Aviation and Airport Development Law : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Chevalier Allen & Lichman Law Firm : Airport Development, Environmental Law

The Council on Environmental Quality, on February 18, 2010, proposed three substantive steps to “modernize and reinvigorate” the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to Nancy Sutley, the Chair of the White House-based CEQ, these measures “will assist Federal agencies to meet the goals of NEPA, enhance the quality of public involvement in governmental decisions relating to the environment, increase transparency and ease implementation.”

These three steps include when and how Federal agencies must consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their proposed actions; clarifying appropriateness of “Findings of No Significant Impact” and specifying when there is a need to monitor environmental mitigation commitments; and clarifying use of categorical exclusions. The CEQ is requesting public comment on all three of the draft guidances.

The Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Must be Considered in the NEPA Process

Perhaps the most critical element to this modernization of the NEPA process is the CEQ’s draft guidance on when and how Federal agencies must consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their proposed actions. According to the CEQ:

 

The draft guidance explains how Federal agencies should analyze the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they describe the environmental impacts of a proposed action under NEPA.  It provides practical tools for agency reporting, including a presumptive threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the proposed action to trigger a quantitative analysis, and instructs agencies how to assess the effects of climate change on the proposed action and their design.  The draft guidance does not apply to land and resource management actions and does not propose to regulate greenhouse gases. 

While some courts have already held that climate change and greenhouse gas emissions must be considered in the NEPA process. See, “Greenhouse Gases Should Be Considered in All EISs and EAs;” see also, Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2008), Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Mosbacher, 488 F.Supp.2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy, 260 F.Supp.2d 997 (S.D. Cal. 2003); and Mid-States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 520 (8^th Cir. 2003). To these courts, these findings indicate that emission of greenhouse gases substantially contribute to climate change, and climate change is expected to result in widespread adverse environmental effects. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the EIS.

What the draft guidance does explain, however, that is not present in the case law are the “practical tools for agency reporting.” That is, it sets a de minimis level of 25,000 metric tons of CO2e before the proposed action would trigger quantitative analysis, which may eliminate many federal projects from the guidance.

The public comment period for this draft Guidance is 90 days. Comments may be submitted electronically from the CEQ’s website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/submit?topic=Consideration%20of%20Greenhouse%20Gases. In addition, at the end of the draft Guidance, the CEQ asks several questions that it would like to have addressed by the public:

1. How should NEPA documents regarding long-range energy and resource management programs assess GHG emissions and climate change impacts?

2. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for projects applicable to the federal land management agencies?

3. What should be included in specific NEPA guidance for land management planning applicable to the federal land management agencies?

4. Should CEQ recommend any particular protocols for assessing land management practices and their effect on carbon release and sequestration?

5. How should uncertainties associated with climate change projections and species and ecosystem responses be addressed in protocols for assessing land management practices?

6. How should NEPA analyses be tailored to address the beneficial effects on GHG emissions of Federal land and resource management actions?

7. Should CEQ provide guidance to agencies on determining whether GHG emissions are “significant” for NEPA purposes. At what level should GHG emissions be considered to have significant cumulative effects. In this context, commenters may wish to consider the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 524 (2007).

Draft Guidance on the Appropriateness of “Findings of No Significant Impact” Tightens Monitoring and Reporting Restrictions

When Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued for a Federal action, the need for a detailed Environmental Impact Statement is obviated. Many Federal agencies attempt to mitigate the environmental impact of their actions as part of the NEPA process so that they can reach a FONSI and not be required to draft an EIS. However, in many cases, the follow-up on mitigation activities promised is lacking. Thus, the draft guidance seeks to clarify that although the environmental impacts of a proposed action may be mitigated to the point when the agency make a FONSI determination, the agency must make the mitigation requirements public and perform the necessary monitoring and reporting.

Revised Draft Guidance Clarifying Use of Categorical Exclusions

Many Federal actions do not have significant effects on the environment.  When these actions fall into broad categories of activities, agencies may apply a “categorical exclusion” from further NEPA review.  The CEQ originally released a draft guidance to clarify and promote the use of categorical exclusions on September 17, 2006. 71 Fed.Reg. 54816 (Sept. 17, 2006). This action would revise that draft guidance and clarify the rules for categorical exclusions and ensures that there is a concise public record when agencies apply them.  While CEQ previously has sought public comments on this matter, this guidance provides additional clarifications, so it will seek additional public comment for 45 days.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On 40^th Anniversary of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Jim Tankersley of the Los Angeles Times wrote that

The White House is poised to order all federal agencies to evaluate any major actions they take, such as building highways or logging national forests, to determine how they would contribute to and be affected by climate change, a step long sought by environmentalists.

The Presidential Order would most likely issue from the Council on Environmental Quality, an organization set up by NEPA to oversee the NEPA process. Mr. Tankersley’s article goes on to report that that

The head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley, said in an interview this week that federal agencies "should think about both the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change, on decisions they make."

She added that the administration's decision was not yet final.

The White House was originally petitioned in 2008 to formally recognize climate considerations under NEPA, but the White House has not taken any action since then.

However, federal agencies may already be required to include an analysis of climate in their Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs). NEPA does not mention specific areas that federal agencies must analyze to complete EISs and EAs. Instead, it states that the federal agency shall analyze the effect the federal project will have on the environment, without specifically mentioning any particular areas that need to be examined. Thus, it could be argued that federal agencies should already be examining the effect of the federal project on climate change since that is an “environmental effect” within the purview of NEPA.

As Mr. Tankersley’s article points out, some federal agencies have already taken upon themselves to consider effects on climate. Moreover, there is a growing body of caselaw indicating that the courts are beginning to rule that federal agencies should consider the effect their projects will have on the environment. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that the NHTSA was required to examine in its EIS the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from the federal project. In coming to that conclusion, the 9^th Circuit summarized the following findings from International Panel on Climate Change reports and other sources:

Carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the 21st century are virtually certain to be mainly due to fossil-fuel emissions;

The average earth surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 degrees;

There have been severe impacts in the Arctic due to warming, including sea ice decline;

Global warming will affect plants, animals, and ecosystems around the world. Some scientists predict that it will cause 15 to 37 percent of species in certain regions to be extinct;

Global warming will cause serious consequences for human health, including the spread of infections and respiratory diseases;

Climate change is associated with increasing variability and heightened intensity of storm such as hurricanes;

Climate change may be non-linear, meaning there are positive feedback mechanisms that may push global warming past a dangerous threshold (the“tipping point”).

Center for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 508 F.3d at 522-23. To the Court, these findings indicate that emission of greenhouse gases substantially contribute to climate change, and climate change is expected to result in widespread adverse environmental effects. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the EIS. See also, Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Mosbacher, 488 F.Supp.2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy, 260 F.Supp.2d 997 (S.D. Cal. 2003); and Mid-States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 520 (8^th Cir. 2003).

In addition, NEPA contains a provision that could be taken to require federal agencies to consider the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions created by the federal project. Section 102(F) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(F) states that “all agencies of the Federal government shall:”

Recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment.

To be sure, an order from the White House would be beneficial in establishing a nationwide policy and prompt recalcitrant agencies to require consideration of climate change in their EISs and EAs. At least in the Ninth and Eighth Circuits, however, one could argue that the courts have taken the view that NEPA already requires exactly what the order would seek to implement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A summary review of Aviation and Airport Development related news and information that was made public during the past week.  Trisha Ton-Nu also contributed to this post.

• O’Hare Airport hit for safety violations in FAA report. During routine inspections at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, IL, the Federal Aviation Administration uncovered several violations that endanger airplanes at the most critical phases of flight: takeoffs and landings. In a “letter of correction” to Chicago, the FAA said that O’Hare is out of compliance with federal aviation law and that the airport’s self-inspection program does not reflect actual conditions in the field. The problems noted at O’Hare, considered major violations, have almost all been corrected already and a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Aviation said the rest will be resolved by the end of November. 9/24/09, Jon Hilkevitch, Chicago Tribune, http://bit.ly/xbMHb
• House votes short-term extension for FAA programs. The House has voted to extend existing air transportation programs through the end of the year, the seventh time in two years that it has had to take temporary measures to prevent certain Federal Aviation Administration programs from shutting down. The Senate is expected to follow with a similar bill as it has struggled to get an FAA bill to the floor this year, due to policy differences and a preoccupation in the Senate with the health care issue. 9/24/09, Jim Abrams, Associated Press, http://bit.ly/L1Wg8
• FAA clears India’s safety measures. The Federal Aviation Administration’s International Aviation Safety Assessment team recently revisited India to confirm and validate action taken on earlier concerns raised by an audit in March 2009. The IASA team found India fully compliant with international safety standards as it had taken steps to meet the concerns from the March audit, and reported that it could continue to be maintained in Category-I, which means Indian airlines can expand operations in the U.S. and get new points of call and share codes. 9/24/09, Business Standard, http://bit.ly/hauyN
• AAAE panel mulls lack of long-term FAA reauthorization bill. At the American Association of Airport Executives’ National Airports Conference a panel of industry experts predicted that Congress’ likelihood of passing a long-term Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill is slim at present. The passage of a three- to six-month extension of FAA’s authority and funding is only a short-term response to the September 30, 2009 end of the federal fiscal year, and Kate Lang, the FAA’s associate administrator for airports, pointed out that short-term extensions make it difficult for airports to do multi-year projects and a more stable program is needed. 9/23/09, Aviation News, http://bit.ly/17xURv
• Former American Chairman and CEO boosts passenger rights proposals. Former American Chairman and CEO Robert Crandall has joined the call for a federally imposed time limit that would give passengers the option to get off a plane that has been stuck on the tarmac for hours, with a four-hour limit initially that would transition to a three-hour limit on January 1, 2011, to give carriers time to adjust their operations. A passenger rights proposal may be closer to passage now more than ever, with organizations like the Business Travel Coalition and the National Business Travel Association giving their support for the passage of such a bill. Senators Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe sponsored passenger rights legislation that is currently in the Senate Commerce Committee’s version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, which has yet to be passed. 9/23/09, Andrew Compart, Aviation Daily, http://bit.ly/8Zoor
• Daley downplays FAA violations at O’Hare. Mayor Richard Daley downplayed Federal Aviation Administration violations recently found at O’Hare International Airport as “not very significant,” declaring that none of the violations deal with the safety of people landing or taking off. He also said that he continues to have confidence in Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino, and that the city is reviewing and dealing with all of the violations. 9/24/09, Dan Blake, Chicago Tribune, http://bit.ly/P1HlV
• Senate passes three-month FAA extension. The Senate passed H.R. 3607, a bill that extends FAA programs and excise taxes through December 31, 2009, and awaits President Obama’s signing the measure into law before the current extension expires at the end of the month. 9/24/09, Aviation News, http://bit.ly/VI87A
• EIS for the CA high-speed train project from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire. The FRA and California High-Speed Rail Authority will jointly prepare a project Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles to San Diego section of the California High-Speed Train System. The preparation of the EIR/EIS will involve developing preliminary engineering designs and assessing potential environmental effects associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the High-Speed Train system. Written comments on the scope of the EIR/EIS should be provided to the appropriate authorities by November 20, 2009, or at any of the public scoping meetings scheduled for various cities from October 13, 2009, to November 3, 2009. 9/24/09, TradingMarkets.com, http://bit.ly/2x1bwb
• FAA Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety Peggy Gilligan’s speech at the ABA Air & Space Forum. In a speech at the American Bar Association’s Air and Space Forum, the Federal Aviation Administration’s Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety Peggy Gilligan stated that safety is the “foundation for public confidence” in aviation. She called for cooperation on safety to ensure the long-term global success of aviation and applauded international cooperation for making great strides over the past 60 years. Ms. Gilligan closed her speech acknowledging that the three-pronged approach in global regulation of aviation that includes holding each other to standards, providing assistance when needed, and proactively identifying and addressing risk, enhances safe air transportation around the world. 9/23/09, Peggy Gilligan, http://bit.ly/ijlZJ
• AEA joins NATA in opposing foreign repair station language in FAA reauthorization bill. The Aircraft Electronics Association and National Air Transport Association are contacting members of Congress in opposition to foreign repair station provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill. Each of the bills contains a provision that requires additional FAA oversight of foreign repair stations, and could eliminate a reciprocal audit provision of the U.S.-European Community Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, unnecessarily raising costs for E.U.-based repair stations. U.S. repair stations could also face high job loss if companies that hold a U.S.-based European Aviation Safety Agency Part 145 repair station certificate lose the reciprocal audit capabilities between the FAA and EASA. 9/28/09, National Air Transport Association, http://bit.ly/INtRv
• California state court rules that FAA Authorization Act preempts CA’s Unfair Competition Law. California Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempted claims against motor carriers brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law and protected motor carriers from state regulations. The federal law, part of the FAA Authorization Act, prohibits states from enacting and enforcing laws that are related to motor carrier prices, routes, or services, and Judge White held that the attorney general’s case, based on the allegation that the defendants had improperly classified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, would have a significant effect on motor carrier prices, routes, or services. 9/28/09, Truckinginfo.com News, http://bit.ly/3U9Gkg
• Carbon offset kiosks at SFO help air travelers ditch guilt. San Francisco International Airport has partnered with a private company to install self-serve kiosks where passengers can purchase carbon offsets for their flights. Carbon offsets for travel are unregulated, however, so it is unsure if patrons are getting what they pay for as the idea is rather abstract. Travelers input the number of miles their trip will cover, how long it will take, and the number of passengers they plan to buy offsets for, and receive a piece of paper representing a fact that their money went toward a carbon-offset project somewhere or that an emission did not occur somewhere else. Though more certainty about an offset is preferred, Professor Michael Wara of Stanford University believes the program is “better than nothing” and the airport hopes that the kiosks raise awareness about the environmental impact of flying. 9/29/09, Rori Gallagher, National Public Radio, http://bit.ly/1j6nyE

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a rather odd, unusual statement, the FAA issued on July 31, 2008, a "Record of Decision and Written Re-Evaluation of the New York\New Jersey\Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign Final Environmental Impact Statement."  In response to several requests for supplemental EIS to deal with the congestion management orders for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark, the FAA prepared the "Written-Re-Evaluation" "to consider whether these Orders Limiting Scheduled Operations and the new rates and charges amendments, either affected the purpose and need for the Airspace Redesign project, or altered the reported environmental impacts."  To no one's surprise, the FAA concluded that there is no "significant new information warranting preparation of a new or supplemental EIS for the Airspace Redesign project."  Since this strange document, coming 11 months after the initial Record of Decision and 29 days before the Petitioners' Brief in the Airspace Redesign litigation is due, is a "Record of Decision," anyone objecting to the ROD may file a Petition for Review within sixty days of July 31, 2008.

What remains to be seen is what effect this document will have on the on-going litigation, the GAO report (which was due out July 31, 2008, but probably will not be issued until the end of August), and the increasing political pressure that is being put on the FAA to reconsider the entire project.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link