Environmental

Subscribe to Environmental via RSS

On November 12, 2024, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (“DC Circuit”) took a dramatic step on the rocky road to ensuring Federal agency compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In its opinion, deciding the fate of the Airspace Management Plan governing flights over four National Parks in…

            As if it didn’t have enough to do, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is now proposing to expand the definition of “Aeronautical Activities”, which currently includes “any activity that involves, makes possible, is required for the operation of an aircraft/vehicle, or that contributes to, is required for, the safety of such operations” FAA Order 5190.6B…

In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FAA panel’s decision approving the construction of a new passenger terminal at Hollywood Burbank Airport based on a flawed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). City of Los Angeles, California v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 63 F.4th 835 (9th Cir. 2023) [hereinafter City of Los Angeles]. The City of Los Angles had challenged the FAA’s decision approving the new terminal complex, parking structure, fire station, and maintenance and cargo buildings on two grounds. First, the City challenged the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on fundamental flaws in the study. The second argument was that the FAA did not consider all reasonable alternatives such that the outcome was predetermined. The court rejected the second argument but found in favor of the City in the first argument. Accordingly, the court remanded the case back to the FAA panel since the plan failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The court determined that the FAA had a fundamental flaw in the EIS because it failed to consider the reasonable possibility that equipment running simultaneously would have increased noise levels beyond the acceptable thresholds. Courts generally give deference to the FAA’s fully informed and well-considered decision. City of Los Angeles, 63 F.4th at 849 citing Audubon Soc’y of Portland v. Haaland, 40 F.4th 967 (9th Cir. 2022). However, the court is permitted to take a hard look at the EIS when the FAA relies upon incorrect assumptions or data. City of Los Angeles, 63 F.4th at 849-50 citing Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the court determined that the EIS failed to account for the cumulative effects of the simultaneous equipment operation. Simultaneous equipment operation was not a remote possibility but a certainty. The FAA should have foreseen that equipment could operate simultaneously since project phases overlapped. Had the FAA made such adjustments, it would have increased the noise level in neighboring communities to a level that would have resulted in the project not being approved. Thus, the court determined that the FAA failed to meet its burden and a second look was warranted.Continue Reading Flawed Data in EIS Noise Calculation Requires the FAA to Take a Second Look at the Airport Development Project at Burbank

It is likely that the public may be somewhat disappointed with Congress’ latest effort to ameliorate the impacts of airport noise on underlying populations. On November 18, 2021, Adam Smith, Member of the House of Representatives from Washington State, introduced the Aviation Noise and Emissions Act, H.R. 6050, a Bill intended to “develop pilot grant programs through the Environmental Protection Agency to research and collect data on aircraft and airport noise and emissions and to use such information and data to develop a mitigation strategy, and for other purposes.” H.R. 6050, p. 1. At its foundation, the Bill calls for a “3-year pilot grant program with eligible entities to measure noise and emissions, including greenhouse gases, particulate matter, ultrafine particles, and other toxic pollutants, in communities near airports or air flight pathways using sophisticated methods and technology that allow tracing of noise and emissions to specific sources . . .,” H.R. 6050, paragraph 2.a., including identifying the primary recipients of such noise such as specific neighborhoods, structures, or impacted areas.
Continue Reading Is H.R. 6050 The Best That Congress Can Do?

On June 4, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order, “EO On Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the Covid-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities” (“EO”) for the expressed purpose of forestalling “the likelihood of a potentially protracted economic recovery with persistent high unemployment,” EO, Sec. 1, resulting from the business closures necessitated by the onslaught of Covid-19. Predicated on the authority granted in the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5191(b), § 501(b), the President found that the Covid-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes “a national emergency that posed a threat to our national security.” EO, Sec. 1.

In order to “facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery,” EO, Sec. 2, the EO seeks to “speed infrastructure investments,” EO, Sec. 2, that will “strengthen the economy and return Americans to work, EO, Sec. 2, by, among other things, “expediting the delivery of transportation infrastructure projects, EO, Sec. 3, and civil works projects within the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers, EO, Sec. 4.

All these are laudable goals. The potential problem, however, is in the simultaneous abrogation of environmental protections in such statutes as the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq., and Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, et seq., as well as other statutes administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. The most notable of these is the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., (“NEPA”).Continue Reading Executive Order Presents a Trade-Off Between Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Regulation

During the week of August 19, 2019, both the Appellate and Supreme Courts of California issued decisive opinions clarifying the parameters of agency action subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq., (“CEQA”). The courts were responding to repeated efforts by public entities to circumvent their CEQA obligations by redefining the actions that constitute a “project” subject to analysis under CEQA. Those public entities which have attempted to so minimize their exposure under CEQA include several airports in California, most notably, Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”). In its environmental review of the Specific Plan Amendment Study of several years ago, LAX relied on precisely the Project Definition soundly rejected by the California courts as set forth below.
Continue Reading California Courts Close Loopholes in Definition of “Project” Under CEQA

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, passed by the United States Senate on April 19, 2016, and previously reported on in this publication, contains another provision that merits comment.  Section 2506, “Airspace Management Advisory Committee” was introduced by Senators McCain and Flake of Arizona, purportedly to provide a communication channel between the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and the public concerning FAA programs for redesign of regional airspace over major public airports.   

The Senators were apparently motivated by their constituents after the FAA initiated a massive redesign of the airspace over the region surrounding Phoenix International Airport, causing substantial and widespread public outcry regarding perceived altitude changes and associated aircraft noise increases, especially over neighborhoods not previously overflown.  Despite these reported impacts, FAA found that the airspace changes created no significant aircraft noise impacts, and, thus, chose to document their determination with a categorical exemption from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (“NEPA”).  The City of Phoenix instituted a two-prong approach in disputing this determination.  It first filed a lawsuit to halt the airspace changes, on the ground that, among other things, a categorical exemption is inapplicable where, among other things, there is a division of an established community caused by movement of noise impacts from one area to another, while at the same time utilizing the political approach by submitting section 2506 through Senators McCain and Flake.  
 
Despite its apparently noble purpose, section 2506 doesn’t quite live up to its publicity.
 

Continue Reading Senate Monitors FAA Airspace Changes Through New Advisory Committee

Less than a month ago, it seemed clear that privatization was the wave of the future for the United States Air Traffic Control System (“ATC System”).  On February 19, 2016, the United States House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization Act (“H.R. 4441” or “FAA Reauthorization Act”), the centerpiece of which was the establishment of an independent, nonprofit, private corporation to modernize the U.S. ATC System and provide ongoing ATC services.  The benefits of such “privatization” were seen to include less expense, less backlog in the implementation of air traffic control revisions, in essence, greater efficiency in the development, implementation, and long-term operation of the ATC System.  Central questions still remain, however, concerning the synergy of a private corporation’s management of the ATC System with the overarching statutory regime by which it is currently governed.  Continue Reading Privatization of the United States Air Traffic Control System Hits Roadblock in the U.S. Senate

On October 1, 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) adopted stricter regulation on ozone emissions that will fall heavily on California, and most particularly on the transportation sector, including airlines.  The new standard strengthens limits on ground level ozone to 70 parts per billion (“PPB”), down from 75 PPB adopted in 2008.  The EPA’s action arises from the mandate of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), from which the EPA derives its regulatory powers, 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a)(1), and which requires that pollution levels be set so as to protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety.  42 U.S.C. § 7409(b).  

The change has inspired significant controversy throughout the country, but most particularly in Southern California which purportedly has the nation’s worst air quality and has already failed to meet previous ozone standards.  The issues arise out of the likelihood that the new standards will require steep emissions cuts falling most heavily on the transportation sector including trains, trucks, ships and, not least, aircraft.  

Continue Reading Airlines Will Be Affected by New Federal Ozone Standards

On September 8 and October 8, 2015, the Cities of Culver City and Inglewood, California, filed original and supplemental comments, respectively, with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) concerning the adequacy of its Draft Environmental Assessment (“DEA”) for the Southern California Metroplex (“SoCal Metroplex”) Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (“OAPM”) (“Project”).  The…