OEPI OF TRANSPORTATION DOCKETS

OEPI OF TRANSPORTATION DOCKETS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION? "!? pi lb A v U FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTED CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Congestion Management at LaGuardia Airport, New York I. Introduction This Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) concerns measures in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to provide for the management of congestion at the LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia) in New York, These measures are proposed to eliminate or reduce congestion and thereby reduce delays at LaGuardia, in the New York metropolitan area, and in the National Airspace System (NAS), as a whole. Until relatively recently, the FAA managed congestion at LaGuardia through the High Density Rule (HDR). However, the HDR expired on January 1, 2007. To prevent the anticipated congestion at LaGuardia after the expiration of the HDR, FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 29, 2006 to replace the HDR. The industry response to the new allocation method proposed in the NPRM was negative, although very few commenters argued that a cap on operations at the airport was unnecessary, The FAA is issuing this Supplemental NRPM (SNRPM) in response to the concerns raised by commenters in response to the NPRM and also the opinions raised by the members of the New York Aviation Rulemakmg Committee (ARC). This ARC was chartered by the Secretary of Transportation on September 27, 2007 to help the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA to explore available options to manage the congestion at the New York metropolitan airports, including LaGuardia; and understand how changes at all three of the major airports in the New York metropolitan area would affect the airlines, airports and the travelling public. In the meantime, LaGuardia is operating under a temporary order that has been in place since December 2006. ' It does not appear feasible for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to expand - LaGuardia's runway infrastructure because the airport borders on Bowery Bay and Flushing Bay. These physical constraints limit the airfield, which in turn limits the capacity of the airport to accommodate flights. These constraints reduce the degree to which air traffic management improvements such as new procedures and reduced separation standards would enhance efficiency and permit more flights. Even when these efficiencies are realized, operating constraints likely still will be needed at LaGuardia because forecast demand exceeds available airfield capacity. Accordingly, a cap on operations at LaGuardia is necessary to provide for the efficient use of the airspace. This document satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements related to this rulemaking, in accordance with Order 10.1E "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures." The proposed action normally qualifies for categorical exclusion according to 1 Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia Order), 71 Fed Reg, 77854. The LaGuardia Order was amended on November 8, 2007,71 Fed. Reg. 63224.

paragraphs 312d and 312f, because it has no potentially significant environmental impacts and there are no extraordinary circumstances (para. 304). II. Description of Proposed Federal Action The proposed Federal action is two-fold. First, the FAA is proposing to grandfather the majority of operations at LaGuardia. Next, the FAA is proposing to develop a robust secondary market by annually auctioning off a limited number of slots for the first five years of the rule, 2 The proposal also contains provisions for use-or-lose, unscheduled operations, and withdrawal for operational needs as they relate to slots. The FAA proposes to sunset the rule in ten years. The FAA is proposing to allocate slots in one of two different, mutually exclusive ways. Under both alternatives the vast majority of slots would be grandfathered to existing carriers at the airport, with a relatively small minority either retired or auctioned off in the free market. Under the first alternative, the FAA would retire a small number of slots and would auction off a portion of the remaining slots. Under alternative two, the FAA would conduct an auction, as it would under the first alternative, but the proceeds would go to the carrier holding the slot rather than to the FAA, and no slots would be retired. The FAA has included in the proposal a provision for awarding carriers property interests in slots for a period up to ten years, the date the rule would sunset. There would be three categories of slots. 1. Common Slots are those slots grandfathered to carriers currently serving the airport. They would be awarded to the carriers under a cooperative agreement for the duration of the rule, and are subject to the use-or-lose provisions. 2. Limited Slots are slots thai, are leased to the carriers under a cooperative agreement for a period of 0-4 years at which point they would be retired or reallocated via auction. Limited Slots would convert to Slots after they are auctioned off and are subject to the use-or-lose provisions. 3. Slots are those that a carrier would lease directly from the FAA under the auction process under both options. These property rights, however, would not be absolute. Common Slots would be subject to reversion to the FAA under the rule's minimum usage provision and could be withdrawn for operational reasons. Those slots not categorized as Common Slots would be categorized initially as Limited Slots and then as Slots once they are reallocated. As with Common Slots, Limited Slots could be withdrawn under the proposed use-or-lose provision, or for operational reasons. Since a carrier purchasing an slot would be required to purchase the slot because of government action, these slots would not be withdrawn by the FAA 1 in deference to the universal use of the term "slots," the FAA has also decided to return to the use of that term rather than calling the operational authority to conduct scheduled operations at LaGuardia "Operating Authorizations."

either under the use-or-lose provisions or for operational reasons. As with Common Slots, Slots would expire when the rule sunsets. Under both alternatives each carrier at LaGuardia would automatically be awarded up to 20 slots, which would constitute the carrier's base of operations. Air Canada would be awarded an additional 22 slots because of the United States treaty obligations with Canada. Under alternative 1, 90 percent of the remaining slots would also be grandfathered to the carrier holding the corresponding slots under the LaGuardia Order. Under alternative 2, 80 percent of the remaining slots would be grandfathered. The FAA has tentatively decided to grandfather the majority of slots at the airport in order to minimize disruption and to recognize the carriers' historical investments in both the airport and the community. The remaining slots under both alternatives will be categorized as Limited Slots. III. Analysis of Proposed Federal Action The proposed action involves the capping of operations at LaGuardia at the same number of operations per hour (or fewer overall operations, under alternative 1) as the existing cap that has been in place since 2001. There is no potential for impact from increased operations. There is also no potential for impact from additional nighttime operations. The cap maintains the same number of operations per hour. However, since a small percentage of the slots would be auctioned, there is a potential for some upgauging of aircraft at the airport. 3 Turning to upgauging, we expect the potential level resulting from the SNPRM to be far less than what would have occurred under the original NPRM. In the NPRM, FAA proposed a "target aircraft size" that effectively would have required airlines to upgauge the size of aircraft operated at LaGuardia. This proposal was designed to accommodate maximum throughput consistent with the airport's physical limitations. The proposed target for average fleet seat capacity in the NPRM was based on a passenger throughput target for the airport, based on the limitations on various terminal and ground facilities to handle passengers. Specifically, the target was based on engineering measures of the capacities of the ground facilities. According to the Port Authority's 2004 Airport Traffic Report, 24.5 million domestic and international passengers flew through LaGuardia in 2004. The Port Authority has indicated publically that approximately 28.5 million passengers could be accommodated at the airport on existing facilities and infrastructure. These physical constraints on passenger throughput statistics underpinned FAA's calculations on the proposed target aircraft size in the NPRM. As noted above, the upgauging component of the NPRM was widely unpopular with all commenters. In response, FAA is dropping it from the proposed SNPRM. At the time FAA issued the 2006 NPRM, a noise and air quality analysis was conducted to determine whether there would be potential changes to the levels of significance for these impact categories. The potential impacts of the NPRM in 2010 were compared with the no action alternative where no cap on operations exists in 2010. 4 The baseline (no action alternative) for assessing potential environmental impacts was defined as unrestricted operations. This baseline 3 "Upgauging" refers to the use of larger aircraft. J This unrestricted scenario was based on (he actual schedule flown at LaGuardia on April 19, 2005, which was modified with expected additional flights if no cap were in place.

reflected the fact that the airport was close to unconstrained in 2000 and that actions taken by the FAA since then have kept operations from growing. Potential noise impacts from the caps under the NPRM were evaluated using the area equivalent method (AEM). The AEM may be used to conduct an initial analysis of proposed actions at a single airport involving increased operations, use of larger/noisier aircraft, or changes in flight time of day, provided there are no changes in ground tracks or flight profiles. If AEM calculations indicate that the proposed action would result in less than a 17 percent increase in the DNL 65 db contour area, it may be concluded that there would be no significant impact over noise sensitive areas and that no further noise analysis is required. An increase of 17 percent or more means that the proposed action must be analyzed using the Integrated Noise Model to determine the potential for significant impacts. FAA Order 10. IE, Appendix A, paragraph 14.4. FAA has defined the NEPA significance level as a 1.5 db or greater increase within the daynight sound level (DNL) 65 decibel (db) noise contour (Order 10.1E, Appendix A, Section 14.3). A significant noise impact would only occur if the changes of noise exposure are or exceed 1.5 db within the DNL 65 db range or higher. A 17 percent increase in the DNL 65 db contour area calculated using AEM represents approximately a 1 db increase in DNL, which would be below the potential 1.5 significance threshold. The Emission and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) was used to estimate potential emissions of criteria pollutants for which the area including LaGuardia is designated nonattainment or maintenance under the Clean Air Act. The review of air quality changes considered emissions from aircraft engines, auxiliary power units, and ground support equipment operating under default settings. These estimates were then compared with de minimis thresholds under the general conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act to determine the potential for the proposed action to cause exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). FAA Order 10. IE, Appendix A, paragraph 2.3 defines significant impacts as emissions that would cause an area to exceed one or more of the NAAQSs during the time periods analyzed. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, the noise and air quality analysis demonstrated that the original NPRM that would have required upgauging would not cause potentially significant increases in noise or result in air quality impacts above de minimis levels under the Clean Air Act. The results of these and other analyses referenced in this categorical exclusion are set forth in more detail in the attachment to this documented categorical exclusion. 5 Table 1 NPRM Area Equivalent Method Analysis Results No Action DNL 65 Contour (sq.mi.) 2.8 Upgauging DNL 65 Contour (sq.mi.) 2.4 % Change in Area {sq.mi.) -15.0% 5 The SNPRM proposals were labeled options both in the SNPRM and the supporting environmental analyses. Options I and 2 correspond to s I and 2. respectively, in this categorical exclusion.

No Action Upgauging Rule Upgauging Rule -No Action Applicable De Minimis Threshold CO 18,090 16,109-1981 100 Table 2 NPRM Annual Air Emissions (tons per year) voc NO X so x PMio 906 3,661 390 795 3,603 348 46-111 -58-42 -4 PM 2. 5 49 46-3 The noise and air quality analyses conducted for the NPRM represent a "worst case" analysis for the SNPRM because the original proposal was designed to accommodate maximum throughput of larger aircraft. While we expect some upgauging may result from the market allocation of slots under the SNPRM, we do not anticipate levels that meet or exceed the "target" for mandatory upgauging in the NPRM. As noted above, the target goal was calculated based on engineering analysis of the capacities of the airport. Order 10.1E paragraph 312d identifies a categorical exclusion for the "Issuance of regulatory documents (e.g., Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and issuance of Final Rules) covering administrative or procedural requirements." Further, Order 10.1E paragraph 312f lists the following as a categorical exclusion: "Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment)." The proposed actions in the original NPRM qualify as a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" and a proposed regulation under these categorical exclusions. As no extraordinary circumstances were determined to exist, the FAA determined that the NPRM qualified for categorical exclusions under paragraphs 312dand312f of FAA Order 10.1E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. For the reasons discussed above, the FAA expects the actions here in the SNPRM - to grandfather some slots; and auction off remaining slots -to similarly qualify for these exclusions. Based upon our review of the affected environment, there has been no change in the existence of extraordinary circumstances between 2006 and the present. To further the policies of the National Environmental Policy Act and reflect the alternatives regarding completion of auctions under the SNPRM in five years (2013), FAA supplemented the above worst case analysis by an additional evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the SNPRM. A review of changes in impacts was undertaken based on a comparison of each SNPRM alternative to two different conditions in 2013: a base case "unrestricted scenario"

where no cap on operations exists, 6 and a "restricted scenario" where the current cap exists in 2013. The aircraft activity levels and assumptions made for each alternative and scenario are as follows: s/s Annual Operations I (22 retired/5 pair slow upgauged) 1181 2 (5 pair slots upgauged) r 1203 Base case unrestricted (4/19/05 ops plus AIR 21) 1376 (1/11/07 ops) 1203 FAA analyzed the "restricted scenario" in an abundance of caution in light of comments made on the 2006 NPRM about the use of the unrestricted baseline in the regulatory evaluation. The Air Transport Association and Delta Airlines expressed concerns that FAA used an unrealistic base case in the regulatory evaluation. They maintained that FAA used the unlikely assumption that LaGuardia would revert to a situation where there would be no cap on the level of operations and therefore the regulatory evaluation overestimated benefits. They claimed that a cap on LaGuardia operations was a more realistic baseline. The response to this comment in the SNRPM preamble applies with equal force to the environmental review. As noted previously FAA actions since 2000, have prevented operations from growing at LGA. The LaGuardia order has prevented such growth since the High Density Rule expired. Therefore, the proper base case from which to compare the environmental impacts as well as the costs and benefits oi" the proposed alternatives in terms of delay reduction is an unconstrained airport. To assure full disclosure we also assessed potential changes relative to the cap under the LaGuardia order as a baseline. The same computer models were used for the SNPRM that were used for the NPRM. The results of these analyses are summarized below. 1. Noise As shown in Tables 3 and 4 below, the noise analyses revealed that there would be no potentially significant increases in noise over noise sensitive areas from capping operations at LaGuardia by either of the proposals being considered in the SNPRM. Specifically, due to reduced aircraft activity both alternatives result in less noise compared to an unconstrained airport in 2013, on the order of a 4 to 5 percent reduction in the 65 DNL db noise contour. In 2013, compared to the restricted scenario, the percentage changes in area for both SNPRM alternatives are very low, on the order of a 1 percent increase in contour area, indicating that the change in noise exposure from the SNPRM would be well below one decibel in the day-night sound level DNL 65 db noise contour (Order 10.1E, Appendix A, Section 14.3). Activity levels under the alternatives are lower or the same as those under the restricted scenario, so the minor increases in noise are attributable to the projected changes in fleet mix. 6 This unrestricted scenario was based on the actual schedule flown at LaGuardia on April 19,2005, which was modified with expected additional flights if no cap were in place. 7 The restricted scenario was based on the actual schedule flown at LaGuardia on January 11,2007, as if the current cap was in place in 2013.

DNL 65 Contour (sq. Mi.) 2.90 DNL 65 Contour (sq. Mi.) 2.90 2. Air Quality Table 3 SNPRM Area Equivalent Method Analysis Results 1 Base Case DNL 65 Contour (sq. mi.) 3.07 1 DNL 65 Contour (sq. mi.) 2.92 v. 1 % Change in area (sq. mi.) 0.7 Table 4 SNPRM Area Equivalent Method Analysis Results 2 Base Case DNL 65 Contour (sq. mi.) 3.07 2 DNL 65 Contour (sq. mi.) 2.94 v. 2 % Change in area (sq. mi.) 1.2 Base Case v. 1 % Change in area (sq. mi.) -4.8 Base Case v. 2 % Change in area (sq. mi.) -4.4 In evaluating the potential impact on National Ambient Air Quality Standards of the SNPRM, the review revealed that the proposals are below General Conformity de minimis thresholds with respect to all relevant pollutants for both alternatives 1 and 2 when compared to both the base case unconstrained and restricted scenarios. 8 In fact, as shown hi Tables 5 and 6 below, air quality shows improvements under alternative 1 when compared to both scenarios. Air quality shows improvements under alternative 2 compared to the unconstrained airport scenario and only small increases, which are far below the applicable de minimis criteria, compared to the restricted scenario. Because neither alternative exceeds de minimis thresholds for any pollutant, and because emissions are less than 10% of the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) emissions budget, the action is considered not regionally significant. But see NPRM, 71 Fed. Reg. 51359, August 29, 2006(General Conformity NPRM proposal to eliminate requirement to evaluate regional significance). Therefore, there is no potential for significant air quality impacts under either alternative. TableS SNPRM 1 Annual Air Emissions (tons per year) 8 LGA is located in a serious nonaltainmcnt area for 8-hour ozone and PMi 5. and a maintenance status for CO. Consequently only these three pollutants require air quality analysis. The area is designated attainment for the remaining criteria pollutants.

Base Case 1 1 - Base Case 1- Applicable De Minimis Threshold CO 5,457 4,486 4,433-1,024-53 100 voc 481 360 353-128 -7 NO, 2,019 1,733 1,730-289 -3 SO, 255 222 220-35 -2 PM 10 51 43 43-8 0 PM 2.5 42 42-8 0 Base Case 2 2 - Base Case 2- Applicable De Mininiis Threshold Table 6 SNPRM 2 Annual Air Emissions (tons per year) CO VOC NO X so* PM IO 5,457 481 2,019 255 51 4,486 4,5-952 19 100 360 360-121 0 1,733 1,749-270 16 222 223-32 1 43 43-8 0 PMi.5 42 43-7 1 Climate Change/Greenhouse Gases: The impact of proposed federal actions on climate change is of growing public concern. There are no federal requirements for calculating or

reporting potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. There are no GHG emission standards for aircraft, although several entities recently petitioned the US EPA to establish aircraft engine emission standards for greenhouse gases. We can reach some general conclusions about carbon dioxide (CO:) emissions because the quantity of carbon dioxide (COa) emissions is directly related to the amount of fuel burned. Due to reductions in aircraft activity, reductions in emissions and fuel burn are projected under both s 1 and 2, compared to the baseline unconstrained airport scenario. Therefore, less COi emissions will be emitted by aircraft under these alternatives. I additionally shows less fuel burn when compared to the restricted scenario, again yielding less C02 emissions. As aircraft activity levels under 2 and the restricted scenario are the same, the nominal increase in fuel bum (+0.8 percent) stems from the small projected changes in fleet mix. This fuel burn increase produces commensurate nominal increases in CO2 emissions when comparing 2 against the restricted scenario. The fuel burn calculations are: unrestricted scenario vs 1: 13% reduction in fuel burn unrestricted scenario vs 2: 12% reduction in fuel burn restricted scenario vs 1: 0.4% reduction in fuel bum restricted scenario vs 2: 0.8% increase in fuel burn The U.S. General Accounting Office reports that aviation accounts "for about 3 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human sources" compared with other industrial sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (23%) and industry (41%). US GAO Environment: Aviation's Effects on the Global Atmosphere Are Potentially Significant and Expected to Grow," GAO/RCED-00-57, February 2000, p.4. When viewed in the context of available information, the potential effects of the LGA SNPRM on CO2 are either beneficial or inconsequential. The FAA and the scientific community are leading and participating in several efforts to more precisely estimate aviation's role and effect on the global atmosphere and climate change. Extraordinary Circumstances Some actions that would ordinarily be categorically excluded may still require additional environmental analysis to determine whether further NEPA documentation is warranted. This would occur when extraordinary circumstances are present and when the project may have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has documented above why noise and emissions do not have potential significant impacts. Additionally, although the potential for change to the other impact categories is not anticipated, because this is a documented CATEX, each category listed under Order J0. IE, Paragraph 304 "Extraordinary Circumstances" is addressed. Set out below are the factors to be considered for extraordinary circumstances and the FAA's conclusion as to each circumstance for the SNPRM: a. There would be no potential for an adverse effect on historic or cultural resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act. (Order 10. IE, Paragraph 304a);

10 b. There would be no impact on, and therefore no use of, properties protected under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 303(c). (Paragraph 304b); c. There would be no impact lo scenic resources; resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; wetlands; flood plains; coastal zones; State or locally important, prime, or unique farmlands; energy supply and natural resources; wild and scenic rivers; and threatened or endangered species. (Paragraph 304c) d. There would be no division, disruption, or inconsistency of an established community (Paragraph 304d); e. There would be no increase in surface transportation and thus no increase in congestion from surface transportation (Paragraph 304e); f. There would be no potentially significant impact on noise levels for noise-sensitive areas (Paragraph 304f). See Section III. B.I. above. g. There would be no potentially significant impact on air quality or violation of local, State, Tribal, or Federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990. The proposed action would have beneficial or de minimis impacts because operations are capped to reduce delay and increase operational efficiency at LaGuardia (See the SNPRM, at Section III. Therefore, there will be no impact to air quality standards from implementation of the proposed action identified in this CATEX. See Section III. B.2. above. (Paragraph 304g); h. There would be no impact on water quality (Paragraph 304h); i. There is no high degree of controversy on environmental grounds because there is no substantial dispute as to the size, nature, or effect of the proposed Federal action. j. There is no likelihood that the proposed action is inconsistent with Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws (Paragraph 304j); and, k. There is no likelihood for the proposed action to create, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, a significant impact on the human environment (Paragraph 304k). In summary, the proposed federal action qualifies for categorical exclusion because there are no potentially significant impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting preparation of an environmental assessment. NOTE: See Appendix A for copies of the following supporting documentation 1. Preliminary Noise Analysis for NPRM 2. Preliminary Air Quality Analysis for NPRM 3. Preliminary Noise Analysis for SNPRM 4. Preliminary Air Quality Analysis for SNPRM

1! IV. Determination The FAA has reviewed the above referenced proposed action and determined that it is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation according to FAA Order 10.1E, in accordance with paragraphs 312d and 312f, without limitation. Additionally, the implementation of this action will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with paragraph 304. After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the FAA finds that the proposed Federal action does not require preparation of an EA or EIS in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA's Order. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375; 40 CFR 18.4; and FAA Order 10. IE, Paragraphs 312d and 312f. The implementation of the slot limitation rule will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has examined possible extraordinary circumstances that would warrant preparation of an EA or EIS and determined that no such circumstances exist. The FAA Office of Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment and the Air Traffic Organization, Office of Airspace and Aeronautical Information Management, Environmental Programs Group conducted this environmental review. It was conducted in accordance with policies and procedures in the DOT Order 5610.1C, "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" and FAA Order 10.1E Change 1, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures," implementing NEPA and regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 10-18. Dated: April 14, 2008