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In a per curiam Abbreviated Disposition that will not be published, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit summarily denied 12 separately-filed petitions for review that questioned the legality of the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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FAA, NASA, and Transport Canada Sponsor New Website for Information on Aviation Noise

Posted on March 13, 2009 by Steven Taber

With little fanfare, (FAA announced it through a line item buried deep in its website on its "airport noise" page), PARTNER (Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction) began a new website: NoiseQuest: Aviation Noise Information & Resources.  PARTNER, which is  "an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence," has lined up

to be the sponsors of the site.  Despite the decidedly muted introduction, in setting up the site the sponsors state that the goal of NoiseQuest is to "your source for information on aviation noise. Our main goal is to improve the relationship between airports and their surrounding communities."

To that end, NoiseQuest has set a "community forum" on Wyle Laboratories' "Discussion Forum Website":

The NoiseQuest Community Forum is part of the Wyle Discussion Forum Website. This forum gives you an opportunity to share your ideas, interests, and question. Through this forum, we want to hear and discuss your noise problems and solutions, identify existing, effective outreach and education practices, and to share information between groups or individuals.

.  .  .  .

The NoiseQuest Community Forum can be found on the Wyle Noise Bulletin Discussion Forum List.

In addition to the Community Forum, NoiseQuest has several other sections that attempt to explain in layman's terms aviation noise, what causes it and how it is measured.

While community outreach is an important part of the FAA's strategy with respect to aviation, the community has to feel that not only does it have the opportunity to comment, but that its comments are heard, digested and implemented by the FAA, airports, and airlines.  With the lack of attention that was paid to the roll-out of this website, one wonders if FAA is serious in wanting to start a dialog with the communities surrounding airports about noise and emissions.  This could be a powerful tool in fostering communication between FAA and the communities if it is managed properly and results are taken to heart.  Such communication would be a benefit for the airports, airlines, the communities, and FAA.

Related posts:

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Petitioners File Reply Brief in East Airspace Redesign Case

Posted on March 8, 2009 by Steven Taber

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:

 

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

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Capacity Enhancement Project" at Philadelphia International Airport is Published

Posted on October 18, 2008 by Steven Taber

The FAA recently published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for its "Capacity Enhancement Project" (CEP) (warning! this is a large file, the DEIS is broken up into Chapters at the end of this post) at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).  Comments on the DEIS are due no later than November 10, 2008.  Since, as its title suggests, the FAA seeks to increase capacity at PHL, there is a concomitant increase in environmental effects of the project over what would be considered the "no action" alternative,i.e., not doing the project.  In particular, there will be increases in noise in certain areas and an increase in air pollution created by the airport, not only by the increase in aircraft once the project is finished, but also by the construction created by the Project.

After dismissing several options as not meeting the "Purpose and Need" of the Project, the FAA offers two alternatives, both involve:

  • the addition of a new 12,000-foot runway 9C-27C;
  • relocating the Air Traffic Control, Tinicum Island Road, Island Avenue, and the UPS terminal;
  • closing Hog Island Pier and and extending Fort Mifflin Pier; and,
  • closing Conrail line south of the Airport and constructing new rail line northeast of the Airport. 

The major differences between the two alternatives are:

  • Alternative B eliminates the 6,500-foot runway, Runway 17-35; and
  • Alternative B would tear down the existing terminal and create a terminal system similar to that at Atlanta Hartfield with terminal "islands" connected by a People Mover;

Although the FAA claims that the total population and housing units exposed to DNL 65 dB and greater would decrease substantially under both alternatives, those decreases "would occur primarily north of the Airport in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania as a result of eliminating Runway 17-35 or significantly reducing its use."  That being said, the FAA admits that there would be "significant impacts" under both alternatives to people and housing units in Delaware County thus shifting the noise contours from Philadelphia County to Delaware County.  In addition, both Camden and Gloucester Counties would experience increases in noise levels during the twelve years of construction.

Likewise, with respect to air quality, the FAA admits that there will be an increase in emissions of pollutants, especially during the construction phase of the project.  This is an increase not only of "criteria pollutants" (i.e., Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrous Oxides, and Particulate Matter) but also of "Hazardous Air Pollutants" and greenhouse gases.  Moreover, despite recent studies indicating that emission of pollutants above 3,500 feet above ground level has an effect on air pollutant levels on the ground (click here for a summary of the Taubman and the Clark studies, click here (on p.3) for a summary of the University of Maryland study), the FAA ignores the effect that such high level emissions will have.  

Humans will not be the only ones effected by the project.  The DEIS also reports that natural resources such as wetlands, and parks, as well as endangered and threatened species will be impacted by the Project.

A couple of final notes:

  • The DEIS does not mention coordination with any local agency outside the City of Philadelphia. This is despite the fact that although the City of Philadelphia operates PHL, most of the Airport is actually located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
  • Comments on the DEIS are due no later than November 10, 2008.  That being said, it should also be noted that if one were to bring a lawsuit against the FAA after the FAA decides to implement this Project, that person is limited to raising issues before the court that he or she raised before the FAA.  In other words, if no one comments on the Project on a particular issue prior to the FAA making its final decision, that issue may not be raised in a subsequent lawsuit.

More information regarding the Project can be found at the Project web site http://www.phl-cep-eis.com.  Here are links to the separate Chapters, Figures and Appendices, if you do not want to download the entire DEIS.

 

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

FAA's Presumed to Conform Rule Will Affect Communities Around Airports

Posted on August 8, 2008 by Steven Taber

In February, 2007, almost as an after-thought, theFAA included changes to air traffic control procedures to its Presumed to Conform rule. This last minute addition has the potential to seriously impact communities around the airports where these changes to air traffic control procedures take place. 

Why will this obscure regulatory change affect communities? First, a little background on the subject will be helpful. Air quality and noise are the primary concerns of communities around airports. Since Federal law severely limits the ability of communities to affect the amount of noise produced at airports, many communities have focused on protecting their air quality. The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act provide a useful tool in that regard. They require that all Federal agencies ensure that their projects will not affect the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is a plan drafted by the state and approved by the EPA in order to come into compliance with other provisions of the Clean Air Act. This “conformity determination” provides communities around airports with needed data concerning the effect the agency’s action will have on the air quality. Moreover, if the Federal agency fails to perform a conformity determination or fails to do it properly, then that it is grounds for the community to object to the Federal agency’s action as a whole.

 

The EPA promulgated regulations in 1993 detailing how the Federal agencies should go about proving their actions conform. Included in those regulations is a provision that, until 2007, had not been used by any Federal agency. That provision (40 C.F.R. sec. 93.153(f)) allows a Federal agency, under certain conditions, to list a series of activities it deems “presumed to conform.” Intended to be used for actions in which the emissions are minimal, such as land transfers and or transactional actions, the FAA in included in its 2007 “presumed to conform” rule, “air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure and enroute procedures for air operations.” What this rule does is eliminate the need for the FAA to provide the communities around airports with data about the impact actions like the airspace redesign in the Philadelphia/New York/Newark area will have on the area’s air quality. Without the FAA performing a conformity determination, there will be no air quality data available to the communities around airports, despite the growing research that shows that aircraft emissions contribute to problems in air quality.

The County of Delaware, located at the end of the runways of Philadelphia International Airport, has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. to put an end to the FAA’s rule, at least with respect to changes in air traffic control procedures. You can read the pleadings in this matter right here:

Oral argument in this matter will be held in Washington D.C. on October 7, 2008.

In addition, the EPA is revising the regulations governing conformity. They expect to issue new regulations in early 2009. A group of cities and concerned companies filed comments on the EPA’s proposed revisions and asked the EPA to eliminate the “presumed to conform” rule from the regulations.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,