46086 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 

24 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for Web site viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

office of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SRNYSEMKT–2015–52, and should be 

submitted on or before August 24, 2015. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.24

Robert W. Errett, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18879 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 9210] 

Determination Under Section 610 of 

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, As 

Amended 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

by section 610 of the Foreign Assistance 

Act of 1961, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 

and the President’s Memorandum of 

Delegation dated April 16, 2015, I 

hereby determine it necessary for the 

purposes of the Act that pursuant to the 

relevant authorities of the Act, the 

following funds be transferred to, and 

consolidated with, funds made available 

under chapter 4 of part II of the Act, and 

such funds are hereby so transferred and 

consolidated: 

• $12,150,000 of Fiscal Year 2014 

funds from the Nonproliferation, 

Antiterrorism, Demining and Related 

Programs account to the Economic 

Support Fund account. 

This determination shall be reported 

to Congress and published in the 

Federal Register. 

John F. Kerry, 

Secretary of State. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18954 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–AD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0510] 

Implementation of Legislative 

Categorical Exclusion for 

Environmental Review of Performance 

Based Navigation Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transportation. 

ACTION: Final Notice to Announce 

Implementation of Section 213(c)(2) 

CATEX and Disposition of Public 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: On August 19, 2014, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

published in the Federal Register [79 

FR 49141–49144] a notice regarding the 

FAA’s consideration of how to 

implement Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Section 213(c)(2) directs the FAA to 

issue and file a categorical exclusion for 

any navigation performance or other 

performance based navigation 

procedure that would result in 

measureable reductions in fuel 

consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, 

and noise on a per flight basis as 

compared to aircraft operations that 

follow existing instrument flight rule 

procedures in the same airspace. To 

inform the FAA’s consideration of 

interpretative guidance regarding 

Section 213(c)(2), the FAA’s August 19 

notice requested public comment on a 

Net Noise Reduction Method 

recommended by the NextGen Advisory 

Committee (NAC) and possible 

variations on this method. The FAA has 

reviewed and considered all comments 

and has decided to issue interpretative 

guidance to implement Section 213(c)(2) 

using the Net Noise Reduction Method 

with two variations to the NAC’s 

recommendation, as described in this 

final notice. 

DATES: The effective date of this 

implementation will be the date the 

FAA issues the interpretative guidance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynne S. Pickard, Senior Advisor for 

Environmental Policy, Office of 

Environment and Energy (AEE–6), 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3577; email lynne.pickard@faa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) establishes a broad national 

policy to protect the quality of the 

human environment and to ensure that 

environmental considerations are given 

careful attention and appropriate weight 

in decisions of the Federal Government. 

Regulations promulgated by the Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) to implement 

NEPA establish three levels of 

environmental review for federal 

actions. An environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is the detailed written 

statement as required by section 

102(2)(C) of NEPA, and is prepared for 

those actions when one or more 

environmental impacts are potentially 

significant and mitigation measures 

cannot reduce the impact(s) below 

significant levels. 40 CFR 1508.11. An 

environmental assessment (EA) is a 

more concise document that provides a 

basis for determining whether to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement or a finding of no significant 

impact. 40 CFR 1508.9. A categorical 

exclusion (CATEX) is used for actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 40 CFR 1508.4. 

A CATEX is not an exemption or waiver 

of NEPA review; it is a level of NEPA 

review. 

CEQ regulations require agency 

procedures to identify classes of actions 

which normally require an EIS or an EA, 

as well as those actions which normally 

do not require either an EIS or an EA 

(i.e., a CATEX). 40 CFR 1507.3(b). In 

addition to identifying actions that 

normally are CATEXed, an agency’s 

procedures must also provide for 

extraordinary circumstances in which a 

normally excluded action may have a 

significant environmental effect which 

would preclude the use of a CATEX. 40 

CFR 1508.4. 

The FAA has adopted policy and 

procedures for compliance with NEPA 

and CEQ’s implementing regulations in 

Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures, dated July 16, 

2015 [80 Federal Register 44207, July 

24, 2015]. Order 1050.1F lists FAA 

actions subject to a CATEX in 

accordance with CEQ regulations, 

including CATEXs for FAA actions 

involving establishment, modification, 

or application of airspace and air traffic 

procedures. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 46087 

1The Next Generation Air Transportation System, 

referred to as NextGen, is a term used to describe 

the ongoing transformation of the National Airspace 

System (NAS). At its most basic level, NextGen 

represents an evolution from a ground-based system 

of air traffic control to a satellite-based system of 

air traffic management. 

2http://www.rtca.org/Files/Miscellaneous%20

Files/CatEx2%20Report%20NAC%20June%202013

final.pdf. 

In the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95), 

Congress created two additional 

legislative CATEXs for certain air traffic 

procedures being implemented as part 

of the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen).1

Section 213(c) of this Act provides: 

(c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED 

REVIEW. 

(1) In General.—Navigation performance 

and area navigation procedures developed, 

certified, published, or implemented under 

this section shall be presumed to be covered 

by a categorical exclusion (as defined in 

section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations) under chapter 3 of FAA Order 

1050.1E unless the Administrator determines 

that extraordinary circumstances exist with 

respect to the procedure. 

(2) NextGen Procedures.—Any navigation 

performance or other performance based 

navigation procedure 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, 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. 

These two new legislative CATEXs 

have been included in Order 1050.1F. 

The FAA issued implementing guidance 

on the CATEX described in Section 

213(c)(1) on December 6, 2012. 

Technical and legal issues have 

hindered implementing guidance on the 

CATEX in Section 213(c)(2) because 

none of the current noise methodologies 

measure noise on a per flight basis as 

contemplated by the statute. 

The CATEX in Section 213(c)(2) has 

some unique characteristics. It presumes 

no significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment based on a review 

of three factors—fuel consumption, 

carbon dioxide emissions, and noise. To 

apply this CATEX, the FAA is directed 

to determine that all three factors would 

be measurably reduced when compared 

to what is generated by existing 

instrument flight rules procedures, 

instead of determining that there would 

be no potential for significant impacts. 

It bases the determination of measurable 

reductions on a per flight basis. It does 

not provide for extraordinary 

circumstances to override the CATEX. 

Section 213(c)(2) states that this 

CATEX applies to ‘‘any navigation 

performance or other performance based 

navigation procedure. . . .’’ The FAA 

interprets this to mean NextGen 

performance based navigation (PBN) 

procedures based on the terminology 

and because the provision is entitled 

‘‘NextGen Procedures’’ and is within a 

more comprehensive Section 213 that is 

entitled ‘‘Acceleration of NextGen 

Technologies’’. PBN procedures are 

flight procedures that rely on satellitebased navigation, i.e. Area Navigation 

(RNAV) and Required Navigation 

Performance (RNP). Accordingly, the 

FAA finds that the use of this CATEX 

is limited to PBN procedures. The 

CATEX cannot be used for conventional 

procedures (flight procedures that rely 

on ground-based navigational aids) or 

for projects involving a mix of 

conventional and PBN procedures, 

which is commonly the case for sizeable 

projects such as an Optimization of the 

Airspace and Procedures in the 

Metroplex (Metroplex). In addition, for 

projects involving only PBN procedures, 

95 percent or more already meet the 

conditions of existing FAA CATEXs. 

Under these circumstances, the Section 

213(c)(2) CATEX would be expected to 

be used infrequently. It could expedite 

review of a PBN-only project that would 

otherwise be subject to an EA or 

possibly an EIS due to a high level of 

environmental controversy or potential 

environmental impacts that would 

preclude the use of another existing 

CATEX. 

The statutory language of Section 

213(c)(2) states that the CATEX cannot 

be implemented unless the FAA can 

determine that there are measurable 

reductions of fuel consumption, carbon 

dioxide emissions, and noise on a per 

flight basis. While measurable 

reductions in fuel consumption and 

carbon dioxide emissions can be 

determined on a per flight basis using 

current methodologies, aircraft noise 

poses unique challenges for such a 

determination. Noise depends not only 

on the varying noise levels of an aircraft 

as it flies, but also on the position of the 

aircraft in relation to noise sensitive 

receivers on the ground. Noise tends to 

increase at some locations and decrease 

at other locations as PBN procedures 

shift and concentrate flight tracks. Total 

noise in an area of airspace cannot be 

calculated by adding up the noise levels 

at various locations on the ground, and 

noise levels cannot be divided by the 

number of aircraft to produce noise per 

flight. The FAA could not find a 

technically sound way to make the 

noise determination required by the 

statute based on an analysis of 

methodologies currently in use. 

In September 2012, the FAA tasked 

the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) 

for assistance in further exploring how 

to make use of this legislative CATEX. 

The NAC, established September 23, 

2010, is a 28-member Federal advisory 

committee formed to provide advice on 

policy-level issues facing the aviation 

community in developing and 

implementing NextGen. In response to 

FAA’s request, the NAC created a Task 

Group of diverse stakeholders 

representing airlines, airports, 

manufacturers, aviation associations, 

consultants, and community interests. 

The Task Group agreed with the FAA’s 

technical analysis of current 

methodologies and went on to develop 

a Net Noise Reduction Method. The Net 

Noise Reduction Method received 

unanimous support from Task Group 

members and was recommended to FAA 

by the NAC on June 4, 2013.2

Following extensive evaluation of the 

NAC’s recommended Net Noise 

Reduction Method, the FAA decided to 

solicit public comment to further inform 

the FAA’s consideration of interpretive 

guidance to implement Section 213(c)(2) 

using the Net Noise Reduction Method 

and possible variations on it. The FAA 

noted several reasons for seeking public 

review in addition to the NAC’s public 

forum. One reason is that this CATEX 

has some unique statutory requirements 

that have presented challenges to the 

FAA in determining how to implement 

the CATEX. In addition, the Net Noise 

Reduction Method would introduce a 

new method for assessing noise for 

certain proposed PBN procedures under 

NEPA that is different in a number of 

respects from current noise analysis 

methodologies. The NAC also suggested 

an additional test, at the FAA’s 

discretion, involving a determination of 

significant noise impact; and the FAA 

wanted input from the public on the use 

of such a test. Finally, there appears to 

be substantial public interest and 

concern regarding this CATEX, as 

reflected in numerous comments 

submitted on the inclusion of this 

CATEX in Order 1050.1F. 

FAA’s Decision To Implement the Noise 

Determination in Section 213(c)(2) 

The FAA will determine that there is 

a measurable reduction in noise on a per 

flight basis under Section 213(c)(2) if 

proposed PBN procedures, when 

compared to existing procedures they 

replace in the same airspace, would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 

3 DNL, the Day-Night Average Sound Level, is the 

FAA’s primary metric for assessing aircraft noise. 

DNL accounts for the noise levels of individual 

aircraft events, the number of times those events 

occur, and the period of day/night in which they 

occur. 

4For NEPA purposes, FAA normally performs 

noise screening to determine DNL changes at noise 

levels of DNL 45 dB and higher for air traffic 

airspace and procedure actions. 

5The FAA’s criterion for a significant noise 

impact under NEPA is an increase of DNL 1.5 dB 

or more for a noise sensitive area (e.g. homes, 

schools) that is exposed to noise at or above the 

DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be 

exposed at or above this level due to a 1.5 dB or 

greater increase, when compared to the no action 

alternative for the same timeframe. FAA Order 

1050.1F. 

6This example uses noise and population data 

from an EA for procedural changes at Chicago 

Midway International Airport. This example was 

also in the FAA’s August 19, 2014 notice. 

7FAA will evaluate net changes at DNL 45 dB 

and higher, consistent with FAA’s NEPA practice 

for PBN procedures and also consistent with the 

NAC’s recommendation. 

8The NAC used procedural changes at Chicago 

Midway International Airport and Seattle Tacoma 

International Airport to test the results of its 

method. 

result in a net noise reduction within 

that area of airspace and would not 

significantly increase noise. The FAA 

will use the Day-Night Average Sound 

Level (DNL) 3 to determine average 

changes in noise and whether there is a 

net noise reduction within an area 

exposed to noise levels of DNL 45 

decibels (dB) and higher.4 The FAA 

interprets ‘‘measurable reductions in 

. . . noise’’ to preclude situations where 

there would be significant increases in 

noise. Therefore, the FAA will not use 

this CATEX when proposed PBN 

procedures would result in a noise 

increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more over 

noise sensitive areas at levels of DNL 65 

dB and higher, which would constitute 

a significant noise impact under FAA’s 

long-standing NEPA criterion.5

This interpretation uses the NAC’s 

recommended Net Noise Reduction 

Method with two modifications: (1) 

FAA will base the determination of 

measurable reductions in noise on net 

changes in noise, instead of net changes 

in the affected population, to be more 

consistent with the statute; and (2) FAA 

interprets measurable reductions in 

noise to preclude use of the CATEX in 

situations where noise increases would 

be significant. 

The application of the FAA’s 

interpretation is illustrated below in 

Table 1. Using the same source data 

used by the NAC in one of its 

examples,6 the FAA calculated the 

average change in the DNL resulting 

from PBN procedures versus existing 

procedures at thousands of locations 

within an area of airspace. The total 

average change in noise is a decrease, 

and absent significant noise increases, 

the required noise reduction 

determination could be made, enabling 

the CATEX to be used for the PBN 

procedures if fuel consumption and 

carbon dioxide emissions would also be 

reduced. If there are significant 

increases in noise, the FAA would not 

use the CATEX irrespective of the 

average change in noise. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE CHANGES IN DNL 

LEVEL PBN PROCEDURES VS EXISTING PROCEDURES

DNL noise exposure band Average 

change in DNL 

45–60 .................................... ¥0.3 DNL 

60–65 .................................... 0 

Above 65 .............................. 0 

Total ......................................

Change ................................. ¥0.3 DNL 

In the August 19, 2014 notice, the 

FAA calculated net changes in noise in 

two ways—(1) a straight average of all 

locations as in Table 1 of this notice and 

(2) a population weighted average. The 

FAA decided to use the straight average 

because it is more consistent with the 

statutory text as well as easier to 

understand. In both calculations shown 

in the previous notice, the total average 

change in noise was a decrease, which 

was the same result produced by the 

NAC method. 

The FAA has determined that its 

interpretation of the statutory language 

is a reasonable interpretation that 

enables the agency to fulfill its 

responsibility to implement enacted 

legislation. It provides an additional 

CATEX that may be used for 

environmental reviews of PBN 

procedures consistent with legislative 

intent. It provides a method to quantify 

measurable noise reductions within a 

sizeable geographic area 7 using the 

widely-accepted DNL noise metric. It 

supports a determination of 

measureable noise reductions on a per 

flight basis because, if cumulative noise 

from multiple flights in a geographic 

area is lower, noise would also be lower 

per flight if one could divide the 

cumulative noise by the number of 

flights in the area. It is based on a 

methodology developed by a diverse 

stakeholder group and recommended by 

a committee that advises the FAA on 

NextGen (i.e., the NAC), and it produces 

the same CATEX results as the NAC’s 

method when applied to the examples 

used by the NAC.8 It precludes the use 

of this CATEX if there are noise 

increases that would be considered 

significant based on a recognized 

standard. This final characteristic places 

this CATEX within the normal range of 

NEPA CATEXs and is responsive to 

community concerns. 

The FAA is keenly aware of the 

general negative community response to 

this CATEX. The FAA and the NAC 

realize that community controversy can 

counterbalance the streamlining effects 

of any CATEX and result in opposition 

to PBN procedures. These issues are 

currently receiving more attention 

within FAA and by the NAC. 

Discussion of Public Comments 

The FAA initially provided for a 30- 

day public comment period and then, 

upon request, extended the comment 

period to 60 days. The FAA invited 

public comment on the entirety of the 

prospective implementation of the 

CATEX in Section 213(c)(2) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

and particularly invited comment on the 

following specific aspects of the Net 

Noise Reduction Method which were 

under consideration by the FAA as 

described in the August 19, 2014 notice: 

1. Extent to which the FAA should 

rely on the Net Noise Reduction Method 

to determine measurable reductions in 

noise on a per flight basis. 

2. Appropriateness of determining 

that there is a measurable reduction in 

noise if people receiving a noise 

decrease outnumber the people 

receiving an increase, but the noise 

decrease is small compared to the noise 

increase. 

3. Different approaches to a net noise 

reduction methodology (i.e., population 

change, noise change, population 

weighted noise change), and whether 

the selection of one approach over 

another is preferred and increases 

public understanding. 

4. Extent to which a mix of noise 

increases and decreases could support a 

determination of measurable noise 

reduction, especially when reductions 

at lower noise levels outweigh increases 

at higher noise levels, and whether an 

alternative approach that would require 

reductions in all three noise exposure 

bands to support the use of the CATEX 

should be used. 

5. Whether a significant noise impact 

threshold test should be used; and if so, 

if it should be used only when there is 

a net increase in people exposed to 

noise at DNL 65 dB and above, or if it 

should be used when there is any 

increase in the number of people 

exposed to noise at DNL 65 dB and 

above—even if there is a net population 

benefit at that level. 

The FAA received 80 comments, 

including 10 letters of comment from 

parties representing aviation interests; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 46089 

9 40 CFR 1508.4. 

18 letters from Federal and state elected 

representatives, local governments, 

organizations and a law firm on behalf 

of their constituents, members, and 

community interests; 52 letters from 

individuals, and a neighborhood 

petition signed by 140 individuals. In 

general, aviation interests supported the 

FAA’s adoption of the NAC’s 

recommended Net Noise Reduction 

Method, while other commenters 

expressed opposition to or reservations 

about this methodology, opposition to 

this legislated CATEX and to CATEXs in 

general, and noise concerns about the 

implementation of PBN procedures. The 

FAA reviewed and considered all 

comments in reaching its decision. 

Specific issues that were commented on 

and FAA’s responses are presented in 

more detail below. 

Comment: Aviation commenters 

supported NextGen and PBN 

procedures. They viewed the CATEX in 

Section 213(c)(2) as an advantageous 

step taken by Congress to expedite the 

environmental review of PBN 

procedures that can reduce fuel burn, 

emissions, and noise. They supported 

the NAC’s recommended Net Noise 

Reduction Method as technically and 

legally sound. They emphasized that it 

was developed by a diverse group of 

stakeholders including representatives 

of airlines, airports, manufacturers, 

aviation associations, consultants, and 

community interests, and that it 

received unanimous support from the 

NAC. They urged FAA to fulfill its 

responsibility to carry out a legislated 

mandate by adopting this method 

without further delay. They provided 

additional details in support of the 

above points. 

FAA Response: The FAA sought the 

advice of the NAC and appreciates the 

efforts of the NAC Task Group that 

resulted in a recommendation that was 

unanimously supported by such a broad 

diversity of interests. Following 

additional evaluation and consideration 

of public comments, FAA has decided 

to use the NAC’s recommended Net 

Noise Reduction Method with two 

modifications for greater consistency 

with the statute, as described in this 

notice. 

Comment: An airport supported the 

benefits of PBN procedures, while 

noting the importance of local airport 

operator and community involvement in 

PBN implementation. This commenter 

expressed the need to balance airport 

operations and impacts with community 

concerns. The commenter asked if a 

decrease in noise below DNL 65 dB 

could offset an increase in noise above 

DNL 65 dB using the Net Noise 

Reduction Method, and if the residents 

that are added to the noise exposure 

area at DNL 65 dB and higher would be 

entitled to mitigation. The commenter 

expressed concern that the Net Noise 

Reduction Method would not 

adequately account for community 

annoyance and opposition that can 

occur when flight operations are 

concentrated over more narrow 

corridors as is common with PBN 

procedures. 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the importance of local airport operator 

involvement and community concerns. 

The FAA and the NAC are currently 

giving increased attention to improving 

airport operator and community 

involvement in PBN implementation. 

Regarding the question about whether a 

decrease in noise below DNL 65 dB 

could offset an increase in noise above 

DNL 65 dB using the Net Noise 

Reduction Method, the answer is yes. 

The statutory text provides for 

comparison of PBN procedures versus 

existing procedures in the same 

airspace. The FAA interprets ‘‘in the 

same airspace’’ to encompass the entire 

airspace study area under review in 

relation to the proposed PBN 

procedures. With respect to the prospect 

of adding residents to areas exposed to 

noise at DNL 65 dB and higher, this 

CATEX will be no different from other 

existing CATEXs. If the additional noise 

exposure is a significant noise increase, 

this CATEX cannot be used. If it is not 

a significant noise increase, this CATEX 

may be used with respect to noise just 

as other CATEXs are currently used. 

Also, as is currently the case, residents 

exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 dB 

and higher may be eligible for 

mitigation such as sound insulation; 

however, the provision of mitigation 

depends on whether the airport has a 

noise mitigation program, which 

residents are covered by the program, 

funding availability, and timing. 

Regarding the commenter’s final 

concern, if the concentration of noise 

from PBN implementation is sufficient 

to increase noise to an extent that it 

would be considered a significant 

increase, this CATEX would not be 

used. This same qualification applies to 

other existing CATEXs. 

Comment: A number of elected 

representatives, local governments, 

organizations representing community 

and environmental interests, and 

individuals commented that the 

implementation of PBN procedures 

should require more detailed 

environmental review than a CATEX 

and should be subject to public 

disclosure and review. Some 

commenters regard a CATEX as an 

exemption from environmental review 

under NEPA. Many objected to the use 

of CATEXs in general for PBN 

implementation, as well as to the 

Section 213(c)(2) CATEX. A number of 

commenters said that PBN procedures 

should not be expedited with a CATEX. 

Some commented that a CATEX should 

not be used if there is any noise 

increase, as well as that the criteria for 

a CATEX should require noise 

reductions in all areas under flight 

paths. One commenter asserted that a 

CATEX should not be allowed if newly 

impacted people are exposed to 

incompatible conditions, i.e., noise 

exposure of DNL 65 dB and higher. 

Another commenter asserted that PBN 

procedures do not meet CEQ’s standard 

for a CATEX because they have 

significant negative environmental 

impacts. Additional details were 

provided by commenters regarding why 

a CATEX is not appropriate. 

FAA Response: The FAA first wants 

to clarify that a CATEX is not a NEPA 

exemption. A CATEX is a recognized 

category of NEPA review. CEQ 

regulations define a categorical 

exclusion, referred to by FAA as a 

CATEX, as ‘‘a category of actions which 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. . .’’,9 and, therefore, for 

which neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. Each 

procedure subject to the use of a CATEX 

is individually reviewed for consistency 

with CATEX requirements. PBN 

procedures may qualify for CATEXs just 

as conventional air navigation 

procedures have for many years. Most 

procedures—whether PBN or 

conventional procedures—do not have 

significant environmental impacts, in 

part because of their altitude above 

ground level. Most CATEXs are 

established through agency 

administrative procedures that are 

reviewed and concurred in by CEQ, as 

is the case for FAA’s CATEXs in Order 

1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures. The CATEX 

that is the subject of this notice is in 

enacted legislation, and within this 

legislative framework, the U.S. Congress 

clearly intended for this CATEX to 

expedite PBN procedures. 

CEQ regulations do not require 

environmental impacts to be reduced in 

order to determine that a CATEX is 

appropriate, i.e., a CATEX may still be 

the appropriate NEPA review if there 

are noise increases, provided that the 

noise increases are not significant. In 

the case of the Section 213(c)(2) CATEX, 

the FAA’s interpretation of the statutory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

46090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 

10LAMAX is the maximum sound level of a 

particular event. 

11SEL is the energy averaged A-weighted sound 

level over a specified period of time or single event, 

with reference duration of one second. 

language is that noise must actually be 

reduced on a net basis, and the CATEX 

would not be used if any noise increases 

would be significant. 

Comment: Many commenters who 

objected to using a CATEX for PBN 

procedures also objected to the Net 

Noise Reduction Method. Some objected 

to the netting of noise, and said that 

certain community areas would suffer 

noise increases with PBN 

implementation that would be ignored 

when noise effects are netted or 

averaged. A number of commenters 

viewed the Net Noise Reduction Method 

as a way of masking PBN noise focusing 

effects. A local government commented 

that the Net Noise Reduction Method 

pits one group of citizens against 

another. One commenter said that the 

method does not measure adverse 

effects on public health, student 

learning, a peaceful environment, 

property values, or social community 

costs; and, therefore, doesn’t meet the 

tests for determining the significance of 

procedural changes. A Community 

Noise Roundtable commented that the 

Net Noise Reduction Method would 

allow new people to be exposed to 

incompatible noise of DNL 65 dB and 

higher with no opportunity for 

mitigation. 

FAA Response: Congress legislated a 

CATEX that is clearly different from 

other existing CATEXs. Congress used 

mandatory language in the relevant 

legislation, and the FAA does not have 

discretion under the statute to disregard 

the legislatively created CATEX. 

However, the FAA cannot directly apply 

the CATEX as written due to technical 

challenges associated with the language 

used by Congress in creating the 

CATEX. As a result, the FAA has 

expended substantial effort evaluating 

how to make the required noise 

determination and has concluded that 

the Net Noise Reduction Method with 

two modifications as described in this 

notice provides the best methodology. 

The FAA has not found a methodology 

that would not involve averaging or 

netting, as further described in response 

to the comment below. The FAA’s 

methodology considers significant 

impacts and precludes use of this 

CATEX if noise increases would be 

significant. People newly exposed to 

noise levels at DNL 65 dB and higher 

would be in the same position with 

respect to eligibility for noise mitigation 

as they would be absent this CATEX, as 

explained in more detail in response to 

a previous comment. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated that the Net Noise Reduction 

Method does not measure noise on a per 

flight basis as the statute directs. Some 

commented favorably on analyzing 

noise on a per flight basis, while others 

opposed such an approach. A local 

government commented that noise 

impact cannot be meaningfully 

measured on a per flight basis. 

Commenters also objected to averaging 

noise in this respect, i.e., that an average 

is not a per flight basis. One commenter 

said that if ‘‘average’’ is read into the 

statute, it would also apply to fuel 

consumption and carbon dioxide 

emissions, but that averaging of these 

effects is not proposed. Some 

commenters criticized DNL and said it 

is inappropriate to use DNL to 

determine noise on a per flight basis. 

Several commenters offered alternative 

methodologies, including single-event 

noise metrics. 

FAA Response: The FAA has been 

unable to identify a methodology that 

would not involve averaging for 

calculating reductions in noise, fuel 

consumption, or carbon dioxide 

emissions on a per flight basis for PBN 

procedures ‘‘as compared to aircraft 

operations that follow existing 

instrument flight rules procedures in the 

same airspace. . .’’ as the statute 

requires. Multiple operations in a 

sizeable geographic area of airspace 

involving multiple aircraft having 

different noise, fuel, and emission 

characteristics must be evaluated to 

support the determinations required for 

this CATEX. For fuel consumption and 

carbon dioxide emissions, FAA will 

arithmetically total all fuel consumed 

and all carbon dioxide emitted from 

aircraft in the area of airspace that 

comprises the project study area and 

divide by the number of aircraft in that 

area to calculate reductions on a per 

flight basis. However, total noise in an 

area of airspace cannot be calculated by 

adding noise levels at various locations 

on the ground, and noise levels that are 

expressed in logarithmic decibels 

cannot arithmetically be divided by the 

number of aircraft to produce a 

meaningful calculation of noise per 

flight. The FAA’s methodology 

announced in this notice supports a 

determination of measureable noise 

reductions on a per flight basis because, 

if cumulative noise from all flights in a 

geographic area is lower, it is reasonable 

to conclude that noise would also be 

lower per flight if one could divide the 

cumulative noise by the number of 

flights in the area. 

All known noise metrics, including 

single-event metrics, were examined by 

FAA experts and by expert consultants 

advising the NAC Task Group. The 

single-event noise metrics that were 

examined in detail were the maximum 

A-weighted sound level (LAMAX) 10

and the sound exposure level (SEL).11

LAMAX was determined not to be a 

good metric for purposes of complying 

with Section 213(c)(2) because LAMAX 

is the maximum noise level of an event 

(i.e., aircraft overflight). LAMAX does 

not include the total noise of a flight 

and does not appear to respond to the 

legislative mandate to determine noise 

reduction on a per flight basis. SEL was 

also rejected. SEL does not account for 

the temporal aspects of noise exposure 

(e.g., more annoying nighttime noise), 

and it has drawbacks in accounting for 

the spatial aspect of noise exposure (i.e., 

a measurable reduction in SEL for any 

particular flight does not ensure that 

community noise would be reduced 

within the area of airspace being 

reviewed for potential application of the 

CATEX). Experts agreed that DNL is the 

best metric to calculate noise from 

multiple flights in a geographic area of 

airspace. The FAA has decided to use 

reductions in noise (DNL), instead of the 

NAC’s recommended reductions in the 

number of people at DNL exposure 

levels, to be more consistent with the 

statute. The FAA’ selected methodology 

produces the same results as the NAC’s 

methodology when applied to the 

examples used by the NAC. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported an approach that would net 

noise increases and decreases within 

each noise exposure band, instead of 

across all bands, and that would require 

noise to be reduced in each band in 

order to use the CATEX. Several 

commenters noted that a total netting of 

noise across all bands is inconsistent 

with FAA policy that gives greater 

importance to changes at higher noise 

levels. 

FAA Response: The FAA considered 

such an approach and sought comment 

on it in the August 19 Federal Register 

notice. As indicated throughout this 

notice, there is no existing methodology 

that can produce the precise noise 

comparison required by the statutory 

text. As a result, the FAA has weighed 

various approaches and has concluded 

that the approach recommended in 

these comments is less consistent with 

the statutory text than the FAA’s 

selected methodology because the 

statute requires a comparison of noise, 

fuel consumption, and carbon dioxide 

emissions of PBN procedures compared 

to existing procedures ‘‘in the same 

airspace. . . .’’ The FAA will calculate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 2015 / Notices 46091 

fuel consumption and carbon dioxide 

emissions in the entirety of the airspace 

area under study and believes the same 

should be done for noise for statutory 

consistency. A total netting of noise 

across all noise exposure levels is not 

current FAA policy or practice; 

however, it is FAA’s best interpretation 

of this new legislated CATEX. The FAA 

continues to give greater importance to 

changes at higher noise levels by 

precluding the use of this CATEX if 

increases in noise at DNL 65 dB and 

higher levels would be considered 

significant. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

said that the law should be changed to 

either revise or eliminate the Section 

213(c)(2) CATEX. Some opined that the 

law conflicts with NEPA. 

FAA Response: In this notice, the 

FAA is fulfilling its responsibility to 

implement existing law. The FAA does 

not believe that the law conflicts with 

NEPA; rather, it legislatively establishes 

a new CATEX under NEPA. 

Comment: Some commenters objected 

to the Net Noise Reduction Method on 

the basis that it would not preclude a 

CATEX if there are significant noise 

impacts. Several commenters advocated 

lowering FAA’s significant noise 

threshold from DNL 65 dB to DNL 55 

dB. 

FAA Response: The NAC’s 

recommendation provided for the FAA 

to exercise discretion not to use this 

CATEX in certain circumstances, even if 

PBN procedures would result in an 

overall net noise reduction, based on an 

additional test for significant impacts. 

The FAA has modified this aspect of the 

NAC’s recommendation. The FAA 

interprets the phrase ‘‘measurable 

reductions in . . . noise’’ in the 

statutory text to be inconsistent with 

noise increases that would be 

considered significant; therefore, the 

FAA would not use this CATEX if noise 

increases would be significant. The 

issue of the FAA’s NEPA threshold of 

significance for aircraft noise is entirely 

separate from the implementation of 

this legislated CATEX and is not 

addressed in this Federal Register 

notice. 

Comment: Multiple commenters and 

the petition signed by 140 people did 

not comment directly on the CATEX or 

the Net Noise Reduction Method, but 

commented generally on adverse effects 

of aircraft noise over their homes and 

requested that the FAA undo 

objectionable flight patterns. Specific 

objections to the TNNIS procedure in 

New York and to the CATEX for this 

procedure were raised. 

FAA Response: These comments refer 

to the implementation of PBN 

procedures that were supported by other 

existing CATEXs that were 

administratively established following 

public notice and comment and review 

by CEQ. The FAA understands that 

these commenters object to aircraft 

noise in their neighborhoods, even 

when noise is below significant levels. 

As part of NextGen, FAA has a robust 

research program to reduce aircraft 

noise and is currently giving increased 

attention to improving FAA’s 

community involvement. 

Authority: FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, Sec. 213(c)(2), Pub. L. 112–95, 

126 Stat. 11, 49–50. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 27, 2015. 

Lourdes Q. Maurice, 

Executive Director, Office of Environment and 

Energy, Federal Aviation Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18823 Filed 7–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[Docket No. FHWA–2015–0018] 

Proposed Memorandum of 

Understanding Revision (MOU) 

Assigning Certain Federal 

Environmental Responsibilities to the 

State of Alaska, Including National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Authority for Certain Categorical 

Exclusions (CEs) 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed MOU, 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA and the State of 

Alaska, acting by and through its 

Department of Transportation (State), 

propose a renewal of the State’s 

participation in the 23 U.S.C. 326 

program. This program allows FHWA to 

assign to States its authority and 

responsibility for determining whether 

certain designated activities within the 

geographic boundaries of the State, as 

specified in the proposed Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU), are 

categorically excluded from preparation 

of an environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

An amended MOU would renew the 

State’s participation in the program. The 

MOU will be amended by incorporating 

the following changes: Projects that 

include Federal Aid Highway Program 

funds and other Federal funds would 

now be assignable; Federal Lands 

Highway Program (FLHP) projects 

funded under 23 U.S.C. 204 and 

designed and constructed by the State 

would now be assignable; and projects 

involving Section 7 Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) formal consultation would 

now be assignable. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DOT Document 

Management System (DMS) Docket 

Number [FHWA–2015–0018], by any of 

the methods described below. Electronic 

or facsimile comments are preferred 

because Federal offices experience 

intermittent mail delays from security 

screening. 

Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

Facsimile (Fax): 1–202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For access to the docket to view a 

complete copy of the proposed MOU, or 

to read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

e.t., Monday through Friday, except for 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

FHWA: Tim Haugh; by email at 

tim.haugh@dot.gov or by telephone at 

907–586–7430. The FHWA Alaska 

Division Office’s normal business hours 

are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Alaska Time), 

Monday–Friday, except for Federal 

Holidays. For State: Taylor Horne; by 

email at taylor.horne@alaska.gov; by 

telephone at 907–465–6957. The Alaska 

Department of Transportation’s normal 

business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

(Alaska Time), Monday–Friday, except 

for State and Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

Internet users may reach the Office of 

the Federal Register’s home page at: 

http://www.archives.gov/ and the 

Government Printing Office’s database: 

http://www.fdsys.gov. 

An electronic version of the proposed 

MOU may be downloaded by accessing 

the DOT DMS docket, as described 

above, at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

Section 326 of Title 23 U.S. Code, 

creates a program that allows the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES