D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Decides Against Challenge to East Coast Airspace Redesign

Posted on June 11, 2009 by Steven Taber

In a per curiam Abbreviated Disposition that will not be published, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit summarily denied 12 separately-filed petitions for review that questioned the legality of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Environmental Impact Statement for its East Coast Airspace Redesign. The matter, Rockland County v. Federal Aviation Administration, brought 12 lawsuits together that represented a multitude of petitioners from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The Court kicked all of the citizens’ complaints about the effect the Airspace Redesign would have on their environment to the curb, deferring to the FAA’s analysis.

The Court reached this conclusion without addressing many of the arguments that the Petitioners presented in their briefs and at oral argument. First, with respect to Petitioners’ argument that the EIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the court simply stated that it is deferring to the FAA’s reasoning that they did everything they needed to do. Not mentioned in the Court’s cursory and truncated analysis is the fact that the FAA has said that it will not implement the Night Routing part of the EIS’ “Preferred Alternative,” and the effect that failure will have on the environmental impacts of the Airspace Redesign.

Second, the Court also deferred to the FAA in deciding that the EIS sufficiently took into account the state and local parks and parklands that would be affected by the Airspace Redesign. The Court, states that the Petitioners should have engaged in a “battle of the experts” and should have “impugn[ed] the agency’s screening methodology.” Disposition, p.8. In most cases, impugning an agency’s methodology is looked upon in great disfavor by a court.

Finally, the Court decided that the Airspace Redesign fell within the de minimis exception of the Clean Air Act, thereby releasing the FAA from any requirement to perform any type of analysis as to the impact the project will have on the surrounding area’s air quality programs. The Court admitted that the FAA did not follow the procedures set forth by the EPA in 40 CFR 93.153, but the “fuel burn analysis” that the FAA did create was sufficient. This was true, the Court concluded, despite the fact that the “fuel burn analysis” was devoid of any mention of criteria pollutants or indirect emissions as required by EPA’s regulation 40 CFR 93.153. The Court went on to hold that any error that the FAA committed in not following the required air quality procedures was harmless error.

It is obvious why the Court does not want this decision published. It is rudimentary and lacking in analysis of many of the arguments presented by the Petitioners. Moreover, it is cursory in statements of law and fact. For example, on p. 10 of the Disposition, in a footnote, the court states:

The petitioners also argue that the fuel burn analysis failed to show the redesign will reduce emissions in all relevant nonattainment and maintenance areas, see 40 C.F.R. 93.153(b), but that argument is not properly before us because the petitioners failed to raise it until their reply brief, Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1175, 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

In fact, the Petitioners had raised that issue in their opening brief, not once, but twice. See, Petitioners’ Joint Brief, pp. 88 and 93.

In the end, it is sad to see that a Court that prides itself on having many of its members become Supreme Court Justices, hide behind a per curiam decision that is so superficial and so careless. The Petitioners now have 45 days to decide whether to seek a rehearing or a rehearing en banc.

Other Articles on the subject:

Other posts on this blog about the Airspace Redesign:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

East Coast Airspace Redesign Challenge Heard at D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted on May 18, 2009 by Barbara E. Lichman

A multi-year challenge to the Federal Aviation Administration’s reorganization of the airspace in four East Coast states culminated on May 11, 2009 with oral argument at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Chief Judge David Sentelle, and Judges Douglas Ginsberg and Ray Randolph.  The litigation team was made up of 12 law firms representing public entities and environmental organizations from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The team designated three of its members to present the oral argument: (1) Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut; (2) Larry Liebesman, of Holland & Knight, representing communities in Rockland County, New York; and (3) Dr. Barbara Lichman of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, representing Delaware County, Pennsylvania.  The FAA was represented by Department of Justice attorneys Mary Gay Sprague and Lane McFadden.

In the 30 minutes allotted to the opening presentation, the team emphasized the FAA’s failure to adhere to governing statutes and regulations in implementing the Airspace Redesign Project.  Specifically, Attorney General Blumenthal presented the Court with a litany of FAA lapses in conducting the analysis of the project’s noise impacts.  The Attorney General argued that the mistakes and omissions from the analysis resulted in artificial and inaccurate minimization of those impacts.  In addition, the Attorney General challenged FAA’s failure to reveal even the artificially minimized noise impacts to the affected public for review and comment, as it is obligated to do under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

Mr. Liebesman, in turn, pointed out to the court that FAA similarly failed to adhere to the requirements of § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act in that it did not consult with the proper state officials concerning the project’s potential impacts on natural resources in their states; did not properly target or analyze those impacts; and, ultimately, failed to disclose them to the public. 

Finally, Dr. Lichman argued that FAA entirely failed to comply with the Clean Air Act’s conformity provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7506, which states, unequivocally, that no Federal action may be implemented that does not comply with the Air Quality Implementation Plans developed and implemented by individual states (“SIP”).  Dr. Lichman asserted that FAA not only failed to adequately establish that the project would conform as required, but had entirely failed to conduct any air quality analysis at all. 

Predictably, FAA responded to Petitioners’ arguments by reminding the Court of the nine years of preparation that went into the project, and its public relations efforts to reach the massive populations of those states, as well as by claiming the lack of impacts resulting from an airspace action which FAA opines will not be accompanied by increase in the number of aircraft using the airspace. 

Just as predictably, the Court focused less on the adequacy of FAA’s analyses, where evidence of such analyses exists in the Administrative Record, and more on the absence from the Administrative Record of any evidence of compliance with the trifecta of statutes upon which Petitioners’ challenge relied.  For example, Judge Ginsburg articulated the Court’s traditional reluctance to substitute its own judgment concerning the adequacy of FAA’s forecasting of the project’s growth inducing, and consequent noise impacts for the expertise of the FAA, the agency charged with responsibility for regulation of airspace. 

Similarly, Chief Judge Sentelle questioned Petitioners’ claims concerning the adequacy of FAA’s analysis of the project’s impacts on state and local parks, on the ground that state officials knew of the project over its nine year preparation time and, thus, had a reciprocal responsibility to notify FAA of the potential impacts of the project on the state’s resources.

The Court seemed somewhat more receptive, however, to Petitioners’ argument that: (1) FAA had performed no analysis whatever of emission from the project; (2) absent such analysis the project’s conformity could not be established; and (3) absent an analysis of the project’s conformity position, the Clean Air Act prohibits the project’s continued implementation.  FAA responded that it had performed an analysis, the Fuel Burn Report, FEIS, App. R, demonstrating that the project would reduce aircraft fuel burn, and, thus, by extension, emissions.  The Court questioned that unsupported conclusion on, among others, the ground that FAA’s Fuel Burn Report showed the project increased fuel burn at some airports. 

While it is usually fruitless to attempt to second guess the Court, Petitioners believe the Court approached the issues fairly, objectively and knowledgeably, and Petitioners are guardedly optimistic that some of their principal arguments hit home.  A final decision from the Court may take a number of months.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,