Sample FAA Categorical Exclusion Document Template

This template is recommended for actions covered by a CATEX that has a greater potential to trigger ­extraordinary circumstances or otherwise warrant additional documentation. See FAA Order 1050.1 ­paragraph 5-3d, for more information on additional CATEX documentation. Italicized text and image ­below provide instruction and examples and should be removed before signing this CATEX document.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

Instructions: Provide a detailed description of the proposed action (compared to the baseline, if ­applicable) below. If the action is subject to rulemaking, this section should be consistent with the ­Federal Register rulemaking notice. If the proposed action involves the creation or modification of a ­route, procedure, or airspace, provide graphic(s) depicting how the current situation differs from the ­proposal, if possible. Include information from the initial environmental review, IER, with other ­relevant supporting documents such as charts, maps, figures, matrices, tables, etc. (if available) to ­describe the proposed action.

Example: The LaGuardia (LGA) RNAV procedure will provide a deconflicted approach when weather ­requires it. Without this procedure, when the weather minimums fall below 1,500 ft AGL, and 3-miles ­visibility and use of an ILS is required, Newark (EWR), Teterboro (TEB), and LGA cannot operate at the ­same time. Traffic at one of the three airports must be stopped to permit the other two airports to ­operate. The FAA expects to use the new RNAV procedure for approximately 1,500 operations annually ­(0.8% of all LGA landings) to deconflict the New York metro airspace.

Figure 1 - Proposed LGA RNAV approach procedure

PURPOSE AND NEED

Instructions: Describe why the procedure/action is needed. Relevant information should be copied from ­the applicable IER and other documents, if available.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION[if conducted, otherwise omit]

Instructions: Summarize the dates, parties contacted/participated, meeting locations, issues raised, and ­action items, if any, from any roundtables, public meetings, or community engagement efforts.

Example: February 20, 2015 - An outreach meeting on the topic of the proposed approach procedure ­for runway XX was held, at the Acme High School. Due to the limited room capacity (100 people), ­invitations were only extended to public officials. The general public was provided access by telephone ­and internet (webinar) links. Comments were solicited from all persons, and replies were prepared for ­each comment. These replies are set forth [include reference to where these may be located].

A second outreach meeting, open to all, on the topic of aircraft overflights in the area, was held on April ­30, 2015, at Smallville High School. Opposition to the proposed RNAV procedures was expressed by the ­residents of Smallville. That opposition is almost entirely based on annoyance caused by the current ­arrivals to runway XX. Opponents' position is that mitigating the effects of those operations should take ­priority over implementing new procedures. Every member of the public was provided the opportunity ­to make comments and/or ask questions. During the three-hour period, 14 Smallville residents made ­comments and/or asked questions. No questions/comments addressed the proposed runway XX RNAV ­approach procedures.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND APPLICABLE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

FAA has determined that the above proposed action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the ­National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.; its implementing regulations at 40 CFR ­Parts 1500-1508, U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.1, Procedures for Considering ­Environmental Impacts; and FAA Order 1050.1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. ­DOT Order 5610.1 and FAA Order 1050.1 set forth the Departmental and FAA's NEPA-implementing ­policies and procedures, respectively.

Instructions: Explain why the CATEX chosen from FAA Order 1050.1, Chapter 5, is applicable to the ­proposed action. Reference and cite the full text of the applicable CATEX, and any other documents ­used to reach the conclusion that the action is eligible for a CATEX. This may include noise studies, ­AEDT/TARGETS results, emissions studies, and any other relevant results from modeling.

Example: This proposed action qualifies as a rulemaking action that establishes a new air traffic ­control procedure conducted below 3,000 ft AGL that does not cause traffic to be routinely routed over ­noise sensitive areas. Although there are noise sensitive areas in the vicinity, this proposed action will ­not be used on a routine basis; it is expected to be used only when specific, uncommon weather ­circumstances require it. This procedure is expected to be used for 0.8% of total LGA arrivals. ­Therefore, Categorical Exclusion 5-6.5i (Establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures ­conducted at 3,000 ft or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 ft AGL that ­do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently ­approved procedures conducted below 3,000 ft AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise ­sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. For modifications to air ­traffic procedures at or above 3,000 ft AGL, the Noise Screening Tool (NST) or other FAA-approved ­environmental screening methodology should be applied.) is the appropriate category of exclusion from ­further environmental impact review for this particular action.

BASIS OF DETERMINATION

Instructions: Describe why the action, as it fits the applicable CATEX is not expected to trigger any ­extraordinary circumstances listed in FAA Order 1050.1, section 5-2. If noise modeling was done as ­part of the review, explain how the screening or modeling shows that aircraft noise from the proposed ­action is not expected to reach a significant level. Show graphics depicting the existing procedure, if ­any, and the proposed procedure. Reportable or significant noise impacts may be shown, if applicable.

Example: This action establishes new air traffic control procedures conducted below 3,000 ft AGL that ­do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas and are unlikely to cause significant ­environmental impacts as the noise sensitive areas overflown will not experience traffic on a routine ­basis. Because the action includes changes to procedures above 3,000 ft AGL, an FAA-approved ­environmental screening methodology was applied to check for significant noise impacts that could ­warrant extraordinary circumstances. [Provide relevant reasons/rationale/basis for all conclusions. ­Draw parallels and explain the link to the action and the chosen CATEX.] Noise screening was ­performed using AEDT and the TARGETS Environmental Screening Tool to determine whether ­significant noise impacts were likely. A baseline scenario that modeled current operations at LGA was ­compared to a proposed action case, in which 0.8% of LGA arrivals were flown using the proposed RWY ­XX procedure. Noise screening indicated that usage of the proposed procedure at the specified levels ­would cause no significant or reportable noise impacts.

This project is not expected to adversely affect air quality because it is presumed to conform to ­applicable State Implementation Plans as an action that results in no emissions increase or increases in ­emissions that are clearly de minimis. Such actions are specifically identified under Category 14, Air ­Traffic Control Activities and Adopting Approach, Departure and Enroute Procedures for Air ­Operations, and are further defined at 70 Federal Register 41565-41578, July 30, 2007. Project-related ­aircraft emissions released into the atmosphere above the inversion base for pollutant containment, ­commonly referred to as the “mixing height” (generally 3,000 ft. AGL), do not have an effect on ­pollutant concentrations at ground level. Therefore, air traffic control actions above the mixing height ­are presumed to conform. Air traffic actions below the mixing height are also presumed to conform ­when modifications to routes and procedures are designed to enhance operational efficiency (i.e., to ­reduce delay), increase fuel efficiency, or reduce community noise impacts by means of engine thrust ­reductions.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, paragraph 5-2, regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the ­FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded ­action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has ­determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental ­assessment or environmental impact statement.

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, SECTION 106 CONCURRENCE [include if ­applicable]

Instructions: First, check paragraph 32-4-2 of FAA Order 7400.2 to see if the action is among those not ­requiring consultation. If this is the case, cite the applicable subpart [a. – f.] here. Otherwise, describe ­the preservation office's concurrence with the FAA's findings and any additional comments raised ­during the process. The letter to the SHPO, or other applicable office, should include a copy of the draft ­CATEX and a copy of the description of the procedure. The letter itself and the reply from the SHPO or ­applicable office should be referenced or attached. Unless an action is the type of activity that does not ­have the potential to affect historic properties, Section 106 consultation must be initiated and concluded ­prior to making a CATEX determination.

Example: Consultation or review with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), Tribal ­Historic Preservation Offices, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian Organizations is required to satisfy ­NHPA § 106. On January 1st, 2019, the FAA sent a letter to the XYZ SHPO, describing the proposed ­implementation of the RNAV arrival procedure. The FAA indicated that no potential impacts were ­expected to historic properties or cultural resource areas in the vicinity. The XYZ SHPO concurred with ­this assessment, and a letter indicating this concurrence was received on February 14th, 2019.

DECLARATION OF EXCLUSION

FAA has reviewed the proposed action described above and determined that it qualifies for categorical ­exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.) and its ­implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, ­Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph [fill in the selected CATEX from Chapter ­5], which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, paragraph 5-2, regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the ­FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded ­action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA ­has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental ­assessment or environmental impact statement.