Air Traffic Initial Environmental Review (IER)

Facility:Date:

Prepared by: Phone:

=============================================================================

NOTE-

This IER provides basic information about the Proposed Action to better assist in preparing for the environmental analysis phase of a proposed action. Although it requests information in several categories, not all the data may be available initially; however, it does represent information, in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order JO 7400.2, Chapter 32, which ultimately will be needed for preparation of the appropriate environmental document. If the Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) Environmental Pre‐Screening Filter Tool is used to initiate the environmental review process, and it passes the initial noise screening, then the IER is unnecessary. Additional guidance on the identification of potential environmental impacts by environmental category is available in FAA Order 1050.1 Desk Reference and FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, paragraphs 32-3-1 and 32-3-2.

Section 1. Proposed Project Description

Describe the proposed project and identify the party proposing the project. Include general information identifying procedure(s) and/or airspace action(s) to be implemented and/or amended. Identify the associated airports and/or facilities.

1.1. Is the Proposed Action the result of a user request, community request, regulatory or Congressional mandate, or other?
☐ User Request ☐ Community Request ☐ Regulatory ☐ Congressional Mandate or Non‐Discretionary Action ☐ Other

1.2. Has airspace design been conducted using the Terminal Area Route Generation Evaluation and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS), or another airspace/air traffic design tool?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, Model: _____________

1.3. Describe the Proposed Action, providing the necessary chart(s) depicting changes. Describe anticipated changes to the fleet mix, number of aircraft on proposed new route(s) and their altitude(s), if any.

1.4. Would the Proposed Action include an increase or decrease in the number of aircraft operations during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and for California, evening hours (7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.)?
☐ Yes ☐ No

1.5. Are there currently any noise abatement procedures in effect for the affected airport(s), formal or informal? Check for availability of a Part 150 study to confirm existence of noise abatement procedures. Also see Section 4.2.14.2 below.
☐ Yes ☐ No
Describe:

1.6. Does the airport have a preferential runway configuration?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

1.6.1. If so, would the airport preferential runway configuration use change as a result of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

1.7. Is the Proposed Action primarily designed for visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, or both?
☐ VFR ☐ IFR ☐ Both

1.8. If the Proposed Action specifically involves a charted visual approach (CVA) procedure, provide a detailed local map indicating the route of the CVA, along with a discussion of the rationale for how the route was chosen.

1.9. Would all new and/or proposed change(s) in flight path(s) occur over 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL)?
☐ Yes ☐ No

1.10. Would there be actions involving civil jet aircraft arrival procedures between 3,000–7,000 feet AGL, or departure procedures between 3,000–10,000 feet AGL?
☐ Yes ☐ No

Section 2. Purpose and Need

2.1. Describe the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Present the problem being addressed and describe what the FAA is trying to achieve with the Proposed Action. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action must be clearly explained and stated in terms that are understandable to individuals unfamiliar with aviation or commercial aerospace activities. If detailed background information is available, summarize it here and attach a copy to this review.

Section 3. Alternatives

3.1. Are there alternatives to the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, describe any alternatives to the Proposed Action, including the No Action Alternative (discuss environmental consequences of not implementing the Proposed Action, i.e., maintain current conditions).

3.2. Current/Baseline Environment: Describe the existing procedure(s) (the No Action Alternative) in full detail. Provide the necessary chart(s) depicting the current procedure(s). If possible, describe the typical fleet mix, including the number and types of aircraft on the route (annually and average day), and depict their altitude(s) along the route.

Section 4. Environmental Review and Evaluation

The determination of whether a Proposed Action may have a significant environmental effect is made by considering requirements applicable to the specific environmental impact categories discussed below. (See FAA 1050.1 Desk Reference and FAA Order JO 7400.2, paragraphs 32-3-1 and 32-3-2.)

4.1.Describe the Affected Environment

4.1.1. Describe the existing land use and land cover within the Proposed Action's study area.

4.1.2. Describe noise sensitive areas (if any) within the Proposed Action's study area.

4.1.2.1. Will the Proposed Action introduce air traffic over noise sensitive areas currently not affected?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Describe:

4.2.Environmental Consequences
As stated in FAA Order 1050.1G, Appendix B-1, extraordinary circumstances are factors or circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. For FAA proposed actions, extraordinary circumstances exist when the Proposed Action meets both of the following criteria:
(1) Involves any of the following circumstances in subparagraph b.
(2) May have a significant impact as defined by NEPA.

4.2.1.Aviation Emissions and Air Quality
Has research or communication with air quality regulatory agencies been conducted to identify areas of concern to determine if the affected area is a non‐attainment area (an area which exceeds the Clean Air Act [CAA] National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide) or maintenance area (an area which was in non‐attainment but subsequently upgraded to an attainment area) concerning air quality?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Explain:

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact on air quality or a violation of local, state, tribal, or federal air quality standards under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Exhibit A-1, the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, and FAA 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 1, for details on how to make the determination.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Comment:

The Proposed Action is intended to enhance operational safety and efficiency. Additionally, the Proposed Action would not change project-related aircraft emissions below 3,000 feet AGL. The Proposed Action is not intended to change the number of aircraft operations and the aircraft fleet mix. The Proposed Action is presumed to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Proposed Action is a type of action that promotes the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of aircraft traffic, including airport, approach, departure, and en route air traffic control (ATC) procedures. Therefore, these changes are presumed to conform as emissions from these types of actions are below the applicable de minimis levels. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations identify certain actions that would not exceed these thresholds, including ATC activities and adoption of approach, departure, and en route ATC procedures for aircraft operations above the mixing height specified in the applicable SIP (or 3,000 feet AGL) in places without an established mixing height. FAA Order 1050.1, and FAA's NEPA implementing guidance, provides that further analysis for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes is normally not required where emissions do not exceed the EPA's de minimis thresholds.

Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to affect air quality and is presumed to conform to Category 14, “Air Traffic Control Activities and Adopting Approach, Departure and En Route Procedures for Air Operations,” as identified in the General Conformity Rule, 72 Federal Register 41565-41580 (July 30, 2007).

4.2.2. Biological Resources - Endangered/Threatened Bird and Bat Species and their Sensitive or Critical Habitat

4.2.2.1. Are there wildlife and/or waterfowl refuge/management areas within the project study area of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Identify:

4.2.2.2. Are there sensitive or critical bird or bat habitats within the project study area of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Identify:

4.2.2.3. If so, has there been any communication with the appropriate wildlife management regulatory agencies (federal and state) to determine if endangered or protected species inhabit the area?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
If yes, identify endangered or protected species.

4.2.2.4. Would aircraft overfly sensitive or critical habitats below 3,000 feet AGL?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Explain: (Also, explain if current flights are overflying sensitive or critical habitat; identify them.)

4.2.2.5. During what times of the day would operations be more/less frequent?

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact on natural, ecological, or biological resources of federal, tribal, state, or local significance (for example, federally listed or proposed endangered, threatened, or candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act)? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b.(3), and 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 2, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.2.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.2.b. ☐ No
An impact to biological resources is not anticipated.

4.2.3. Coastal Resources

4.2.3.1. Are there designated coastal resources in the affected area?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Identify:

4.2.3.2. Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in any construction or development or any physical disturbances of the ground with the potential to affect coastal resources?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact to coastal resources? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b(4), and 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 4, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.3.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.3.b. ☐ No
An impact to coastal resources is not anticipated.

4.2.4. Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f), and Land and Water Conservation Fund (Referred to as Section 6(f))

4.2.4.1. Are there cultural or scenic resources, of national, state, or local significance, such as national parks, publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wilderness areas, national/state forests, and public and private historic sites in the project study area of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Identify:

4.2.4.2. If so, at what altitude would the affected area(s) be overflown?

4.2.4.3. If so, during what time(s) of the day would operations occur that may impact these areas?

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact to properties protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b(4), and 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 5, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.4.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.4.b. ☐ No
An impact to Section 4(f) resources is not anticipated.

4.2.5. Farmlands

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 CFR, part 658) regulates federal actions with the potential to convert farmland to non‐agricultural uses. Implementation of the Proposed Action does not involve the development of land regardless of use, nor does it have the potential to convert farmland to non‐agricultural uses. An impact to farmlands is not anticipated.

4.2.6. Hazardous Material, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention

4.2.7. Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources (Historical and Cultural Resources Only)

NOTE-

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) applies to actions that have the potential to affect historic properties in a way that alters any of the characteristics that make the property significant, including changes in noise where a quiet setting is an attribute of significance. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and may be visual, auditory, or atmospheric. Indirect effects are those caused by the undertaking that are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth‐inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystem. Refer to the June 7, 2019, memo from the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation Office of General Counsel regarding the meaning of “direct” in Section 106 of the NHPA.

A noise analysis and flight track analysis are utilized to identify the geographical area where historic properties might be present that could be affected by the introduction of visual or audible elements from aircraft overflights. For this undertaking, no land acquisition, construction, or other ground disturbance would occur. Therefore, potential effects are limited to effects from aircraft overflights, primarily noise and visual effects.

4.2.7.1. Is the type of undertaking identified in FAA Order JO 7400.2, paragraph 32-4-2, subparagraphs a–e, presumed to have “no potential to cause effects” pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.3(a)?
☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, identify which subpart (a–e) the undertaking is presumed to have “no potential to cause effects.”

4.2.7.2. Are there historical properties and/or cultural resources protected under Section 106 of the NHPA in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Identify:

4.2.7.3. Will the Proposed Action include the removal or alteration of historic properties or cultural resources (direct effect)?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

4.2.7.4. Do any of the historic properties or cultural resources identified have quiet as a generally recognized purpose, feature, or attribute?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

4.2.7.5. Will the Proposed Action substantially alter or interfere with the use or character of the property (indirect effect)?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Evaluation: Will the Proposed Action result in an adverse effect on properties protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix 5-2.b.(1), and 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 8, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.7.a. ☐ Yes
Explain:

4.2.7.b. ☐ No
The potential to impact properties subject to Section 106 review is not anticipated.

4.2.8. Land Use
The compatibility of existing and planned land uses with an aviation or aerospace proposal is usually associated with noise impacts. In addition to the impacts of noise on land use compatibility, other potential impacts of FAA actions may affect land use compatibility. The impact on land use, if any, should be analyzed and described under the appropriate impact category.

Evaluation: The determination that significant impacts exist in the Land Use impact category is normally dependent on the significance of other impacts. (See 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 9, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.9. Natural Resources and Energy Supply

4.2.9.1. Is a reduction of a fuel cost and/or energy consumption anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

4.2.9.2. Will the Proposed Action have the potential to cause demand or strain on a natural resource(s) or material(s) that exceeds current or future availability of these resources? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b.(4).)
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
If yes, explain:

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact in relation to natural resources and energy supply?

4.2.9.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.9.b. ☐ No
An impact to natural resources and energy supply is not anticipated.

4.2.10. Noise and Noise‐Compatible Land Use
The significance threshold for noise is whether the Proposed Action would increase noise by day-night average sound level (DNL) 1.5 decibel (dB) or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level; or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB increase, when compared to the No Action Alternative for the same timeframe.

Noise compatibility or non‐compatibility of land use is determined by comparing the Proposed Action DNL values to the values in the 14 CFR, Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1, Land‐Use Compatibility with Yearly DNL Average Sound Levels. (See FAA Order 1050.1 and 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 11.)

4.2.10.1. Would implementation of the Proposed Action result in an increase in operations?
☐ Yes ☐ No

4.2.10.2. Would the Proposed Action introduce air traffic over noise sensitive areas currently not affected?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

4.2.10.3. What is the lowest altitude over a noise sensitive area on a new or amended flight procedure and/or that would receive an increase in air traffic operations?

4.2.10.4. Do the results of the noise analysis indicate a change in noise meeting threshold criteria considered “significant”?
i. For DNL 65 dB and higher: +1.5 dB ☐ Yes ☐ No

4.2.10.5. If yes, are the results of the noise analysis incompatible with one or more of the Land Use Compatibility categories? (See FAA 1050.1 Desk Reference, Exhibit 11-3.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

4.2.10.6. Do the results of the noise analysis indicate a threshold of significance over noise sensitive areas not listed under the Land Use Compatibility categories (e.g., Section 4(f) resources, Section 106 properties, Critical Habitats).
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

4.2.10.7. Do the results of the noise analysis indicate a change in noise meeting threshold criteria considered “reportable”?
i. For DNL 60 dB to < 65 dB: +3 dB ☐ Yes ☐ No
ii. For DNL 45 dB to < 60 dB: +5 dB ☐ Yes ☐ No

Evaluation:

4.2.10.a. Will the Proposed Action result in a significant noise impact over noise sensitive areas? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b(7), Noise and Noise Compatible Land Use, for details on how to make the determination.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

4.2.10.b. Will the Proposed Action result in a reportable noise impact over noise sensitive areas? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Appendix B-1.b(7), for details on how to make the determination.)
☐ Yes ☐ No
Explain:

4.2.11. Socioeconomics, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk

4.2.11.1.Socioeconomics

Evaluation: Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in an impact to socioeconomics? (See the FAA 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 12, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.11.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.11.b. ☐ No
The Proposed Action would not involve acquisition of real estate, relocation of residents or community businesses, disruption of local traffic patterns, loss in community tax base, or changes to the fabric of the community.

4.2.11.2.Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risk

Evaluation: Will the Proposed Action have the potential to lead to a disproportionate Environmental Health or Safety Risk to children due to significant impacts in other environmental impact categories? (See the 1050.1 Desk Reference, Chapter 12, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.11.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.11.b. ☐ No
The Proposed Action would not affect products or substances that a child would likely come into contact with, ingest, use, or be exposed to and would not result in environmental health and safety risks that could disproportionately affect children.

4.2.12. Visual Effects (visual impacts only)

4.2.12.1. Will implementation of the Proposed Action create annoyance or interfere with normal activities from light emissions?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

4.2.12.2. Will implementation of the Proposed Action affect the visual character of the area including the importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected visual resources?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A

Evaluation: Will the Proposed Action result in an impact to visual resources? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Exhibit A-1, and 1050.1, Desk Reference, Chapter 13, for details on how to make the determination.)

4.2.12.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.12.b. ☐ No
The Proposed Action is not anticipated to interfere or have an effect on visual resources.

4.2.13. Water Resources (including Wetlands, Flood Plains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers)

4.2.14. Local Plans and Development Efforts

NOTE-

Consideration of reasonably foreseeable environmental effects (previously referred to as “cumulative impacts”) applies to the impacts resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action combined with other actions. A reasonably foreseeable environmental effect is defined as an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other, recent, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non‐federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Analyzing reasonably foreseeable environmental effects is considered within geographic (spatial) and time (temporal) boundaries. Reasonably foreseeable future actions refer to projects that would likely be completed within the next five years and do not include those actions that are highly speculative or indefinite. The types of projects considered under previous “cumulative impact” analyses were primarily limited to airfield projects, specifically projects that directly affect or involve runways and modifications to parallel taxiways (e.g., lengthening and/or widening). These types of projects may affect aircraft flight operations.

4.2.14.1. Is the Proposed Action consistent with local plans and development efforts?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Describe:
[IF YES] This is an air traffic action only and would not involve construction or development or any physical disturbances on the ground. The Proposed Action would not increase the number of air traffic operations, flight schedules, or preferential runway use. No impacts to local plans or development efforts are anticipated.

4.2.14.2. Has there been any previous aircraft‐related environmental or noise analysis, including a Part 150 Study, conducted at this location?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Describe:

4.2.14.a. If so, was the study reviewed as part of this initial review?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Describe:

4.2.15. Effects on the Quality of the Human Environment that are Likely to be Highly Controversial on Environmental Grounds

NOTE-

The term “highly controversial on environmental grounds” means there is a substantial dispute involving reasonable disagreement over the degree, extent, or nature of a proposed action's environmental impacts or over the action's risks of causing environmental harm. Mere opposition is not sufficient for a proposed action or its impacts to be considered highly controversial on environmental grounds. Opposition on environmental grounds by a federal, state, or local government agency or by a tribe or a substantial number of the persons affected by the action should be considered in determining whether or not reasonable disagreement exists regarding the impacts of a proposed action. If in doubt about whether a proposed action is highly controversial on environmental grounds, consult the headquarters environmental division for the Line of Business/Staff Office (LOB/SO), the Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-400), or the Office of Chief Counsel (AGC) for assistance. (See FAA Order 1050.1, Exhibit A-1.)

4.2.15.1. Will implementation of the Proposed Action result in the likelihood of an inconsistency with any federal, state, tribal, or local law relating to the environmental aspects of the Proposed Action? (See FAA Order 1050.1, Exhibit A-1.)
☐ Yes ☐ No

Evaluation: Is there likelihood for the Proposed Action to be highly controversial based on environmental grounds?

4.2.15.a. ☐ Yes
Comment:

4.2.15.b. ☐ No
The potential for controversy is not anticipated.

Section 5. Mitigation

Are there measures which can be implemented that might mitigate any of the potential impacts (GPS/FMS plans, NAVAIDs, etc.)?
☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ N/A
Describe:

Section 6. Community Engagement

Community engagement is the process of engaging in dialog and collaboration with communities affected by FAA actions. The appropriate level of community engagement and public engagement will vary to some degree depending on the project scope and affected communities. (See FAA Order JO 7400.2, Appendices 10 and 11, and the Community Involvement Performance Based Navigation Desk Guide, and/or AEE's Community Involvement Manual, or other available community involvement guidance for further information).

6.1. Has the Environmental Protection Specialist informed the FAA Regional Administrator and/or Community Engagement Team about the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Describe:

6.2. Does the community engagement team recommend Community Engagement activities for the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No

If yes, coordinate with the Community Engagement team to complete the following questions. If community engagement is not required, the following questions are not applicable.

6.2.1. Will information be provided to the local airport manager/sponsor other than notification in the IFP Information Gateway? If yes, describe.
☐ Yes ☐ No
Describe:

6.2.2. Will the public who could have an interest in the Proposed Action due to their location near the proposed areas of change, be notified, consulted, or otherwise informed of the Proposed Action?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, describe the communication efforts.

6.2.2. Are any parties known to be opposed to, or be in support of, the new or amended flight procedures?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, identify the parties and indicate whether they are in opposition to or are in support of the Proposed Action, and the basis of their opposition.

6.3. Has the FAA received any comments objecting to the Proposed Action other than what would be considered controversial on environmental grounds? (See question 4.2.15.1 above.)

☐ Yes ☐ No

6.3.1. If so, state the source and substance of the comment(s) and how the FAA was notified (resolution, Congressional, public meeting/workshop, etc.).

6.3.2. If public comments were received, and an FAA response was provided, please attach to this IER.

Section 7. References/Correspondence

Attach, in writing, all relevant and applicable correspondence, including phone logs, Memorandums to the File, etc., identifying the individual, their titles, role(s) in the Proposed Action, purpose of the communication(s), conclusion(s) and resolution(s), and if any follow‐up communications, etc.

Section 8. Additional Preparers (e.g., FAA airspace specialists, community engagement officers, and National Airspace System [NAS] analytics team members)

The person(s) listed below, in addition to the preparer indicated on page 1, are responsible for all or part of the information and representations contained herein:

Name: ______________________________________

Title: _______________________________________

Facility: ______________________________________

Telephone Number: _____________________________

Specific Area of Responsibility: ____________________

Section 9. Facility/Service Area Conclusions

☐ This initial review and analysis indicate that no extraordinary circumstances or other reasons exist that would cause the responsible federal official to believe that the Proposed Action might have the potential for causing significant environmental impacts. The undersigned have determined that the Proposed Action qualifies as a categorically excluded action in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, and on this basis, recommend that further environmental review need not be conducted before the Proposed Action is implemented.

Facility Manager Review/Concurrence

Signature: _______________________________________ Date: __________________
Name:
Title:
Facility:

Service Center Environmental Specialist Review/Concurrence

Signature: _______________________________________ Date: __________________
Name:
Title:
Location:

Service Center Director Review/Concurrence

Signature: _______________________________________ Date: __________________
Name:
Title:
Location: