32 ELR 20764 -- City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. Federal Aviation Administration

City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. Federal Aviation Administration

No. 00-1548 (292 F.3d 261) (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA June 14, 2002)

ELR Digest

The court holds that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) approval of a runway improvement project was not arbitrary or capricious under the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, therefore, denies a city's petition for review. The court first holds that the city has standing to bring suit against the FAA because it alleged harm to its own economic interests based on the environmental impacts of the approved project. The court next holds that the FAA did not violate the CAA by failing to adequately disclose and analyze various air quality impacts of the proposed project. Contrary to the city's allegations, the FAA did not omit 21 construction-related projects from the air quality analysis in the environmental impact statement (EIS). Both the draft EIS and the final EIS disclose all of the projects approved in the record of decision. Further, by failing to challenge the alleged non-inclusion of the 21 projects before the FAA, the city waived this claim under the CAA. Moreover, the FAA's finding that the nitrogen oxide emissions resulting from the proposed project fall within the de minimis threshold is not unreasonable. The court next rejects the city's NEPA claims. The city's claim that the FAA failed to disclose that the project would not meet state or federal water standards is essentially a collateral attack on the state environmental director's decision to grant a waiver from state and federal water standards and not a basis on which to grant relief under NEPA. In addition, the court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the city's Department of Transportation Act claims because the city failed to raise any claims before the agency. Similarly, the court holds that the FAA's decision not to undertake a supplemental EIS was not arbitrary and capricious. The court, therefore, denies the city's petition for review.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (11 pp., ELR Order No. L-532).

Counsel for Petitioner
Barbara E. Lichman
Chevalier, Allen & Lichman
2603 Main St., Ste. 1000, Irvine CA 92614
(949) 474-6967

Counsel for Respondents
Lisa E. Jones
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]