### Federal Aviation Administration- Small UAS (sUAS) Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) National Environmental Policy Act The Department ofTransportation has determined that this proposed action qualifies for categorical exclusion pursuant to Paragraph 4.c
.5 ofDOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979) and FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.6(f). 1 Paragraph 4.c.5 ofDOT Order 5610.1C incorporates byreference actions identified by FAA as categorical exclusions. Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency' s NEPA implementing procedures that do not normallyhave a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR §1508.4. In analyzing the applicability ofa categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation ofan EA or EIS. Id. Extraordinary Circumstances are factors or circumstances·in which a normally categorically excluded action mayhave a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

### An extraordinary circumstance exists ifa proposed action involves any ofthe following circumstances and has the potential for a significant impact. Based on the information known at this time and what is reasonably foreseeable, pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA has not identified any extraordinary circumstances? The Department is adopting specific rules to enable the integration ofthe lowest-risk small UAS operations into the NAS, pursuant to section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act (Public Law 112-95). This rulemaking does not apply to public aircraft operations ofsmall UAS

1 FAA has determined that this final rulemaking is covered by the CATEX described in paragraph 5-6.6(f) of FAA Order 1050.1F. This is because the FAA relied upon the categorical exclusion in section 312(f) of FAA Order lOSO.lE in the Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Since the NPRM, the FAA has updated the order and the corollary provision in the new order is paragraph 5-6.6(f). 2 FAA issued a Categorical Exclusion for the Notice ofProposed Rule Making (NPRM) pursuant to paragraph 3l2(f) ofOrder l050.1E. FAA recentlyupdated this Order. The Categorical Exclusion for regulatory actions previously contained inparagraph 312(f) is now inParagraph 5

-6.6(f) ofOrder 1050.1F
. Page 1of6that are not operated as civil aircraft and does not affect operation ofUAS byrecreational users who complywith Section 336 ofPublic Law 112-95, Special Rule for Model Aircraft
. The Flight Standards Service, (General Aviation Operations Branch AFS-830) has considered the potential environmental effects ofthe rule and reviewed comments on the small UAS NPRM. Based upon FAA's forecasts, a noise assessment based on certification data for two small UAS and supporting documentation available from small UAS manufacturers, and the best available information regarding intensity ofuse, location, and the characteristics ofUAS covered bythe rule (less than 55 pounds and primarily electric/batterypowered), our review concludes that the final rule qualifies for a CATEX would not produce significant environmental impacts and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Public Involvement:The rule itselfwas made available for a 60 day commentperiod that began on February 23, 2015 and ended onApril24, 2015. CFR: 14 CFR Parts 21 , 43, 45, 47, 61, 91, 101, 183, Federal Register Number: 2015- 03544. There were approximately 4,700 comments received via the NPRM process for small UAS, some ofwhich regarded environmental issues. Comments were considered and were responded to inthe preamble. The areas ofconcern ' identified by commenters were considered in determining ifthere were extraordinary circumstances under Paragraph 5-2 ofOrder 1050.1F
. The basis for determining that the action would not cause significant impacts or involve extraordinary circumstances is detailed below. Potential for Significant Impacts and Extraordinary Circumstances: The FAA considered potential effects ofthe rule in the following environmental impact categories, based on the nature ofsmall UAS operations coveredbythe regulation and input received during the public commentperiod:
• Historic and Cultural Resources
• Wildlife
• Noise Impacts
• Air Quality
• Visual Impacts Page 2 of6In addition, FAA evaluated the potential for the rule to be highly controversial on environmental grounds, which is listed as an extraordinary circumstance in Paragraph 5-2 ofFAA Order 10501.F. Historic and Cultural Resources: FAA considered the potential for small UAS operating under this rule to affect historic properties subject to Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act. An impact constitutes an "effect" under Section 106 ifit directly or indirectly alters the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. FAA determined that the potential for small UAS operating under this rule to "affect" a historic property is limited to indirect noise impacts
. Unless a quiet setting is an attribute ofthe property's significance, FAA relies on its land use compatibility guidelines to evaluate noise impacts on historic properties. For example, historic properties inresidential use would be considered to be compatible at noise levels below DNL 65dB. FAA's noise assessment indicated that it is highlyunlikely that noise generated by small UAS subject to this rule would exceed the land use compatibility guidelines. Although the land use guidelines may notbe relevant for certain types ofhistoric properties, where a quiet setting is an attribute ofthe property's significance, and because the Rule applies nationwide, it is not feasible to identify individual properties ofthis type that maybe affected bynoise from Small UAS operating under this Ru1e.
Wildlife: The FAA considered the small UAS rule's potential to affect wildlife. UAS are anticipated to be very useful in the research ofvarious species as theymaybe less stressful on species than human presence. The potential impacts ofconcern are when UAS are not used in accordance with existing laws that protect wildlife. FAA discussed with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Sanctuaries their support ofthe small UAS rule and concerns with the potential impacts ofUAS on wildlife. FAA recognized the potential ofsmall UAS operations to affect birds and wildlife, but concluded that this rule does not authorize such action or affect existing prohibitions on the harassment, harming, orkilling of birds, mammals or ocean dwelling animals protected by other laws. It was determined that the best way to limit any impacts to listed species from the misuse ofUAS is by educating the user. Page 3 of6FAA has included a link to NOAA's website in the Final Rule to ensure that pilots receive notification oflaws that protect these species. 

### Noise: FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (July 16, 2015) provides a significant impact threshold for noise as an increase ofmore than a yearly day-night average sound level (DNL) 1.5 dB increase in noise sensitive areas exposed to aircraft noise at or above DNL 65 dB (or that will be at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1
.5 dB or greater increase), when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. Areas exposed to aircraft noise at these levels are generally found in the vicinity ofairports, and therefore are unlikely to be subject to noise from small UAS operating under this rule, which limits theiruse in Class B, C andD airspace.
FAA land use compatibility guidelines establish DNL 65 dB as compatible with residential, public, commercial, manufacturing and production, and recreational land uses. To illustrate how the noise ofan individual small UAS mightrelate to the land use planning guidelines, FAA used data from the noisier ofthe two small UAS airworthiness and noise certification projects. Calculations showed that it wouldtake over 6,000 flights ofthe heavier ofthe two certificated UAS over one 24-hour period at an altitude of200 feet to produce a noise level of DNL 65 dB, and at 400 feet altitude overthe measurement point, there would need to be 25,000 flights in one 24-hourperiod to produce this level ofnoise. The FAA does not anticipate this level ofsmall UAS operations at any location in the United States, norwould the airspace over a particular location support such levels ofactivity
. 

### Air Quality: The FAA considered the potential emissions from small UAS operating under this rule. The majority ofsmall UAS currently available are poweredby electricity (i
.e. through battery-powered electric motors) and generally do notproduce the pollutants covered by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Based on this information the FAAbelieves that emissions attributable to UAS operating subject to this regulation will not cause significant air quality impacts or cause any exceedance ofair quality standards.

Page 4 of6Impacts that are likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds: The term "highly controversial on environmental grounds" means there is a substantial dispute involving reasonable disagreement over the degree, extent, ornature ofa proposed action's environmental impacts or over the action's risks ofcausing environmental harm and has the potential for a significant impact. Mere opposition is not sufficient for a proposed action or its impacts to be considered highly controversial, butthe FAA considers opposition on environmental grounds by a Federal, state, or local government agency orby a tribe or a substantial number ofthe persons affectedby the action in determining whether this extraordinary circumstance precludes the use ofa CATEX. 

### In the case ofthe small UAS proposed rule, there were approximately 200 comments raising concerns on environmental grounds out ofapproximately 4,600 comments. No governmental agency ortribe expressed opposition, based on environmental grounds, to this rule being implemented. For this reason, FAA has determined that the rule is not highly controversial on environmental grounds and does not trigger this extraordinary circumstance. Visual effects: The FAA considers the extent to which an action would affect the nature ofthe visual character ofthe area, including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value ofthe affected visual resources; contrast with the visual resources and/or visual character in the study area; and block or obstruct the views ofvisual resources, including whether these resources would still be viewable from other locations. Small UAS operating under this rule would not block or obstruct views. The other aspects ofvisual impact can onlybe evaluatedbased on the environment in which the activity would occur. Although the FAA received a comment expressing concern about the visual impact ofa UAS on the natural landscape, the commenter did not cite specific locations orprovide evidence to support this concern. Based on the size of UAS covered bythis rule and the lack ofany specific information concerning locations with visual character orvisual resources that might be adversely affected, FAA concluded that this rule would notresult in significant visual impacts.

Page 5 of6FAADecision: Having reviewed the above information, verified by the responsible Flight Standards Environmental Specialist, it is the FAA's decision that the proposed Small UAS CATEX warrants environmental processing as indicated below
. _X_ No further NEPA review required. Project is categorically excluded perparagraph 5-6
.6 of FAA Order 1050.1F.

__ AnEnvironmental Assessment (EA) isrequired.

__ An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required
.

__ The following additional documentation is necessary for FAA to perform a complete environmental evaluation ofthe proposedproject.
This decision is consistentwith FAA's determination that the Federal action to approve the use ofSmall UAS for commercial operations is at this time categorically excluded from further environmental analysis perparagraph 5-6
.6 ofFAA Order 1050.1F. Furthermore, the proposed Federal actionhas no extraordinary circumstances as contained in paragraph 5-2 ofthe same order
. Responsible FAA Officials
Name: Mark E. Giron Title: Manager, General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-830 

### Signature ***.¥ :::::::~=----** **--- -Date**  3/9/2016
Name: Eric Dunlap Title: Environmental Program Manager, AVS 

### Signature£'

# ~**~£--** Date -=-3.:..._:/ 

## 1'-'---/_6---'-o

# {-'-=--~_ Page 6 of6