) is modified to 

include hangers and t-hangers. Hangers 

and t-hangers are included in this 

CATEX so long as a review of 

extraordinary circumstances 

demonstrates that any increase in 

aircraft does not contribute to 

significant noise increases in noise 

sensitive areas or significant air impacts. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.h (formerly 

Paragraph 310h in Order 1050.1E) has 

been clarified to include nonaeronautical uses at existing airports or 

commercial space launch sites. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.b (formerly Paragraph 

311b in Order 1050.1E) adds 

clarification that this CATEX for 

procedural actions applies to 

establishment of jet routes as they are 

one type of Federal airway. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.c (formerly Paragraph 

311c in Order 1050.1E) adds the 

example ‘‘reduction in times of use (e.g., 

from continuous to intermittent, or use 

by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM))’’ to 

the list of ‘‘such as’’ actions. This 

clarifies that actions to return all or part 

of SUA to the National Airspace System 

(NAS) include reduction in times of use. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.g (formerly Paragraph 

311g in Order 1050.1E) is slightly 

modified to include RNP. It also 

specifies that a Noise Screening Tool or 

other FAA-approved environmental 

screening methodology should be used. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.h (formerly 

Paragraph 311h in Order 1050.1E) is 

slightly modified to include 

‘‘modification’’ of helicopter routes to 

clarify that establishment of helicopter 

routes also includes modification of 

these routes as long as they channel 

helicopter activity over major 

thoroughfares. The FAA has also added 

‘‘would not have the potential to 

significantly increase noise over noise 

sensitive areas’’ to highlight significant 

increase in noise as a specific 

extraordinary circumstance to be aware 

of when applying this CATEX. 

Paragraph 5–6.5.i (formerly Paragraph 

311i in Order 1050.1E) updates 

reference to a Noise Screening Tool or 

other FAA-approved environmental 

screening methodology. 

Paragraph 5–6.6.b is modified to 

provide clarity that the CATEX applies 

to an aerobatic practice area containing 

one aerobatic practice box in accordance 

with 1050.1E Guidance Memo #5, 

Clarification of FAA Order 1050.1 

CATEX 312b for Aerobatic Actions. 

The discussion of EA format and 

process has been revised to simplify the 

explanation of each element and clarify 

that an EA should be concise and 

focused and generally should not be as 

detailed as an EIS (see Paragraphs 6–2.1 

and 6–2.2). As this discussion has been 

reduced in detail, there are crossVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:09 Jul 23, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JYN2.SGM 24JYN2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

references to the corresponding EIS 

sections for EAs that may need to be 

more substantial. 

The language required to be included 

in notices soliciting public comment on 

draft EAs and draft EISs has been 

revised, stating that personal 

information provided by commenters 

(e.g., addresses, phone numbers, and 

email addresses) may be made publicly 

available (see Paragraphs 6–2.2.g and 7– 

1.2.d(1)(a)). 

The Order adds two paragraphs on the 

use of errata sheets when the 

modifications to a draft EA or draft EIS 

are minor and confined to factual 

corrections or explanations of why the 

comments do not warrant additional 

agency response (see Paragraphs 6–2.2.i 

and 7–1.2.f). 

A new paragraph has been added to 

explain the conditions under which the 

FAA may choose to terminate 

preparation of an EIS and to clarify what 

steps the FAA should take when this 

situation occurs (see Paragraph 7–1.3). 

The timing of a decision on a 

proposed action for which an EIS is 

prepared has been revised slightly to 

allow for the joint issuance of a Final 

EIS and ROD pursuant to Section 

1319(b) of Map–21 (see Paragraph 7– 

1.2.j). 

The requirements relating to review of 

other agencies’ NEPA documents and 

FAA’s adoption of other agencies’ NEPA 

documents have been clarified (see 

Paragraphs 8–1 and 8–2). Please note 

the discussion of recirculation 

requirements for EISs to highlight that 

there are some circumstances in which 

adopted documents must be 

recirculated (see Paragraph 8–2.e). 

A discussion of FAA policy with 

respect to consideration of 

transboundary impacts resulting from 

FAA actions has been added (see 

Paragraph 8–5). This was added to 

differentiate analysis of impacts to other 

countries versus FAA actions that occur 

in other countries. This is not intended 

to create a requirement to discuss global 

climate change impacts from FAA 

actions. 

The discussion of international 

actions has been modified to be 

consistent with DOT Order 5610.1, 

including guidance on coordination 

within the FAA/DOT and U.S. State 

Department when communication with 

foreign governments is needed (see 

Paragraph 8–6). 

The alternative process to consider 

environmental impacts before taking 

actions necessary to protect the lives 

and safety of the public in emergency 

circumstances has been amended. 

Alternative arrangements are limited to 

actions necessary to control the 

immediate impacts of an emergency. 

Order 1050.1F expands this paragraph 

to provide for emergency procedures 

when a CATEX or EA would be the 

appropriate level of NEPA review (see 

Paragraph 8–7). 

Provisions relating to written reevaluations have been modified and 

clarified. The FAA has added language 

requiring a written re-evaluation before 

further FAA approval may be granted 

for an action if, after the FAA has 

approved an EA or EIS for the action, 

there are changes to the action, or new 

circumstances or information, that 

could trigger the need for a 

supplemental EA or EIS, or all or part 

of the action is postponed beyond the 

time period analyzed in the EA or EIS. 

The FAA added a statement to explain 

that written re-evaluations may be 

prepared in other circumstances and 

added a discussion of combining 

decision documents with written reevaluations (i.e., a ‘‘Written Reevaluation/ROD’’) (see Paragraph 9–2). 

The section on Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statements was 

modified to incorporate Section 1319(b) 

of Map–21 (see Paragraph 9–3). 

The provisions relating to review, 

approval, and signature authority for 

FAA NEPA documents have been 

consolidated (see Chapter 10). 

Paragraph 11–2 clarifies the authority 

of various parties and is consistent with 

other FAA Orders (see Paragraph 11–2). 

Provisions relating to explanatory 

guidance have been amended to show a 

two-step process for coordination and 

review with the FAA’s Office of 

Environment and Energy (AEE) and 

Office of Chief Counsel (AGC) (see 

Paragraph 11–4). 

The definitions paragraph has been 

modified to add ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances,’’ ‘‘NEPA lead,’’ ‘‘special 

purpose laws and requirements,’’ and 

‘‘traditional cultural properties.’’ 

‘‘Environmental Due Diligence Audit’’ 

has been deleted because this term is no 

longer used in FAA Order 1050.1F. 

Definitions of ‘‘environmental studies,’’ 

‘‘approving official,’’ and 

‘‘decisionmaker’’ are revised to reflect 

current practice. The definition of 

‘‘human environment’’ was modified to 

more closely align with the CEQ 

Regulations. The term ‘‘launch facility’’ 

is changed to ‘‘commercial space launch 

site’’ to be consistent with 14 CFR part 

420. The definition of ‘‘noise sensitive 

area’’ is revised to include a reference to 

Table 1 of 14 CFR part 150 rather than 

Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E, to 

provide context in light of the removal 

of Appendix A from Order 1050.1F. 

‘‘Major Federal action’’ was added to the 

list of definitions as a cross reference to 

the CEQ Regulations (See Paragraph 11– 

5.b). 

Disposition of Comments 

The FAA appreciates the thoughtful 

responses to its request for comments on 

the draft Order 1050.1F, Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The 

FAA received more than 800 comments. 

Commenters included private citizens, 

elected officials, corporations, trade 

associations, and Federal and state 

agencies. Those comments that raised 

policy or substantive concerns within 

the scope of the order have been 

grouped thematically, summarized, and 

addressed in this Notice. The term 

‘‘comment’’ used in this Notice refers to 

each individual issue raised by a 

commenter, thus, numerous comments 

may have been identified within the 

correspondence submitted by a 

commenter. The comments that address 

similar themes or issues, even if 

submitted by different commenters, 

have been combined for response where 

possible. References to specific 

paragraphs in this Preamble refer to the 

revised paragraph and subparagraph 

numbering of the final Order. Due to the 

number of comments received on 

helicopters and the two legislative 

CATEXs, these comments are addressed 

after the general Order 1050.1F 

comments. 

I. General Order 1050.1F Comments 

Several commenters were concerned 

that changes in Order 1050.1F would 

relax requirements for environmental 

review or public involvement including 

concerns that the Order exempts the 

FAA from further environmental studies 

and the Order evades community and 

general stakeholder input. 

FAA Order 1050.1F provides the 

FAA’s policies and procedures for 

compliance with NEPA. Under NEPA, 

Federal agencies must disclose 

significant impacts of their actions to 

the public. Order 1050.1F has not 

relaxed any standards and is consistent 

with NEPA and the CEQ Regulations. 

Actions that cause significant impacts 

will require preparation of an EIS and 

compliance with the associated public 

involvement requirements before being 

implemented. 

Chapter 1: General 

Paragraph 1–6. Related Publications 

One commenter was concerned with 

potential conflicts between Order 

1050.1F and other FAA environmental 

guidance documents and Orders (i.e., 

the Office of Airport’s Order 5050.4B 

and the accompanying Environmental 

Desk Reference for Airport Actions). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44213 

AEE developed Order 1050.1F and its 

accompanying 1050.1F Desk Reference 

in a workgroup with all LOB/SOs, 

including the FAA’s Office of Airports, 

to ensure that any modifications are 

consistent throughout the agency. As 

specified in Paragraph 11–4, Order 

1050.1F supersedes any inconsistent 

explanatory guidance and FAA LOB/

SOs must update any current 

explanatory guidance to be consistent 

with Order 1050.1F. If any conflicts 

exist, Order 1050.1F would take 

precedence until other explanatory 

guidance is revised. 

The Office of Airports will be 

updating Order 5050.4B and the 

Environmental Desk Reference for 

Airport Actions to provide guidance on 

airport specific projects consistent with 

Order 1050.1F. The Environmental Desk 

Reference for Airport Actions will not 

be discontinued because it contains 

specific information that is relevant to 

airport projects that is not contained in 

1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Several commenters requested that 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference be made 

available to the public for comment and 

stated that they could not provide 

adequate comments on the Order until 

the Desk Reference was made available 

for comment. 

The FAA recognizes the public’s 

interest in reviewing and providing 

comments on the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference. The 1050.1F Desk Reference 

is guidance material intended to assist 

FAA employees with NEPA 

implementation. Although the Order 

refers the reader to the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference in numerous places, this is to 

identify where additional guidance is 

available regarding significant impact 

determinations, information on FAAapproved models, and compliance with 

other environmental laws, regulations 

and requirements so that the NEPA 

practitioner can more easily prepare an 

adequate analysis under NEPA for each 

environmental impact category. 

The FAA undertook a careful review 

of Appendix A from Order 1050.1E 

when determining the content that 

could reasonably and appropriately be 

placed in the desk reference. Any 

requirements of the FAA’s NEPA 

procedures that were contained in 

Appendix A of Order 1050.1E and that 

do not originate from an independent 

law, regulation, executive order, or 

other directive external to the FAA, 

such as requirements associated with 

noise analysis, have been retained in the 

main body of or appendices to Order 

1050.1F. Content that has been removed 

from the Order and placed in the desk 

reference is limited to explanatory or 

technical guidance intended to assist 

FAA employees with implementation of 

NEPA and other environmental laws, 

regulations and requirements. As such, 

there are no FAA NEPA review 

requirements that are solely located in 

the desk reference, and as a result, the 

FAA has provided interested members 

of the public an opportunity to make 

meaningful comment on the FAA’s 

NEPA policies and procedures as 

embodied in Order 1050.1F. Although 

the FAA is not providing a formal 

comment period on the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference, the users of the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference can submit comments on it 

through the FAA Web site at http://

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_ 

order/. These comments will be 

reviewed and incorporated into the 

1050.1F Desk Reference on an ongoing 

basis, as needed. 

One commenter stated that the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and the FAA Policy on Public 

Involvement require that the FAA make 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference available to 

the public under notice and comment 

procedures. 

The APA’s requirements regarding 

notice and comment for agency 

rulemaking are not applicable to the 

Order 1050.1F Desk Reference. Content 

that has been placed in the Order 

1050.1F desk reference is limited to 

explanatory or technical guidance 

intended to assist FAA employees with 

NEPA implementation, and does not 

contain any requirements or obligations 

that are not otherwise contained in 

Order 1050.1F or other statutes, 

regulations, or directives. As a result, 

the comment period provided for Order 

1050.1F was adequate, as concurrent 

review of the Order 1050.1F desk 

reference was not necessary to facilitate 

review of the Order. 

The APA does not require that 

guidance documents be publicly 

available under notice and comment 

procedures. The 1050.1F Desk Reference 

is a guidance document that provides 

information to NEPA practitioners on 

how to comply with environmental 

regulations, Orders, and requirements in 

the NEPA setting. 

The FAA is unaware of an ‘‘FAA 

Policy on Public Involvement’’ and can 

only assume that the commenter is 

referring to the Community Involvement 

Policy Statement (April 17, 1995). This 

policy statement was issued almost 20 

years ago, but is still valid. The FAA 

regards community involvement as an 

essential element in the development of 

programs and decisions that affect the 

public. The 1050.1F Desk Reference is 

available to the public. However, it will 

not undergo a formal review and 

comment period since it is a guidance 

document that may need to be updated 

as other environmental laws and 

regulations are amended. Individuals 

may submit comments on the Desk 

Reference through the FAA Web site at: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_ 

order/. All comments will be considered 

on an ongoing basis for future editions 

of the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

that the 1050.1F Desk Reference will not 

be updated as stated, citing the fact that 

the Office of Airports made their 

Environmental Desk Reference for 

Airport Actions separate from their 

Order 5050.4B in 2006 for the same 

reasons and it has never been updated. 

The FAA understands the concerns of 

the commenter. To help improve the 

efficiency and ease of updating the 

1050.1F Desk Reference, the Office of 

Environment and Energy has 

implemented a process for receiving 

comments on the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference and will review and update 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference on a regular 

basis to address any concerns and 

changes that are needed. The length of 

time between updates to the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference will be dictated by any 

changes to special purpose laws, 

regulations, or other requirements and/ 

or applicable guidance and the content 

of comments received on the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference. 

One commenter stated that by 

removing the information within 

Appendix A to a Desk Reference, this 

could limit the ability to cite to this 

material appropriately in NEPA 

documents. The commenter encouraged 

the FAA to note what authority to cite 

in NEPA documents. 

The 1050.1F Desk Reference provides 

guidance to FAA personnel on how to 

prepare a NEPA document. The FAA 

encourages preparers of documents to 

reference the appropriate underlying 

statutes, regulations, or other authorities 

for the analytical and disclosure 

requirements that are described in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference. The 1050.1F 

Desk Reference provides additional 

guidance on the appropriate situations 

and manner for citing the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference. It is important to note that if 

there is an underlying statutory, 

regulatory, or other requirement, the 

underlying authority should be cited 

instead of the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

One commenter stated that not 

allowing public review of the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference is not proper policy 

because this information contains FAA 

requirements concerning noise and thus 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

should be available to the public for 

review. 

Appendix B of Order 1050.1F is 

comprised of excerpts from the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference that contain FAAspecific requirements on noise analysis. 

Appendix B was made available to the 

public during the public comment 

review period of this Order. When 

developing the public draft of Order 

1050.1F, the FAA carefully reviewed 

not only the noise chapter, but also the 

Section 4(f) chapter of the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference to ensure that any FAAspecific requirements that are not 

already based on other special purpose 

laws are contained within Appendix B 

of draft Order 1050.1F, and thus made 

available for public review and 

comment. 

One commenter stated to the extent 

that FAA places new, substantive 

requirements in the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference that otherwise would trigger 

full notice and comment procedures, the 

1050.1F Desk Reference should be 

subjected to such review. 

Although the 1050.1F Desk Reference 

does contain substantive requirements, 

the majority of these requirements are 

based on authorities outside of the FAA 

(i.e., the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

etc.). It is not appropriate to solicit 

notice and comment on these 

authorities. To the extent that there are 

FAA-specific requirements within the 

1050.1F Desk Reference, these have 

been placed within Appendix B of 

Order 1050.1F. These include FAAspecific requirements for noise and 

Section 4(f). Appendix B was published 

as part of the draft Order 1050.1F to 

allow for public review and comment. 

Two commenters were concerned that 

important information that was 

previously contained in Order 1050.1E 

has been left out of this Order and 

without review of the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference they could not provide 

meaningful comments. One commenter 

stated, as an example, Chapter 4 seems 

to leave out light emissions, cumulative 

impacts, construction, and secondary 

(induced) impacts. 

Throughout the updates to Order 

1050.1, the FAA has carefully reviewed 

this Order to ensure that information 

contained in Order 1050.1E has been 

included in either Order 1050.1F and/or 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference, as 

appropriate. 

As stated in Paragraph 1–10.13, the 

FAA has made several changes to the 

environmental impact categories. One of 

which was combining light emissions 

with the chapter on visual impacts. The 

FAA has changed the title of visual 

effects in the draft Order 1050.1F to 

‘‘visual effects (including light 

emissions)’’ in this final version of 

Order 1050.1F, to ensure clarity that 

light emissions is included within the 

visual impacts. 

As Paragraph 1–10.13 also stated, the 

FAA has eliminated construction and 

secondary impacts as separate 

environmental impact categories and 

these are now discussed within each 

relevant environmental impact category. 

To address this comment, the FAA has 

added a statement to Paragraph 4–1 to 

highlight this. 

Cumulative impacts is not considered 

a specific environmental impact 

category, which is why it is not listed 

in Paragraph 4–1; however, there is a 

chapter devoted to cumulative impacts 

in the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

One commenter requested that the 

1050.1F Desk Reference contain specific 

examples of air traffic actions since the 

current Desk Reference, Environmental 

Desk Reference for Airport Actions, 

focuses on airport actions. 

The Environmental Desk Reference 

for Airport Actions referred to by the 

commenter was prepared by and for the 

Office of Airports and therefore is 

appropriately focused on airport 

actions. The 1050.1F Desk Reference 

provides guidance for all the FAA LOB/ 

SOs to utilize and is general in nature. 

Specific examples are included where 

applicable. The FAA LOB/SOs were 

encouraged to provide specific 

examples related to their programs that 

would be useful to include in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Paragraph 1–8. Federal Aviation 

Administration Policy 

One commenter stated that since 

there was an emphasis on expedited 

reviews in the policy section, there 

should be a paragraph in Order 1050.1F 

on the process for expedited reviews or 

references to those applicable expedited 

steps in the policy statement. 

The paragraph referenced by the 

commenter is the FAA’s policy 

statement for this Order. The policy 

statement is general in nature and 

provides an overview of the FAA’s 

policies in NEPA. Specific expedited 

review processes are generally LOB 

specific and therefore are not contained 

within Order 1050.1F. 

However, information regarding 

timely, effective, and efficient 

environmental reviews has been 

incorporated throughout the Order 

where appropriate. 

The expedited reviews referred to in 

the policy statement are not new to the 

FAA. For instance, the policy statement 

contained in Order 1050.1E cites the 

expedited reviews under Title III of 

Vision 100—Century of Aviation 

Reauthorization Act, also cited as the 

Aviation Streamlining Approval Process 

Act of 2003, 49 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 47171–47175. 

Since the expedited review processes 

are for specific FAA LOB actions, the 

details of these processes are most 

appropriately listed in the specific 

LOB’s environmental Orders. For 

example, FAA Order 5050.4B contains 

specific expedited processes for airport 

actions and FAA Order 7400.2K 

contains specific expedited processes 

for air traffic actions. 

One commenter asked why there was 

an emphasis on NextGen in Order 

1050.1F since this is being addressed in 

the Air Traffic Organization’s (ATO’s) 

NEPA Order. 

NextGen is not just ATO-specific and 

applies across FAA LOBs. One of the 

purposes for updating Order 1050.1F 

was to incorporate NextGen terms and 

processes to ensure that NextGen 

actions adhere to the requirements of 

NEPA. Although Order 7400.2 has been 

updated, it only addresses ATO-specific 

NextGen activities. 

One commenter stated that the 

NextGen EMS text in the policy 

paragraph seems out of place unless it 

explains how an EMS can be used in 

meeting the FAA’s NEPA requirements. 

The policy statement in Order 

1050.1F highlights the FAA’s policies 

with regard to NEPA compliance and 

other environmental responsibilities. 

Since the last revision of FAA Order 

1050.1E in 2006, the FAA has begun 

implementation of NextGen. As a result, 

NextGen concepts, including NextGen 

EMS, have been included in the policy 

statement of FAA Order 1050.1F. The 

FAA has included the reference to the 

NextGen EMS in the policy statement 

because the NextGen EMS is a new 

approach to improve the integration of 

environmental performance into the 

planning, decision-making, and 

operation of NextGen, which is 

consistent with the goals of NEPA. More 

information on how the EMS approach, 

in general, can be used in the NEPA 

process is contained in Paragraph 2–3.3. 

One commenter stated that the 

NextGen EMS is conceived simply as a 

tool to track the environmental impacts 

of NextGen deployment to ensure its 

beneficial impacts will support 

sustained aviation growth. 

Based on the comment, it seems there 

is a misunderstanding of the NextGen 

EMS program. The NextGen EMS 

provides the framework for improving 

NextGen’s environmental performance 

by integrating environmental 

considerations into the planning, 

decision-making, and operation of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44215 

NextGen to achieve environmental 

protection that allows sustained 

aviation growth and is not a tool to track 

environmental impacts of NextGen 

deployment as the commenter has 

suggested. 

One commenter questioned how the 

check and act portion of NextGen EMS 

is being implemented relative to the 

airport stakeholders and how does it 

affect the NEPA process? 

The check and act portion of NextGen 

EMS does not apply to airport 

stakeholders or their actions. The 

NextGen EMS is a strategic application 

of the EMS approach (Plan-Do-CheckAdapt), and is being used to integrate 

environmental considerations into FAA 

decision-making. The check and act 

portion of NextGen EMS pertains to the 

FAA’s ‘check’ for progress against the 

goals articulated in our Environmental 

and Energy Policy Statement. The FAA 

plans to use the results of the ‘check’ to 

inform and ‘adapt’ its programs and 

policies as needed. The NextGen EMS 

helps to inform the FAA’s 

implementation of NEPA. 

In contrast, the Order identifies how 

EMSs can be integrated within NEPA. 

For instance, EMS data collection, 

tracking, and analysis may be useful in 

the preparation of NEPA 

documentation, including providing 

input to the affected environment and 

assessment of potential impacts (see 

Paragraph 2–3.3). EMSs can also be 

useful in tracking and monitoring 

mitigation commitments (see Paragraph 

4–4.d). 

Using this approach, an airport EMS 

could not only provide data useful in 

the analysis within a NEPA document, 

but also could be used to help monitor 

any mitigation commitments that are 

agreed to in implementing a proposed 

action. However, the use of an EMS 

approach in this context is not a NEPA 

requirement. 

Paragraph 1–9. Applicability and Scope 

One commenter was concerned about 

the effective date of the Order and how 

it would be applied to ongoing activities. 

Order 1050.1F will be effective on the 

date the final Order is published in the 

Federal Register. Order 1050.1F applies 

to the extent practicable to ongoing 

activities and environmental documents 

that began before the effective date, but 

only to those that do not require 

substantial revisions. Additional text 

has been added to Paragraph 1–9 to 

emphasize that procedures contained in 

this Order should not apply to ongoing 

environmental reviews where 

substantial revisions to ongoing 

environmental documents would be 

required. 

Chapter 2. National Environmental 

Policy Act Planning and Integration 

Paragraph 2–1. Applicability of 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Procedures to Federal Aviation 

Administration Actions 

Paragraph 2–1.1. Federal Aviation 

Administration Actions Subject to 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Review 

One commenter asked what Federal 

actions the FAA would take that it views 

it does not have ‘‘sufficient control and 

responsibility to condition a license or 

approval?’’ 

This language has been modified to 

‘‘authority to condition a permit, 

license, or approval’’ (see Paragraph 1– 

9). It is well-settled law that the 

provisions of NEPA apply only to 

discretionary Federal actions. The 

language of Paragraph 1–9 of the Order 

expresses this requirement for Federal 

discretion and decisional authority 

within the typical program and project 

paradigm of FAA actions. This general 

statement of applicability of the CEQ 

Regulations and this Order is clarified 

further through a series of more specific, 

though not exhaustive, examples of 

discretionary actions taken routinely by 

the FAA (see Paragraph 2–1.1). 

Neither Paragraph 1–9 nor Paragraph 

2–1.1 was intended to definitively 

identify the complete universe of 

actions over which the FAA does or 

does not have authority to condition a 

permit, license, or approval. The FAA 

has modified this text to make it clear 

that these actions are (1) directly 

undertaken by the FAA; and (2) 

undertaken by a non-Federal entity 

where the FAA has authority to 

condition a permit, license, or approval. 

One commenter requested emphasis 

on ‘‘major Federal action’’ as a 

requirement triggering NEPA review. 

The commenter stated that without 

clarifying that FAA actions subject to 

NEPA review must constitute ‘‘major 

Federal action’’ and otherwise meet the 

requirements triggering NEPA review, 

Paragraph 2–1.1 could be interpreted 

that the listed actions are subject to 

NEPA review regardless of whether the 

statutory triggers have been satisfied. 

The FAA does not interpret ‘‘major 

Federal action’’ as a limitation on the 

applicability of NEPA to specific 

Federal actions. The CEQ Regulations at 

40 CFR 1508.18 define a major Federal 

action as ‘‘actions with effects that may 

be major and which are potentially 

subject to Federal control and 

responsibility. Major reinforces but does 

not have a meaning independent of 

significantly (Section 1508.27).’’ 

Therefore, the FAA has not defined the 

concept of a ‘‘major Federal action’’ as 

an initial threshold for determining the 

applicability of NEPA review. 

FAA actions are subject to NEPA 

except as provided in Paragraph 2–1.2 

of Order 1050.1F. FAA actions not 

subject to NEPA include actions that 

applicable Federal law or congressional 

mandate expressly prohibits or makes 

compliance with NEPA impossible, 

actions excepted by CEQ Regulations, 

advisory actions, judicial or 

administrative civil enforcement 

actions, and actions that are done in 

furtherance of NEPA (i.e., development 

and implementation of NEPA 

documents and Orders). 

Paragraph 2–1.2. Federal Aviation 

Administration Actions Not Subject to 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Review 

One commenter stated that NEPA 

should apply to FAA Determinations of 

Hazard or No Hazard to Air Navigation, 

especially when determinations are 

made for wind farms and cell towers. 

Hazard determinations are advisory 

actions under 14 CFR part 77, Safe, 

Efficient Use, and Preservation of the 

Navigable Airspace. As noted by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit in Town of 

Barnstable, Massachusetts v. FAA, 659 

F.3d. 28 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the FAA’s 

determinations under part 77 are not 

legally binding. Furthermore, the Court 

noted that the FAA has no authority to 

countermand an approval of a project 

that the FAA has reviewed under part 

77 or to require changes to such a 

project in response to environmental 

concerns. Because the FAA lacks the 

necessary discretion and control over 

actions reviewed under part 77, the 

most basic requirements for the 

application of NEPA are lacking. 

Therefore, part 77 determinations are 

advisory actions and as such, not 

subject to NEPA. Paragraph 2–1.2 of this 

Order identifies the FAA’s advisory 

actions, including hazard 

determinations under part 77. 

One commenter specified that the 

statement describing administrative 

actions is not clear and recommended 

clarifying whether specific air traffic 

administrative actions (such as air 

space boundary changes) are included 

in Paragraph 2–1.2.d. Administrative 

Actions. 

The statement describing 

administrative actions states that 

administrative actions for compliance 

with NEPA procedures and the 

promulgation of NEPA Orders are not 

subject to NEPA. This would include 

preparation of Order 1050.1F and other 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

similar Orders that provide 

requirements and guidance to NEPA 

practitioners. In addition, it covers 

contractual arrangements for the 

preparation of NEPA documents. 

Specific air traffic actions that would 

fall within Paragraph 2–1.2.d include 

the creation or revision of an air trafficspecific NEPA Order, such as FAA 

Order 7400.2K. In addition, this would 

include administrative actions such as 

hiring a contractor for preparation of a 

NEPA document. 

Air traffic actions, including airspace 

boundary actions, are subject to NEPA 

and Order 1050.1F. Some of these 

actions can be categorically excluded 

under Paragraph 5–6 of this Order and 

would not need preparation of an EA or 

EIS. If these actions are not within the 

scope of a CATEX, or there is a potential 

for extraordinary circumstances, an EA 

or EIS may need to be prepared. 

Paragraph 2–2. Responsibilities 

Paragraph 2–2.1. Responsibilities of the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Paragraph 2–2.1.a. General FAA 

Responsibilities 

One commenter stated that special 

purpose laws should be noted as an 

FAA responsibility. 

Special purpose laws are already 

covered under Paragraph 2–2.1.a(1) that 

includes ‘‘ensuring compliance with 

NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, this Order, 

and other environmental requirements’’ 

as a general FAA responsibility. The 

FAA did not add additional language to 

specify special purpose laws since these 

are covered under other environmental 

requirements. 

One commenter suggested the Order 

should more clearly note that the 

ultimate decision regarding the NEPA 

document rests with the FAA. For 

instance, the FAA should approve an 

initial scope and make the decision on 

whether or not a NEPA document is 

ready for public review. 

The FAA has the ultimate 

responsibility for complying with 

NEPA. Under Paragraph 2–2.1.a(3) of 

Order 1050.1F, the FAA is responsible 

for ‘‘independently and objectively 

evaluating applicant-submitted 

information and EAs and taking 

responsibility for content and adequacy 

of any such information or documents 

used by the FAA for compliance with 

NEPA or other environmental 

requirements.’’ 

Each FAA LOB/SO may provide for 

specific procedures when working with 

applicants on the level of review and 

approval throughout the process (i.e., 

scope of work, studies, etc.). Applicants 

are encouraged to coordinate with the 

appropriate FAA offices to ensure 

complete, timely, and efficient 

document preparation. 

Throughout Order 1050.1F, there are 

references to the relationship between 

the FAA and applicants with respect to 

the preparation and content of NEPA 

documents. For instance, Paragraph 6– 

2.2.e of Order 1050.1F states ‘‘[t]he EA 

must present a detailed analysis, to the 

satisfaction of the responsible FAA 

official, commensurate with the level of 

impact of the proposed action and 

alternatives, to determine whether any 

impacts will be significant.’’ This 

denotes that the responsible FAA 

official must be satisfied with the 

analysis contained in the document and 

must accept responsibility for its 

contents. 

Paragraph 6–2.2.g states ‘‘If a draft EA 

is circulated, the responsible FAA 

official, or applicant as directed by the 

FAA, must circulate the draft EA to 

interested agencies and parties, 

including any who submitted comments 

on the proposed action.’’ In this 

particular paragraph, the applicant is 

directed by the FAA when circulating a 

draft EA. 

Although the FAA may not formally 

‘‘approve’’ the EA until a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is prepared, 

the FAA is still working with the 

applicant and/or contractor throughout 

the process and taking responsibility for 

the document’s contents. 

Paragraph 2–2.1.b. Roles of Lines of 

Business/Staff Offices (LOB/SOs) 

One commenter suggested adding a 

reference to the Environmental Desk 

Reference for Airport Actions under 

Office of Airport’s Roles and 

Responsibilities to reinforce use of FAA 

NEPA guidance documents. 

The FAA did not add a reference to 

the Environmental Desk Reference for 

Airport Actions to Paragraph 2– 

2.1.b(2)(g). This paragraph outlines the 

roles and responsibilities of the Office of 

Airports. The inclusion of FAA Order 

5050.4 highlights the supplemental 

explanatory guidance issued by the 

Office of Airports, which is subject to 

FAA Order 1320.1, FAA Directives 

Management, and is adopted and 

revised by the agency through notice 

and comment procedures. The 

Environmental Desk Reference for 

Airport Actions, by contrast, is intended 

to be an aid or manual for practitioners 

in satisfying the requirements of the 

CEQ Regulations, FAA Order 1050.1E, 

FAA Order 5050.4B, and other 

environmental requirements. 

Furthermore, the Environmental Desk 

Reference for Airport Actions does not 

go through the notice and comment 

process as do FAA Orders, nor does it 

fall under FAA Order 1320.1, FAA 

Directives Management. For these 

reasons, it does not warrant being 

included in the roles and 

responsibilities of the Office of Airports 

as enumerated in the paragraph in 

question. 

Paragraph 2–2.1.c. Actions Undertaken 

by the FAA 

One commenter asked what the 

‘‘feasibility analysis (go/no-go) stage’’ is. 

The referenced text was contained in 

Order 1050.1E and is consistent with 

the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1502.5(a)). 

The definition of feasibility is ‘‘capable 

of being done or carried out’’ (MerriamWebster Online Dictionary available at 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/feasible). 

The go/no-go stage is the point at 

which the agency determines: (1) 

Whether an action is available to 

address an identified need or problem, 

and (2) whether to seek resolution of the 

identified need or problem through 

discretionary Federal action. 

Essentially, the referenced paragraph 

is stating that NEPA documentation 

must be done before a decision to 

proceed with a project is made. 

Paragraph 2–2.1.d. FAA Approval of 

Applicant Actions 

One commenter questioned whether 

actions undertaken by an applicant 

should specify that applicants should 

comply with all provisions of this Order 

with regard to documentation required 

by the FAA. 

NEPA is a Federal obligation. Order 

1050.1F contains the NEPA 

implementing procedures for FAA 

actions. It is the responsibility of the 

FAA, not an applicant, to ensure that 

the provisions of this Order have been 

complied with before accepting any 

NEPA documentation prepared by an 

applicant. Paragraph 2–2.1.d, FAA 

Approval of Applicant Actions, states 

that the FAA must advise and assist the 

applicant during preparation of the EA, 

and must independently evaluate and 

take responsibility for the EA to ensure 

that: (1) The applicant’s potential 

conflict of interest does not impair the 

objectivity of the document; and (2) the 

EA meets the requirements of this 

Order. 

Paragraph 2–2.2. Responsibilities of 

Applicants 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA distinguish between signing 

CATEX documentation and approving 

CATEX documentation, since most 

CATEXs are signed by multiple parties, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44217 

and the signatures do not always 

constitute approval. 

The FAA has changed the language 

from ‘‘sign’’ to ‘‘approve’’ for 

clarification. It is important to note that 

the FAA must make the CATEX 

determination; any party other than the 

FAA, including contractors and 

applicants, cannot approve CATEX 

determinations. 

One commenter stated the Order 

indicates only the FAA may prepare the 

CATEX record, and questioned whether 

a consultant working for the FAA can 

support the FAA in preparing the 

written record. 

The commenter is correct that 

applicants and contractors may provide 

data and analysis to assist the FAA in 

determining whether a CATEX applies 

(including whether an extraordinary 

circumstance exists); however, 

applicants and contractors may not 

determine the applicability of CATEXs 

or approve CATEX documentation (as 

indicated in Paragraph 2–2.2). 

Paragraph 2–2.3 Responsibilities of 

Contractors 

One commenter stated that there 

should be disclosure requirements for 

conflicts of interest. In addition, the 

FAA should provide specific examples 

of how a contractor’s objectivity may be 

compromised by its involvement in 

other projects. 

The FAA’s Procurement Toolbox 

Guidance, Section T3.1.7 

Organizational Conflict of Interest, 

dated April 4, 2006, contains the FAA’s 

requirements for conflicts of interest. 

This Order is referenced in Paragraph 2– 

2.1(f)(2). Specific examples are not 

being added to this Order to avoid any 

inconsistencies that would occur if 

T3.1.7 is updated or revised. 

Paragraph 2–3. Planning and 

Integration 

One commenter asked for 

clarification that number of days means 

calendar days and not business days. 

The commenter is correct, when 

referencing number of days throughout 

Order 1050.1F, the FAA means calendar 

days and not business days. For 

instance, the public comment period is 

typically 30 (calendar) days. This 

should be interpreted to be 

approximately one month. 

Paragraph 2–3.1 Early Planning 

One commenter asked for 

clarification on the sentence ‘‘The FAA 

or applicant, as applicable, should 

prepare a list noting all obvious 

environmental resources.’’ The 

commenter asked whether this list is the 

same as the Initial Environmental 

Review (IER) prepared by ATO/NextGen 

and whether ‘‘environmental resources’’ 

is the same as the environmental 

categories from Appendix A of Order 

1050.1E. 

The FAA has modified the sentence 

in Paragraph 2–3.1, Early Planning, to 

state ‘‘[t]he FAA or applicant, as 

applicable, should identify known 

environmental impact categories that 

the proposed action and the alternatives 

could affect, including specially 

protected resources,’’ to make it clear 

that a list does not need to be provided. 

It was not the FAA’s intent to refer to 

the IER prepared by ATO/NextGen. The 

term ‘‘environmental resources’’ was 

also changed to ‘‘environmental impact 

categories’’ throughout the order to 

clarify that the FAA is referring to the 

categories outlined in Paragraph 4–1 of 

this Order. 

Paragraph 2–3.2 Initial Environmental 

Review 

One commenter questioned whether 

the Initial Environmental Review 

paragraph was the same as ATO’s IER 

in Order 7400.2 and/or the same as 

Office of Airport’s CATEX checklist. The 

commenter also indicated the FAA 

should consider adding more 

information regarding the requirements 

for completion of IERs, CATEX 

checklists, or special studies that 

support the applicant’s conclusions 

about the impacts of the proposal. 

The process outlined in Paragraph 2– 

3.2 of this Order is not the same as the 

IER or the CATEX checklist as suggested 

by the commenter. This paragraph 

highlights the steps that the FAA 

responsible official should consider 

when initially looking at a proposed 

project to help identify the potential 

impacts and where these can be 

minimized in project design. This initial 

review helps identify what level of 

NEPA is appropriate, any permits that 

need to be obtained, and which agencies 

the FAA should coordinate with on the 

proposed action. 

The ATO IER and Office of Airports 

CATEX checklist are specific to ATO 

actions and airport improvement actions 

respectively and can aid a NEPA 

practitioner in deciding what level of 

documentation to prepare. Since these 

are specific to the FAA LOB actions, 

information on these tools is 

appropriately discussed in their 

supplemental Orders. 

One commenter suggested that the 

FAA include a statement that an 

applicant or contractor working for an 

applicant should contact the 

responsible FAA official as soon as 

there is sufficient information about the 

project’s design. 

The FAA has decided not to include 

the suggested text. Paragraph 2–3.2 is 

intended to direct the FAA, not an 

applicant, on the sequence of events 

when starting an evaluation of a 

proposed project. The appropriate 

timing of the sequence is dependent on 

the nature of the action and is 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Applicants are encouraged to work with 

the FAA at the earliest stages of project 

development. 

One commenter stated that paragraph 

2–3.2 has caused confusion in the past 

for applicants. They suggested this 

paragraph be reworded to state 

applicants should consider if their 

proposal is likely to trigger adverse 

impacts relative to special purpose laws 

or extraordinary circumstances that 

could be avoided by changes in the 

proposal that would still achieve the 

proposal’s goals and objectives. 

Additionally, they noted avoidance of 

these issues before starting the NEPA 

environmental review process can 

materially reduce the time needed to 

comply with NEPA. 

The FAA agrees that avoidance of 

certain environmental impacts through 

modifications to design in the early 

stages of a project can reduce the overall 

time needed to comply with NEPA. 

However, the FAA has not added the 

language provided by the commenter to 

this paragraph. First, this Order is 

designed for use by FAA NEPA 

practitioners and is not specific to 

applicants. Therefore, it is not 

appropriate to narrow the scope of the 

identified text in a way that appears to 

limit its applicability to project 

applicants. However, applicants are 

encouraged to familiarize themselves 

with the Order’s contents as this will 

often aid the applicant in understanding 

the FAA’s NEPA responsibilities and 

prepare the applicant to assist the FAA 

in the execution of its NEPA 

responsibilities. In addition, Paragraph 

2–3.2 provides guidance to NEPA 

practitioners on what to consider 

initially for a proposed action. It is not 

limited to identification of adverse 

impacts relative to special purpose laws 

and extraordinary circumstances. 

Rather, this paragraph also instructs 

NEPA practitioners to determine 

whether an action is already covered by 

an existing programmatic document or 

is within the scope of a CATEX, and 

instructs NEPA practitioners to identify 

the level of controversy regarding the 

project’s risks of causing environmental 

harm, which can play important roles in 

deciding the level of documentation. 

To address the commenter’s concern 

regarding incorporating mitigation into 

project design, the FAA has added more 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

clarifying language to Paragraph 2–3.6 

of the Order to reflect that applicants 

should work with the FAA to 

incorporate mitigation into project 

design during early planning and ensure 

that mitigation is consistent with the 

project purpose and need. 

One commenter asked for guidance 

on how to determine if previous NEPA 

documents covering the proposed action 

exist. 

Paragraph 2–3.2 states the responsible 

FAA official should initially review 

whether the proposed action is covered 

under an existing NEPA document. 

Since this is an FAA responsibility, and 

has not caused any issues in the past, no 

additional guidance is being prepared. 

The FAA will coordinate with the 

applicant and other Federal agencies to 

determine the existence of relevant 

documents for the proposed action. 

One commenter suggested that 

Paragraph 2–3.2 should emphasize 

‘‘adequately addressed’’ and ‘‘approved 

NEPA document’’ and remove the 

language on broad system, program, or 

regional assessment. 

FAA disagrees with the comment. The 

changes the commenter has 

recommended do not adequately 

capture what the phrase is meant to 

convey. The addition of ‘‘adequately’’ or 

‘‘approved’’ would not be appropriate as 

a practitioner could build on a 

document that was incomplete or was 

never approved. 

Programmatic NEPA documents 

remain a viable approach and may be 

well suited to certain types of projects. 

As such, the FAA has retained the 

language referencing programmatic 

documents in the Order (broad system, 

program, or regional assessment). 

However, a cross reference is provided 

to direct NEPA practitioners to 

Paragraph 3–2 that outlines what a 

programmatic document entails. 

One commenter questioned whether 

‘‘broad system, program, or regional 

assessments’’ are additional terms of 

documentation to meet the FAA’s NEPA 

compliance such as CATEX checklist, 

IER, EA or EIS. 

The terms ‘‘broad system, program, 

and regional assessment’’ refer to 

programmatic documents. The only 

terms of documentation to meet the 

FAA’s NEPA compliance are CATEXs, 

EAs, and EISs. Other terms such as 

CATEX checklist, IER, and types of 

programmatic documents (including 

broad system, program, or regional 

assessments), are specific CATEX, EA, 

or EIS documentation choices. 

Paragraph 2–3.2.b(2) Cumulative 

Actions 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

has traditionally applied cumulative 

impact philosophy to CATEXs, IERs, 

and EAs and therefore shouldn’t the 

general term ‘‘NEPA documentation’’ be 

applied rather than limiting it to EISs. 

The commenter may be confusing 

cumulative impacts and cumulative 

actions. Cumulative impacts must be 

evaluated for CATEXs, EAs, and EISs to 

determine the potential for significance. 

However, in this text we are referring to 

cumulative actions, which by definition 

have significant impacts, and thus 

would be discussed only in an EIS. 

One commenter recommended the 

Order use the definition for cumulative 

actions from the CEQ Regulations at 40 

CFR 1508.7. 

The regulations cited by the 

commenter define the term ‘‘cumulative 

impact,’’ which is different from the 

concept of cumulative actions. 

‘‘Cumulative impacts’’ are impacts on 

the environment which result from the 

incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions (see CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative actions are 

discussed in regard to determining the 

scope of an EIS and are actions ‘‘which 

when viewed with other proposed 

actions have cumulatively significant 

impacts,’’ and should be addressed in a 

single EIS (see 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2)). 

The Order discusses the scope of NEPA 

documents, and with respect to 

cumulative actions, mirrors the 

language in the CEQ Regulations at 40 

CFR 1508.25(a)(2). Cumulative impacts 

are discussed in Paragraph 4–2.d(3) of 

Order 1050.1F. A cross reference for the 

discussion on cumulative impacts 

(Paragraph 4–2.d(3)) has been added to 

Paragraph 2–3.2.b(2) to help avoid any 

confusion. 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA should clarify what kinds of 

proposed actions should be considered 

when determining cumulative actions. 

The referenced text is the same as the 

language used in 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2) 

of the CEQ Regulations. Any proposed 

actions whose impacts affect similar 

resources should be considered to 

determine if the impacts, when 

considered cumulatively, are significant 

and therefore should be addressed in a 

single EIS. Further guidance on the 

consideration of cumulative impacts is 

provided in the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Paragraph 2–3.2.b(3) Similar Actions 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA include additional guidance on the 

criteria used to identify similar 

geography and timing. 

The text in the Order regarding 

‘‘similar actions’’ is based upon the 

language of Section 1508.25(a)(3) of the 

CEQ Regulations. The FAA does not 

have specific criteria to identify similar 

actions. Consistent with the CEQ 

Regulations, reasonable judgment 

should be applied to determine if 

actions have similarities that provide a 

basis for evaluating their environmental 

consequences together, such as common 

timing or geography. 

Paragraph 2–3.3 Environmental 

Management System Approach 

One commenter stressed that, unlike 

EMS, NEPA does not require either 

‘‘continual improvement in 

environmental performance’’ or 

selection of an alternative that makes 

progress towards that goal. 

The FAA acknowledges that NEPA is 

a procedural statute that does not 

mandate ‘‘continual improvement in 

environmental performance.’’ The FAA 

has revised Paragraph 2–3.3 of the Order 

to more appropriately describe the role 

that EMS can play in the NEPA process. 

The final Order removes emphasis from 

the EMS concepts of continual 

improvement in environmental 

performance and selection of an 

alternative that makes progress towards 

a specific environmental goal, and 

instead emphasizes how EMS can be 

integrated and utilized for 

environmental analysis and project 

decisions. 

Paragraph 2–3.4. Reducing Paperwork 

One commenter suggested adding 

more detail to the reducing paperwork 

paragraph by adding information on 

FAA Order 1000.36, FAA’s Writing 

Standards, CEQ’s Handbook for 

Integrating NEPA and Section 106, and 

further guidance on joint document 

preparation. 

The referenced text is derived from 40 

CFR 1500.4 of the CEQ Regulations and 

has been provided to remind 

individuals how they can reduce the 

length of NEPA documents and reduce 

paperwork generated when complying 

with NEPA. Generally speaking, the 

FAA has chosen not to elaborate on 

these principles in Order 1050.1F. 

However, Paragraph 2–6 of Order 

1050.1F provides more information on 

plain language. 

The FAA does not have specific 

guidance on the preparation of joint 

documents. However, guidance on joint 

document preparation can be found on 

CEQ’s Web site. 

One commenter stated that measures 

to reduce paperwork should apply to all 

NEPA documents, not just EISs. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44219 

The FAA agrees and has added a 

statement that the FAA applies 

paperwork reduction measures to all 

NEPA documents. 

Paragraph 2–3.6 Mitigation 

One commenter stated that the Order 

should require, not just urge, the 

responsible FAA official to take 

mitigation into account in project design 

to avoid and mitigate environmental 

harm. 

The Order addresses mitigation as it 

applies both to incorporation into 

project design and to address 

unavoidable environmental impacts. 

The FAA recognizes, however, that the 

facts of each individual project will 

dictate the availability and 

appropriateness of mitigation for 

incorporation into project design. For 

that reason, the FAA has included 

language in the Order that encourages, 

but does not require, incorporation of 

mitigation into project design. 

One commenter recommended adding 

clarification that mitigation should be 

incorporated into project design only in 

so much as it does not diminish the 

purpose of and need for the project. The 

commenter also stated that Paragraph 

2–3.6 of the draft Order 1050.1F ‘‘can be 

construed by a lay reader to mean that 

‘environmental harm’ is always a factor 

in meeting purpose and need. Is 

‘environmental harm’ the same as 

‘environmental significant impact?’ 

‘Harm’ can be construed as any type of 

environmental change that may not 

necessarily be significant.’’ 

The FAA interprets the comment 

regarding whether environmental harm 

is a factor in meeting purpose and need 

to mean that the commenter is 

concerned that mitigation incorporated 

into project design could change the 

agency’s approach to defining purpose 

and need. The FAA has not intended to 

suggest that a desire to mitigate 

environmental impacts should 

undermine the purpose and need of a 

proposed action. The FAA has modified 

Paragraph 2–3.6 of the final Order to 

emphasize that mitigation incorporated 

into project design should be consistent 

with the purpose and need of the 

project. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

question of whether environmental 

harm is the same as environmental 

significant impact, this paragraph was 

not intended to limit use of mitigation 

only in the case of a significant impact, 

as mitigation can be used to reduce any 

impacts whether or not they are 

significant. The FAA has edited 

Paragraph 2–3.6 to remove the term 

‘‘environmental harm’’ to avoid any 

confusion between harm and impacts. 

One commenter suggested the FAA 

highlight that costs should be taken into 

account when decisions are being made 

to incorporate mitigation. 

Whether or not to include discussion 

of the costs of mitigation within the 

environmental documentation is 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Therefore, the requested text changes 

regarding discussion of mitigation costs 

have not been included in 1050.1F. 

One commenter suggested that the 

term mitigation should be reserved 

specifically for actions to address 

unavoidable environmental impacts and 

not for avoidance measures built into 

the project design. 

The concept of mitigation measures 

incorporated into project design is based 

on CEQ’s guidance on Appropriate use 

of Mitigation and Monitoring and 

Clarifying the Appropriate use of 

Mitigated Findings of No Significant 

Impact, 76 Federal Register 3843 

(January 21, 2011). 

The guidance distinguishes mitigation 

incorporated into project design from 

other types of mitigation measures that 

can be, but may not be, adopted when 

the proposed project is implemented. 

Mitigation measures incorporated in 

project design, by their nature, are 

measures that will be implemented. 

In addition, mitigation as defined 

under 40 CFR 1508.20 includes 

‘‘avoiding the impact altogether by not 

taking a certain action or part of an 

action.’’ This further supports not 

limiting mitigation to unavoidable 

impacts. 

Once commenter suggested including 

mention of the applicant and 

contractor(s) when coordinating 

mitigation. 

In response to the comment, FAA has 

added ‘‘[F]or projects involving an 

applicant, the FAA will coordinate 

proposed mitigation with the 

applicant.’’ FAA did not mention the 

contractor since the contractor is not 

implementing the mitigation. However, 

the applicant and the FAA will work 

with contractors to ensure that 

mitigation measures are described 

adequately in a NEPA document. 

Paragraph 2–4. Coordination 

Paragraph 2–4.2 Lead and Cooperating 

Agencies 

Paragraph 2–4.2.b Cooperating Agency 

Invitation 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should require, not merely urge, the 

FAA NEPA lead to ask state and local 

agencies with special expertise or 

jurisdiction to be cooperating agencies. 

Cooperating Agency status is a 

specific status that establishes a formal 

relationship between entities to 

cooperate in the preparation of a NEPA 

document for a proposed action. The 

CEQ Regulations state that ‘‘a state or 

local agency of similar qualifications or, 

when the effects are on a reservation, an 

Indian tribe, may by agreement with the 

lead agency become a cooperating 

agency.’’ Paragraph 2–4.2.b is consistent 

with Sections 1501.6 and 1508.5 of the 

CEQ Regulations. While Cooperating 

Agency status for state and local 

agencies with special expertise or 

jurisdiction is not required in the Order, 

the FAA notes that Paragraph 2–4.3 

requires the responsible FAA official, 

when appropriate, to consult affected 

Federal and state agencies, tribes, and 

local units of government early in the 

NEPA process. 

Paragraph 2–4.2.c Role as a 

Cooperating Agency 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should emphasize close involvement 

and coordination with the lead agency 

throughout the coordination process to 

ensure that the FAA’s views as a 

cooperating agency are reflected and 

requirements are met, therefore 

reducing the delay of the project. 

The FAA has modified the text to in 

Paragraph 2–4.2.c to clarify that active 

communication with the lead agency 

early and often in the NEPA process can 

help to ensure that the FAA’s views are 

adequately incorporated in the 

environmental document. 

Paragraph 2–4.3 Intergovernmental 

and Interagency Coordination 

One commenter stated the Order 

should more clearly define the 

circumstances when consultation with 

Federal and state agencies, tribes, and 

local units of government is appropriate 

and identify any exceptions. 

The Order states that the FAA must 

consult with affected Federal and state 

agencies, tribes, and local units of 

government ‘‘when appropriate.’’ The 

basis for concluding that consultation is 

appropriate with another Federal or 

state agency, tribe, or local unit of 

government depends upon the specific 

facts of each project. The need and 

extent of consultation depend in part 

upon the existence of resources or 

impacts that implicate special purpose 

laws or other requirements. Due to the 

highly fact-specific nature of this 

inquiry, Order 1050.1F should not 

attempt to define specifically when it is 

or is not necessary and appropriate to 

undertake consultation. The decision as 

to when and with whom to consult is 

made on a case-by-case basis. 

Consultation and coordination with 

Federal and state agencies, local 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

governments, and Tribes is strongly 

encouraged throughout the Order and 

when required has been specified. The 

1050.1F Desk Reference details more 

information on consultation and 

coordination with non-FAA entities 

under each environmental impact 

category. 

One commenter stated the Order 

should reference Federal guidance on 

concurrent agency consultation such as 

CEQ’s NEPA and NHPA—A Handbook 

for Integrating NEPA and Section 106. 

The 1050.1F Desk Reference contains 

specific guidance on consultation 

processes. This guidance is provided in 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference, as opposed 

to Order 1050.1F, so it can be easily 

updated if other agencies modify 

procedures or processes. 

Paragraph 2–4.4 Tribal Consultation 

One commenter questioned whether 

the need for government-to-government 

consultation applies to all tribes or just 

federally-recognized tribes? 

Government-to-government 

consultation applies to tribes as defined 

in Paragraph 11–5.b(14) of the Order, 

which specifies that tribes are those 

recognized under the Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 

1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a. 

Paragraph 2–5. Public Involvement 

Two commenters stated that the 

Order does not provide clear 

descriptions of public notification and 

involvement requirements for each of 

the levels of environmental review, 

including the timing and extent of 

public involvement expected or required 

for CATEXs, EAs, and EISs. 

The Order discusses public 

involvement in various sections. The 

FAA has provided more discussion in 

these sections to help prevent any 

confusion on public involvement in 

NEPA processes. The following 

discussion is intended to further explain 

what requirements are applicable and 

where to find these in the Order. 

The FAA encourages public 

involvement in various ways depending 

on the type of action and the potential 

for impacts. This Order makes the 

public involvement process as flexible 

as possible for case-by-case 

determination. Depending on the type of 

action and where it is located, it may be 

better to conduct early scoping 

meetings, solicit public comments on a 

draft document either through comment 

solicitation or through public meetings, 

or do a combination of these and other 

approaches. 

It is important to distinguish between 

public notification and public comment 

to avoid confusion regarding these 

public involvement concepts and their 

associated requirements. Public 

notification makes a NEPA document 

available to the public, whereas public 

comment invites the public to not only 

review the document but also to provide 

comments. 

The Order addresses the various 

public involvement topics as follows: 

In Paragraph 2–5, the FAA provides a 

limited discussion of public 

involvement, including timing, to 

encourage planning of public 

involvement at the early stages of a 

project’s consideration. This paragraph 

then refers the reader to the applicable 

public involvement paragraphs for EAs 

and EISs elsewhere in the Order. 

Paragraph 5–4 of the Order makes it 

clear that public notification of a 

CATEX is not a requirement, but may be 

encouraged in certain circumstances. 

There is no prescribed form for 

notification in those instances where the 

FAA decides to undertake public 

notification of a CATEX. 

Paragraph 6–2.2.b specifies that when 

preparing EAs, the FAA or applicant 

must involve the public, to the extent 

practicable. Paragraph 6–2.2.g refers to 

circulation of the draft EA for public 

comment. This Order leaves flexibility 

as to the type and extent of public 

involvement provided for EAs beyond 

the minimum requirement of public 

notification under 40 CFR 1506.6(b) of 

the CEQ Regulations. Strategic planning 

is needed to successfully integrate 

public involvement in the EA process. 

Paragraph 6–3.d identifies specific 

circumstances where a 30-day public 

review period is required for EAs and 

FONSIs. 

Paragraph 6–3.d states that the FAA 

or applicant must make the EA and 

FONSI available to the public. The title 

of this paragraph has been modified to 

remove the reference to ‘‘and review’’ so 

that it is not confused with public 

comment periods. 

Paragraph 7–1.2.c states that scoping 

is required for EISs. The FAA’s scoping 

process is dependent on the type of 

action and project complexity. 

Paragraph 7–1.2.d states the draft EIS 

must be made available for public 

review and comment and identifies that 

public meetings may be held to discuss 

comments on the draft document. 

Paragraph 7–1.2.b states that the FAA 

must prepare a Notice of Intent which 

includes an overview of the proposed 

action, the alternatives being considered 

(including no action), and the name and 

address of the FAA official who can 

answer questions about the proposed 

action and EIS. Paragraph 7–1.2.i states 

that the final EIS, comments received, 

and supporting documents must be 

made available to the public. Paragraph 

7–2.1.e states that there must be a 

notification of the availability of the 

ROD. 

Paragraph 2–5.1. Timing and Extent of 

Public Involvement 

One commenter requested that the 

extent of early coordination should 

depend on not only project complexity, 

degree of Federal involvement, and 

anticipated environmental impacts of 

the proposed action, but also the 

requirements of applicable special 

purpose laws. In addition, the 

commenter suggested replacing the term 

‘‘sensitivity’’ with the phrase ‘‘the 

potential for a project to be highly 

controversial on environmental 

grounds.’’ 

Paragraph 2–5.1 deals with the timing 

and extent of public involvement. The 

existing text in this paragraph 

encompasses the requirements of 

applicable special purpose laws, which 

are discussed in more detail under 

Paragraph 2–5.2.a. 

Replacing ‘‘sensitivity’’ with ‘‘highly 

controversial on environmental 

grounds’’ does not adequately capture 

the full range of situations in which 

early coordination with the public 

should be considered. 

One commenter is concerned that the 

wording of Paragraph 2–5.1 will not 

allow the public and resource agencies 

to provide meaningful input into the 

preparation of an EA. The commenter 

specifically requested that the following 

text be added, ‘‘[F]or an EA, this [early 

coordination] would normally occur 

when the sponsor’s early planning 

information is sufficient to describe the 

proposed action and a preliminary 

scope of the actions’ expected 

environmental impacts. For an EIS, this 

[early coordination] would occur during 

the scoping process.’’ 

Paragraph 2–5.1 requires the FAA or 

applicant to provide pertinent 

information to the affected communities 

and agencies and to consider their 

opinions at the earliest appropriate 

time. This paragraph also indicates that 

the extent of early coordination depends 

on the complexity, sensitivity, degree of 

Federal involvement, and anticipated 

environmental impacts. This language is 

designed to be flexible so that public 

involvement can be tailored to the 

specific facts of each proposal, rather 

than creating a rigid approach that may 

not be reflective of the unique 

circumstances surrounding each 

proposed action. The FAA has taken 

this flexible approach to ensure 

meaningful, yet project-appropriate 

public and agency input early in the 

NEPA process. For this reason, the FAA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44221 

has declined to make the requested text 

changes in Paragraph 2–5.1. To avoid 

confusion regarding the timing and 

extent of public involvement for EAs 

versus EISs, the FAA has provided 

cross-references to the specific 

paragraphs where this information is 

contained in the Order. Additional 

information on public involvement for 

EAs is provided in Paragraph 6–2.2.b. 

Additional information on public 

involvement for EISs is provided in 

Paragraph 7–1.2. 

Paragraph 2–5.2. Federal Aviation 

Administration Requirements for Public 

Involvement 

Paragraph 2–5.2.b. Environmental 

Justice 

One commenter asked what form of 

notification is considered acceptable to 

notify potentially affected minority and/ 

or low income populations and whether 

this requirement applies to actions 

initiated by airport sponsors. 

This requirement is based on 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, 59 Federal Register 7629 

(February 16, 1994), and DOT Order 

5610.2(a), Environmental Justice, 77 FR 

27534 (May 10, 2012), which require the 

FAA to provide for meaningful public 

involvement by minority and lowincome populations. The requirement to 

notify potentially affected minority and/ 

or low income populations was 

provided in FAA Order 1050.1E at 

Paragraphs 209d and 16.1a. The FAA 

must ensure that its NEPA process 

provides public involvement 

opportunities for disproportionately 

affected low-income and minority 

populations to comply with Executive 

Order 12898 and DOT Order 5610.2(a). 

If the action initiated by an airport 

sponsor or other applicant requires a 

Federal decision (permit, license, etc.), 

then the need to notify potentially 

affected minority and/or low-income 

populations applies. Any form of 

notification is acceptable as long as it is 

effective for the population and every 

effort was made to inform the affected 

community. Decisions regarding what 

form of notification to use will be based, 

in part, upon the level of community 

interest and the complexity of the 

concerns. It is important to involve the 

appropriate stakeholders to ensure 

effective notification. Such stakeholders 

may include, but are not limited to: 

community and neighborhood groups; 

community service organizations; 

environmental organizations; local 

industry and business; religious 

communities; not-for-profit and nongovernmental organizations; and 

government agencies (Federal, state, 

county, local and tribal). Notification 

options include, but are not limited to: 

direct mailings of fact sheets or 

community updates (a mailing list 

should be developed); distribution of 

materials to and through community 

centers and local government offices 

and groups; local newspaper notices 

(preferably appearing on a regular news 

page, not in the legal/public notice 

section); and press releases or public 

service announcements issued to local 

media. 

Paragraph 2–5.3 Public Meetings, 

Workshops, and Hearings 

Several commenters stated public 

involvement, including meetings, 

hearings, notice, and comment periods, 

should be required, not merely urged. 

The FAA’s public involvement 

requirements are consistent with CEQ’s 

requirements for public notice and 

comment. The level of public 

involvement required by the Order is 

commensurate with the level of 

potential significant impacts. The need 

to prepare public notices and convene 

meetings, workshops, and hearings is 

determined on a case-by-case basis 

depending on the type of action, the 

scope and degree of certainty of 

impacts, the complexity of issues, the 

potential for significant impacts, and 

other considerations. Paragraphs 5–4, 6– 

2.2, and 7–1.2 of the Order outline 

specific requirements for CATEXs, EAs, 

and EISs respectively. While the Order 

requires FAA NEPA practitioners to 

meet the requirements for public 

involvement as set forth in the CEQ 

Regulations, the Order also encourages 

a thoughtful public involvement 

approach that is tailored to the facts and 

circumstances of each individual project 

subject to NEPA review. 

One commenter questioned the 

following regarding public involvement: 

(1) How the FAA differentiates between 

a hearing and a public meeting; (2) how 

a public meeting differs from a 

workshop; and (3) if an open house is 

also an acceptable form of public 

involvement. 

A public hearing is an official 

proceeding required under various laws. 

It is a formal process that has a 

designated public hearing officer who 

presides over the meeting and a court 

reporter present to compile a transcript 

of all oral comments. 

A public meeting is a less formal 

meeting than a public hearing. Public 

meetings can vary in their structure and 

approach to best facilitate public 

involvement. Public meetings can 

include workshops or open houses that 

allow the public to ask questions and 

get clarifications on the proposed action 

and NEPA process. 

One commenter asked for 

clarification regarding public hearings. 

The commenter questioned: (1) Whether 

a designated official must preside over 

a public hearing; (2) whether a formal 

court reporter and preparation of a 

transcript is required; (3) how meeting 

notices should be advertised; and (4) 

whether meeting materials need to be 

provided in advance. 

When holding a public hearing, a 

designated official must preside over a 

public hearing and a court reporter must 

be present to compile a transcript of the 

hearing. This language has been added 

to Paragraph 2–5.3.b to clarify the 

requirements of a public hearing. 

Notice of a public meeting or hearing 

should be published at least 30 days 

prior to the event. Notice of actions 

having national implications must be 

published in the Federal Register and 

mailed to national organizations having 

an interest in the matter. Other methods 

of notifying the public about public 

meetings or hearings include: 

Newspaper ads, direct mailings, notices 

on the FAA Web site, and other 

notification methods reasonably 

accessible by the public. If the purpose 

of the public meeting is to obtain 

comments on draft NEPA documents, 

those documents should be made 

available for public review at least 30 

days before the event. While other 

materials may be utilized during the 

public meeting or hearing to help 

explain the proposed action and/or the 

NEPA document, only the draft NEPA 

document must be made available for 

public review in advance of the public 

hearing or meeting. Paragraph 2–5.3.b of 

Order 1050.1F provides further details 

on public meetings, hearings, and 

public notification of such, including 

the information the public hearing/

meeting notice. 

One commenter asked whether 

workshops or open houses are sufficient 

to meet the requirement for public 

involvement since they are not 

specifically referenced. 

Workshops and open houses are 

forms of public meetings and are 

therefore sufficient for public 

involvement for NEPA purposes, but in 

certain instances other applicable 

requirements regarding public outreach 

may exist. For example, 49 U.S.C. 

47106(c)(1)(A)(i) requires an 

opportunity for a public hearing where 

a project involves the location of an 

airport, runway, or a major runway 

extension. If a hearing were requested, 

a NEPA workshop or open house alone 

would not satisfy the statute’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

requirement that a hearing be provided 

when requested. Even where no other 

public involvement requirement is 

applicable, the type of public 

involvement appropriate in the NEPA 

context will vary depending on the 

nature of the action and the potential for 

impacts. Strategic planning is needed to 

successfully integrate public 

participation in the NEPA process. 

Paragraph 2–7. Limitations on Actions 

Involving Real Property Prior to 

Completing National Environmental 

Policy Act Review 

One commenter asked the FAA to 

clarify whether discussion with property 

owners would be considered formal 

contact. 

The purpose of this paragraph is to 

prevent formal action to acquire 

property, including any offer to 

purchase property, before NEPA is 

completed. The text in this discussion 

has been modified to replace the phrase 

‘‘formal contact with the property 

owner’’ with the phrase ‘‘formal action 

to acquire the property.’’ Therefore, 

discussion alone would not be 

considered ‘‘formal action to acquire the 

property.’’ 

One commenter requested the 

exception for further engineering study 

be expanded for other environmental 

investigations. 

The prohibition in Paragraph 2–7.b on 

formal action to acquire property for the 

purpose of conducting other 

environmental investigations is already 

provided by the circumstance provided 

in Paragraph 2–7.b(2) that states that 

‘‘obtaining rights-of-way for such 

purposes as preparation for site testing, 

obtaining data, property surveys, etc.’’ is 

permissible. Site testing and obtaining 

data would include environmental 

investigations. 

Chapter 3: Levels of National 

Environmental Policy Act Review 

Paragraph 3–1. Three Levels of National 

Environmental Policy Act Review 

Paragraph 3–1.2 Actions Normally 

Requiring an Environmental Assessment 

One commenter suggested the 

language in the introduction to 

Paragraph 3–1.2 be expanded to 

indicate that ‘‘human environment’’ 

also includes natural resources. 

As stated in Paragraph 11–5.b(7) of 

the Order, the definition for human 

environment includes natural resources. 

Because this term is already defined and 

includes natural resources, the FAA has 

not added language to the introduction 

of Paragraph 3–1.2 as requested by the 

commenter. 

One commenter questioned whether it 

was accurate that acquisition of 

property greater than three acres that 

requires construction of new office 

buildings and essentially similar FAA 

facilities requires an EA [Paragraph 3– 

1.2.b(1)]. The commenter also asked 

whether an EA is required if the land 

was undeveloped or if the size of the 

building would matter. 

This example of actions normally 

requiring an EA was included in 

Paragraph 401a of Order 1050.1E and 

has not been modified in this update. 

The acquisition of land of more than 

three acres for construction of a building 

would require an EA under Order 

1050.1F. This is irrespective of whether 

it is developed or undeveloped land and 

the size of the building. 

However, not all acquisition of land 

over three acres requires an EA. 

Paragraph 5–6.4.b allows for acquisition 

of land and relocation associated with a 

categorically excluded action. Paragraph 

5–6.4.bb allows for acquisition of land 

for an RPZ or other aeronautical 

purposes provided there is no land 

disturbance and it does not require 

extensive business or residential 

relocations. 

Actions that normally require an EA 

are actions that do not fall within the 

scope of a CATEX and normally do not 

require an EIS. In order for an agency to 

create a CATEX, the agency must make 

a determination that these types of 

actions do not individually or 

cumulatively, absent extraordinary 

circumstances, have significant impacts. 

The limitations within a CATEX are 

based on FAA experience and can only 

be modified if the FAA provides 

justification for the modifications. 

One commenter asked the FAA to 

clarify what type of NEPA 

documentation is required for fuel 

storage and distribution systems. The 

commenter specifically asked, for 

example, whether 400 Hz power at gates 

would require an EA, and whether 

creation of hydrant fueling in aprons 

requires an EA. 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(5) states 

establishment of FAA housing, 

sanitation systems, fuel storage and 

distribution systems, and power source 

and distribution systems normally 

require an EA. Actions that are not 

within the scope of a CATEX will 

require the preparation of an EA. With 

respect to documentation required for 

fuel storage and distribution systems, 

the FAA has established CATEX 5–6.4.u 

for the installation, repair, or 

replacement of fuel storage tanks. The 

CATEX specifically states it does not 

include the establishment of bulk fuel 

storage and the associated distribution 

systems. 

If a tank within a fuel storage 

distribution system is being replaced or 

repaired, the action would still be 

within the scope of the CATEX. 

However, if a distribution system is 

being established, the potential for 

significant impacts increases and an EA 

must be prepared. For determination of 

whether a particular project is within 

the scope of the CATEX 5–6.4.u, please 

see the CATEX Justification Package 

available on the FAA’s Web site at: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/

media/C-CATEX_Justification_

Package.pdf. 

With respect to the specific situations 

provided by the commenter, to the 

extent that these actions are within the 

scope of existing CATEXs and do not 

involve extraordinary circumstances, 

these actions would not require an EA. 

The FAA has not removed any CATEXs 

with this update to FAA Order 1050.1E. 

However, more information would be 

needed to determine if these types of 

actions are within the scope of existing 

CATEXs. 

One commenter asked for 

clarification on how FAA determines 

‘‘significantly increased air emissions’’ 

in Paragraph 3–1.2.b(11). The 

commenter stated that the FAA’s 

threshold of significant impact is an 

exceedance of the NAAQS, which is 

different from an increase in air 

emissions. 

FAA has revised the language in this 

paragraph to state ‘‘actions that may 

cause significant impacts to noise, air 

quality, or other environmental impact 

categories.’’ Chapter 4 of the Order 

provides the information necessary to 

determine whether an action may cause 

significant impacts to noise, air quality, 

or other environmental impact 

categories. 

One commenter stated that 

commercial space actions [Paragraph 3– 

1.2.b(15)] should be categorized as 

actions typically requiring an EIS 

because both the frequency and 

duration of commercial space launches 

could have significant impacts to 

adjacent wildlife resources. 

Based upon the agency’s experience, 

there is no evidence that the types of 

commercial space actions described in 

Paragraph 3–1.2.b(15) ‘‘typically’’ have 

significant impacts to wildlife that 

require review in an EIS. As is always 

the case, each proposed project is 

examined to determine the appropriate 

level of NEPA review based upon the 

proposed action’s specific facts. With 

respect to the type of commercial space 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44223 

actions described in Paragraph 3– 

1.2.b(15) of the Order, the FAA 

examines the frequency of the launches 

as well as the duration of these 

launches, among other considerations, 

to determine if there would be 

significant impacts. If significant 

impacts are reasonably foreseeable, an 

EIS would be required. 

Paragraph 3–1.3. Actions Normally 

Requiring an Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Two commenters asked for 

clarification on the definition of a major 

runway extension and why a major 

runway extension requires an EIS when 

runway extensions and runway 

strengthening only require an EA per the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act 

(AAIA). 

The AAIA does not contain any 

provisions identifying the type of NEPA 

documentation required for specific 

types of airport development actions. 

There is a distinction between a 

runway extension and a major runway 

extension. Major runway extension has 

been defined by the FAA’s Office of 

Airports as a runway extension that 

causes a significant adverse 

environmental impact to any affected 

environmental resource (e.g., wetland, 

floodplain, historic property, etc.). This 

includes, but is not limited to, causing 

noise sensitive areas in the Day-Night 

Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 decibel 

(dB) contour to experience at least a 

DNL 1.5 dB noise increase when 

compared to the no action alternative 

for the same time frame (see Paragraph 

9.1l(1) of 5050.4B). 

To the extent that a runway extension 

causes a significant impact, that runway 

extension would be considered a major 

runway extension and an EIS would be 

required. 

One commenter questioned why the 

list of actions under Paragraph 3–1.3, 

Actions Normally Requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement, does 

not have any associated air traffic 

operation actions. 

The list of actions that is described in 

the Order as normally requiring an EIS 

has been compiled by the FAA based on 

the FAA’s extensive experience with 

these actions over time. Where the 

FAA’s experience has indicated that a 

category of actions normally results in 

one or more significant impacts, the 

FAA has included that category of 

actions in the list of actions normally 

requiring an EIS. At this time, 

determinations to prepare an EIS for air 

traffic actions are decided on a case-bycase basis because the FAA has not 

identified any air traffic actions that 

typically involve significant impacts. 

For this reason, there are no air traffic 

actions to include in the list that is the 

subject of this comment. 

Notwithstanding the absence of air 

traffic actions on the list of actions 

normally requiring an EIS, the FAA may 

decide that an EIS is appropriate for a 

particular air traffic action. 

Paragraph 3–2. Programmatic National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents 

and Tiering 

One commenter stated that FAA 

commercial space launch site operator 

licenses should be examined under a 

national programmatic NEPA document 

to identify the need, purpose, and 

alternatives that reflect the national 

scope of the project under consideration 

(i.e., alternatives should be considered 

nationwide and not limited to any given 

region). 

The FAA does not agree that there is 

a national scope for FAA commercial 

space launch site operator licenses; 

rather, the geographic extent of the 

applicant governs the geographic scope 

of the NEPA review. The FAA does not 

fund commercial space launch sites or 

designate where a launch site should be 

developed within the United States. 

Instead, the FAA reviews the proposed 

actions of applicants that want to 

establish a new commercial space 

launch site at a specific location. As 

such, the purpose and need and range 

of alternatives for any individual 

commercial space launch site 

application are dictated by the proposal 

the FAA receives from the applicant. 

Chapter 4. Impact Categories, 

Significance, and Mitigation 

Paragraph 4–1. Environmental Impact 

Categories 

One commenter requested 

clarification that the discussion of 

resources in a NEPA document must 

follow the alphabetical order indicated 

in Paragraph 4–1. 

The discussion of resources in a 

NEPA document does not need to 

address environmental impact 

categories in alphabetical order. This 

discussion can vary depending on the 

type of action and the potential impacts. 

The FAA has added a statement to the 

Order to specify that the categories are 

alphabetized in the Order for ease of 

reference but are not intended to impose 

an obligation to present analysis in 

alphabetical order in the FAA’s NEPA 

documents. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA consider adding references to 

migratory bird conservation, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

throughout the Order. 

The FAA has added migratory birds to 

Paragraph 2–3.2 and has added 

migratory bird impacts and bald and 

golden eagle impacts to the factors to 

consider column for the Biological 

Resources environmental impact 

category in Exhibit 4–1. The 1050.1F 

Desk Reference contains additional 

information on migratory birds, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection. 

One commenter suggested changing 

the environmental impact category for 

Biological Resources to include federally 

and state-protected species since there 

is no separate category to do so. 

The environmental impact category, 

Biological Resources, includes federally 

and state-protected species without 

making the change to the title of the 

category. The significance threshold and 

factors to consider specifically mention 

federally and state-protected species. 

The Biological Resources environmental 

impact category chapter of the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference contains more 

information on how to analyze 

Biological impacts. 

One commenter asked for 

clarification that Section 4(f) refers to 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. 

The commenter is correct that 

references to Section 4(f) pertain to 49 

U.S.C. 303, formerly Section 4(f), of the 

DOT Act of 1966. Due to the ubiquitous 

use of the term ‘‘Section 4(f)’’ in Federal 

jurisprudence, as well as practitioner 

familiarity with this terminology for the 

requirements codified at 49 U.S.C. 303, 

the FAA continues to refer to the 

statutory requirements as ‘‘Section 4(f)’’ 

requirements. Please see the footnote in 

Paragraph 2–3.2 of the Order. 

Paragraph 4–2. Consideration of 

Impacts 

Paragraph 4–2.b. FAA-Approved 

Models 

One commenter asked the FAA to 

clarify if AEE must approve all input 

files used for analysis. Clarifying this 

issue would be helpful in developing 

NEPA document preparation schedules. 

AEE does not need to approve 

standard input files when the FAAapproved models are used. However, 

AEE approval is required for nonstandard input files, models, and 

methodologies. All input files, 

regardless of the model used, should be 

provided to the responsible FAA official 

for informational purposes. Appendix B 

of the Order provides more detailed 

instructions. The text in Paragraph 4– 

2.b regarding the FAA-approved models 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

has been modified to provide better 

clarity. 

One commenter asked for additional 

information on the use of non-FAA 

approved models. For example, not all 

FAA tools will evaluate various impacts 

at airports from an air quality 

perspective. Thus, there are specific 

circumstances where projects in any 

state/location must use a non-FAA 

model. 

The 1050.1F Desk Reference provides 

information on when an FAA-approved 

model must be used and the situations 

in which approval for use of other 

models would be required for both noise 

and air quality. 

One commenter stated that without 

being able to review the Desk Reference, 

they are unclear if the FAA is improving 

the guidance about acceptable tools for 

various efforts. Since all technical 

environmental category detail is 

deferred to the 1050.1F Desk Reference, 

this material should also be deferred, as 

it is without context. 

The FAA recognizes the public’s 

interest in reviewing the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference with Order 1050.1F. 

However, the purpose of this section is 

to outline the requirement that an FAAapproved model must be used for both 

air quality and noise analysis. We have 

retained the information for the FAAapproved models within the Desk 

Reference to allow for updates as new 

versions of the models are available. 

Although the FAA is not providing a 

formal comment period on the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference, the users of this desk 

reference can submit comments on it 

through the FAA Web site at http://

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_ 

order/. These comments will be 

reviewed and incorporated into the 

1050.1F Desk Reference on an ongoing 

basis, as needed. 

Paragraph 4–2.c. Environmental Impact 

Category Not Affected 

Two commenters asked for clarity on 

what should be documented when an 

environmental impact category is not 

affected. 

When an environmental impact 

category is not relevant to the proposed 

action, the reason why it is not relevant 

should be specified and no additional 

analysis is required. This could be a 

simple statement that the environmental 

impact category is not present or an 

explanation why a proposed project 

would not impact a specific resource. 

The Order has been revised to clarify 

that ‘‘the reason why the impact 

category is not relevant’’ should be 

briefly noted. 

Paragraph 4–2.d. Types of Impacts 

One commenter requested a definition 

for ‘‘reasonably foreseeable action’’ 

such as provided in FAA Order 5050.4B 

Paragraph 9.q. 

The definition of ‘‘reasonably 

foreseeable action’’ provided in FAA 

Order 5050.4B is specifically tailored to 

airport improvement projects and the 

type of considerations that are unique to 

those actions. Application of the 

definition of ‘‘reasonably foreseeable 

action’’ from FAA Order 5050.4B to 

actions that do not resemble airport 

improvement actions and the unique 

nature of such actions would therefore 

not be appropriate in Order 1050.1F. 

The FAA has decided not to create a 

separate, broadly applicable definition 

of ‘‘reasonably foreseeable action’’ in 

Order 1050.1F. Because Order 1050.1F 

is applicable agency-wide, its terms and 

requirements must be sufficiently broad 

to appropriately address the wide 

variety of actions taken by LOB/SOs 

within the agency. The definition of a 

reasonably foreseeable action may vary 

based on the nature of the action being 

undertaken, and the FAA has 

determined that reasonably foreseeable 

actions are best identified within the 

context of the individual projects being 

examined by the relevant office. 

To assist NEPA practitioners in 

determining on a case-by-case basis 

what actions are reasonably foreseeable, 

the FAA has provided guidance in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference under the 

cumulative impacts section regarding 

reasonably foreseeable actions. Finally, 

as stated earlier, Order 5050.4B will 

continue to apply to Office of Airports 

actions and will be updated to include 

any changes needed to conform to Order 

1050.1F. 

Paragraph 4–2.f. Special Purpose Laws 

and Requirements 

One commenter asked whether 

applicants have to summarize/note 

what permits are required or whether 

they must provide the materials to 

support the permit/license (i.e., 

complete a permit application/license). 

An EA or EIS should include 

information required to demonstrate 

compliance with other applicable 

requirements and should identify any 

permits, licenses, other approvals, or 

reviews that apply to the proposed 

action and indicate any known 

problems with obtaining them. The EA 

or EIS must report on any special 

consultation required. The EA or EIS 

does not have to contain a complete 

permit application or license 

application. Paragraph 4–2.f has been 

modified to clarify the requirements. 

Paragraph 4–3.2 Context and Intensity 

One commenter asked for 

clarification on whether highly 

controversial in the seventh bullet under 

context and intensity means highly 

controversial for any reason or highly 

controversial on environmental 

grounds. 

The referenced bullet in Paragraph 4– 

3.2 describes the contents of Section 

1508.27(b)(4) of the CEQ Regulations, 

which lists ‘‘[t]he degree to which the 

effects on the quality of the human 

environment are likely to be highly 

controversial’’ as a factor that should be 

considered in evaluating the intensity of 

environmental impacts. Judicial 

interpretations of this regulatory 

provision are consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘highly controversial on 

environmental grounds’’ in Paragraph 

5–2.b(10), which was edited for clarity 

in the final Order. The FAA has not 

added ‘‘on environmental grounds’’ 

after ‘‘highly controversial’’ in 

Paragraph 4–3.2 because that phrase 

does not appear in Section 1508.27(b)(4) 

of the CEQ Regulations. 

Exhibit 4–1. Significance Determination 

for FAA Actions 

One commenter wanted confirmation 

that the significance thresholds and 

factors to consider have not changed, 

except for the two instances indicated. 

The FAA has made three substantive 

changes to the significance thresholds 

and factors to consider from Order 

1050.1E, Appendix A. Two were 

identified in Paragraph 1–10 of the draft 

Order 1050.1F. In addition, the FAA has 

clarified that the Air Quality 

significance threshold includes 

instances where the action would 

increase the frequency or severity of an 

existing air quality standard violation. 

The significance thresholds and 

factors to consider may, in some cases, 

look different in Order 1050.1F due to 

the new approach taken, which includes 

a new table with two categories of 

information to be considered when 

examining significance: ‘‘thresholds of 

significance’’ and ‘‘factors to consider.’’ 

See Exhibit 4–1 of the Order. The 

1050.1F Desk Reference contains more 

information on determining significance 

for the environmental impact categories. 

One commenter stated that the terms 

‘‘extensive’’ and ‘‘substantial’’ are 

confusing and should be removed from 

Exhibit 4–1. Removal of these terms 

would achieve the same objective 

without creating confusion as to what 

rises to being ‘‘extensive’’ or 

‘‘substantial.’’ 

The terms ‘‘extensive’’ and 

‘‘substantial’’ are useful because they 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44225 

qualify the factors to consider and 

indicate the need for more than a minor 

or insubstantial degree of impact from 

the proposed action. Although 

‘‘extensive’’ and ‘‘substantial’’ are not 

specifically defined in the Order, these 

terms have ordinary definitions. 

‘‘Extensive’’ is defined as ‘‘having wide 

or considerable extent’’ and 

‘‘substantial’’ is defined as ‘‘large in 

amount, size, or number’’ (MerriamWebster Online Dictionary available at 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/) 

These definitions are adequate for 

purposes of this Order. In addition, in 

many cases, use of these terms in 

Exhibit 4–1 is reflective of language 

within applicable special purpose laws. 

One commenter suggested that the 

FAA include the results of consultation 

with resource agencies as factors to be 

considered in assessing impacts for 

specific resources. 

The FAA has identified factors to 

consider for potential significant 

impacts in addition to significance 

thresholds, where such a threshold 

exists. The information and data 

considered during the consultation 

process should be examined in light of 

the identified factors to consider. 

Although the determination by the 

resource agency (e.g., concurrence with 

FAA’s adverse effect under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or a 

‘‘not likely to adversely affect’’ finding 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA)) is considered in FAA’s decision, 

the resource agency’s determination is 

not dispositive and therefore it is not 

appropriate to include the resource 

agencies’ decision as a factor to consider 

for significance. 

Two commenters asked that the FAA 

add information to Exhibit 4–1 stating 

that if an action is presumed to 

conform, the action is eligible for a 

CATEX, or if an air quality inventory 

conducted for a proposed action or a 

reasonable alternative shows no de 

minimis level would be exceeded for 

any criteria pollutant, it can be assumed 

the project would not cause significant 

air quality impacts for NEPA purposes 

and dispersion analysis is not needed in 

these instances. One commenter went 

further to state that for projects in 

attainment areas, the de minimis levels 

for maintenance areas should be used. 

Exhibit 4–1 identifies the significance 

thresholds and factors to consider when 

determining whether a proposed action 

will have significant impacts. 

Introduction of other concepts into the 

exhibit, such as circumstances in which 

significant impacts do not occur, the 

applicability of CATEXs to specific 

actions, and actions that are presumed 

to conform under the General 

Conformity Rule, could cause 

confusion. However, the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference provides more information on 

how to determine significance for each 

environmental impact category, 

including whether or not a dispersion 

analysis is needed. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA provide guidance on the 

determination of significance for species 

that are not federally- or state-protected. 

For instance, large projects, such as a 

new airport or runway and their 

supporting components, may disturb 

many acres which may cause species 

that commonly occur to move to other 

areas. The commenter questioned if 

these impacts need to be assessed for 

significance. 

Exhibit 4–1 includes factors to 

consider for Biological Resources, 

including non-listed species. Among the 

factors to consider for such species are: 

Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, 

disturbance, or fragmentation of native 

species’ habitats or their populations. 

This is not limited to just federally- or 

state-protected species. All relevant 

impacts to species should be discussed 

and disclosed in the environmental 

documentation. The 1050.1F Desk 

Reference provides more guidance on 

how to consider Biological Resources. 

One commenter suggested that the 

use of ‘‘extirpation’’ be changed to 

‘‘completely removing species from 

affected area’’ as a better way to explain 

the concept. 

The FAA retains the term 

‘‘extirpation’’ which is defined as local 

extinction (the condition of a species 

which ceases to exist in the chosen 

geographic area of study, though it still 

exists elsewhere). The definition of 

extirpation is well understood and 

should not lead to any confusion 

because it is a term used in analysis for 

threatened and endangered species and 

the meaning remains the same 

regardless of whether it is applied to 

listed or non-listed species. 

One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether all projects 

should complete Form AD–1006 for 

Farmlands. The commenter went further 

to recommend that if zoning of the site 

denotes farmland then the form should 

be completed. In addition, the 

commenter requested that a sentence be 

included to indicate that impact severity 

increases as the AD–1006 score 

approaches 260 points. 

Exhibit 4–1 has a limited purpose to 

identify the significance thresholds and 

factors to consider when examining 

potential significance. The 1050.1F Desk 

Reference contains guidance on when to 

complete Form AD–1006. Not all 

projects require completion Form AD– 

1006. The form only needs to be 

completed if the FAA or applicant 

submits a request to the local Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

field office for determination of whether 

the site is farmland subject to the 

Farmlands Protection Policy Act. The 

1050.1F Desk Reference contains 

information explaining that the impact 

severity increases as the AD–1006 score 

approaches 260. 

One commenter asked whether the 

evaluation of Hazardous Materials, 

Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention is 

to screen alternatives to minimize 

hazardous waste remediation. The 

commenter stated that bullets three and 

four seem to add new criteria relative to 

significance that have not been 

considered before. 

Exhibit 4–1 has a limited purpose to 

identify the significance thresholds and 

factors to consider when examining 

potential significance. This exhibit is 

not intended as a tool for screening 

alternatives to avoid or promote 

particular environmental outcomes. The 

criteria listed in Exhibit 4–1 for this 

environmental impact category are 

contained in Paragraph 10.2c of Order 

1050.1E and thus are not new criteria. 

There are no requirements to select an 

alternative that minimizes hazardous 

waste remediation efforts. 

One commenter recommended adding 

language from Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (see Section 2–203), in the factors 

to consider for Children’s 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

explaining what specific areas are to be 

evaluated. Without this clarification, the 

text in this table may be interpreted 

more broadly than intended. 

The FAA has decided not to include 

language from Executive Order 13045 in 

Exhibit 4–1. Exhibit 4–1 identifies 

factors to consider when evaluating 

significance. The 1050.1F Desk 

Reference chapter, Socioeconomics, 

Environmental Justice, and Children’s 

Environmental Health and Safety, 

includes discussion of evaluating health 

and safety risks to children. This 

chapter relies upon the Executive Order 

to identify the considerations that 

would determine whether a project 

would lead to a disproportionate health 

or safety risk for children. As a result, 

it is unlikely that the text in Exhibit 

4–1 will be interpreted more broadly 

than intended. 

One commenter stated that the 2nd 

bullet in factors to consider for 

Environmental Justice could be 

interpreted to mean that individual 

environmental justice populations can 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

identify their own significance 

threshold. 

The second bullet of the factors to 

consider in Exhibit 4–1 for 

Environmental Justice has been 

modified to state, ‘‘[i]mpacts on the 

physical or natural environment that 

affect an environmental justice 

population in a way that the FAA 

determines is unique to the 

environmental justice population and 

significant to that population.’’ The 

FAA has clarified the text to avoid any 

potential ambiguity or confusion. The 

purpose of this bullet is to recognize 

that in some circumstances, a significant 

impact may not occur under another 

environmental impact category’s 

criteria, but that impact would be 

experienced by an environmental justice 

population in a way that is significant 

to the population due to unique 

circumstances of the population. In 

these situations, the factors to consider 

for Environmental Justice will ensure 

that the potential for significance under 

environmental justice considerations is 

examined and not disregarded. 

One commenter stated that the 

wording ‘‘exceeds water quality 

standards’’ is unclear and could be 

interpreted to mean meeting the 

standards or performing better than the 

standard. 

The FAA will retain the language 

‘‘exceeds water quality standards’’ as 

this term is widely used when applying 

water quality standards. Due to the 

context of the statement referring to a 

significance factor for Surface Waters 

and Ground Waters, it is unlikely it 

would be misinterpreted to mean 

‘‘performing better than the standard.’’ 

The language was contained in 1050.1E 

and the FAA is not aware of any 

instances where this language caused 

confusion or was misapplied. 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should define what a significant 

encroachment is and identify the factors 

that would be used to determine 

significance under NEPA, since not all 

the factors involve environmental 

resources addressed under NEPA (i.e., 

flooding impacts on human safety and 

on a transportation facility). 

In the final Order, the FAA has 

removed the factor to consider for 

Floodplains that referenced significant 

encroachment. The 1050.1F Desk 

Reference provides more information on 

what to consider in determining if there 

is a significant impact under NEPA for 

floodplain impacts. A determination of 

a significant encroachment does not 

necessarily mean a significant impact 

under NEPA. 

One commenter suggested adding 

tribal agencies, as appropriate, in the 

list of agencies setting water quality 

standards, because some tribes have 

assumed the authority to set those 

standards. 

The FAA has added tribal agencies to 

the list of agencies that set water quality 

standards for both ground and surface 

waters. 

Paragraph 4–4. Mitigation 

Paragraph 4–4.c Mitigation Made as a 

Condition of FAA Approval 

One commenter asked how the FAA 

plans to monitor compliance with 

mitigation commitments. 

The FAA plans to monitor the FAA 

compliance with mitigation 

commitments on a case-by-case basis, 

depending on the commitments made 

and the most reasonable way to monitor 

them. For example, in cases where 

environmental commitments can be 

monitored through an already existing 

EMS, the compliance of mitigations 

could be monitored through EMS 

audits. 

Paragraph 4–4.d. Monitoring 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA include a statement that the 

FAA will consult with the appropriate 

resource or expertise agency in applying 

professional judgment to develop a 

monitoring program. 

The FAA uses standards of 

professional judgment and the rule of 

reason to determine when and how to 

monitor mitigation implementation and 

effectiveness (see Paragraph 4–4.d). 

When identifying mitigation measures 

for specific environmental impact 

categories, the FAA will coordinate with 

subject matter experts that have expert 

knowledge, training, and experience 

related to the resource(s) potentially 

impacted by the proposed action (see 

Paragraph 2–3.6.b). If the FAA does not 

have the relevant expertise to monitor 

mitigation, professional judgment and 

rule of reason would dictate the FAA 

reach out to an appropriate subject 

matter expert to help develop the 

monitoring program. 

Chapter 5. Categorical Exclusions 

Paragraph 5–1. General 

Several commenters expressed 

concern over who gets to decide when 

an action is within the scope of a 

CATEX and when proposed actions 

have extraordinary circumstances. The 

commenters stated this is highly 

subjective and susceptible to uneven 

interpretation. 

The FAA is ultimately responsible for 

complying with NEPA. Part of that 

responsibility is determining which 

actions are covered within the scope of 

an existing CATEX and which actions 

should be analyzed in an EA or EIS. 

Order 1050.1F provides the FAA’s 

internal procedures to NEPA 

practitioners on how to make these 

types of determinations in compliance 

with NEPA and the CEQ Regulations. 

Although determination of whether 

an action is within the scope of a 

CATEX and whether there are 

extraordinary circumstances seems 

subjective, the FAA uses professional 

judgment and rule of reason to 

determine if an action has the potential 

for significant impacts. The FAA also 

relies on guidance provided in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference to provide more 

information on what to analyze in 

determining significance for each 

environmental impact category. 

Paragraph 5–2. Extraordinary 

Circumstances 

One commenter questioned whether 

Paragraph 5–2.a(1) should be ‘‘or’’ 

rather than ‘‘and’’ so that extraordinary 

circumstances occur when a 

circumstance exists ‘‘or’’ when there are 

significant impacts. The commenter 

suggested that as written, a significant 

impact to a resource not protected by a 

special purpose law (community noise, 

for example) would not be considered 

an extraordinary circumstance. 

The statement is correct as written in 

Order 1050.1F. Extraordinary 

circumstances exist if one of the 

circumstances identified in the 

Paragraph 5–2.b is present and there 

may be a significant impact. The list of 

circumstances provides situations 

where a NEPA practitioner would have 

to evaluate whether there is potential for 

a significant impact. If one or more of 

the identified circumstances exists, the 

NEPA practitioner would determine if 

there may be a significant impact. 

In reference to the example the 

commenter provides, Paragraph 5–2.b(7) 

provides the circumstance ‘‘an impact 

on noise levels of noise sensitive areas,’’ 

which would include community noise. 

Also note that the circumstance in 

Paragraph 5–2.b(12) states the 

likelihood to directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively create a significant impact 

on the human environment. The 

presence of this circumstance applies to 

any potential for significant impacts and 

addresses the commenter’s concern that 

a resource not protected by a special 

purpose law would not be considered 

an ‘‘extraordinary circumstance even if 

it had significant impacts.’’ 

Several commenters asked whether 

the presence of a circumstance in 

Paragraph 5–2.b would prevent the 

application of a CATEX. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44227 

As the introduction to Paragraph 

5–2.b states, ‘‘An extraordinary 

circumstance exists if a proposed action 

involves any of the following 

circumstances and has the potential for 

a significant impact.’’ The list of 

circumstances provides situations 

where a NEPA practitioner would have 

to evaluate whether there is a potential 

for a significant impact. If one or more 

circumstances exist, the NEPA 

practitioner would determine if there 

may be a significant impact, thus 

creating an extraordinary circumstance 

and preventing the use of a CATEX. 

Therefore, the mere presence of a 

circumstance listed in Paragraph 5–2.b 

would not prevent the application of a 

CATEX. Determination of whether a 

circumstance may have a significant 

impact can take into consideration 

mitigation measures and permit 

requirements. 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should reconsider the way in which it 

applies extraordinary circumstances 

reviews to projects potentially subject to 

a CATEX because the current practice 

results in EAs being prepared in too 

many circumstances where a CATEX 

would have been sufficient. The 

commenter stated that changes to the 

FAA’s application of extraordinary 

circumstances should be based on the 

results of NEPA documents completed 

in the last decade. 

The FAA has reviewed the list of 

extraordinary circumstances and made 

changes where warranted. It is 

important to note that an EA is not 

automatically triggered by the mere 

existence of one or more of the 

circumstances identified in Paragraph 

5–2.b. Preparation of an EA for a project 

that would otherwise be subject to a 

CATEX is required under Order 1050.1F 

only when one or more of the listed 

circumstances exist and the proposed 

action has the potential to cause a 

significant impact. Where appropriate, 

previous EAs resulting in FONSIs can 

be used as evidence that the proposed 

action does not have the potential to 

have significant impacts and therefore 

does not have extraordinary 

circumstances. However, the projectspecific information would still need to 

be considered to determine if there are 

project-specific circumstances that have 

the potential to cause significant 

impacts. Whether an EA should be 

prepared for a proposed action is a 

matter of professional judgment and 

must be addressed on a case-by-case 

basis. 

One commenter stated the draft Order 

1050.1F is in conflict with the wellestablished, clearly written NEPA 

regulations that require consideration of 

cumulative impacts because the FAA is 

ignoring cumulative impacts in their 

CATEXs. 

FAA Order 1050.1F is consistent with 

the CEQ Regulations and does consider 

cumulative impacts when deciding 

what actions can be categorically 

excluded. In fact, the definition of a 

CATEX is a ‘‘category of actions which 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment . . .’’ (see 40 CFR 1508.4). 

The FAA’s CATEXs have undergone 

review by DOT, CEQ, and the public 

prior to being established. Furthermore, 

the potential for a significant 

cumulative impact is a factor to be 

considered when examining the 

possibility of extraordinary 

circumstances associated with use of a 

CATEX. 

One commenter stated that disputes 

about the presence of extraordinary 

circumstances should be resolved by a 

neutral third party and not simply at the 

discretion of the administering agency. 

Decisions regarding the appropriate 

level of NEPA review, including 

decisions about the applicability of 

CATEXs and the presence of 

extraordinary circumstances, are the 

very type of decisions that NEPA has 

entrusted to the discretion of the 

agencies that must implement the 

statute. The Order’s statement that 

NEPA practitioners should consult AEE 

or AGC when in doubt about the 

existence of extraordinary 

circumstances is, therefore, appropriate. 

This portion of the Order was not 

intended to suggest a conflict arising 

between the FAA and a third party 

regarding whether an extraordinary 

circumstance exists. Rather, this is 

meant to provide clarity to FAA NEPA 

practitioners that if they are unsure 

about whether there are extraordinary 

circumstances, AEE and AGC have 

NEPA expertise and can aid the 

agency’s NEPA practitioners in 

resolving such concerns. 

One commenter questioned who is 

responsible for determining the nature 

of the opposition (whether an action is 

highly controversial on environmental 

grounds) as identified in Paragraph 5– 

2.b(10) and what measurement will be 

used to make this determination. 

The FAA is ultimately responsible for 

the determination of whether an action 

is highly controversial on 

environmental grounds. FAA Order 

1050.1F provides internal guidance to 

the FAA’s practitioners on how to 

comply with NEPA. Decisions regarding 

whether impacts from an FAA action 

are likely to be highly controversial on 

environmental grounds are the very type 

of decisions that NEPA has entrusted to 

the discretion of the agencies that must 

implement the statute. Under Paragraph 

5–2.b(10), the term ‘‘highly 

controversial on environmental 

grounds’’ means there is a substantial 

dispute involving reasonable 

disagreement over degree, extent, or 

nature of a proposed action’s 

environmental impacts or over the 

action’s risks of causing environmental 

harm. This would be determined on a 

case-by-case basis using professional 

judgment and would depend on the 

characteristics of the community to be 

impacted (i.e., minority, low income, 

children, etc.) and the basis for the 

community’s opposition. If the FAA 

expects that an action is likely to be 

highly controversial on environmental 

grounds, this factor would lend some 

persuasive weight to the option of 

preparing an EA for the project. 

Paragraph 5–3. Categorical Exclusion 

Documentation 

Paragraph 5–3.b. Additional 

Documentation 

One commenter stated that Paragraph 

5–3.b(1) should be modified to ‘‘actions 

that would affect a sensitive resource 

and, consequently, trigger compliance 

with a special purpose law protecting 

that resource.’’ 

The referenced text currently states 

‘‘actions that are likely to affect 

sensitive resources sufficient to 

heighten concerns regarding the 

potential for extraordinary 

circumstances.’’ The suggested text 

changes add the condition that the 

resource is protected by a special 

purpose law. This new language is too 

narrow. Not all sensitive resources that 

should be considered when determining 

whether to prepare additional CATEX 

documentation are protected by special 

purpose laws. 

One commenter stated that Paragraph 

5–3.b(4) be qualified with ‘‘on 

environmental grounds.’’ 

The intent of Paragraph 5–3.b is to 

describe situations where the FAA may 

prepare CATEX documentation in the 

project record to document the decision 

that the proposed action is within the 

scope of a CATEX and no extraordinary 

circumstances exist. This is in contrast 

to a determination regarding existence 

of extraordinary circumstances due to 

impacts of a project being highly 

controversial on environmental grounds 

under 5–2.b(10). Proposed actions that 

have a high level of public opposition 

have an increased risk of litigation. The 

FAA can use this documentation in the 

event of litigation to demonstrate the 

basis for the decision the FAA has 

made. Thus, the language in Paragraph 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44228 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

5–3.b(4) should not be qualified with 

‘‘on environmental grounds.’’ 

Paragraph 5–3.d. Documentation 

One commenter stated that since 

there is no prescribed format for a 

CATEX, the LOB/SOs get to ‘cherry pick’ 

the documentation and information. 

Although there is not a prescribed 

format, the Order does state that 

documentation prepared for a CATEX 

determination should be concise and 

the extent of documentation should be 

tailored to the type of action involved 

and the potential for extraordinary 

circumstances. Paragraph 5–3.d of the 

Order also sets forth the information 

that should be presented if 

documentation is prepared, including 

the CATEX(s) used, a description of 

how the proposed action fits within the 

category of actions described in the 

CATEX, and an explanation that there 

are no extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude the proposed action 

from being categorically excluded. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA provide additional explanation as 

to what constitutes a documented 

CATEX. 

Paragraph 5–3.d specifies that when 

additional documentation is warranted, 

such documentation should be concise 

and show that a specific CATEX was 

determined to apply to a proposed 

action. The documentation should be 

tailored to the type of action involved 

and the potential for extraordinary 

circumstances. The documentation 

should cite the CATEX(s) used, describe 

how the proposed action fits within the 

category of actions described in the 

CATEX, and explain that there are no 

extraordinary circumstances that would 

preclude the proposed action from being 

categorically excluded. FAA is not 

prescribing a specific format for a 

CATEX in order to allow flexibility for 

LOBs to develop their own standards for 

what constitutes a documented CATEX. 

One commenter requested more 

information on how to prepare an 

administrative record for a CATEX as 

CEQ recommends. 

Order 1050.1F specifies the CATEX 

documentation should cite the 

CATEX(s) used, describe how the 

proposed action fits within the category 

of actions described in the CATEX, and 

explain that there are no extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude the 

proposed action from being 

categorically excluded. The Order has 

added the following language: ‘‘[t]he 

documentation of compliance with 

special purpose laws and requirements 

may either be included in a documented 

CATEX or may be documented 

separately from a CATEX.’’ The FAA 

has decided not to provide specific 

information on establishing an 

administrative record. 

This is consistent with CEQ’s CATEX 

Guidance, which states that 

‘‘documentation may be appropriate to 

demonstrate that the proposed action 

comports with any limitations identified 

in prior NEPA analysis and that there 

are no potentially significant impacts 

expected as a result of extraordinary 

circumstances. In such cases, the 

documentation should address 

proposal-specific factors and show 

consideration of extraordinary 

circumstances with regard to the 

potential for localized impacts. It is up 

to agencies to decide whether to prepare 

separate NEPA documentation in such 

cases or to include this documentation 

in other project-specific documents that 

the agency is preparing.’’ 

CEQ’s CATEX Guidance does make a 

reference to an administrative record 

when preparing a record for a new 

CATEX. ‘‘The administrative record for 

a proposed CATEX should document 

the experts’ credentials (e.g., education, 

training, certifications, years of related 

experience) and describe how the 

experts arrived at their conclusions.’’ If 

this is what the commenter is referring 

to, the CATEX Justification Package 

prepared for the FAA’s new and revised 

CATEXs would serve as this 

documentation. Since creation of new 

CATEXs is not done very often outside 

of an Order update, the process for 

proposing a new CATEX has not been 

added to Order 1050.1F. For more 

information regarding proposing and 

preparing a justification package for a 

new CATEX, please consult with AEE. 

One commenter questioned whether 

deficient documentation of CATEXs is 

encouraged by the statement ‘‘a 

determination that a proposed action 

qualifies for a CATEX is not considered 

deficient due to lack of documentation 

provided that extraordinary 

circumstances have been considered.’’ 

Neither NEPA nor CEQ’s NEPA 

implementing regulations require 

documentation for application of a 

CATEX to a particular proposed action. 

As noted above, CEQ has issued 

guidance regarding the establishment 

and use of CATEXs. This guidance, in 

keeping with the CEQ Regulations, does 

not require documentation for each 

proposed action an agency may 

implement under a CATEX. The 

guidance states, ‘‘[w]hen applying a 

categorical exclusion to a proposed 

action, Federal agencies face two key 

decisions: (1) Whether to prepare 

documentation supporting their 

determination to use a categorical 

exclusion for a proposed action and (2) 

whether public engagement and 

disclosure may be useful to inform 

determination about using categorical 

exclusions.’’ See CEQ’s CATEX 

Guidance. Thus, the CEQ Regulations 

and the guidance on this subject have 

entrusted the decision whether to 

document application of a CATEX to the 

discretion of the agencies subject to the 

requirements of NEPA. The decision to 

document a CATEX is made on a caseby-case basis. For some Federal actions 

there is no reasonable expectation that 

the proposed action could cause any 

environmental impacts. These actions 

would not require CATEX 

documentation. Paragraph 5–3.b 

identifies situations where CATEX 

documentation is recommended. The 

portion of the Order identified in this 

comment specifies that the FAA may 

choose to apply a CATEX to a particular 

proposed action with or without 

documentation if that action is within 

the scope of the identified CATEX and 

the potential for extraordinary 

circumstances was considered. This is 

appropriate under the statute, 

regulations, and CEQ guidance. 

Several commenters stated that by 

indiscriminately applying CATEXs, the 

agency proposes to preclude 

consideration of actions that have 

unquestionably created notable negative 

impacts on public health and the 

environment, and thus should not be 

categorically excluded. 

The FAA does not indiscriminately 

apply CATEXs. Before a CATEX can be 

applied, a proposed action must 

undergo review to determine if it is 

within the scope of an existing CATEX 

and whether there are any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude the 

use of the CATEX in that instance. In 

determining whether there are 

extraordinary circumstances, the FAA 

will use professional judgment and rule 

of reason, which includes examining the 

action based on the FAA’s experience 

with similar actions. 

Paragraph 5–4. Public Notification 

Several commenters stated the public 

should be engaged or notified before a 

CATEX is applied and the proposed 

action is in effect. Additionally, they 

stated that the use of a CATEX 

effectively shuts out public involvement. 

The FAA’s public involvement 

requirements are consistent with CEQ’s 

requirements for public notice and 

comment. The level of public 

involvement is commensurate with the 

level of potential significant impacts. 

Actions that are categorically excluded 

do not have the potential for individual 

or cumulative significant impacts, 

except when there are extraordinary 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44229 

circumstances, and therefore merit 

minimal public involvement. Where no 

extraordinary circumstances are present, 

public involvement is generally not 

required. However, the FAA has 

acknowledged that there may be 

circumstances where public 

involvement would be appropriate on a 

case-by-case basis (See Paragraph 5–4). 

To establish a CATEX, the FAA needs 

to prepare a CATEX justification 

package that does undergo public 

review. The FAA must demonstrate that 

the categorically excluded actions have 

no potential for significant impacts 

individually or cumulatively. This 

justification package needs to be 

reviewed and approved by DOT and 

CEQ, and have a public notice and 

comment period. 

One commenter specified that any 

noise or land use impacts should 

involve the citizens who would be 

affected, even when the action would 

qualify for a CATEX. This involvement 

should include a reasonable comment 

period and a method to challenge the 

findings. 

The FAA public notification and 

involvement requirements are 

consistent with CEQ Regulations and 

guidance. Public notification and 

involvement are commensurate with the 

potential for significant impacts. Noise 

and land use impacts are handled in the 

same manner as other environmental 

impact categories. 

One commenter specified that 

although there is no formal public 

involvement process required for the 

application of CATEXs, the FAA should 

notify and consult with relevant airport 

sponsors before applying them. The 

commenter specifically mentioned 

coordination on the implementation of 

the two legislative CATEXs. 

The FAA notes the concern that 

airport sponsors may not be notified 

when a CATEX is applied. Paragraph 

2–4.3, Intergovernmental and 

Interagency Coordination, was amended 

to indicate that coordination should 

include airport sponsors when actions 

would affect operations at an airport. 

This would cover any action taken 

following application of a CATEX that 

affect operations at an airport, including 

actions that are covered under the two 

legislative CATEXs. 

One commenter stated that the 

CATEX public notification paragraph 

should specify that some special 

purpose laws require notification even 

in cases when an action has been 

categorically excluded. 

A statement was added to Paragraph 

5–5, Other Environmental 

Requirements, that there may be public 

notification requirements under special 

purpose laws for actions subject to a 

CATEX. Information on other 

environmental requirements that may 

apply to proposed actions is provided in 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Paragraph 5–5. Other Environmental 

Requirements 

One commenter suggested the FAA 

include information that compliance 

with special purpose laws would lessen 

the proposed action’s impacts and 

possibly avoid a significant impact. 

The FAA has decided not to insert 

additional language stating that 

compliance with special purpose laws 

would lessen the proposed action’s 

impacts and possibly avoid significant 

impacts. Compliance with special 

purpose laws does not necessarily 

lessen an action’s impacts. Compliance 

with special purpose laws and 

requirements may, in some cases, 

generate mitigation measures that 

reduce the overall impact of a proposed 

action. Determining whether this is true 

with respect to any particular proposed 

action is necessarily fact-specific. Where 

warranted, mitigation measures that 

result from consultation with agencies 

on special purpose laws can help 

provide documentation to validate the 

use of a CATEX. 

One commenter stated the FAA 

should emphasize that public review 

periods for NEPA documentation can 

run concurrently with any review period 

for special purpose laws. 

In addition to the language in 

Paragraph 2–5.2.a on special purpose 

laws and requirements, the FAA has 

ensured that references to public 

notification and comment periods on 

special purpose laws in Chapters 5–7 

also contain language indicating that 

these comment periods can run 

concurrently with NEPA review 

periods. 

Paragraph 5–6. The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s Categorical Exclusions 

One commenter stated the FAA 

should not have any CATEXs. 

40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2)(ii) specifically 

authorizes agencies to identify actions 

that ‘‘normally do not require either an 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment.’’ The 

CATEXs provided in Order 1050.1F 

have been determined to not have the 

potential for significant impacts either 

individually or cumulatively. The 

FAA’s CATEXs have undergone review 

by the DOT, CEQ, and the public prior 

to being established. 

Several commenters specified the 

FAA should not have CATEXs for flight 

patterns, runway extensions, or ALPs. 

The FAA must go through an 

approval process to establish a CATEX. 

In order to establish a CATEX, the FAA 

must prepare a CATEX justification 

package that shows the agency’s 

determination that these types of 

actions, absent extraordinary 

circumstances, do not have the potential 

for individual or cumulative significant 

impacts. This determination is based on 

the FAA’s experience with historic 

implementation of these types of 

actions. This package must be approved 

by DOT and CEQ, and provided to the 

public. 

Several commenters indicated a belief 

that the FAA should not make CATEXs 

available for a variety of the specific 

actions addressed in Chapter 5 of Order 

1050.1F. 

The FAA must go through an 

approval process to establish a CATEX. 

In order to establish a CATEX, the FAA 

must prepare a CATEX justification 

package that shows the agency’s 

determination that these types of 

actions, absent extraordinary 

circumstances, do not have the potential 

for individual or cumulative significant 

impacts. This determination is based on 

the FAA’s experience with historic 

implementation of these types of 

actions. This package must be approved 

by DOT and CEQ, and provided to the 

public. 

Many of the CATEXs in Order 

1050.1F remain unchanged and have 

been in effect for a number of years. 

Even if the action is the type of action 

that would normally be categorically 

excluded, the FAA must determine if 

there are extraordinary circumstances 

that would preclude the use of a 

CATEX. 

The only two CATEXs that have not 

undergone review by the DOT, CEQ, 

and the public prior to being established 

were the legislative CATEXs authorized 

under Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012. It is not 

uncommon for Congress to provide for 

specific CATEXs or state in the 

legislation that certain actions should be 

presumed to have no significant impacts 

and therefore should be categorically 

excluded, as was the case for the two 

legislative CATEXs provided for in 

Section 213 (c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012. These types of 

CATEXs are provided for by law rather 

than being created at the discretion of 

the agency. Because these legislative 

CATEXs are not the product of 

administrative discretion, the FAA need 

not prepare a CATEX justification 

package for submission to CEQ. See 

footnote 1 of the CEQ’s CATEX 

Guidance. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

One commenter expressed confusion 

and concern with regards to the threeacre limit in some of the CATEXs. 

The three-acre limit is the FAA’s limit 

for acquiring land for the construction 

of a building under CATEX 5–6.4.r 

(purchase, lease, or acquisition of three 

acres or less of land with associated 

easements and rights-of-way for new 

facilities) Limiting acres of land 

decreases the potential for impacts. 

There is potential for significant impacts 

with developed and undeveloped land. 

When land is already developed, there 

are potential impacts from displacement 

or prior site contamination. When land 

is undeveloped, potential impacts 

include but are not limited to impacts 

to habitat, soils, and historical artifacts. 

When this CATEX was established, the 

FAA limited these actions to three acres 

or less to limit the potential for 

significant impacts, although the 

potential for significant impacts under 

extraordinary circumstances must be 

examined before application of any 

CATEX. 

The new CATEX involving solar and 

wind projects, CATEX 5–6.3.i, was 

limited based on acreage because of 

potential impacts with the construction 

and operation of these structures. The 

larger the acreage for solar and wind 

projects, as with any project, the greater 

potential for environmental impacts. In 

particular, larger solar and wind 

projects raise the concern of impacts to 

bird and bat populations. For additional 

information on the reasons for the 

acreage limitations applied to the new 

and modified CATEXs, please see the 

CATEX Justification Package available 

at (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/ 

draft_faa_order/). 

Some CATEXs do not specify acreage 

because the type of projects that fall 

within that CATEX do not need 

limitations on the acreage. For example 

see CATEX 5–6.4.b, which covers 

acquisition of land and relocation 

associated with a categorically excluded 

action. In this case, the acquisition of 

land covered by that CATEX is limited 

by the nature of the acquisition and can 

only be applied if the purpose of 

acquisition is within the scope of 

another CATEX. 

Two other CATEXs have been limited 

to one acre or less: CATEX 5–6.4.ee and 

CATEX 5–6.4.ff, which involve 

hazardous wastes or hazardous 

substances. These were limited based on 

the FAA’s experience that the nature of 

these activities is normally within one 

acre or less. Prior FAA actions used to 

justify these CATEXs were less than one 

acre each. No further research was 

conducted or prepared for similar 

actions that would be greater than one 

acre to increase this acreage amount. By 

nature of the CATEX, the FAA is not 

determining that these types of actions 

greater than one acre would be 

significant, but rather, we did not invest 

resources to justify actions greater than 

one acre because the FAA does not have 

a need for this CATEX to be greater than 

one acre. For additional information on 

the concerns of potential impacts and 

the reasons for the limitations for the 

new and modified CATEXs, please see 

the CATEX Justification Package 

available at (http://www.faa.gov/about/

office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/

environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_

faa_order/). 

For actions that are not within the 

scope of a CATEX or that involve 

extraordinary circumstances, an EA or 

EIS must be prepared. 

Paragraph 5–6.1. Categorical Exclusions 

for Administrative/General Actions 

One commenter recommended adding 

air-space sectorization and Air Traffic 

Standard Operating Procedures and 

Letters of Authorization to the list of 

CATEXs for administrative and general 

actions. 

The FAA is not adding additional 

CATEXs to Order 1050.1F at this time. 

The FAA has established several new 

CATEXs in this update to Order 1050.1 

which have already undergone review 

by DOT, CEQ, and the public. 

In order to qualify for a CATEX, the 

FAA needs to prepare a CATEX 

justification package that demonstrates 

there is no potential for significant 

impacts individually or cumulatively. 

This justification package needs to be 

reviewed and approved by DOT and 

CEQ, and have a public notice and 

comment period. 

Depending on what actions the 

commenter is referring to, these actions 

may already be within the scope of 

existing CATEXs. The commenter is 

encouraged to work with their FAA 

LOB/SOs contacts to determine if these 

actions are already within the scope of 

an existing CATEX. If these actions are 

not within the scope of an existing 

CATEX, the commenter can work with 

their FAA LOBs to help prepare a 

justification package for inclusion in a 

future update of the Order. 

5–6.1.u. One commenter stated 

concern over CATEX 5–6.1.u [Approval 

under 14 CFR part 161, Notice and 

Approval of Airport Noise and Access 

Restrictions, of a restriction on the 

operations of Stage 3 aircraft that does 

not have the potential to significantly 

increase noise at the airport submitting 

the restriction proposal or at other 

airports to which restricted aircraft may 

divert. (ARP)]. The commenter indicates 

a belief that application of a CATEX to 

these actions does not take into account 

the needs of the local community and 

environment. 

Based on the comment, it seems the 

commenter may be confused with 

regards to a Notice and Approval of 

Airport Noise and Access Restrictions, 

since these actions tend to reduce 

airport noise by placing restrictions on 

the operation of Stage 3 aircraft rather 

than approve actions that would 

increase the use of Stage 3 aircraft. 

There are no changes to this CATEX in 

Order 1050.1F. 

Paragraph 5–6.3. Categorical Exclusions 

for Equipment and Instrumentation 

CATEX 5–6.3.g. One commenter 

wanted verification whether the 

replacement/upgrade of power and 

control cables for existing facilities and 

equipment [CATEX 5–6.3.g] must occur 

in the same location or along the same 

right-of-way as an existing cable. 

The FAA will apply professional 

judgment and rule of reason on a caseby-case basis on whether the CATEX 

would apply for cable that is replaced 

or upgraded. The more the replacement/ 

upgrade occurs in the same location as 

the original cables, the less likely there 

would be extraordinary circumstances 

precluding the use of the CATEX. 

CATEX 5–6.3.i. One commenter was 

concerned with the potential impacts to 

both bird and bat populations from 

solar and wind operations. 

The FAA has added specific language 

into the CATEX that these actions may 

not cause significant impacts to bird or 

bat populations to highlight this 

extraordinary circumstance. This 

language is the same language used for 

Department of Energy’s CATEX for wind 

turbines that was used as a benchmark 

when creating this CATEX. 

Paragraph 5–6.4. Categorical Exclusions 

for Facility Siting, Construction, and 

Maintenance 

One commenter was concerned over 

the application of CATEXs for Facility 

Siting, Construction, and Maintenance 

[actions involving acquisition, repair, 

replacement, maintenance, or 

upgrading of grounds, infrastructure, 

buildings, structures, or facilities that 

generally are minor in nature] because 

‘‘minor in nature’’ allows for 

interpretation. 

The commenter references the 

introductory text for Paragraph 5–6.4, 

the general category for Facility Siting, 

Construction, and Maintenance 

CATEXs. This category of actions has 32 

individual CATEXs which outline the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44231 

types of actions that the FAA has 

determined to not have individual or 

cumulative impacts. Therefore, the 

language ‘‘minor in nature’’ in the 

introduction to this category of actions 

is not lacking more definitive 

boundaries or open to boundless 

interpretation. To apply these CATEXs, 

the FAA must determine the project is 

within the scope of one of the specific 

actions listed in the CATEXs and there 

are no extraordinary circumstances, as 

outlined in Paragraph 5–2. 

CATEX 5–6.4.a. One commenter was 

concerned with who gets to determine 

acceptable service reduction levels in 

the absence of community input. 

Level of service is a grading system 

that describes the amount of surface 

congestion on local roads, highways, 

interchanges, and interstates. It was 

developed by the Federal Highway 

Administration using the letter A to 

represent the least congestion and F for 

the most congested roads. The 

classification accounts for the speed of 

the vehicles and the number of vehicles 

per lane and is based on peak hour 

traffic conditions. The FAA would 

evaluate the project on these criteria to 

determine whether an action would 

change the level of service. 

CATEX 5–6.4.b. One commenter 

expressed the belief that acquisition of 

land and relocation associated with a 

categorically excluded action should 

come under public review because these 

actions are often arbitrary and 

whimsical. 

The FAA’s policy toward public 

notification of the use of CATEXs is 

discussed in Paragraph 5–4 and is 

consistent with CEQ guidance. The FAA 

public notification requirements are 

consistent with CEQ Regulations and 

guidance. Public notification and 

involvement are commensurate with the 

potential for significant impacts. Public 

notification for CATEXs is not required. 

The decision of whether to notify the 

public is made on a case-by-case basis. 

CATEX 5–6.4.c. One commenter 

questioned what ‘‘significantly change 

the impact on the environment’’ means 

for CATEX 5–6.4c [Installation, 

modification, or repair of radars at 

existing facilities that conform to the 

current American National Standards 

Institute/Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) 

guidelines for maximum permissible 

exposures to electromagnetic fields and 

do not significantly change the impact 

on the environment of the facility. (All)] 

The text ‘‘significantly change the 

impact on the environment’’ refers to a 

determination of significance that is 

made by considering the instruction 

provided in Paragraph 4–3.3 of this 

Order. Additional guidance on making a 

determination of significance for each 

environmental impact category is 

provided in the 1050.1F Desk Reference, 

which is publically available. This 

CATEX was not modified from Order 

1050.1E and the FAA is unaware of any 

evidence arising through its use and 

application that would undermine its 

continued validity. 

CATEX 5–6.4.e. Two commenters 

wanted clarification for CATEX 5–6.4.e 

with regards to what ‘‘significant 

erosion or sedimentation’’, ‘‘would not 

result in significant noise increase,’’ and 

‘‘significant impacts on air quality’’ 

mean. 

When modifying the CATEXs, the 

FAA decided that it was important to 

identify the potential impacts of 

concern that were most likely to be 

associated with the particular CATEX 

under discussion thus highlighting 

potential extraordinary circumstances 

that may require further analysis in an 

EA or EIS. For this reason, CATEX 5– 

6.4.e includes reference to the most 

likely environmental impacts of concern 

associated with a runway extension, 

including erosion or sedimentation, 

noise, and air quality. The FAA will still 

evaluate all the other circumstances 

listed in Paragraph 5–2.b to determine if 

there are circumstances that would have 

the potential to cause significant 

impacts (i.e., extraordinary 

circumstances would exist that would 

preclude the use of a CATEX). 

In determining whether there is 

significant erosion or sedimentation, the 

FAA will rely on an analysis of context 

and intensity in accordance with CEQ’s 

definition of significance. The FAA will 

also consider the significance thresholds 

and factors to consider for the 

environmental impact categories in 

Exhibit 4–1 to determine other potential 

significant impacts. For more 

information on this CATEX, please see 

the FAA’s CATEX Justification Package 

available at: (http://www.faa.gov/about/ 

office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/

environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_

faa_order/). 

CATEX 5–6.4.h. One commenter 

asked for additional clarification of 

what ‘‘substantial expansion’’ means in 

CATEX 5–6.4.h. The commenter also 

indicated that the reference to the 

presumed to conform list in this CATEX 

may inadvertently limit application of 

this CATEX to those projects specifically 

mentioned in the presumed to conform 

list, which does not seem appropriate. 

The CATEX was modified to add 

reference to the presumed to conform 

list to help NEPA practitioners 

determine what the concerns were 

regarding ‘‘substantial modification.’’ It 

was not added to limit the activities to 

those identified in the presumed to 

conform notice. 

In addition to the typical potential 

impacts from construction, the concern 

with substantial modification to existing 

facilities is the potential to cause 

indirect air quality impacts due to 

change in operations, passengers, etc. 

The FAA considered explicitly listing 

the criteria that were used to create the 

presumed to conform list within the 

CATEX; however, during internal 

review of the CATEX, the criteria 

caused more confusion than benefit to 

the FAA’s NEPA practitioners. The 

presumed to conform criteria include 

expansion of existing buildings with a 

construction footprint less than 185,891 

square feet. In addition, the action must 

not increase any of the following: 

• The number of passengers boarding 

any scheduled flight; 

• the number of aircraft operations 

the airport or launch facility serves; 

• the tonnage of cargo the airport or 

launch facility handles; 

• the cargo payload placed on a 

scheduled flight; or 

• the size of the aircraft that the 

airport or launch facility can serve. 

In addition, the expansion cannot 

change the airport or launch facility’s 

runway use. 

CATEX 5–6.4.i. One commenter asked 

why ‘‘provided no hazardous substances 

or contaminated equipment are present 

on the site of the existing facility’’ was 

added to CATEX 5–6.4.i. In considering 

extraordinary circumstances for a 

CATEX, if a remediation plan has been 

developed and approved by any 

requisite agencies, it is unclear why an 

EA would be warranted for demolition 

of such facilities. 

The language identified in the 

comment does not represent a 

substantive change to the CATEX as 

compared to its presentation in 1050.1E. 

The original CATEX [Paragraph 310i in 

Order 1050.1E] had similar language: 

‘‘provided no hazardous substances 

contamination is present on the site or 

contaminated equipment is present on 

the site.’’ The FAA did not propose 

removing this limitation in Order 

1050.1F. In order to do so, FAA would 

have to prepare a detailed CATEX 

justification package substantiating that 

even in instances where hazardous 

substances or contaminated equipment 

is present on the site there would not be 

a potential for significant impacts. 

CATEX 5–6.4.z. One commenter 

asked for clarification that CATEX 5– 

6.4.z can apply to trees occurring off 

airport. 

The commenter is correct that CATEX 

5–6.4.z can apply to trees located off 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

airport property. Actions taken under 

CATEX 5–6.4.z can be distinguished 

from actions taken under CATEX 5–6.4.l 

since CATEX 5–6.4.z only involves 

topping or trimming of trees to prevent 

obstacles to air navigation and does not 

involve ground disturbance or removal 

of existing structures. In contrast, 

CATEX 5–6.4.l is restricted to actions 

occurring on airport property, 

commercial space launch site property, 

or property owned or leased by the FAA 

because it permits ground disturbance 

and removal of existing structures. 

CATEX 5–6.4.bb. One commenter 

sought clarification as to what 

constitutes ‘‘extensive business or 

residential relocation’’ as specified in 

CATEX 5–6.4.bb. 

CATEX 5–6.4.bb allows for land 

acquisition to establish an RPZ or for 

other aeronautical purposes and does 

not limit the amount of land that can be 

acquired. One of the impacts of concern 

with the use of this CATEX is the 

potential for significant impacts as the 

number of businesses or residents that 

are required to relocate increases within 

the area. The FAA did not define a 

number of residents or businesses that 

would need to be affected and will 

evaluate each proposed action on a caseby-case basis as to whether an action 

has the potential to involve ‘‘extensive’’ 

business or residential relocation. 

However, the more residents or 

businesses that could be affected, the 

more likely the CATEX would not 

apply. 

CATEX 5–6.4.ff. One commenter 

stated it is unclear why the FAA limited 

this CATEX to one acre or less, if the 

work plan is subject to an approved 

remediation plan. 

This is a new CATEX. The activities 

included in the CATEX are required for 

conducting in-situ environmental 

remediation, with limited removal 

actions of hazardous substances, 

hazardous wastes, or other regulated 

substances. These actions must be done 

in accordance with industry best 

management practices and a remedial 

action plan or remedial design 

document approved by the appropriate 

or relevant governmental agencies. The 

FAA used the following sources of 

information in deciding what activities 

could be covered under the CATEX: (1) 

NEPA analyses contained in EAs 

prepared for previously-conducted FAA 

actions that included similar activities 

and which received FONSIs; (2) 

professional judgment and expert 

opinion regarding the environmental 

impacts of activities normally 

conducted during environmental 

remediation for the FAA and other 

organizations; and (3) comparison with 

CATEXs established by other agencies. 

The total overall area impacted in 

these types of FAA actions is typically 

less than one acre, even at FAA facilities 

located on larger developed properties. 

The FAA is limiting the proposed 

CATEX to areas less than one acre in 

size to avoid potential impacts to 

environmental resources outside the 

area. For more information, please see 

the justification prepared for this 

CATEX, which is available at: (http://

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/policy/ 

draft_faa_order/). 

Paragraph 5–6.5. Categorical Exclusions 

for Procedural Actions 

CATEX 5–6.5.g. One commenter 

stated that the reference to RNAV/RNP 

systems is ambiguous and should be 

clarified in CATEX 5–6.5.g. The 

commenter stated that in the past, this 

paragraph has been cited in the 

establishment of new PBN procedures 

which is wrong because the system 

referred to is the electronic equipment 

used by aircraft to navigate, not the 

mapping of a flight path. 

CATEX 5–6.5.g. states, 

‘‘[E]stablishment of Global Positioning 

System (GPS), Flight Management 

System (FMS), Area Navigation/

Required Navigation Performance 

(RNAV/RNP), or essentially similar 

systems that use overlay of existing 

flight tracks. For these types of actions, 

the Noise Integrated Routing System 

(NIRS) Noise Screening Tool (NST) or 

other FAA-approved environmental 

screening methodology should be 

applied. (ATO, AVS)’’ 

This CATEX is categorized under 

section 5–6.5 Categorical Exclusions for 

Procedural Actions and applies to 

airspace and air traffic procedures. It 

allows for the establishment of overlay 

procedures that use GPS, FMS, RNAV/ 

RNP, or other similar systems. This is 

not for the establishment of electronic 

equipment, as the commenter has 

stated. This CATEX is limited to the 

establishment of new PBN procedures 

that create a flight track that overlays an 

existing flight track. This CATEX could 

not be applied to new PBN procedures 

that create new flight tracks that do not 

overlay existing flight tracks. 

CATEX 5–6.5.i. Two commenters 

asked for clarification on how to 

evaluate new procedures or 

modification of procedures conducted 

below 3,000 feet that do not cause traffic 

to be routinely routed over noise 

sensitive areas. 

For actions below 3,000 feet, ATO 

may use the Noise Screening Tool or the 

Air Traffic Guidance Document, as 

described in the Order 1050.1F Desk 

Reference. The Air Traffic Guidance 

Document is designed to step the user 

through a series of pre-screening tests to 

determine whether there is no potential 

noise impact or if additional screening 

or noise analysis will be needed. For 

more information on how to evaluate 

noise impacts for FAA actions, please 

see Chapter 11 of the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference, Noise and Noise-Compatible 

Land Use. 

Chapter 6. Environmental Assessments 

and Findings of No Significant Impact 

Paragraph 6–1. General 

One commenter suggested including 

references to the applicant in Paragraph 

6–1.a and Paragraph 6–1.b since 

applicants, such as airport sponsors, 

also prepare EAs. 

Although some LOBs/SOs have 

applicants prepare EAs, the NEPA 

responsibility rests with the FAA. 

Paragraph 6–1.a has been modified to 

remove emphasis of the LOB/SO. 

However, the FAA has retained the 

reference to LOB/SOs in Paragraph 6– 

1.b since the responsible FAA official 

has the responsibility to determine 

whether the proposed action is covered 

under an existing NEPA document (see 

Paragraph 2–3.2.a(2)). Therefore it is 

more appropriate to encourage LOB/SOs 

to build upon prior EAs or EISs to the 

extent data in those documents remains 

valid. 

One commenter recommended 

combining the subparagraphs of 

Paragraph 6–1 to explain that the 

responsible FAA official recommends a 

FONSI, while the approving official 

makes the final determination that a 

FONSI is appropriate. 

The FAA has revised Paragraph 6–1 to 

clarify the responsibilities of the 

responsible FAA official. Reference to 

the FAA approving official has been 

removed to avoid any confusion. 

One commenter stated that it is 

unclear whether the FAA is encouraging 

the preparation of joint NEPA and stateNEPA equivalent documents. 

Paragraph 6–1.a(3), referenced by the 

commenter, is intended to encourage 

the integration of NEPA with special 

purpose laws, not the preparation of 

joint NEPA and state NEPA-equivalent 

documents. This language has been 

modified to make the intent clearer. 

With reference to joint NEPA and 

state NEPA-equivalent documents, the 

FAA encourages the preparation of joint 

NEPA and state NEPA-equivalent 

documents where it would reduce delay 

and make the process more efficient. 

The FAA also recognizes that preparing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44233 

joint documents can be challenging due 

to the differences between NEPA and 

some state-level environmental review 

requirements. When joint documents 

are prepared, the FAA must ensure that 

all of the requirements under Order 

1050.1F are adhered to (see Paragraphs 

2–3.4.j and 2–3.5.f of the Order). 

One commenter suggested adding 

wording about interdisciplinary analysis 

in Paragraph 6–1.a(3) to be consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 

1501.2(a). 

The referenced paragraph refers to 

integrating applicable special purpose 

law review, consultation, and public 

involvement requirements within NEPA 

planning and documentation. It does 

not make sense to refer to an 

interdisciplinary approach in this 

context. However, an interdisciplinary 

approach is discussed in Paragraph 1– 

7. 

Paragraph 6–2.1. Environmental 

Assessment Format 

One commenter asked for additional 

information on how Paragraphs 405d 

and 405e of Order 1050.1E differ from 

Paragraph 6–2 of the draft Order 

1050.1F. 

Paragraphs 405d and 405e of Order 

1050.1E contained very detailed 

information on the Alternatives and 

Affected Environment sections of an EA, 

and the corresponding EIS paragraphs 

had cross-references back to the EA 

discussion. In Paragraph 6–2 of Order 

1050.1F, the descriptions of the 

Alternatives and Affected Environment 

sections of an EA have been streamlined 

to reflect that EAs are generally not as 

detailed as EISs. There are crossreferences to the corresponding EIS 

paragraphs of the Order for EAs that 

may need to be more substantial. The 

detailed information that was removed 

from the EA section has been included 

in the discussion in Chapter 7, 

Environmental Impact Statements. 

One commenter was concerned that 

too much of the technical guidance that 

was present in Order 1050.1E has been 

removed with this update, particularly 

in reference to EAs, leaving users 

without sufficient consistent guidance. 

Although some of the text regarding 

EAs in Chapter 4 of Order 1050.1E has 

been removed, that information is 

included in Chapter 7 of Order 1050.1F, 

and cross-references have been included 

in Chapter 6 to provide more in-depth 

information that may be useful for 

particular EAs. The FAA took care to 

ensure that the information in 

Paragraphs 405d and 405e of Order 

1050.1E was retained. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.b. Proposed Action 

One commenter recommended that 

additional language be added to 

Paragraph 6–2.1.b to state that this 

paragraph is the FAA’s or the 

applicant’s proposed solution to the 

problem it is attempting to solve to help 

clarify the distinction between the 

purpose and the need for the action and 

the action itself. 

The FAA retains the original language 

proposed in Paragraph 6–2.1.b of the 

draft Order 1050.1F. However, the FAA 

has revised Paragraph 6–2.1.c to clarify 

that the description of purpose and need 

presents the problem being addressed 

and describes what the FAA is trying to 

achieve with the proposed action. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.c. Purpose and Need 

One commenter requested that the 

purpose and need discussion further 

clarify the distinctions between need, 

purpose, and the proposed action. 

Neither NEPA nor the CEQ 

Regulations separately define or 

distinguish purpose and need. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.c of Order 1050.1F, 

which has been revised for clarity, 

explains that the purpose and need 

section of an EA presents the problem 

being addressed and describes what the 

FAA is trying to achieve with the 

proposed action. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.d. Alternatives 

One commenter stated that additional 

guidance is needed concerning issues 

the FAA considers in its screening of 

alternatives as to what is considered 

practicable, prudent, and feasible. The 

commenter appreciates that some of the 

special purpose laws have specific 

requirements regarding alternatives, but 

believes that the FAA should identify in 

the Order issues important to the agency 

achieving its missions. In the past, 

guidance has been helpful in noting that 

the FAA often considers ‘‘safety, 

meeting transportation objectives, 

design, engineering, environment, 

economics, and any other applicable 

factors’’ when weighing various 

alternatives. This language has always 

been important to discussions with 

other agencies when preparing EAs and 

EISs. 

In addition to their common 

meanings, the terms ‘‘practicable,’’ 

‘‘prudent,’’ and ‘‘feasible’’ have specific 

meanings as applied to alternatives in 

the context of particular special purpose 

laws and requirements (e.g., those 

pertaining to Section 4(f) and wetlands). 

These meanings, and related guidance, 

have been incorporated as appropriate 

in Order 1050.1F and the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference. Consistent with the CEQ 

regulations, the FAA considers all 

relevant factors, including, as 

appropriate, ‘‘economic and technical 

considerations,’’ ‘‘agency statutory 

missions,’’ and ‘‘any essential 

considerations of national policy’’ (see 

40 CFR 1505.2(b)), in screening and 

selecting alternatives. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA define the term ‘‘unresolved 

conflict’’ because it is an important term 

that limits the range of alternatives in 

some EAs. 

Under Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, 

Federal agencies must ‘‘study, develop, 

and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved 

conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources.’’ However, the term 

‘‘unresolved conflict’’ is not defined in 

NEPA or the CEQ Regulations (see 40 

CFR 1501.2(c) and 1507.2(d)). FAA 

Order 5050.4B provides specific 

examples for airport development 

projects. However, other examples and 

interpretations of the term may also be 

appropriate, depending on the 

circumstances. Therefore, the FAA has 

not included a definition of the term in 

Order 1050.1F. 

One commenter wanted the FAA to 

clarify that a draft EA should indicate 

the FAA’s preferred alternative, if it has 

been identified at that stage, and 

emphasize that a final EA must identify 

the FAA’s preferred alternative. 

The FAA does not require that the 

preferred alternative be identified in a 

draft or final EA, nor is this required by 

NEPA or the CEQ regulations. The 

language in Paragraph 6–2.1(d) states 

that ‘‘[t]he preferred alternative, if one 

has been identified, should be 

indicated.’’ This is contrasted with the 

requirement in 40 CFR 1502.14 of the 

CEQ Regulations that the preferred 

alternative must be identified in a final 

EIS, which is also stated in Paragraph 7– 

1.2.g. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.e. Affected 

Environment 

One commenter asked why the 

contents from Paragraph 405e of 

1050.1E were moved to Paragraph 7– 

1.1.f in Order 1050.1F, dealing with the 

affected environment section for EISs. 

In Paragraph 6–2 of Order 1050.1F, 

the descriptions of the alternatives and 

affected environment sections of an EA 

have been streamlined to reflect that 

EAs are generally not as detailed as 

EISs. There are cross-references to the 

corresponding EIS sections for EAs that 

may need to be more substantial. 

One commenter asked for clarity that 

the affected environment section of an 

EA does not need to contain all the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

environmental impact categories listed 

in Paragraph 4–1. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.e states that the 

affected environment section 

‘‘succinctly’’ describes the existing 

environmental conditions of the 

potentially affected area and should be 

‘‘no longer than is necessary to 

understand the impacts of the 

alternatives.’’ There is no requirement to 

include a detailed discussion for each 

environmental impact category. In 

addition, the affected environment 

section of an EA is not required to 

mirror the environmental impact 

categories listed in Paragraph 4–1, 

although this may make sense in some 

circumstances. When an environmental 

impact category is not relevant to the 

proposed action or any of the 

alternatives carried forward for 

environmental analysis (i.e., the 

resources included in the category are 

not present or the category is not 

otherwise applicable to the proposed 

action and alternatives), the reason why 

should be briefly noted and no further 

analysis is required (see Paragraph 4– 

2.c). The criteria in Paragraph 6–2.1.e 

should guide NEPA practitioners in 

preparing EAs for FAA actions. 

One commenter recommended that 

Paragraph 6–2.1.e note that the CEQ 

regulations do not require affected 

environment sections in EAs. The 

commenter also recommended that the 

Affected Environment section be 

described as optional for EAs. 

Although not expressly required by 

the CEQ Regulations, the FAA routinely 

includes an affected environment 

section in EAs. A statement has been 

added to the Order to clarify that the 

affected environment discussion may be 

combined with the environmental 

consequences section in an EA. 

Paragraph 6–2.1.f. Environmental 

Consequences 

One commenter stated that the draft 

Order appears to use the terms ‘‘adverse 

effects,’’ ‘‘environmental 

consequences,’’ and ‘‘impacts’’ 

interchangeably. Definitions of these 

terms as they are used in the FAA NEPA 

process would be helpful. 

As noted in 40 CFR 1508.8 of the CEQ 

Regulations, ‘‘effects’’ and ‘‘impacts’’ as 

used in the Regulations are 

synonymous. In light of this fact, we 

have updated our NEPA procedures to 

reference ‘‘impacts’’ rather than 

‘‘effects’’ to avoid any confusion. The 

only time that ‘‘effects’’ has been 

retained in Order 1050.1F is when it is 

a direct quote or title. The Order has 

also been revised to only use the term 

‘‘environmental consequences’’ when 

referring to the environmental 

consequences section in an EA or EIS. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA provide guidance on the criteria 

used in NEPA documentation to 

consider impacts for existing and future 

years. 

The determination of appropriate 

timeframes for consideration of impacts 

for existing and future years in NEPA 

documentation is dependent on the 

proposed action and its potential 

impacts and is determined on a case-bycase basis. 

One commenter stated that the phrase 

‘‘Upon review of the final EA . . . the 

responsible FAA official determines 

whether any environmental impacts 

analyzed in the EA are significant’’ 

raises concerns. Typically, draft and 

final EAs declare if the effects are 

significant. Does this sentence mean 

that draft and final EAs should not 

declare effects to be significant and 

reserve this determination for FAA’s 

FONSI or FONSI/ROD? 

Draft and final EAs disclose the level 

of effects from the proposed action and 

typically state whether there are 

significant impacts for each potential 

impact. However, the FAA documents 

its final determination that the proposed 

action does not have significant impacts 

in a FONSI or FONSI/ROD. 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA clarify that cumulative analysis 

is based on the proposed action, as 

opposed to other reasonable 

alternatives. The Order should provide 

instructions on what one should do 

regarding a cumulative analysis for a 

final EA that identifies a preferred 

alternative that differs from the 

proposed action. 

The commenter is incorrect that the 

cumulative analysis should only be 

based on the preferred alternative. 

Cumulative impacts should be 

examined for the proposed action and 

any other alternative considered in 

detail in the EA. The Order has been 

revised to remove language that could 

have inferred that consideration of 

cumulative impacts is only required for 

the proposed action. 

Paragraph 6–2.2. Environmental 

Assessment Process 

Paragraph 6–2.2.g. Public Comments on 

a Draft EA 

One commenter noted language in the 

Order that circulation of a draft EA and 

public meetings are not required for an 

EA and expressed concern that this 

language eliminates the need for public 

consideration and involvement in EAs. 

In addition, the commenter expressed 

concern about the application of these 

provisions to ongoing actions. 

The language the commenter is 

referring to has been removed from 

Order 1050.1F. Consistent with the CEQ 

Regulations (see 40 CFR 1501.4(b)), 

Paragraph 6–2.2.b of the Order states 

that the FAA or applicant must ‘‘involve 

the public, to the extent practicable, in 

preparing EAs.’’ What is practicable 

depends on the circumstances of a 

particular EA and is determined on a 

case-by-case basis. 

This Order does not reduce the level 

of public involvement required for EAs. 

The public involvement requirements in 

Order 1050.1E have been retained in 

Order 1050.1F. Thus, publication of this 

Order will not affect public involvement 

for ongoing actions. 

One commenter stated that it would 

be helpful to provide examples under 

which public circulation of a draft EA 

should be considered. The commenter 

suggested that an EA prepared for a 

project that is highly controversial on 

environmental grounds should undergo 

public review, as failing to provide this 

review can lead to unnecessary delay in 

NEPA processing and FAA decision 

making. 

The FAA has added the following 

language in Paragraph 6–2.2.g of Order 

1050.1F: ‘‘Examples of situations where 

this [circulation of a draft EA for public 

comment] may be appropriate include 

draft EAs prepared for projects 

involving special purpose laws and 

requirements that necessitate public 

input (e.g., Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act; Executive 

Order 11988, Floodplain Management; 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, etc.) or projects that are 

highly controversial on environmental 

grounds.’’ 

Paragraph 6–2.2.i. Use of Errata Sheets 

One commenter encouraged the FAA 

to include use of errata sheets for EAs 

similar to the provision in the EIS 

Chapter. 

The FAA has added a similar 

provision for the use of errata sheets in 

the EA process (see Paragraph 6–2.2.i). 

Chapter 7. Environmental Impact 

Statements and Records of Decision 

Paragraph 7–1. Preparation of 

Environmental Impact Statements 

One commenter suggested that the 

introduction to Chapter 7 inform 

readers that only the FAA, or a 

contractor it selects, may prepare EISs 

for FAA actions per the CEQ 

Regulations. 

Chapter 7 of the Order guides the 

responsible FAA official through the EIS 

process. The FAA agrees that the Order 

should make the point suggested by the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44235 

commenter, but believes a better 

location to do so is Paragraph 2–2, 

which explains the roles and 

responsibilities of the FAA, applicants, 

and contractors. Language has been 

added to Paragraph 2–2.1.d that states 

when an EIS needs to be prepared, the 

FAA or a contractor it selects must 

prepare the EIS. In addition, Paragraph 

2–2.2 notes that applicants may prepare 

EAs but not EISs, and Paragraph 2–2.3 

details the responsibilities of contractors 

in preparing EISs. 

Paragraph 7–1.1. Environmental Impact 

Statement Format 

Paragraph 7–1.1.b. Executive Summary 

One commenter suggested adding 

clarifying language regarding identifying 

in the executive summary of an EIS the 

FAA’s preferred alternative and noting 

whether that alternative differs from the 

applicant’s proposed action. 

Paragraph 7–1.1.b of the Order states 

that the executive summary identifies 

the FAA’s preferred alternative. The 

FAA has added language to Paragraph 

7–1.1.b stating that the executive 

summary also identifies the sponsor’s 

preferred alternative if it differs from the 

FAA’s preferred alternative. 

Paragraph 7–1.1.d. Purpose and Need 

One commenter stated that the 

definition of ‘‘purpose and need’’ 

should be the same in Chapters 6 and 

7. 

The FAA agrees and has amended the 

descriptions for purpose and need in 

both the EA and EIS chapters to ensure 

they are consistent with one another. 

Paragraph 7–1.1.h. Mitigation 

One commenter expressed concern 

that Paragraph 7–1.1.h(1) of the 

proposed Order, which required 

discussion of mitigation in an EIS for 

the proposed action only, would mean 

that all reasonable alternatives would 

not be given equal consideration. If 

mitigation is used to reduce the adverse 

impacts of the proposed action or 

preferred alternative, it is possible that 

mitigation could have been applied to 

other reasonable alternatives, thus 

reducing the adverse impacts of those 

alternatives. Treating all reasonable 

alternatives in a similar manner would 

allow the decision maker and public to 

consider each alternative’s effects, with 

and without mitigation, on an equal 

footing. 

The FAA has revised Paragraph 7– 

1.1.h(1) to clarify that an EIS must 

discuss mitigation measures for the 

proposed action as well as any 

reasonable alternatives. In addition, 

FAA has clarified throughout the order 

that mitigation should be considered for 

the proposed action and any reasonable 

alternative. 

Paragraph 7–1.2. Environmental Impact 

Statement Process 

Paragraph 7–1.2.d(3) Review of Draft 

EIS 

One commenter suggested that 

Paragraph 7–1.2.d(3) include a reference 

to FAA Order 1210.20 because it 

describes the specific government-togovernment procedures for the FAA. 

In Paragraph 7–1.2.d(3)(c) of the 

Order, the FAA has added a crossreference to Paragraph 2–4.4, which 

outlines the requirements, including 

FAA Order 1210.20, for government-togovernment coordination with tribes. 

Paragraph 7–2.2. Record of Decision 

Content 

One commenter requested 

clarification regarding identification in 

the ROD of the preferred alternative 

identified in the final EIS. Providing this 

information would allow the public to 

know if modifications have been made 

to the preferred alternative disclosed in 

the final EIS. 

Paragraph 7–2.2.b states that the ROD 

must identify all alternatives considered 

by the FAA. This includes the 

alternative identified as the preferred 

alternative in the final EIS. 

Additionally, Paragraph 7–2.2.a requires 

that the ROD present the FAA’s decision 

on the proposed action and discuss all 

factors the agency balanced in making 

its decision. Thus, the ROD should 

provide sufficient information to allow 

the public to know how, if at all, the 

selected alternative differs from the 

preferred alternative identified in the 

final EIS. As a result, no further 

clarification is necessary. 

Chapter 8. Federal Aviation 

Administration Actions Subject to 

Special Procedures 

Paragraph 8–2. Adoption of Other 

Federal Agencies’ National 

Environmental Policy Act Documents 

One commenter encouraged the FAA 

to be clear if adoption only applies to 

Federal agencies’ documents or whether 

an agency can adopt a state NEPA 

document. 

Adoption only applies to Federal 

agencies’ NEPA documents. The word 

‘‘Federal’’ has been added to Paragraph 

8–2 for clarity. 

Paragraph 8–5. Actions Within the 

United States With Potential 

Transboundary Impacts 

One commenter stated the text in 

Paragraph 8–5 should clarify that it is 

not intended to add requirements with 

respect to identification and/or analysis 

of climate impacts and refer the reader 

to FAA Order 1050.1E Guidance Memo 

#3, ‘‘Considering Greenhouse Gases and 

Climate Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 

Interim Guidance.’’ 

Paragraph 8–5 does not add any new 

requirements regarding climate impacts 

or any other aspect of NEPA 

compliance. It merely reiterates 

longstanding CEQ guidance that NEPA 

reviews should include analysis of 

reasonably foreseeable transboundary 

effects of proposed actions. The FAA’s 

policies and procedures for analyzing 

climate impacts are described in Exhibit 

4–1 of the Order and in the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference, which supersede FAA 

Order 1050.1E Guidance Memo #3, 

Considering Greenhouse Gases and 

Climate Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 

Interim Guidance. 

Chapter 9. Time Limits, Written ReEvaluations, and Supplemental 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Documents 

Paragraph 9–1. Time Limits 

One commenter asked whether a 

written re-evaluation of an EA or EIS is 

needed for a multi-stage project that the 

FAA has already approved. The 

commenter suggested specific language 

for Paragraph 9–1.d(2) stating that a 

written re-evaluation is required if a 

later stage of an already-approved 

project would begin more than three 

years after the FAA approved the final 

EIS for the project. 

FAA has changed the language in 

Paragraph 9–1.b(2) and 9–1.d(2)to make 

clear that if an action is implemented in 

stages by the FAA or an action 

implemented by an applicant requires 

successive FAA approvals, a written reevaluation is needed at each major stage 

or approval point that occurs more than 

three years after the FONSI or final EIS. 

If the FAA has already approved the 

action and there are no additional 

federal approvals, a written reevaluation does not need to be prepared 

for an action implemented by an 

applicant. 

Chapter 11. Administrative Information 

Paragraph 11–5. Definitions 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘largely undisturbed ground.’’ 

The FAA changed references to 

‘‘largely undisturbed ground’’ to 

‘‘undeveloped land’’ to help improve 

clarity. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44236 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘substantial.’’ 

The general definition of substantial 

is large in amount, size, or number. The 

term as used in Order 1050.1F is no 

different than the common use of the 

term and therefore the FAA has not 

added it to the list of definitions. The 

FAA does understand that the use of the 

word substantial is subjective and does 

require an amount of interpretation and 

should be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis using professional judgment. 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘reasonably foreseeable.’’ 

The term ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ is 

a term used in the CEQ Regulations and 

is used in the same manner in Order 

1050.1F. This term is not defined in the 

CEQ Regulations and is interpreted on 

a case-by-case basis based on the facts 

and circumstances surrounding the 

proposed action and the geographic and 

temporal boundaries established for a 

project’s cumulative impacts analysis. 

For airport actions, FAA Order 5050.4B 

provides additional guidance to aid 

airport sponsors and NEPA practitioners 

in determining what future actions 

should be considered reasonably 

foreseeable. 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘highly controversial.’’ While the 

commenter acknowledged this term is 

defined in Paragraph 5–2.b(10), the 

commenter believed that this is often a 

highly searched for term and would 

benefit from being located in Chapter 11 

as well. 

The term ‘‘highly controversial’’ has 

not been added to the list of definitions 

since highly controversial is used in a 

variety of ways throughout the Order. 

For instance, highly controversial EISs 

require extra steps to coordinate through 

DOT. However, where the term 

specifically means highly controversial 

on environmental grounds, ‘‘on 

environmental grounds’’ has been added 

for clarity. 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘NEPA-like State law’’ 

The term ‘‘NEPA-like State law’’ is 

not used anywhere in Order 1050.1F 

and as such does not need to be defined 

in the Order. 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘major runway extension’’ as used in 

Paragraph 3–1.3.b(c). 

The FAA has not added a new term 

to the definitions for ‘‘major runway 

extension’’ in this Order. This term is a 

specific term used by the Office of 

Airports and is more appropriately 

defined in Order 5050.4. Paragraph 9.1l 

of 5050.4B defines major runway 

extension as ‘‘a runway extension that 

causes a significant adverse 

environmental impact to any affected 

environmental resource (e.g., wetland, 

floodplain, historic property, etc.). This 

includes, but is not limited to, causing 

noise sensitive areas in the Day-Night 

Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 decibel 

(dB) contour to experience at least a 

DNL 1.5 dB noise increase when 

compared to the no action alternative 

for the same time frame.’’ 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘significance threshold’’ or ‘‘significant 

impact threshold.’’ 

The use of the term significance 

threshold is limited to Chapter 4, Impact 

Categories, Significance, and Mitigation 

and is discussed in detail within this 

chapter. Because the discussion within 

Chapter 4 is adequate to define the term 

significance threshold, the FAA has 

decided not to add it to the list of 

definitions. Any reference to significant 

impact threshold has been changed to 

significance threshold to avoid any 

confusion. 

One commenter recommended 

providing a definition for the term 

‘‘DNL.’’ 

A footnote has been provided in 

Exhibit 4–1 for the definition for DNL. 

Since DNL is a term used to denote the 

level of noise impacts, it seemed more 

appropriate to define the term with the 

level of significance rather than add the 

term to the definitions for the overall 

Order. 

One commenter stated that the 

definition of ‘‘environmental studies’’ 

should include reference to ‘‘special 

studies,’’ a term used by many airports 

for efforts designed to address special 

project-specific issues and may not be 

limited to a specific environmental 

category, but provide greater 

understanding of a facet of the proposed 

action/project and include studies noted 

in Paragraph 2–7.b(3). 

‘‘Environmental studies’’ is only used 

in Paragraph 8–5 Effects of Major 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Actions Abroad and Paragraph 7–1.1.i 

the list of preparers in an EIS. As 

defined in Order 1050.1F, 

environmental studies are the 

investigation of potential environmental 

impacts. This definition is appropriate 

to convey the meaning that was 

intended within the context of this 

Order. Thus expanding this definition 

as written to include reference to 

‘‘special studies’’ as suggested by the 

commenter is not needed. Studies 

referenced in Paragraph 2–7.b(3) are not 

limited to environmental studies as 

defined in this Order. 

One commenter suggested the 

definition of noise sensitive area should 

inform the reader that noise attenuation 

is needed for the residential structures 

on agricultural land. 

The current definition of noise 

sensitive area states ‘‘[i]ndividual, 

isolated, residential structures may be 

considered compatible within the DNL 

65 dB noise contour where the primary 

use of the land is agricultural and 

adequate noise attenuation is provided.’’ 

Thus, individual, isolated, residential 

structures would not be compatible 

unless adequate noise attenuation is 

provided to those structures. The FAA 

did not revise the definition of noise 

sensitive area because the current 

definition already requires residential 

structures to be noise-attenuated in 

order to be considered compatible. 

One commenter recommended the 

addition of waterfowl refuges in the list 

of areas that may be sensitive to noise 

as those areas also meet the definition 

of the DOT Act’s Section 4(f) lands. 

The FAA has added waterfowl refuges 

throughout the Order when there is 

reference to Section 4(f) lands. 

Appendix B. Federal Aviation 

Administration Requirements for 

Assessing Impacts Related to Noise and 

Noise-Compatible Land Use and 

Section 4(F) of the Department of 

Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303). 

Two commenters asked why the FAA 

included Appendix B. Either the 

appendix should be inserted into the 

1050.1F Desk Reference or the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference should be inserted into 

Order 1050.1F and a revised draft Order 

should be re-issued. One of the 

commenters stated that Appendix B 

does not include all FAA-specific 

requirements and there is a potential for 

conflict between Appendix B and the 

1050.1F Desk Reference. 

As explained previously, the FAA 

updated the material in Appendix A of 

Order 1050.1E and moved the updated 

material to the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

The 1050.1F Desk Reference includes a 

combination of FAA-specific 

requirements, requirements under nonFAA authorities, and FAA guidance. 

Having a separate 1050.1F Desk 

Reference will allow the FAA to easily 

make any necessary updates to the FAA 

guidance and the descriptions of nonFAA requirements without having to go 

through the relatively lengthy and 

resource-intensive effort of revising 

Order 1050.1F. 

Some of the FAA-specific 

requirements described in the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference are stated in the body of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44237 

Order 1050.1F. The purpose of 

Appendix B of the Order is to state in 

the Order the remaining FAA-specific 

requirements that are described in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference. Appendix B 

also describes related requirements to 

provide appropriate context. 

The FAA carefully reviewed the 

material presented in the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference to ensure that all FAAspecific environmental review 

requirements are included in Appendix 

B. 

The FAA will not make changes to the 

1050.1F Desk Reference that conflict 

with Appendix B of Order 1050.1F. Any 

new FAA-specific environmental review 

requirements would be added to both 

Appendix B and the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference. 

Paragraph B–1. Noise and NoiseCompatible Land Use 

Two commenters questioned whether 

Appendix B addresses all noise and 

noise-compatible land use impacts for 

Section 106 resources. 

Appendix B focuses on the FAAspecific requirements for noise and 

Section 4(f) analysis. In addition to 

describing those requirements, the 

1050.1F Desk Reference also includes 

extensive information and guidance for 

NEPA practitioners, contractors, and 

applicants regarding special purpose 

laws, including Section 106 of the 

NHPA. Chapter 11 of the 1050.1F Desk 

Reference provides guidance on noise 

evaluation for historical, architectural, 

archeological, and cultural resources. 

Several commenters questioned the 

FAA’s use of DNL as the noise 

measurement metric, where the Clean 

Air Act rules use a peak month impact 

instead of an annual average number. 

DNL is the standard Federal metric for 

determining cumulative exposure of 

individuals to noise. In 1981, the FAA 

formally adopted DNL as its primary 

metric to evaluate cumulative noise 

effects on people due to aviation 

activities. Research by the Federal 

Interagency Committee on Noise 

(FICON) verified that the DNL metric 

provides an excellent correlation 

between the noise level an aircraft 

generates and the level of community 

annoyance resulting from that noise 

level. 

One commenter questioned whether 

DNL is appropriate for RNAV/RNP 

procedures given their effect of focusing 

noise on the ground. 

The FAA applies the same 

significance criteria to all FAA actions 

and it is appropriate to use the same 

criteria for RNAV/RNP procedures. The 

NEPA documentation for RNAV/RNP 

procedures should disclose how the 

noise impacts of the proposed action 

have changed from the no action 

alternative, including changes in the 

concentration of noise. 

Two commenters recommended 

reporting to a tenth of a dB when 

reporting DNL. The Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), like 

its predecessors Integrated Noise Model 

(INM) and Noise Integrated Routing 

System (NIRS), computes the 

calculation of DNL values to several 

decimal places and uses these 

unrounded values when calculating 

changes in DNL values between two 

scenarios (e.g., an action alternative and 

the no-action alternative in an EA or 

EIS). The FAA does not have a specific 

policy regarding rounding of DNL 

values. INM and NIRS both report DNL 

values to the tenth of a decimal, which 

has been reflected in FAA NEPA 

documents. The current model, AEDT 

2b, has the ability to display noise 

values beyond the tenth of decimal and 

the FAA is reviewing whether to 

provide additional guidance and/or 

criteria, as appropriate, to guide DNL 

reporting in the future. 

One commenter asked for 

clarification on whether Community 

Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is to be 

used in the FAA’s NEPA documents in 

lieu of DNL or as a supplemental metric, 

and how. For example, will the FAA use 

CNEL to determine significant impacts? 

The FAA has revised Paragraph B–1 

to clarify that CNEL may be used in lieu 

of DNL for noise analysis of FAA 

actions in California. DNL is required to 

be used in all other locations. 

Paragraph B–1.3. Affected Environment 

One commenter recommended that 

Paragraph B–1.3 of Appendix B of the 

Order, describing the affected 

environment for the Noise and NoiseCompatible Land Use impact category, 

should have separate sections for 

airport actions and air traffic procedure 

actions. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

commenter’s recommendation. The 

existing language in Paragraph B–1.3 of 

Appendix B adequately addresses both 

airport and air traffic procedure actions 

at a level of detail appropriate for the 

Order. The language also refers to the 

1050.1F Desk Reference for more 

information regarding differences in 

noise analysis for airport and air traffic 

procedure actions. 

One commenter stated that in light of 

the requirement to analyze noise 

changes between the 60 and 65 DNL 

contours when there is a 1.5 dB DNL 

increase within the 65 DNL contour, the 

study area should include an area that 

captures areas exposed to DNL 60 dB 

and higher. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

commenter that a specific DNL level 

should be used to define the study area 

for all actions. Paragraph B–1.4 of Order 

1050.1F states the study area must 

include the area within the DNL 65 dB 

contour and may be larger. The study 

area must be at least as large as the DNL 

65 dB contour to be able to determine 

the potential for significant impacts 

with respect to noise, but may be larger 

depending on the action and the 

potential impacts. 

Referring to text in Paragraph B–1.3 of 

Appendix B of the Order, one 

commenter recommended that the FAA 

specify the difference between analysis 

conducted to meet the requirements of 

Section 4(f) and analysis conducted 

pursuant to the FAA policy directive 

regarding evaluation of noise effects on 

national parks and wildlife refuges in 

areas where aircraft operate between the 

10,000 feet above ground level (AGL) 

and 18,000 feet AGL. The commenter 

stated that while the kind of resources 

and effects evaluated are the same, they 

do not believe that these analyses are 

based on the same directives. The 

commenter stated that the text should 

clarify that the primary ATO action 

study area is up to 10,000 feet AGL for 

departures, and 7,000 feet AGL for 

arrivals. Finally, the commenter 

recommended that noise analyses 

conducted for areas between 10,000 feet 

AGL and 18,000 feet AGL be described 

as supplemental. 

The text referenced by the commenter 

states that the study area for the noise 

analysis of a proposed change in air 

traffic procedures or airspace redesign 

may extend vertically from the ground 

up to 10,000 feet AGL, or up to 18,000 

feet AGL if the proposed action or 

alternative(s) is over a national park or 

wildlife refuge where other noise is very 

low and a quiet setting is a generally 

recognized purpose and attribute. 

Because national parks and wildlife 

refuges are Section 4(f) properties, they 

are subject to the policies and 

procedures in Exhibit 4–1 and 

Appendix B of Order 1050.1F (carried 

forward from Order 1050.1E) relating to 

analysis of noise impacts on such 

properties. Under those policies and 

procedures, the FAA may rely on the 

land use compatibility guidelines in 14 

CFR part 150 to determine whether 

there is a constructive use where the 

land uses specified in the guidelines are 

relevant to the value, significance, and 

enjoyment of the Section 4(f) lands in 

question. Special consideration needs to 

be given to noise sensitive areas within 

Section 4(f) properties (including, but 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44238 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

not limited to, noise sensitive areas 

within national parks, national wildlife 

and waterfowl refuges and historic sites, 

including traditional cultural 

properties) where the land use 

compatibility guidelines in 14 CFR part 

150 are not relevant to the value, 

significance, and enjoyment of the area 

in question. For example, the part 150 

land use categories are not sufficient to 

determine the noise compatibility of 

areas within a national park or wildlife 

refuge where other noise is very low and 

a quiet setting is a generally recognized 

purpose and attribute. Although the text 

in Paragraph B–1.3 regarding extending 

the study area up to 18,000 feet AGL 

over national parks and wildlife refuges 

is based on a different FAA order (Order 

JO 7400.2K), it is consistent with the 

policies and procedures for Section 4(f) 

properties carried forward from FAA 

Order 1050.1E. 

The FAA does not adopt the 

commenter’s suggestion to distinguish 

between 7,000 feet AGL for arrivals and 

10,000 feet AGL for departures in 

describing the study area for noise 

analysis of proposed changes in air 

traffic procedures or airspace redesign. 

Such a distinction is unnecessary 

because both altitudes are already 

encompassed in the text of Paragraph B– 

1.3, which explains that the study area 

may extend up to 10,000 feet AGL. 

Nor does the FAA adopt the 

commenter’s recommendation to 

describe noise analyses conducted for 

areas between 10,000 feet AGL and 

18,000 feet AGL as supplemental. The 

use of supplemental noise analysis is 

adequately explained in Paragraph B– 

1.6, including for noise sensitive areas 

within national parks and wildlife 

refuges where a quiet setting is a 

generally recognized purpose and 

attribute. 

One commenter recommended 

changing the term ‘‘airspace redesign’’ 

to ‘‘air traffic procedure redesign’’ 

throughout Order 1050.1F because 

airspace is comprised of sectors, and 

changes to sectors are considered 

administrative. 

Order 1050.1F only uses the term 

‘‘airspace redesign’’ in Paragraph B–1.3 

when discussing the study area for noise 

impacts. It is the proper term in this 

context as it is describing the possible 

extent of air traffic changes (i.e., from a 

single procedure to a redesign of 

multiple procedures in the airspace). 

Therefore, the FAA has not made the 

recommended change. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the requirement in Paragraph B–1.3 

to disclose local noise and land use 

compatibility standards that differ from 

the FAA’s land use compatibility 

guidelines in 14 CFR part 150 would be 

very lengthy and costly when the 

proposed action is a large-scale air 

traffic action that could include 

hundreds of different local jurisdictions. 

The commenter recommended adding 

‘‘to the extent practicable’’ as a qualifier 

to the requirement. 

The commenter’s recommended 

qualifier is inconsistent with the 

disclosure requirements in sections 

1502.16(c) and 1506.2(d) of the CEQ 

regulations, which do not contain any 

‘‘practicability’’ exception. Section 

1502.16(c) requires that the 

environmental consequence section of 

EISs include discussion of ‘‘[p]ossible 

conflicts between the proposed action 

and the objectives of federal, regional, 

state, and local (and in the case of a 

reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, 

policies and controls for the area 

concerned.’’ Section 1506.2(d) requires 

that EISs discuss any ‘‘inconsistency of 

a proposed action with any approved 

state or local plan and laws (whether or 

not federally sanctioned).’’ The 

requirement cited by the commenter 

was carried over from Section 4.2a in 

Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E. 

The FAA has clarified the 

requirement in Paragraph B–1.3 in 

Appendix B of Order 1050.1F to require 

disclosure of local noise and land use 

compatibility standards to the extent 

required under the above-cited 

provisions of the CEQ regulations. To 

minimize time and expense, the 

existence of any relevant local standards 

can be determined by specifically 

soliciting this information during 

scoping. 

One commenter stated that the 

requirement in the first bullet of 

Paragraph B–1.3 of Appendix B to 

include DNL contours or noise grid 

points showing existing aircraft noise 

levels in the description of current noise 

conditions should also indicate the use 

of population centroids from U.S. 

Census Blocks. 

The text in this bullet has been 

revised to clarify that the population 

centroids are from U.S. Census Blocks. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about the requirement in Paragraph B– 

1.3 to include in the description of 

current noise conditions the location 

and number of noise sensitive uses in 

addition to residences (e.g., schools, 

hospitals, parks, recreation areas) 

within the area to be analyzed for noise. 

The commenter stated that for largescale FAA air traffic procedure actions 

compliance with this requirement would 

be of limited practical utility and would 

be lengthy, costly, and result in 

significantly longer documents. 

The FAA has made changes to the 

Order to clarify that the description of 

current noise conditions includes 

location and number of noise sensitive 

uses in addition to residences (e.g., 

schools, hospitals, parks, recreation 

areas) that could be significantly 

impacted by noise, rather than all such 

uses within the area to be analyzed for 

noise (see Paragraph B–1.5 for 

significance determination criteria). 

It is important to note that this is not 

a change from Order 1050.1E since the 

location and number of noise sensitive 

uses (e.g., schools, churches, hospitals, 

parks, recreation areas) exposed to DNL 

65 dB or greater should be disclosed in 

the EIS for each modeling scenario (see 

paragraph 14.4i(2) of Order 1050.1E). 

One commenter was concerned with 

the statement in the fourth bullet in 

Paragraph B–1.3 of Appendix B that 

‘‘the addition of flight tracks is helpful.’’ 

The commenter recommended adding 

the qualifier ‘‘but not required’’ or ‘‘if 

appropriate.’’ 

In response to the comment, the FAA 

has reworded the statement to clarify 

that the addition of flight tracks ‘‘may be 

helpful.’’ It is up to the FAA’s discretion 

whether flight tracks should be 

included. 

Two commenters recommended that a 

statement be added to Paragraph B–1.3 

of Appendix B that, if appropriate, the 

U.S. Census data may be supplemented 

and sub-divided into additional, smaller 

grid points (based on local land use 

data, aerial photography, etc.) to 

provide a more reasonable geographic 

representation of the location of 

residences. 

Guidance on supplementation of U.S. 

Census data is provided in the 1050.1F 

Desk Reference. 

Paragraph B–1.4. Environmental 

Consequences 

Two commenters questioned what the 

term ‘‘same future timeframe’’ means 

since it is not defined in Appendix B. 

The commenters recommended adding 

the following language from Order 

1050.1E: ‘‘[t]imeframes usually selected 

are the year of anticipated project 

implementation and 5 to 10 years after 

implementation. Additional timeframes 

may be desirable for particular 

projects.’’ 

The timeframe selected by the FAA 

for reporting future noise impacts is 

dependent on the type of action being 

studied and the potential impacts. The 

requirement in Order 1050.1F simply 

requires that the same timeframe must 

be used for the no-action alternative, the 

proposed action, and other analyzed 

alternatives. The commenter’s 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44239 

recommended language is included in 

the 1050.1F Desk Reference. 

Two commenters asked the FAA to 

clarify the terminology ‘‘within the DNL 

60–65 dB contours’’ as used in the third 

bullet in Paragraph B–1.4. According to 

the commenters, this terminology is 

vague if a point analysis is being done 

and is not as clear as similar language 

in Paragraph B–1.3. The commenters 

suggest the following language: ‘‘The 

identification of noise sensitive areas 

where noise is projected to increase by 

DNL 3.0 dB or more at or above DNL 

60.0 to less than 65.0 dB.’’ 

For increased clarity, the FAA has 

revised the referenced bullet to read: 

‘‘The identification of noise sensitive 

areas within the DNL 60 dB contour that 

are exposed to aircraft noise at or above 

DNL 60 dB but below DNL 65 dB and 

are projected to experience a noise 

increase of DNL 3 dB or more.’’ 

Two commenters questioned the 

rationale of making the analysis of 

increases of DNL 3 dB or more within 

the DNL 60–65 dB contours conditional 

upon DNL 1.5 dB increases within the 

DNL 65 dB contour. 

The rationale for requiring analysis of 

noise increases of DNL 3 dB or more 

within the DNL 60–65 dB contours only 

when DNL 1.5 dB increases are 

documented within the DNL 65 dB 

contour comes from the August 1992 

report of the Federal Interagency 

Committee on Noise titled Federal 

Agency Review of Selected Airport 

Noise Analysis Issues. Although this is 

current FAA policy, it does not preclude 

additional analysis outside the DNL 65 

dB contour. 

One commenter recommended the 

Order define ‘‘receptor sets.’’ 

The FAA has added an explanatory 

footnote to Appendix B that states: 

‘‘Receptors are locations where noise is 

modeled. A collection of receptors is 

known as a receptor set. Grid points are 

an example of a receptor set.’’ 

One commenter recommended 

removing the statement in Paragraph B– 

1.4 of Appendix B that noise contours 

‘‘may be created’’ for air traffic actions 

because this would be a change in FAA 

policy. 

Creating contours for air traffic 

actions has always been an option. The 

referenced text states that noise 

contours may be created; however, noise 

contours are not required and are not 

normally used in the analysis of larger 

scale air traffic airspace and procedure 

actions. The FAA has added ‘‘at the 

FAA’s discretion’’ to specify that 

whether or not noise contours are 

mapped would be decided by the FAA. 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA explain the meaning of each of 

the three levels of noise change listed for 

air traffic airspace and procedure 

actions. 

The FAA has added a footnote in 

Paragraph B–1.4 explaining that the 

criteria listed for changes in noise 

exposure levels below DNL 65 dB are 

not defined as significant (see Exhibit 4– 

1 of the Order), but are referred to by the 

FAA as ‘‘reportable’’ noise changes. 

One commenter expressed concern 

about the requirement in Paragraph B– 

1.4 that for air traffic airspace and 

procedure actions the analysis must 

include ‘‘change-of-exposure tables and 

maps at population centers and noise 

sensitive areas (e.g., residences, schools, 

churches, hospitals, parks and 

recreation areas)’’ to identify noise 

sensitive areas where noise will change 

by ±1.5 dB for DNL 65 dB and higher, 

±3 dB for DNL 60 dB to <65 dB, and ±5 

dB for DNL 45 dB to <60 dB. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended deleting the ‘‘e.g.’’ 

statement. The commenter stated that 

noise sensitive areas are defined based 

on DNL 65 dB or higher, and for air 

traffic procedure redesign EAs data 

would have to be collected on all 

properties within very large study areas 

and very large grids analyzed to 

determine which properties are noise 

sensitive. The commenter expressed 

concern that this would represent an 

extensive noise analysis for an air traffic 

procedure redesign EA. For air traffic 

studies, population centroids are used 

to represent ‘‘residences.’’ The current 

typical approach has been to rely on the 

centroid results. If the results indicated 

a DNL 1.5 or higher increase, further 

analysis in the area to identify noise 

sensitive uses would be conducted. 

The language in B–1.4 for air traffic 

airspace and procedure actions has been 

modified to state that change-ofexposure tables and maps at population 

centers are provided to identify where 

noise will change by the designated 

amounts. The modification from 

Appendix A of Order 1050.1E was 

unintentional. The requirement to 

disclose the location and number of 

noise sensitive uses exposed to DNL 65 

dB or greater is retained. 

Paragraph B–1.5. Significance 

Determination 

One commenter stated that Paragraph 

14.4b of Order 1050.1E incorporates the 

regulations in 14 CFR part 150, but 

Order 1050.1F fails to include this 

necessary incorporation. 

The FAA has added the appropriate 

text to Paragraph B–1.5 of Order 

1050.1F. 

Two commenters noted that 

Paragraph B–1.5 of Appendix B 

references ‘‘Exhibit 11–3’’ but that 

exhibit was not provided for review. 

The reference to Exhibit 11–3 was 

made in error and has been replaced 

with the correct reference, which is 

Table 1 of Appendix A of 14 CFR part 

150. 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

should lower the significance threshold 

for noise since current research on the 

health impact of noise does not support 

DNL 65 dB. Another commenter 

requested that the significance 

threshold be lowered to 55 dB since 

health impacts are generated at 55 dB 

and higher. 

The designation of DNL 65 dB as a 

significant level of noise is based on 

statistical surveys of community 

annoyance. Annoyance is a summary 

measure of the general adverse reaction 

of people to transportation noise that 

causes interference with speech, sleep, 

the desire for a tranquil environment, 

and the ability to use the telephone, 

radio, or television satisfactorily. 

The FAA is conducting a new 

nationwide survey to update the 

scientific evidence on the relationship 

between aircraft noise exposure and its 

annoyance effects on communities 

around airports. Research to date on the 

health impacts of noise does not justify 

revision of the FAA’s significance 

threshold. The FAA is conducting 

further research on aviation noise and 

health impacts. The FAA will issue 

future policy updates if warranted by 

research results. There is currently an 

insufficient scientific foundation for 

changing the significance threshold for 

noise. 

One commenter urged the FAA to 

reconsider and verify whether the 

longstanding significance threshold for 

noise and noise-compatible land use 

remains valid for the new concentrated 

and frequent flight patterns association 

with PBN. 

As a part of its ongoing effort to 

understand the impact of aviation noise 

on airport communities, the FAA is 

conducting a new nationwide survey to 

update the scientific evidence on the 

relationship between aircraft noise 

exposure and its annoyance effects on 

communities around airports. 

The FAA applies the same 

significance criteria to all FAA actions 

and it is appropriate to use the same 

criteria for RNAV/RNP procedures. The 

NEPA documentation for RNAV/RNP 

procedures should disclose how the 

noise impacts of the proposed action 

have changed from the no action 

alternative, including changes in the 

concentration of noise. 

One commenter stated that the FAA 

must reconsider whether the current use 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44240 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

of INM and AEDT in determining 

significant noise impacts has scientific 

integrity as required for NEPA 

documentation. According to the 

commenter, with the high level of 

uncertainty and lack of established 

scientific integrity in the methodology it 

appears that the level of significance in 

the draft Order for noise increases of 1.5 

dB (Exhibit 4–1) is not able to be 

accurately provided. 

The Integrated Noise Model (INM) 

and the Aviation Environmental Design 

Tool (AEDT) are the best available 

models for civil aviation noise. They are 

well validated and use internationally 

recognized methodologies. Some 

uncertainty is inherent in noise 

modeling, but INM and AEDT provide 

a sufficient level of accuracy for the 

FAA to make significance 

determinations with respect to noise 

impacts. The FAA expends considerable 

effort and resources to improve and 

verify the accuracy of its noise models. 

See, for example, the FAA’s uncertainty 

quantification report for AEDT Version 

2a, which can be found at https://

aedt.faa.gov/Documents/AEDT%202a%

20Uncertainty%20Quantification

%20Report.pdf. 

One commenter was concerned with 

the following sentence relating to 

analysis of noise impacts to wildlife: 

‘‘[W]hen instances arise in which 

aircraft noise is a concern with respect 

to wildlife impacts, available studies 

dealing with specific species should be 

reviewed and used in the analysis.’’ The 

commenter stated that noise impacts to 

a species can be predicted even if they 

have not been studied for that species. 

This is the essence of biological 

inference. Accordingly, the guidance 

should be revised to indicate that 

established scientific practices should 

be used to obtain the best estimate of 

potential effects and an assessment of 

the estimate’s uncertainty. 

FAA has revised the referenced 

sentence in the Order to read ‘‘When 

instances arise in which aircraft noise is 

a concern with respect to wildlife 

impacts, established scientific practices, 

including review of available studies 

dealing with specific species of concern, 

should be used in the analysis. In 

addition, the Biological Resources 

chapter of the 1050.1F Desk Reference 

has additional information on how to 

evaluate impacts to wildlife. 

Two commenters stated that the FAA 

should explicitly describe how the 

agency makes a significance 

determination for properties that have 

already received or been offered and 

refused noise mitigation through prior 

efforts. The Order should specify if and 

how previously mitigated versus not 

previously mitigated properties should 

be documented. The Order should also 

indicate if previously mitigated 

properties that meet the threshold for 

significance will be eligible for further 

mitigation. 

It is important to distinguish between 

land use compatibility and the 

determination of significance for noise 

impacts. The FAA defines a significant 

noise impact as an increase of DNL 1.5 

dB or more for a noise sensitive area 

that is exposed to noise at or above the 

DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that 

will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 

dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater 

increase, when compared to the noaction alternative for the same 

timeframe (see Exhibit 4–1 of the 

Order). This significance threshold 

applies irrespective of whether exposed 

properties have previously been sound 

insulated. 

The environmental consequences 

section should disclose the numbers of 

homes that are significantly impacted by 

noise from the proposed action and 

distinguish which homes have been 

previously sound insulated and which 

have not. 

The issue of how prior noise 

mitigation activities affect significance 

determinations is separate from the 

issue of whether previously insulated 

homes that are significantly impacted 

are eligible for funding for further 

mitigation by airport sponsors. FAA’s 

criteria of project eligibility for noise 

mitigation grants are set forth in the 

Airport Improvement Handbook, Order 

5100.38. Homes that were previously 

mitigated may be eligible for further 

mitigation if they are now within the 

DNL 70 dB contour where land 

acquisition would be a viable option. 

One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether the FAA has 

a significance threshold for noise 

impacts in a quiet setting. The 

commenter stated that Exhibit 4–1 of 

Order 1050.1F seems to leave open for 

each project that involves quiet setting 

situations the development of its own 

threshold of significance. 

In describing factors to consider in 

determining significance of noise 

impacts, Exhibit 4–1 of the Order states: 

‘‘Special consideration needs to be 

given to the evaluation of the 

significance of noise impacts on noise 

sensitive areas within Section 4(f) 

properties (including, but not limited to, 

noise sensitive areas within national 

parks; national wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges; and historic sites, including 

traditional cultural properties) where 

the land use compatibility guidelines in 

14 CFR part 150 are not relevant to the 

value, significance, and enjoyment of 

the area in question. For example, the 

DNL 65 dB threshold does not 

adequately address the impacts of noise 

on visitors to areas within a national 

park or national wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge where other noise is very low and 

a quiet setting is a generally recognized 

purpose and attribute.’’ 

The FAA has not established a 

specific significance threshold for noise 

in these settings. Therefore, the agency 

makes the determination of significance 

on a case-by-case basis considering 

context and intensity (see 40 CFR 

1508.27). 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA clarify whether the significance 

threshold stated in Paragraph B–1.5 

applies to compatible land use as well. 

The commenter stated that the 

compatible land use is now part of the 

noise section, but there is no connection 

between the DNL 1.5 dB increase and 

land use exposed to DNL 65 dB or 

higher. The commenter also noted that 

the paragraph does not mention 

significance when populations are 

newly exposed to DNL 65 dB but the 

increase is less than DNL 1.5 dB. 

The significance threshold in 

Paragraph B–1.5 applies to the entire 

impact category of Noise and NoiseCompatible Land Use. Thus, for 

example, an increase of DNL 1.0 dB in 

a residential setting is not a significant 

impact even if it newly exposes a 

residence to a noise exposure level of 

DNL 65 dB or higher. The FAA has 

revised Paragraph B–1.4 of the Order to 

clarify that newly non-compatible land 

uses must be disclosed regardless of 

whether there is a significant noise 

impact. 

One commenter suggested adding a 

statement that the FAA uses its 

significance threshold, not local 

standards, to determine if a project 

would cause a significant noise effect. 

The FAA has added language to 

Paragraph B–1.3 of Appendix B stating 

that the FAA does not use local 

standards to determine the significance 

of noise impacts. 

One commenter questioned whether 

‘‘national parks’’ in Paragraph B–1.5 of 

Appendix B of the Order pertains only 

to properties designated as ‘‘national 

parks’’ or to all National Park Service 

(NPS) properties (there are currently 20 

different property designations in use by 

the NPS, including national parks.) The 

commenter questioned that if it pertains 

to all designations, would it also include 

properties with the same designations 

managed by other agencies (e.g., the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

manages national monuments, as does 

the Forest Service). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44241 

Similar to language in Appendix A of 

Order 1050.1E, Paragraph B–1.5 of 

Appendix B of Order 1050.1F explains 

that special consideration needs to be 

given to the evaluation of the 

significance of noise impacts on certain 

noise sensitive areas. That language has 

been modified to clarify that such 

consideration applies to noise sensitive 

areas within Section 4(f) properties 

where the land use compatibility 

guidelines in 14 CFR part 150 are not 

relevant to the value, significance, and 

enjoyment of the area in question (e.g., 

including, but not limited to noise 

sensitive areas within national parks; 

national wildlife and waterfowl refuges; 

and historic sites, including traditional 

cultural properties). These areas are not 

limited by the entity (e.g., the NPS, 

BLM, the Forest Service, or another 

agency) who has jurisdiction over the 

area in question. 

Paragraph B–1.7. Noise From Sources 

Other Than Aircraft Departures and 

Arrivals 

One commenter stated that Paragraph 

B–1.7, Noise from Sources Other than 

Aircraft Departures and Arrivals, and 

Paragraph B–1.11, Facilities and 

Equipment Noise Emissions, should 

either be combined as ‘‘Noise from 

Sources Other than Aircraft Departures 

and Arrivals’’ or Paragraph B–1.7 

should be renamed to something like 

‘‘Noise from Other Transportation 

Sources.’’ 

Since the noise analysis is different 

for facility and equipment noise and 

other noise sources, the FAA has 

decided to keep these sections separate. 

No changes were made to the titles of 

these sections. However, the FAA has 

added a reference within Paragraph 

B–1.7 to indicate that Paragraph B–1.11 

contains information on facility and 

equipment noise emissions. 

Two commenters suggested that the 

FAA add references to methodologies of 

the Federal Transit Administration and 

the Federal Railroad Administration 

when referencing analysis of surface 

transportation noise impacts. 

The FAA has revised language in 

Paragraph B–1.7 to clarify that analysis 

of surface transportation impacts should 

be conducted using acceptable 

methodologies from the appropriate 

modal administration. To the extent that 

the Federal Transit Administration, the 

Federal Railroad Administration, or 

another DOT modal administration has 

developed methodologies for 

determining noise impacts, these 

accepted methodologies may be used. 

We have retained the example of the 

Federal Highway Administration for 

highway noise. 

Two commenters stated that the 

Order should clarify how multiple noise 

sources should be combined and 

reported, and what criteria should be 

used in determining significant impacts 

and compatible land use. 

If appropriate, an analysis of surface 

transportation impacts, including 

construction noise, should be conducted 

using accepted methodologies from the 

appropriate modal administration, such 

as the Federal Highway Administration 

for highway noise. As there is no 

currently approved methodology and 

model for combining aviation and nonaviation noise sources, AEE will have to 

provide prior written approval to use a 

methodology and computer model 

equivalent to DNL and the Aviation 

Environmental Design Tool for that 

purpose. The FAA’s established criteria 

for determining significant noise 

impacts and compatible land use remain 

applicable. A significant noise impact 

would occur if analysis shows that the 

proposed action or alternative would 

increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more 

for a noise sensitive area that is exposed 

to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise 

exposure level, or that would be 

exposed at or above that level due to a 

DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase, when 

compared to the no action alternative 

for the same timeframe. 14 CFR part 

150, Appendix A, Table 1 provides 

Federal land use compatibility 

guidelines as a function of DNL values. 

Land use compatibility is determined by 

comparing the predicted or measured 

DNL value at a site to the values listed 

in Table 1. 

Two commenters asked whether 

Paragraphs B–1.7 and B–1.11 should be 

subsections under B–1.4 and B–1.5, as 

these paragraphs encompass noise 

sources that can change as a result of 

the proposed action. 

Paragraphs B–1.6 through B–1.12 

identify unique situations that include 

supplemental noise analysis, noise from 

other sources, and noise considerations 

specific to lines of business with the 

FAA, that do not apply to all situations. 

Therefore, the FAA has decided not to 

incorporate Paragraphs B–1.7 and B– 

1.11 into the general paragraphs 

regarding environmental consequences 

and significance determination for 

noise. 

Paragraph B–2. Section 4(f), 49 U.S.C. 

303 

One commenter recommended 

clarification of the language in the draft 

Order referring to when the Secretary of 

Transportation may approve a program 

or project that requires the use of a 

Section 4(f) property. 

The FAA has changed the language in 

Paragraph B–2 to track the language of 

Section 4(f), 49 U.S.C. 303. Thus, that 

paragraph now states that the Secretary 

of Transportation may approve a 

program or project that requires the use 

of a Section 4(f) property only if there 

is no feasible and prudent alternative 

and the project includes planning to 

minimize harm resulting from the use. 

Paragraph B–2.1. Affected Environment 

Two commenters stated that the 

Order should indicate how the inventory 

of Section 4(f) properties considered 

should be documented in an EA or EIS. 

The commenters suggested adding a 

sentence such as: ‘‘The inventory of 

Section 4(f) properties considered 

should be documented by the location 

and the Federal, state, or local official 

having jurisdiction over the property.’’ 

As stated in Paragraph B–2.1 of 

Appendix B, ‘‘[t]he FAA should identify 

as early as practicable in the planning 

process Section 4(f) properties that 

implementation of the proposed action 

and alternative(s) could affect.’’ The 

appropriate level of detail for 

identifying such potentially affected 

Section 4(f) properties is up to the 

responsible FAA official to determine. 

Paragraph B–2.2 states that where use of 

a Section 4(f) property is involved, the 

description of the affected Section 4(f) 

property should include the location, 

size, activities, patronage, access, 

unique or irreplaceable qualities, 

relationship to similarly used lands in 

the vicinity, jurisdictional entity, and 

other factors necessary to understand 

and convey the extent of the impacts on 

the resource. 

One commenter recommended noting 

the criteria used by the National 

Register of Historic Places for traditional 

cultural properties to avoid any 

suggestion that generic or otherwise 

obtuse definitions apply. 

The FAA has added a definition of 

‘‘traditional cultural properties’’ to 

Paragraph 11–5(14) of the Order. 

Paragraph B–2.2. Environmental 

Consequences 

Two commenters asked for 

clarification that the requirement to 

describe the ‘‘location, size, activities, 

patronage, access, unique or 

irreplaceable qualities, relationship to 

similarly used lands in the vicinity, 

jurisdictional entity, and other factors 

necessary to understand and convey the 

extent of the effects on the resource’’ 

applies only to those Section 4(f) 

resources impacted by the proposed 

action (i.e., physical use or constructive 

use is involved). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44242 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

The FAA has modified the text in 

Paragraph B–2.2 to provide the 

requested clarification. 

Paragraph B–2.2.2. Constructive Use of 

Section 4(f) Property 

One commenter stated that the text 

‘‘[f]indings of adverse effects do not 

automatically trigger Section 4(f) unless 

the effects would substantially impair 

the affected resource’s historical 

integrity’’ is inconsistent with 23 CFR 

774.15(f)(1). 

The FAA does not agree with the 

commenter that the referenced text 

regarding findings of adverse effect 

under Section 106 of the NHPA is 

inconsistent with 23 CFR 774.15(f)(1). 

That regulation states that there is no 

constructive use when there is no 

historic property affected or no adverse 

effect to an historic property. It does not 

necessarily follow that a constructive 

use occurs whenever there is an adverse 

effect to an historic property. As stated 

in 23 CFR 774.15(a), the test for whether 

a constructive use exists is whether a 

‘‘the project’s proximity impacts are so 

severe that the protected activities, 

features, or attributes that qualify the 

property for protection under Section 

4(f) are substantially impaired.’’ This 

test was reflected in Order 1050.1E and 

is carried forward in Order 1050.1F. An 

adverse effect under Section 106 of the 

NHPA does not necessarily result in 

substantial impairment for Section 4(f) 

purposes. 

Paragraph B–2.5. Section 6(f) 

Requirements 

One commenter stated it is unclear, 

given the title of Appendix B, why it 

includes discussion of Section 6(f). 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act is often 

discussed within guidance for Section 

4(f) since it may be an integral part of 

a Section 4(f) analysis when recreational 

properties are involved. Section 6.2j in 

Appendix A of Order 1050.1E also 

discussed replacement of recreational 

lands funded by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (required under 

Section 6(f)) within the Section 4(f) 

discussion. 

Appendix C. Web Addresses for Cited 

Publications 

One commenter noted that the FAA 

should reconsider providing links to 

Federal Web sites because they quickly 

become outdated. 

The FAA has removed the appendix 

that provides links to the Federal Web 

sites. Important links will be contained 

within the 1050.1F Desk Reference and 

on the FAA NEPA Web site which can 

be updated as needed. 

II. Helicopters 

Several commenters stated their 

opposition to exempting helicopter 

routes from environmental review, and 

several commenters stated that the 

CATEX for helicopter routes in 

Paragraph 5–6.5.h of the Order should 

be deleted or greatly modified based on 

concerns about helicopter noise. 

The FAA’s establishment and 

modification of helicopter routes are 

subject to environmental review under 

NEPA. A CATEX is not an exemption 

from environmental review, but rather 

one type of environmental review under 

NEPA (the others are EAs and EISs)(see 

CEQ’s CATEX Guidance). CATEXs are 

limited to actions that do not, 

individually or cumulatively, cause 

significant environmental impacts (40 

CFR 1508.4). Even if an action is 

included within the scope of a CATEX, 

the FAA must still consider whether 

one or more extraordinary 

circumstances exists in which the action 

could have a significant impact. If such 

a circumstance exists, the FAA may not 

apply the CATEX and the action would 

require further environmental review in 

an EA or EIS. 

The CATEX for establishment of 

helicopter routes over major 

thoroughfares has been included in 

previous versions of FAA Order 1050.1, 

including in Paragraph 311h of Order 

1050.1E. In Paragraph 5–6.5.h of 

proposed Order 1050.1F, the FAA 

proposed to modify the CATEX slightly 

by clarifying that ‘‘establishment’’ 

includes modification of existing 

helicopter routes. In additional to 

making that clarification, the final Order 

also adds language to Paragraph 5–6.5.h 

limiting the applicability of the CATEX 

to the establishment or modification of 

helicopter routes that do not have the 

potential to significantly increase noise 

over noise sensitive areas (e.g., 

residential areas). Thus, if the 

establishment or modification of a 

helicopter route over a major 

thoroughfare would result in a 

significant noise increase in a 

residential or other noise sensitive area, 

the CATEX could not be used for that 

action. 

Three commenters asked the FAA to 

undertake environmental studies of 

helicopter routes. 

NEPA and this Order apply to actions 

directly undertaken by the FAA and to 

actions undertaken by a non-Federal 

entity where the FAA has authority to 

condition a permit, license or approval. 

Existing helicopter routes and 

helicopter activity in general would not 

be subject to an environmental review 

under NEPA unless there was a 

triggering FAA action, such as the 

modification of an existing route or the 

establishment of a new route. 

In support of deleting CATEX 5–6.5.h, 

two commenters stated that noise 

footprints from helicopter routes extend 

beyond the width of major 

thoroughfares and affect adjacent 

residential and other noise sensitive 

areas. Another commenter stated that 

people live and work along major 

thoroughfares and will therefore be 

adversely affected. Wherever there is a 

major thoroughfare there are people. 

Therefore, this condition actually 

ensures that significant impacts would 

affect a great number of people as a 

result of actions in this category. CEQ 

guidance on establishing, applying, and 

revising CATEXs states that ‘‘the status 

and sensitivity of environmental 

resources vary across the nation; 

consequently, it may be appropriate to 

categorically exclude a category of 

actions in one area or region rather than 

across the nation as a whole.’’ 

Therefore, the FAA should either restrict 

this category to areas that are not 

sensitive to helicopter activity, or delete 

this category entirely. 

As explained previously, CATEXs are 

limited to actions that do not 

significantly affect the environment, and 

they cannot be applied if there are 

extraordinary circumstances in which a 

significant environmental effect may 

occur (40 CFR 1508.4). Moreover, the 

FAA has added language in the final 

Order that limits the applicability of 

CATEX 5–6.5.h to the establishment or 

modification of helicopter routes that do 

not have the potential to significantly 

increase noise over noise sensitive 

areas. Thus, if the establishment or 

modification of a helicopter route over 

a major thoroughfare would result in a 

significant noise increase in an adjacent 

residential or other noise sensitive area, 

the CATEX could not be used for that 

action. Regarding the CEQ guidance 

cited by one of the commenters, the 

FAA is not aware of any factor that 

would warrant limiting application of 

CATEX 5–6.6.h to only certain areas of 

the country. 

In support of deleting CATEX 5–6.5.h, 

one commenter stated that noise along 

major thoroughfares does not mask 

helicopter noise. Helicopter noise can be 

much more annoying than local 

thoroughfare noise and evidence shows 

that actions in this category have a high 

likelihood of causing potentially 

significant effects. 

Helicopter routes are often established 

along highways or rivers because these 

provide a visual reference point for 

pilots operating under VFR. These 

routes may provide a degree of noise 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44243 

abatement by channeling helicopters 

over non-residential areas; for NEPA 

purposes, however, the FAA does not 

rely on ambient noise to mask or reduce 

the noise impact of the action under 

review. As stated previously, the 

CATEX as revised in the final Order 

applies only to the establishment or 

modification of helicopter routes that do 

not have the potential to significantly 

increase noise over noise sensitive 

areas. 

One commenter stated that 

helicopters do not follow precise routes, 

and therefore impact broad areas. Since 

‘‘over major thoroughfares’’ is not a 

location that can guarantee avoidance 

of significant effects, the FAA should 

delete this CATEX. 

Generally, helicopter routes 

established and charted by the FAA are 

voluntary, and are designed to be flown 

under VFR. Major thoroughfares are 

frequently used as visual reference 

points for pilots operating under VFR. 

As revised in the final Order, the 

CATEX only applies to the 

establishment or modification of 

helicopter routes that do not have the 

potential to significantly increase noise 

over noise sensitive areas; therefore, if 

the establishment or modification of a 

helicopter route over a major 

thoroughfare would result in a 

significant noise increase in an adjacent 

residential or other noise sensitive area, 

the CATEX could not be used for that 

action. 

In support of deleting CATEX 5–6.5.h, 

one commenter stated that a single new 

helicopter flyover could be considered a 

significant impact. 

As revised in the final Order, the 

CATEX only applies to the 

establishment or modification of 

helicopter routes that do not have the 

potential to significantly increase noise 

over noise sensitive areas. As explained 

in Exhibit 4–1 the Order, the FAA uses 

the cumulative DNL metric, rather than 

a single event metric, to determine the 

significance of aircraft noise impacts. 

One commenter stated that flying over 

sensitive areas en route to the ‘‘major 

thoroughfares’’ would obviously be a 

potentially significant effect, since 

CATEX 5–6.5.h implies that actions 

involving changes in routes outside 

‘‘major thoroughfares’’ would not 

qualify for a CATEX. Since the whole of 

the action must be included in an 

environmental review, these effects must 

also be considered, adding to the 

reasons why the FAA should delete this 

CATEX. 

The impacts associated with 

helicopters using entry and exit points 

that are part of the establishment or 

modification of a helicopter route would 

be considered in determining whether 

the action could significantly increase 

noise over noise sensitive areas. If such 

an increase could occur, the CATEX 

would not apply. 

One commenter stated that the 

number of helicopter flights allowed is 

not restricted under the CATEX. 

Helicopter use is increasing, and this 

trend is likely to continue. An action in 

this category that previously may have 

only affected a few flights per day could 

now result in new impacts from 

helicopter flyovers several times per 

hour, clearly resulting in potentially 

significant effects. The FAA should 

either indicate the maximum number of 

flights to which the CATEX applies or 

delete the CATEX. 

Establishment or modification of 

helicopter routes does not involve 

authorization for or limitations on the 

number of helicopters that may operate 

along helicopter routes. The FAA has 

determined that the actions covered by 

the CATEX normally do not 

individually or cumulatively have 

significant impacts. Before applying a 

CATEX to an action, the FAA is 

required to determine whether the 

action involves extraordinary 

circumstances in which a significant 

impact could result. Where such 

extraordinary circumstance exists, the 

CATEX could not be used. 

In support of deleting CATEX 5–6.5.h, 

one commenter stated that because of 

increased helicopter use by 

organizations not under the jurisdiction 

of the FAA, cumulative impacts are 

increasingly likely from actions covered 

by the CATEX. 

Paragraph 5–2 of the Order 1050.1F 

requires that in determining whether to 

apply a CATEX to an action, the FAA 

must consider extraordinary 

circumstances, including whether there 

is a likelihood that the action would 

directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

create a significant impact on the 

human environment. 

One commenter stated that impacts 

from helicopter activity over major 

thoroughfares vary with normal 

variations in climatic conditions. Since 

such variations are not ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances,’’ CATEX 5–6.5.h should 

either exclude actions in areas with 

climatic conditions that at any time 

during the course of a year could cause 

significant effects, or the CATEX should 

be deleted. 

The FAA uses DNL, which captures 

variations in weather over the course of 

the year, to assess the significance of an 

action’s noise impacts. If the action 

could result in a significant noise 

impact, this CATEX would not apply. 

In support of deleting the CATEX, one 

commenter noted that CEQ states that 

when substantiating a new CATEX, a 

Federal agency should ‘‘make findings 

to explain how the agency determined 

the proposed category of actions does 

not result in individual or cumulatively 

significant environmental effects.’’ The 

commenter stated that the FAA has not 

presented evidence that these effects 

would not occur. 

As explained previously, CATEX 

5–6.5.h of the Order is not new. The 

only changes from Order 1050.1E are: 

(1) Clarification that ‘‘establishment’’ of 

a helicopter route includes 

modification; and (2) explicitly limiting 

the CATEX to the establishment or 

modification of helicopter routes that do 

not have the potential to significantly 

increase noise over noise sensitive 

areas. Neither of these changes falls 

under the CEQ language quoted by the 

commenter. Moreover, under the latter 

change each proposal to establish or 

modify a helicopter route would have to 

undergo an initial analysis to determine 

if the action could have significant noise 

impacts. 

One commenter noted that CEQ states 

that ‘‘[M]onitoring and evaluating 

implemented actions internally or 

collaboratively with other agencies and 

groups can provide additional, useful 

information for substantiating a 

CATEX.’’ The commenter questioned 

where the FAA has conducted 

monitoring to verify that the action 

defined in CATEX 5–6.5.h would not 

have significant effects. The commenter 

questioned what mechanism the FAA 

has in place to monitor, track, or 

enforce the proposed routing along 

‘‘major thoroughfares.’’ Since no such 

methods exist to verify or enforce 

compliance, the FAA should expect 

non-compliance, and therefore the FAA 

should delete this CATEX. 

As explained previously, CATEX 

5–6.5.h of the Order is not new. Neither 

of the changes to the CATEX from Order 

1050.1E falls under the CEQ language 

quoted by the commenter. In any event, 

the CATEX as revised in the final Order 

is limited to establishment or 

modification of helicopter routes that do 

not have the potential to significantly 

increase noise over noise sensitive 

areas. This would have to be determined 

before the CATEX could be applied. 

III. Legislative CATEXs 

Several commenters stated that the 

legislative CATEXs are too broad with 

some stating that the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 did not create 

any CATEXs but provided only a legal 

presumption and others stating that it 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44244 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

was contrary to the intent of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012. 

The FAA disagrees that it has 

incorrectly interpreted the intent of the 

FAA Reauthorization of 2012. The title 

of Section 213 of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 is 

‘‘Acceleration of NextGen technologies’’ 

and the title of Section 213(c) is 

‘‘Coordinated and expedited review.’’ In 

both instances, Congress has identified 

its intent to ‘‘accelerat[e]’’ and 

‘‘expedite[]’’ the implementation of 

NextGen technologies. A reading of 

Section 213 at large, and section 213(c) 

specifically, bears out the intent of these 

sections as identified in their titles. 

Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 includes two 

subsections, Section 213(c)(1) and 

Section 213(c)(2), both of which are 

reasonably interpreted as providing the 

FAA with tools to expedite 

implementation of NextGen 

technologies. Since Congress 

established these CATEXs in the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012, they cannot be 

considered to be inconsistent with the 

intent of the act. The FAA has added 

these two legislatively created CATEXs 

to Order 1050.1F consistent with 

Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012. Under Section 

213(c)(1) of the FAA Reauthorization of 

2012, navigation performance and area 

navigation procedures developed, 

certified, published, or implemented 

under that section shall be presumed to 

be covered by a CATEX under Chapter 

3 of FAA Order 1050.1E (currently 

CATEX 5–6.5.q of Order 1050.1F) unless 

extraordinary circumstances exist. 

Under Section 213(c)(2) of the same Act, 

Congress identified navigation 

performance or PBN procedures that, if 

certain conditions are met, are 

presumed to have no significant impacts 

on the human environment and for 

which the FAA ‘‘shall issue and file a 

CATEX’’ (currently 5–6.5.r of Order 

1050.1F). 

One commenter stated that these 

provisions create ‘‘legal presumptions,’’ 

not CATEXs. According to Black’s Law 

Dictionary 1186 (6th Ed. 1990), ‘‘a 

presumption of law is one which, once 

the basic fact is proved and no evidence 

to the contrary has been introduced, 

compels a finding of the existence of the 

presumed fact.’’ In the context of 

Section 213(c)(1) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012, the Act’s 

language had the effect of creating a 

legislative CATEX, not merely a legal 

presumption. 

Prior to the legislative CATEX, 

proposed procedures below 3000 feet 

above ground level were normally 

assessed in an EA under Order 1050.1E. 

This was explained in guidance that the 

FAA put out in 2012 (see below). 

Congress, in revising the statute, 

intended that the procedures be 

evaluated for NEPA purposes under a 

CATEX, not an EA, as was done 

previously. 

Furthermore, absent the statutory 

language, the FAA’s ordinary practice 

with respect to implementation of a 

CATEX would be to review the 

navigation procedures now identified in 

Section 213(c)(1) to determine: First, if 

an existing CATEX might apply, and, 

second, if any extraordinary 

circumstances precluded application of 

the CATEX. Thus, the FAA’s ordinary 

CATEX process would create two ‘‘off 

ramps’’—the decision of whether an 

applicable CATEX exists and whether 

the navigation procedure in question 

creates extraordinary circumstances. 

The language of Section 213(c)(1) 

changes this ordinary procedure, 

however. Under Section 213(c)(1), 

Congress has identified specific 

navigation procedures for which a 

CATEX does apply, and creates only 

one ‘‘off ramp’’—the presence of 

extraordinary circumstances. This is a 

notable change in some circumstances, 

because certain of the procedures that 

now fall under CATEX 1 (CATEX 

5–6.5.q) previously were considered 

actions normally requiring an EA. If the 

commenter’s view were correct, 

Congress would have created a 

provision with no more legal import 

than to duplicate current FAA processes 

under NEPA, which is not the case. 

Similarly, with respect to the second 

legislative CATEX, Congress did not 

merely create a legal presumption of 

CATEX applicability. With respect to 

this CATEX, Congress indicated that for 

any navigation performance or other 

PBN procedure that ‘‘. . . in the 

determination of the Administrator, 

would result in measurable reductions 

in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide 

emissions, and noise on a per flight 

basis, as compared to aircraft operations 

that follow existing instrument flight 

rules procedures in the same airspace, 

shall be presumed to have no significant 

affect [sic] on the quality of the human 

environment and the Administrator 

shall issue and file a CATEX for the new 

procedure.’’ Procedures meeting the 

conditions of the legislative CATEX are 

not subject to extraordinary 

circumstances review. The requirement 

that FAA ‘‘shall issue and file’’ a 

CATEX for procedures meeting the 

environmental conditions set out in 

Section 213(c)(2), clearly creates a new 

CATEX. 

Under standard statutory 

interpretation principles, every 

provision of law is to be given meaning 

and effect. Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 can only be 

given meaning and effect if the 

provisions have some practical 

application. The purpose of Congress in 

this legislation was to provide the FAA 

with additional tools for NEPA 

compliance to accelerate NextGen 

technologies. Therefore, Section 213(c) 

cannot be interpreted as merely 

espousing a legal presumption that 

would be duplicative of existing 

applications of the law. 

The commenter also indicates a belief 

that the statutory CATEXs are ‘‘too 

broad.’’ Because these CATEXs were 

established by an act of Congress, they 

have the force and effect of law and the 

FAA does not have the discretion to 

determine that the CATEXs at issue are 

‘‘too broad.’’ The FAA must apply the 

statutory language consistent with the 

most reasonable interpretation of that 

language using the legal principles of 

statutory construction. Order 1050.1F is 

updated to reflect the CATEXs as 

written in the FAA Reauthorization of 

2012 and interpreted using well settled 

principles of statutory construction. 

Two commenters stated that the FAA 

cannot rely on the legislation to create 

these two CATEXs and therefore a 

CATEX justification package should be 

developed to show how these actions do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts in 

the absence of extraordinary 

circumstances. 

It is not uncommon for Congress to 

provide for specific CATEXs or state in 

the legislation that certain actions 

should be presumed to have no 

significant impacts and therefore should 

be categorically excluded, as was the 

case for the two legislative CATEXs 

provided for in Section 213 (c) of the 

FAA Reauthorization of 2012. These 

types of CATEXs are provided for by 

law rather than being created at the 

discretion of the agency. Because these 

legislative CATEXs are not the product 

of administrative discretion, the FAA 

need not prepare a CATEX justification 

package for submission to CEQ. See 

footnote 1 of the CEQ’s CATEX 

Guidance. 

Several commenters stated that the 

FAA has misinterpreted the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 language and 

the intent of Congress was to only create 

one CATEX. 

Congress set forth two separate 

provisions in the FAA Reauthorization 

of 2012 dealing with CATEXs, Section 

213(c)(1) and Section 213(c)(2). These 

provisions are under separate 

subparagraphs, and contain different 

criteria and limitations for application 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 44245 

of the CATEXs, as described in a 

previous comment response above. 

Given the differences in the statutory 

language and the structure of these 

statutory provisions, it is evident that 

Congress did not create a single CATEX 

in these provisions. 

Several commenters expressed 

concerns that the legislated CATEXs do 

not adequately address potential 

environmental impacts. In this regard, 

commenters specifically cited noise 

including potential noise focusing 

effects of PBN procedures and noise on 

residents living near freeways, health 

effects, air quality, greenhouse gas 

emissions and climate change, 

economic impacts including diminished 

property values, fuel consumption and 

fuel dumping, environmental justice, 

and cumulative impacts. One 

commenter stated that Order 1050.1F 

contains no provision to verify with 

ongoing monitoring that a CATEX 

determination about noise reduction 

with a PBN procedure was correct. 

A CATEX by definition in CEQ 

regulations means a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. The first 

legislative CATEX, 5–6.5.q can only be 

used when it is determined that no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

could cause a potential significant 

impact. This includes a determination 

that the proposed action does not have 

the potential to have significant impacts 

with respect to a variety of 

environmental categories. In addition, 

environmental laws and requirements 

other than NEPA (e.g., the Clean Air 

Act, E.O. 12989, Environmental Justice), 

continue to apply. The FAA has issued 

guidance on how to apply CATEX 1 

(CATEX 5–6.5.q) available at: http://

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/

headquarters_offices/apl/environ_

policy_guidance/guidance/. 

The second legislated CATEX is 

unique in that it prohibits the FAA from 

applying extraordinary circumstances 

that would consider a variety of 

environmental impacts if the 

Administrator has determined that the 

procedures would result in measurable 

reductions in fuel consumption, carbon 

dioxide emissions, and noise on a per 

flight basis, as described in a previous 

comment response above. However, as 

with CATEX 1 (CATEX 5–6.5.q), 

environmental laws and requirements 

other than NEPA continue to apply. 

With respect to the comment about 

the accuracy of the FAA’s noise 

determination when applying a CATEX, 

the FAA expends consideration effort 

and resources to improve and verify the 

accuracy of its noise models. Short-term 

noise monitoring is not as accurate as 

FAA’s computer modeling at calculating 

an annual Day Night Average Sound 

Level (DNL), which is FAA’s primary 

noise metric. 

Several commenters were concerned 

about safety from implementation of the 

procedures covered by the legislative 

CATEXs. 

The actions covered by the legislative 

CATEXs are intended to cover PBN 

procedures. Each procedure is evaluated 

for safety prior to implementation, as is 

true with any new procedure regardless 

of whether it is subject to the new 

legislative CATEXs or not. 

Several commenters stated that 

extraordinary circumstances should be 

applied to the legislative CATEXs. 

The statutory language establishing 

the CATEX now located at CATEX 

5–6.5.q of the Order, known as CATEX 

1, specifically indicates that actions 

taken in accordance with this CATEX 

are subject to extraordinary 

circumstances review. However, the 

language in the FAA Reauthorization of 

2012 establishing CATEX 5–6.5.r of the 

Order, known as CATEX 2, provides 

that the procedure is subject to a review 

to determine whether it results ‘‘in 

measurable reductions in fuel 

consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, 

and noise, on a per flight basis, as 

compared to aircraft operations that 

follow existing instrument flight rules 

procedures in the same airspace. . .’’ If 

these conditions are met, the statute 

states that the procedure ‘‘shall be 

presumed to have no significant affect 

[sic] on the quality of the human 

environment and the Administrator 

shall issue and file a categorical 

exclusion for the new procedure.’’ The 

language of the legislation both creates 

a legal presumption that there are no 

significant effects on the quality of the 

human environment if the identified 

conditions are met, and directs the FAA 

to apply the CATEX (regardless of 

extraordinary circumstances). 

Several commenters questioned the 

FAA’s claim that the legislative CATEXs 

have no minimum altitude thus giving 

the FAA an exemption from all noise 

impact evaluations for these actions. 

The legislative CATEXs were 

provided for in the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 and did not 

limit application to any specific 

altitude. CATEX 5–6.5.q [CATEX 1] still 

applies extraordinary circumstances 

which would not allow its application 

to procedures which have the potential 

to create significant noise impacts in 

noise sensitive areas. Although CATEX 

5–6.5.r [CATEX 2] does not apply 

significance criteria, it does state that 

there must be measureable reductions in 

fuel consumption, carbon dioxide 

emissions, and noise on a per flight 

basis. 

One commenter noted that the FAA 

had prepared an EA for PBN procedures 

proposed as part of the Optimization of 

the Airspace and Procedures in the 

Metroplex (OAPM) and that this 

precedent precludes consideration of a 

CATEX for RNAV/RNP in a terminal 

airspace. 

The FAA disagrees that an EA for 

certain projects precludes the 

appropriate use of a CATEX for other 

similar projects. An agency may make a 

determination on a case-by-case basis to 

elevate the NEPA review to an EA for 

a particular action even though a 

CATEX may be available. Nothing in the 

CEQ Regulations or this Order precludes 

the future use of a CATEX when an EA 

is prepared for a particular action. 

Several commenters stated that 

environmental impact review and noise 

testing should be required when there 

are changes in flight procedures and 

patterns. 

FAA actions must adhere to NEPA. In 

the case of the two legislative CATEXs, 

Congress has established the conditions 

in CATEXs 5–6.5.q and 5–6.5.r through 

legislation. CATEX 5–6.5.q [CATEX 1] 

applies extraordinary circumstances. 

One of the extraordinary circumstances 

is the potential for significant noise 

impacts to noise sensitive areas. The 

FAA employs noise screening to 

consider whether there are 

extraordinary circumstances related to 

noise. Although CATEX 5–6.5.r [CATEX 

2] does not allow the consideration of 

extraordinary circumstances, it does 

state that there must be measureable 

reductions in fuel consumption, carbon 

dioxide emissions, and noise on a per 

flight basis. 

Several commenters stated that there 

should be public involvement when 

applying the legislative CATEXs. 

The FAA’s public involvement and 

notification requirements are consistent 

with the CEQ’s requirements for public 

notice and comment. The legislative 

CATEXs would be implemented in the 

same manner as other CATEXs. The 

FAA has acknowledged that there may 

be circumstances where public 

notification of a CATEX would be 

appropriate; however, these decisions 

are made on a case-by-case basis (see 

Paragraph 5–4). 

Two commenters suggested that the 

Order reference where the list of ‘‘core 

airports’’ can be found and include the 

definitions of medium and small hub 

airports. One commenter stated the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012 specifically 

mentioned OEP airports (35 airports) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44246 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Notices 

and not the core airports as written in 

Order 1050.1F. 

Detailed guidance on how to apply 5– 

6.5.q (CATEX 1) is available in the 

1050.1F Desk Reference which includes 

an appendix providing the list of 

airports the CATEX applies to. 

The Core Airports are the 29 large hub 

airports and Memphis International 

Airport. The definitions of medium and 

small hub airports are defined within 

the National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS) Report. Large hubs are 

those airports that each account for at 

least one percent of total U.S. passenger 

enplanements; medium hubs for 

between 0.25 percent and one percent, 

small hubs for between 0.05 percent and 

0.25 percent. 

The FAA replaced OEP with an 

initiative to incorporate NextGen 

technology into the National Airspace 

System based on the Core Airports. In 

December 2012, the FAA interpreted the 

phrase ‘‘35 OEP airports’’ in Section 213 

to refer to the 30 Core Airports. 

One commenter stated that the 

legislative CATEXs should only be 

applied to airports that have a current 

ALP, have a current Noise Exposure 

Map on file, have engaged in a Part 150 

Study and have eliminated all 

incompatible land use in the airport 

vicinity with reference to compatibility 

guidelines included in Appendix A of 

Part 150. 

Because the CATEXs at issue were 

established by law (the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012, Public Law 

112–95), the FAA does not have the 

discretion to add additional limitations 

to their applicability beyond the terms 

provided in the statute. 

Several commenters stated the 

legislative CATEXs violate NEPA. 

A CATEX is a type of NEPA review 

and is recognized by CEQ. The purpose 

of Congress in the FAA Reauthorization 

of 2012 was to provide the FAA with 

additional tools for NEPA compliance to 

accelerate NextGen technologies. It is 

not uncommon for Congress to provide 

for specific CATEXs or state in the 

legislation that certain actions should be 

presumed to have no significant impacts 

and therefore should be categorically 

excluded, as was the case for the two 

legislative CATEXs provided for in 

Section 213(c) of the FAA 

Reauthorization of 2012. 

One commenter recommended that 

the FAA align its environmental 

procedures more closely with the clear 

statutory mandate in Section 208 of the 

FAA Reauthorization of 2012 and with 

NEPA; and that, in doing so, the FAA 

would fulfill the directive in Section 208 

of the 2012 Act to set specific 

quantitative goals for environmental 

impacts and measure ‘‘actual 

operational experience against those 

goals, taking into account noise 

pollution concerns of affected 

communities to the extent practicable in 

establishing the environmental 

goals....’’ 

The FAA’s environmental procedures 

are aligned with NEPA. Order 1050.1F 

has been reviewed by the CEQ for 

adherence to NEPA. Section 208 of the 

FAA Reauthorization of 2012 is a 

separate provision involving in part the 

establishment of specific quantitative 

goals for the safety, capacity, efficiency, 

performance, and environmental 

impacts of each phase of NextGen 

planning and development activities 

and the measurement of actual 

operational performance against those 

goals. Section 208 does not address the 

environmental impacts of proposed sitespecific NextGen procedures and does 

not guide or govern NEPA reviews. 

One commenter stated the FAA has 

not solved the problem of how to assess 

the noise on a per-flight basis, but seems 

poised to adopt the recommendation of 

the CATEX2 Task Group to employ a 

net noise reduction method. 

The CATEX in Order 1050.1F simply 

reflects the legislative wording. The 

FAA is considering how to assess noise 

on a per-flight basis and has asked for 

public comments on the CATEX2 task 

group recommendation. 

In addition to the foregoing 

comments, many comments were 

received identifying typographical 

errors, missing or incorrect paragraph 

identifiers, incorrect internal references, 

and other minor grammatical 

inconsistencies. All such corrections are 

adopted unless stated otherwise in this 

preamble. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 16, 

2015. 

Lourdes Q. Maurice, 

Executive Director, Office of Environment and 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18084 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES