Paul J. Fraidenburgh

Subscribe to Paul J. Fraidenburgh

Since our February 1, 2023 blog, concerning the California Court of Appeals tentative decision in Make UC a Good Neighbor vs. Regents of Univ. of California, et al., that Court has taken the definitive step of confirming its tentative decision, on the critical ground that “UC Berkeley failed to assess potential noise impacts from…

On March 9, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the “Motion to Enforce Judgment” filed by co-Petitioners Cities of Los Angeles and Culver City (“Cities”) in City of Los Angeles, et.al. v. Stephen Dickson, et.al.  The Order found the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) in blatant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42…

Public concerns have been running amuck on the internet regarding the recent tentative decision by the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents of the University of California, et.al., Case No. A165451 (Trial Court Case No. RG21110142). The case involves a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) to the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Long Range Development Plan for the former “Peoples’ Park” in Berkeley, an historical icon to the student war  protests of the 1960s. A portion of the Long Range Plan involves construction of more than a thousand units of residential housing for university students, and acknowledges potential increases in population ancillary to the student body such as faculty and staff who will not receive access to the housing, but will be forced to compete with local residents for existing housing supplies.

The public’s concern appears to arise not merely from the project itself, but the Court’s purported expansion of the scope of CEQA to incorporate not merely the physical impacts of the project itself (e.g., traffic, emissions, etc.), but also impacts caused later by the users and/or occupants of the development, in this case the students, including “social noise” from late night parties and pedestrians.…

Continue Reading Public Concern Grows Over Broad-Based CEQA Decision

Since the publication of the above-entitled article on April 28, 2022, events have occurred that raised further questions about the immediacy of the closure of East Hampton Municipal Airport on the South Shore of Long Island, New York, owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton.

Specifically, the most recent related cases are Friends…

On May 20, 2022, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) will implement revisions to current regulations governing the environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., (“NEPA”). Specifically, CEQ will revise 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13, restoring detailed “purpose and need statements” in environmental impact statements (“EIS”); 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3, removing language that could be construed to limit local governmental agencies flexibility to develop and revise NEPA procedures to implement local agency specific programs; and 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1, definition of “environmental effects,” to restore the distinction between “direct, indirect and cumulative” effects.

The reason for the proposed changes lies with the dueling political and environmental concepts of the immediate past and current presidential administrations. In 2017, then President Trump issued Executive Order 13807, requiring CEQ to propose certain changes to then existing regulations. In January 2020, CEQ issued the new rules, making wholesale revisions to the original regulations that limit their applicability, and became effective on September 14, 2020. Immediately thereafter, on January 20, 2021, the new Administration issued Executive Order 13990 revoking the previous Administration’s Executive Order, and requiring CEQ to review and revise all regulations implemented between 2017 and 2020, i.e., those issued during the Trump Administration, to become consistent with later Executive Order 13990. The following constitutes the results of CEQ’s efforts toward “rectifying” the limitations on previous regulations, consistent with the intent underlying the original 1978 implementing regulations.…

Continue Reading The CEQ Tries to “Make a Silk Purse from a Sow’s Ear” by Revising NEPA Regulations

In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), on April 15, 2022, approved the closure of East Hampton Airport, owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton, Long Island, New York. The airport is scheduled for closing on May 17, 2022. 87 Fed.Reg. 22617. FAA’s acquiescence appears surprising because of its long and strong resistance to the closure of airports in general. See, e.g., City of Santa Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, 631 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Town plans to convert the currently public use airport into a new, publicly owned, private use facility.

A November 2020 letter from the FAA to the Town detailed four options to obtain local control of the airport: continued operation as a public use airport, negotiations of an agreement for mandatory restrictions on aircraft operators, permanent closure of the airport, or closure and subsequent reopening of a new, private use airport. A fifth option emerged in subsequent discussions between the Town and the FAA to transition the airport from public to private use without closure.

Reopening the airport under what the FAA calls a “prior permission required” model, the Town will be able to impose and enforce restrictions limiting air traffic and noise. Under this model, the Town could prohibit certain aircraft, or certain commercial or private users, impose noise limits; and restrict takeoffs and landings at certain times of the day. In determining which aircraft could use the airport, the Town could also take into account certain environmental factors. Electric aircraft might be favored, for example, over those that use leaded aviation fuel. As the prior permission classification applies, those who wish to use the airport will first need clearance from the Town, and that permission could be granted, revised, or withdrawn. Should the restrictions allowed under this model not meet community needs, the Town could still opt to close the airport entirely.

Both the process and the result sound interesting and hopeful to noise impacted communities. But don’t jump to any conclusions.…

Continue Reading FAA Defies History by Approving the Closure of East Hampton Airport

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?

In an unprecedented confrontation, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) have been facing off over the imminent implementation of 5-G C Band transmission sought by AT&T and Verizon for their telephones. The issue for FAA is radar altimeters installed in scores of aircraft types, including commercial airlines, some business jets, and many helicopters, including helicopter air ambulances. Radio altimeters supporting these systems operate between 4.2-4.4 GHz; C-Band 5-G operations will initially begin at around 3.7 GHz.

The concerns are not merely the delays and cancelled flights potentially caused by FAA’s issuance of over 1,500 Notices to Airmen (“NOTAM”), restricting use of instrument approaches and other procedures that rely on radar altimeters, principally in bad weather, but also increased weather minimums for Part 91 helicopter operations.
…
Continue Reading Federal Agencies Go “Head to Head” Over Implementation of 5-G C-Band Implementation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has, in its December 10, 2021 Opinion, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, No. 20-5304, now cut short the federal government’s flagrant overuse of the fifth exemption from production of documents set forth in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, the so-called “deliberative process privilege.” That exemption from disclosure has been used by federal agencies, over the years, to deny requesters’ access to public documents, on the ground that those documents contain “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).

In Judicial Watch, the D.C. Circuit specifically reiterated and adopted the factors the agency invoking the privilege must show, as originally set forth in Senate of Puerto Rico v. DOJ, 823 F.2d 574, 585-86 (D.C. Cir. 1987). These include “(1) ‘what deliberative process is involved,’” and “(2) ‘the role played by the documents in issue in the course of that process.’” Id., quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 868 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In Judicial Watch, the Court added “to ‘assist the court in determining whether th[e] privilege is available,’ the agency should also explain (3) the ‘nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the officer or person issuing the disputed document,’ and (4) the ‘relative positions in the agency’s chain of command occupied by the document’s author and recipient.’” Id. at 586.

The Court found none of those factors to have been addressed by the DOJ in Judicial Watch, and, consequently, remanded the case to the District Court “to review [the requested documents] in camera and determine, consistent with the principles set forth herein, whether they qualify as deliberative.”…

Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Puts the Brakes on Federal Government’s Use of the “Deliberative Process Privilege” to Avoid FOIA Disclosure