[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44207-44246]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18084]

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[FAA-2013-0685]

Final Order 1050.1F Environmental Impact: Policies and Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has revised its
procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) by issuing Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures. Order 1050.1F cancels Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures. The revisions in Order 1050.1F include
reorganization of the Order to make it easier to use, clarification of
requirements, additions to the list of Categorical Exclusions (CATEXs),
updating of policies and procedures to be consistent with recent
guidance, addition of provisions for emergency actions, and updating of
terminology to incorporate the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen). The FAA issued a notice and request for comment in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49596). All comments
received were considered in the issuance of the final Order. This
notice summarizes the changes made to Order 1050.1E and includes
responses to substantive comments received.

DATES: Order 1050.1F is effective July 16, 2015.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NEPA and the implementing regulations
promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508) establish a broad national
policy to protect the quality of the human environment and provide
policies and goals to ensure that environmental considerations and
associated public concerns are given careful attention and appropriate
weight in all decisions of the Federal government. Section 102(2) of
NEPA and 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3 require Federal agencies to develop
and, as needed, revise implementing procedures consistent with the CEQ
Regulations.
    The FAA's previous NEPA Order, Order 1050.1E, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, provided the FAA's policy and
procedures for compliance with (a) the CEQ Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of NEPA; (b) Department of Transportation
(DOT) Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,
and (c) other applicable environmental laws, regulations, Executive
Orders, and policies. The FAA proposed to replace Order 1050.1E with
Order 1050.1F and incorporate certain changes based on notice and
request for comment published in the Federal Register (78 FR 49596,
August 14, 2013). All comments received were considered in the issuance
of the final Order 1050.1F.
    This notice provides a synopsis of the changes adopted including
those additional changes resulting from comments received. The Order is
distributed throughout the FAA by electronic means only. The Order is
available for viewing and downloading by all interested persons at
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/ order/. If the public is not
able to use an electronic version, they may obtain a photocopy of the
Order, for a fee to cover the cost of reproducing copies, by contacting
the FAA's rulemaking docket at the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200)--Docket No. FAA-2013-0685, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    In November 2014, DOT issued guidance on implementing Section 1319
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 42
U.S.C. 4332a. The guidance, which applies to all DOT components,
including the FAA, is available at http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/MAP-21_1319_Final_Guidance.pdf. Section 1319(a) of MAP-21,
which relates to the use of errata sheets for environmental impact
statements and largely mirrors the CEQ regulations on that topic (see
40 CFR 1503.4(c)), was already reflected in the draft Order 1050.1F
published for public comment. The FAA has made minor changes to the
final Order 1050.1F to ensure it is not in conflict with Section
1319(b) of MAP-21, which requires DOT, to the maximum extent
practicable, to expeditiously develop a single document that consists
of a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of
Decision (ROD), unless certain conditions exist. The FAA will be
issuing additional guidance on implementing Section 1319(b) of MAP-21
and will update Order 1050.1F as appropriate to reflect that guidance.
In the meantime, the FAA will comply with Section 1319(b) to the extent
applicable.
    Synopsis of Changes From Order 1050.1E: The final Order 1050.1F
incorporates all changes proposed in 78 FR 49596. Additional changes
and clarifications were added to the final Order in response to
comments received as a result of the Federal Register notice and
deliberative discussions with the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, CEQ, and internal elements of the FAA. References
throughout the Preamble refer to paragraph references for Order 1050.1F
unless otherwise noted. These changes include:
    The information contained in Appendix A of FAA Order 1050.1E,
Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories, has been moved to the
1050.1F Desk Reference. This was done to allow for updates to the
1050.1F Desk Reference, as needed. Any FAA-specific analysis, modeling,
and documentation requirements that were contained in Appendix A of FAA
Order 1050.1E have been moved to Appendix B of FAA Order 1050.1F,
Federal Aviation Administration Requirements for Assessing Impacts
Related to Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use and Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303).
    The Order has been restructured to reduce redundancies and improve
clarity. Order 1050.1F is divided into eleven chapters as opposed to
the five chapters of 1050.1E. The numbering and structure are changed
to more closely follow FAA Order 1320.1, FAA Directives Management. In
addition, systematic editorial changes have been applied to ensure
1050.1F is consistent with the FAA's plain language guidelines as
established in FAA Order 1000.36, FAA Writing Standards (e.g., changes
use of the term ``shall'' to ``should'' or ``must,'' as appropriate).
    The language referring to the applicability of the Order and CEQ
Regulations to FAA actions has been modified for clarity to state
``[t]he provisions of this Order and the CEQ Regulations apply to
actions directly undertaken by the FAA and to actions undertaken by a
non-Federal entity where the FAA has authority to condition a permit,
license, or other approval.'' This change has been made throughout the
Order, where applicable.
    The FAA's policy statement (see Paragraph 1-8) has been updated to
include the FAA's goals of ensuring timely, effective, and efficient
environmental reviews and includes a discussion of NextGen. The policy
reflects established expedited environmental review procedures and
processes including the legislative provisions in the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 (``FAA Reauthorization of
2012'' or ``the Act'') to expedite the

environmental review process for certain air traffic procedures.
    The titles and roles of FAA Lines of Businesses and Staff Offices
(LOB/SOs) have been updated to reflect changes to the FAA's
organizational structure and responsibilities since publication of FAA
Order 1050.1E (see Paragraph 2-2.1.b). These revisions include:
Removing Aviation Policy, Planning, and Environment (AEP) and
International Aviation (AIP), since these divisions have been combined
to form a new office known as Policy, International Affairs and
Environment (APL); revising Office of Financial Services (ABA) to
Office of Finance and Management (AFN), revising Regulation and
Certification (AVR) to Aviation Safety (AVS); revising the text to
reflect that the Office of Corporate Learning and Development is now
located under Human Resource Management (AHR); and adding the staff
office NextGen (ANG).
    The Order breaks out the roles and responsibilities of the FAA (see
Paragraph 2-2.1), applicants (see Paragraph 2-2.2), and contractors
(see Paragraph 2-2.3) into separate paragraphs for easy reference and
transparency.
    A paragraph on the roles and responsibilities under the State Block
Grant Program has been added to the Order (see Paragraph 2-2.1.e). This
language is also currently located in the Office of Airports NEPA
procedures in FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects, but has been
added to Order 1050.1F as it involves multiple FAA Lines of Businesses
LOBs.
    The similarities and differences between Environmental Assessments
(EAs) and EISs are clarified throughout Order 1050.1F. The terminology
``EIS or EA'' has been replaced with ``NEPA documentation'' when
guidance would apply to either type of document to help clarify
Paragraph 206a of Order 1050.1E, which states that requirements that
apply to EISs may also be used for the preparation of EAs.
Alternatively, when guidance is specific to an EA or to an EIS, but not
to both, the appropriate type of document is stated.
    A discussion of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) has been
added to highlight the importance of EMS and the potential benefit of
aligning NEPA with the elements of EMS (see Paragraph 2-3.3).
    The discussion on mitigation has been reorganized and updated to be
consistent with CEQ's guidance on Appropriate Use of Mitigation and
Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of
No Significant Impact, 76 FR 3843 (January 21, 2011) (see Paragraphs 2-
3.6, 4-4, 6-2.3, and 7-1.1.h). The proposed changes also clarify which
projects may warrant environmental monitoring and the type and extent
of such monitoring.
    The list of actions normally requiring an EA has been modified to
reflect the FAA's experience.
    Actions newly identified as normally requiring an EA are:
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(13): Establishment or modification of an
Instrument Flight Rules Military Training Route (IR MTR); and
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(16): Formal and informal runway use programs that
may significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas.
    Actions normally requiring an EA that have been amended include:
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(2) modifies the language of 401b of 1050.1E to
include all types of certificates for aircraft types for which
environmental regulations have not been issued, and new amended engine
types for which emission regulations have not been issued where an
environmental analysis has not been prepared in connection with a
regulatory action.
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(10), formerly 401k of Order 1050.1E, was changed
to limit the typical EA to new commercial service airport locations
that would not be located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In
addition, the description of a new runway was limited by stating that
the new runway is at an existing airport that is not located in an MSA.
Major runway extension projects were removed from this list and added
to the list of actions that typically require an EIS. This is because
the definition of major runway extension includes runway extensions
that cause a significant adverse environmental impact.
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(11) changes Paragraph 401l of Order 1050.1E to
provide more clarity when the issuance of operations specifications
normally requires an EA; specifically, any approval of operations
specifications that may significantly change the character of the
operational environment when authorizing passenger or cargo service, or
authorizing an operator to serve an airport with different aircraft
when that service may significantly increase noise, air, or other
environmental impacts, normally requires an EA.
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(12) combines Paragraphs 401m and 401n from Order
1050.1E and includes a caveat that certain procedures may be
categorically excluded under new legislative CATEXs in the FAA
Reauthorization of 2012.
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(14) modifies Paragraph 401p of Order 1050.1E to
remove the four requirements for the notice of proposed rulemaking for
Special Use Airspace (SUA) projects since these criteria are not based
on environmental impacts, but on the process for establishing a SUA.
The new paragraph describes SUA actions as normally requiring an EA
(unless otherwise explicitly listed as an advisory action (see
Paragraph 2-1.2.b, Advisory Actions) or categorically excluded (see
Paragraph 5-6, the FAA's List of Approved Categorical Exclusions)).
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(15) modifies Paragraph 401c of Order 1050.1E to
clarify the type of commercial space launch actions that normally
require an EA. The proposed paragraph states issuance of any of the
following requires an EA: (a) A commercial space launch site operator
license for operation of a launch site at an existing facility on
disturbed ground where little to no infrastructure would be constructed
(e.g., co-located with a Federal range or municipal airport); or (b) A
commercial space launch license, reentry license, or experimental
permit to operate a vehicle to/from an existing site.
    The Order has added the following examples of actions normally
requiring an EIS (see Paragraph 3-1.3.b):
    (1) Unconditional Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approval of, or federal
financial participation in, the following categories of airport
actions:
    (a) Location of a new commercial service airport in an MSA;
    (b) A new runway to accommodate air carrier aircraft at a
commercial service airport in an MSA; and
    (c) Major runway extension
    (2) Issuance of a commercial space launch site operator license,
launch license, or experimental permit to support activities requiring
the construction of a new commercial space launch site on undeveloped
land.
    The Order expands the discussion of programmatic NEPA documents and
tiering to provide more guidance on the use of programmatic NEPA
documents (see Paragraph 3-2). The discussion is consistent with CEQ's
guidance on Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews (December 18,
2014) at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/effective_use_of_programmatic_nepa_reviews_final_dec2014_searchable.pdf.

    A statement was added to the Order that FAA LOB/SOs will, whenever
possible, use the FAA NEPA Database to track projects and make final
documents

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

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-

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).

    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 http://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: http://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

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

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

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 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasible).
    The go/no-go stage is the point at which the agency determines: (1)
Whether an action is available to address an identified need or
problem, and (2) whether to seek resolution of the identified need or
problem through discretionary Federal action.
    Essentially, the referenced paragraph is stating that NEPA
documentation must be done before a decision to proceed with a project
is made.
Paragraph 2-2.1.d. FAA Approval of Applicant Actions
    One commenter questioned whether actions undertaken by an applicant
should specify that applicants should comply with all provisions of
this Order with regard to documentation required by the FAA.
    NEPA is a Federal obligation. Order 1050.1F contains the NEPA
implementing procedures for FAA actions. It is the responsibility of
the FAA, not an applicant, to ensure that the provisions of this Order
have been complied with before accepting any NEPA documentation
prepared by an applicant. Paragraph 2-2.1.d, FAA Approval of Applicant
Actions, states that the FAA must advise and assist the applicant
during preparation of the EA, and must independently evaluate and take
responsibility for the EA to ensure that: (1) The applicant's potential
conflict of interest does not impair the objectivity of the document;
and (2) the EA meets the requirements of this Order.
Paragraph 2-2.2. Responsibilities of Applicants
    One commenter recommended that the FAA distinguish between signing
CATEX documentation and approving CATEX documentation, since most
CATEXs are signed by multiple parties,

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

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.

    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

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

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

requirement that a hearing be provided when requested. Even where no
other public involvement requirement is applicable, the type of public
involvement appropriate in the NEPA context will vary depending on the
nature of the action and the potential for impacts. Strategic planning
is needed to successfully integrate public participation in the NEPA
process.

Paragraph 2-7. Limitations on Actions Involving Real Property Prior to
Completing National Environmental Policy Act Review

    One commenter asked the FAA to clarify whether discussion with
property owners would be considered formal contact.
    The purpose of this paragraph is to prevent formal action to
acquire property, including any offer to purchase property, before NEPA
is completed. The text in this discussion has been modified to replace
the phrase ``formal contact with the property owner'' with the phrase
``formal action to acquire the property.'' Therefore, discussion alone
would not be considered ``formal action to acquire the property.''
    One commenter requested the exception for further engineering study
be expanded for other environmental investigations.
    The prohibition in Paragraph 2-7.b on formal action to acquire
property for the purpose of conducting other environmental
investigations is already provided by the circumstance provided in
Paragraph 2-7.b(2) that states that ``obtaining rights-of-way for such
purposes as preparation for site testing, obtaining data, property
surveys, etc.'' is permissible. Site testing and obtaining data would
include environmental investigations.

Chapter 3: Levels of National Environmental Policy Act Review

Paragraph 3-1. Three Levels of National Environmental Policy Act Review

Paragraph 3-1.2 Actions Normally Requiring an Environmental Assessment
    One commenter suggested the language in the introduction to
Paragraph 3-1.2 be expanded to indicate that ``human environment'' also
includes natural resources.
    As stated in Paragraph 11-5.b(7) of the Order, the definition for
human environment includes natural resources. Because this term is
already defined and includes natural resources, the FAA has not added
language to the introduction of Paragraph 3-1.2 as requested by the
commenter.
    One commenter questioned whether it was accurate that acquisition
of property greater than three acres that requires construction of new
office buildings and essentially similar FAA facilities requires an EA
[Paragraph 3-1.2.b(1)]. The commenter also asked whether an EA is
required if the land was undeveloped or if the size of the building
would matter.
    This example of actions normally requiring an EA was included in
Paragraph 401a of Order 1050.1E and has not been modified in this
update. The acquisition of land of more than three acres for
construction of a building would require an EA under Order 1050.1F.
This is irrespective of whether it is developed or undeveloped land and
the size of the building.
    However, not all acquisition of land over three acres requires an
EA. Paragraph 5-6.4.b allows for acquisition of land and relocation
associated with a categorically excluded action. Paragraph 5-6.4.bb
allows for acquisition of land for an RPZ or other aeronautical
purposes provided there is no land disturbance and it does not require
extensive business or residential relocations.
    Actions that normally require an EA are actions that do not fall
within the scope of a CATEX and normally do not require an EIS. In
order for an agency to create a CATEX, the agency must make a
determination that these types of actions do not individually or
cumulatively, absent extraordinary circumstances, have significant
impacts. The limitations within a CATEX are based on FAA experience and
can only be modified if the FAA provides justification for the
modifications.
    One commenter asked the FAA to clarify what type of NEPA
documentation is required for fuel storage and distribution systems.
The commenter specifically asked, for example, whether 400 Hz power at
gates would require an EA, and whether creation of hydrant fueling in
aprons requires an EA.
    Paragraph 3-1.2.b(5) states establishment of FAA housing,
sanitation systems, fuel storage and distribution systems, and power
source and distribution systems normally require an EA. Actions that
are not within the scope of a CATEX will require the preparation of an
EA. With respect to documentation required for fuel storage and
distribution systems, the FAA has established CATEX 5-6.4.u for the
installation, repair, or replacement of fuel storage tanks. The CATEX
specifically states it does not include the establishment of bulk fuel
storage and the associated distribution systems.
    If a tank within a fuel storage distribution system is being
replaced or repaired, the action would still be within the scope of the
CATEX. However, if a distribution system is being established, the
potential for significant impacts increases and an EA must be prepared.
For determination of whether a particular project is within the scope
of the CATEX 5-6.4.u, please see the CATEX Justification Package
available on the FAA's Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_policy_guidance/policy/draft_faa_order/media/C-CATEX_Justification_Package.pdf.
    With respect to the specific situations provided by the commenter,
to the extent that these actions are within the scope of existing
CATEXs and do not involve extraordinary circumstances, these actions
would not require an EA. The FAA has not removed any CATEXs with this
update to FAA Order 1050.1E. However, more information would be needed
to determine if these types of actions are within the scope of existing
CATEXs.
    One commenter asked for clarification on how FAA determines
``significantly increased air emissions'' in Paragraph 3-1.2.b(11). The
commenter stated that the FAA's threshold of significant impact is an
exceedance of the NAAQS, which is different from an increase in air
emissions.
    FAA has revised the language in this paragraph to state ``actions
that may cause significant impacts to noise, air quality, or other
environmental impact categories.'' Chapter 4 of the Order provides the
information necessary to determine whether an action may cause
significant impacts to noise, air quality, or other environmental
impact categories.
    One commenter stated that commercial space actions [Paragraph 3-
1.2.b(15)] should be categorized as actions typically requiring an EIS
because both the frequency and duration of commercial space launches
could have significant impacts to adjacent wildlife resources.
    Based upon the agency's experience, there is no evidence that the
types of commercial space actions described in Paragraph 3-1.2.b(15)
``typically'' have significant impacts to wildlife that require review
in an EIS. As is always the case, each proposed project is examined to
determine the appropriate level of NEPA review based upon the proposed
action's specific facts. With respect to the type of commercial space

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

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 http://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

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 http://www.merriam-webster.com/) These
definitions are adequate for purposes of this Order. In addition, in
many cases, use of these terms in Exhibit 4-1 is reflective of language
within applicable special purpose laws.
    One commenter suggested that the FAA include the results of
consultation with resource agencies as factors to be considered in
assessing impacts for specific resources.
    The FAA has identified factors to consider for potential
significant impacts in addition to significance thresholds, where such
a threshold exists. The information and data considered during the
consultation process should be examined in light of the identified
factors to consider. Although the determination by the resource agency
(e.g., concurrence with FAA's adverse effect under the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or a ``not likely to adversely
affect'' finding under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) is considered
in FAA's decision, the resource agency's determination is not
dispositive and therefore it is not appropriate to include the resource
agencies' decision as a factor to consider for significance.
    Two commenters asked that the FAA add information to Exhibit 4-1
stating that if an action is presumed to conform, the action is
eligible for a CATEX, or if an air quality inventory conducted for a
proposed action or a reasonable alternative shows no de minimis level
would be exceeded for any criteria pollutant, it can be assumed the
project would not cause significant air quality impacts for NEPA
purposes and dispersion analysis is not needed in these instances. One
commenter went further to state that for projects in attainment areas,
the de minimis levels for maintenance areas should be used.
    Exhibit 4-1 identifies the significance thresholds and factors to
consider when determining whether a proposed action will have
significant impacts. Introduction of other concepts into the exhibit,
such as circumstances in which significant impacts do not occur, the
applicability of CATEXs to specific actions, and actions that are
presumed to conform under the General Conformity Rule, could cause
confusion. However, the 1050.1F Desk Reference provides more
information on how to determine significance for each environmental
impact category, including whether or not a dispersion analysis is
needed.
    One commenter requested that the FAA provide guidance on the
determination of significance for species that are not federally- or
state-protected. For instance, large projects, such as a new airport or
runway and their supporting components, may disturb many acres which
may cause species that commonly occur to move to other areas. The
commenter questioned if these impacts need to be assessed for
significance.
    Exhibit 4-1 includes factors to consider for Biological Resources,
including non-listed species. Among the factors to consider for such
species are: Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or
fragmentation of native species' habitats or their populations. This is
not limited to just federally- or state-protected species. All relevant
impacts to species should be discussed and disclosed in the
environmental documentation. The 1050.1F Desk Reference provides more
guidance on how to consider Biological Resources.