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Perhaps the most critical element to this modernization of the NEPA process is the CEQ’s draft guidance on when and how Federal agencies must consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in their proposed actions.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The draft guidance explains how Federal agencies should analyze the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they describe the environmental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  The draft guidance does not apply to land and resource management actions and does not propose to regulate greenhouse gases.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

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

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:

• Delaware County Press Release, June 11, 2009.
• Conn. AG loses first round in flight fight,  The Hour.
• Blumenthal Loses First Round In Flight Fight, Hartford Courant
• CT Attorney General: seeks rehearing in FAA Southwestern Ct case
  Hartford Courant
• DC Circuit Sides with FAA in Airspace Redesign Dispute, The BLT: Blog of Legal Times.

Other posts on this blog about the Airspace Redesign:

• East Coast Airspace Redesign Challenge Heard at D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, posted May 18, 2009
• Petitioners File Reply Brief in East Airspace Redesign Case, posted March 8, 2009
• FAA Files Its Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Lawsuit, posted January 13, 2009
• New Jersey Attorney General Files Amicus Brief in the Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 12, 2008.
• Sens. Specter and Dodd File a Joint Amicus Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 8, 2008.
• Petitioners' Opening Brief, posted September 3, 2008.
• Update of Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted April 28, 2008.
• Airspace Redesign May Not Reduce Fuel Consumption for the Airlines as FAA Claims, posted March 18, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Friday, March 6, 2009, the Joint Petitioners in the East Coast Airspace Redesign case now pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, filed their Reply Brief, arguing that the FAA failed to comply with 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Clean Air Act and NEPA.

The Reply Brief takes the FAA to task for failing to consult with the state and local authorities regarding the tremendous impact that the Airspace Redesign will have on "4(f) properties," that is, state and local parks, and wildlife preserves.  It also points out that the FAA is in violation of the Clean Air Act, because it failed to establish that the Airspace Redesign would conform with the Clean Air Act.  Finally, the Reply Brief, argues that the FAA violated NEPA by not following its own regulations concerning aircraft noise in assessing the noise impacts of the Airspace Redesign.

Briefing for the case is now completed and oral argument is scheduled for 9:30 a.m.. on May 11, 2009, in front Judges Sentelle, Ginsburg, and Randolph at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C..  Senators Dodd (D - Conn.) and Specter (R - Pa.) filed a amicus curiae brief supporting the Petitioners' Petition for Review to have the Airspace Redesign vacated and remanded back to the FAA.  The New Jersey Attorney General, Anne Milgram also filed an amicus brief in support of the Petitioners.

Other Posts regarding this Litigation:

• FAA Files Its Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Lawsuit, posted January 13, 2009
• New Jersey Attorney General Files Amicus Brief in the Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 12, 2008.
• Sens. Specter and Dodd File a Joint Amicus Brief in the East Coast Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted September 8, 2008.
• Petitioners' Opening Brief, posted September 3, 2008.
• Update of Airspace Redesign Litigation, posted April 28, 2008.
• Airspace Redesign May Not Reduce Fuel Consumption for the Airlines as FAA Claims, posted March 18, 2008

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On September 10, 2008, Anne Milgram, the New Jersey Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Petitioners in the Airspace Redesign litigation currently pending in Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  In it, the New Jersey Attorney General emphasizes the impact that the Airspace Redesign will have on New Jersey's air quality and the FAA's abject failure to address those air quality issues.

The amicus brief "concurs with and joins" in Petitioners' argument that the Airspace Rdesign is not exempt from the Clean Air Act or EPA regulations, that FAA's presumption of conformity for air traffic control procedures is not applicable to the Airspace Redesign; and that neither FAA's regulations nor the record in this matter supports FAA's "fuel burn study."  The amicus brief goes on to state that the issues that face New Jersey as a result of the FAA' decision, including inhibiting New Jersey's ability to comply with the NAAQS under the Clean Air Act.

The brief also mentions that the FAA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the Airspace Redesign was approved on the basis of an inadequate environmental impact statement.  In particular, the brief argues that the EIS failed "to adequately inform the public of the noise impacts of the Airspace Redesign."

This brief, coupled with the brief that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) filed on September 5, 2008, provide the court with additional reasons why the EIS must be remanded back to the FAA for further consideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

As is well known, the FAA's Record of Decision on September 5, 2007 (and subsequently amended on October 5, 2007) regarding the NY/NJ/PA Airspace Redesign generated a host of litigation.  Twelve Petitions for Review were filed in three different Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. Seven petitions from counties, municipalities and organizations in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey were filed in the Third Circuit, located in Philadelphia. Three petitions from the State of Connecticut as well as towns and groups of towns in Connecticut were filed in Second Circuit, located in New York. And two petitions from one county in New York and a New York organization were filed in the D.C. Circuit. Because the first petition filed was in the D.C. Circuit, the Court, by  orders on February 14, 2008 and on March 10, 2008, consolidated all of the petitions in the D.C. Circuit.

Since all of the petitions were consolidated, the D.C. Circuit requested that all of the petitioners devise a proposal as to the format for briefing on this matter. Pursuant to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' March 18, 2008, Order, on April 17, 2008, all of the Petitioners filed a Joint Proposal for Briefing with the court.  Following the court's strict guidelines, the Petitioners suggested to the court that they file one brief covering all of the issues presented by all of the Petitioners that is substantially longer than a normal brief.  Contained in the one brief, however, will be the specific complaints of each of the petitioners. In addition, the Petitioners set out a briefing schedule that took into account the fact that twelve groups of attorneys would be working on a single brief. Thus, the Petitioners suggested that their brief be due on August 1, 2008, the FAA’s brief to be due on October 31, 2008, and the Petitioners’ Reply brief be due on December 19, 2008. These dates and the format of the briefs were agreed to by the Department of Justice, who is representing the FAA in all of the matters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks