Final Order 1050.1F Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures, 44207-44246 [2015-18084]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44207-44246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18084]



[[Page 44207]]

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

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / 
Notices

[[Page 44208]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/ 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 https://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

[[Page 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 https://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

[[Page 44210]]

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 
noise-compatible 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

[[Page 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 non-core 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 non-aeronautical 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 cross-

[[Page 44212]]

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 re-evaluations 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 re-evaluations (i.e., a ``Written Re-
evaluation/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).

[[Page 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 FAA-approved 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 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/ 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: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/ 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

[[Page 44214]]

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 FAA-specific 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 FAA-specific 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 FAA-specific 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

[[Page 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-Check-Adapt), 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

[[Page 44216]]

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 traffic-specific 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'' (Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary available at https://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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 44218]]

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 44220]]

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

[[Page 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 low-income 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 non-governmental 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

[[Page 44222]]

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: https://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

[[Page 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-by-case 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 FAA-
approved models are used. However, AEE approval is required for non-
standard 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

[[Page 44224]]

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 FAA-approved model must be used 
for both air quality and noise analysis. We have retained the 
information for the FAA-approved 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 https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/ 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

[[Page 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'' (Merriam-Webster 
Online Dictionary available at https://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

[[Page 44226]]

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.

[[Page 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 project-specific 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 well-established, 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

[[Page 44228]]

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 case-by-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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 44230]]

    One commenter expressed confusion and concern with regards to the 
three-acre 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 (https://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 (https://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 
case-by-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

[[Page 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: 
(https://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

[[Page 44232]]

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 case-by-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: (https://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 state-NEPA 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

[[Page 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 cross-references 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

[[Page 44234]]

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-by-case 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

[[Page 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-to-government procedures for the FAA.
    In Paragraph 7-1.2.d(3)(c) of the Order, the FAA has added a cross-
reference to Paragraph 2-4.4, which outlines the requirements, 
including FAA Order 1210.20, for government-to-government 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 Re-Evaluations, 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 re-evaluation 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 re-evaluation 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.

[[Page 44236]]

    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 non-FAA 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 non-FAA 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

[[Page 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 FAA-specific 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 Noise-Compatible 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 FAA-specific 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 Noise-
Compatible 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

[[Page 44238]]

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 large-scale 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

[[Page 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-of-exposure 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

[[Page 44240]]

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 no-
action 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 Noise-Compatible 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).

[[Page 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 
non-aviation 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).

[[Page 44242]]

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 44244]]

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

[[Page 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: https://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)

[[Page 44246]]

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 
site-specific 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