City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Michael Huerta, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16483

Background

In Sept. 2014 the FAA implemented new satellite‑guided arrival/departure routes at Phoenix Sky Harbor, shifting large volumes of jet traffic over historic neighborhoods and parks and increasing overflight in some areas by ~300%.
The FAA consulted primarily with low‑level city Aviation Dept. employees and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); it did not notify or consult senior city officials, park managers, or elected officials and did not broadly inform the public before implementation.
The FAA’s noise modeling flagged “potentially controversial” increases for historic properties and parks but concluded there would be no significant environmental impact and invoked a categorical exclusion from further NEPA review.
After routes went into effect Sept. 18, 2014, widespread public complaints followed (record complaint levels); the FAA convened meetings and promised to study and possibly adjust routes but declined to re‑open environmental review or immediately restore prior routes.
The City of Phoenix and a historic neighborhood association filed petitions for review in 2015 challenging the FAA’s September 18 order as arbitrary and capricious and in violation of NHPA, NEPA, Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, and FAA Orders; the FAA moved to dismiss as untimely.
The D.C. Circuit held petitions timely under the narrow ‘‘reasonable grounds’’ exception, reached the merits, and vacated and remanded the FAA’s Sept. 18, 2014 order for failures in consultation and environmental/Section 4(f) analysis.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness: whether petitions filed >60 days after Sept. 18 order were barred	Delay excused because FAA repeatedly told City it would investigate and might revise routes, inducing petitioners to wait	FAA said the final, reviewable order was the Sept. 18 publication and petitions were untimely	Court invoked rare reasonable‑grounds exception (paralleling Paralyzed Veterans and Safe Extensions) and reached merits; petitions deemed timely
NEPA / categorical exclusion: whether FAA reasonably concluded no extraordinary circumstances (no highly controversial environmental effects)	FAA’s failure to notify/consult public and the magnitude of projected noise increases made controversy likely; categorical exclusion unlawful	FAA relied on modeling, SHPO concurrence, and airport authority input to justify no extraordinary circumstances	FAA’s determination arbitrary and capricious: failed to anticipate controversy, departed from prior practice without reasoned explanation; categorical exclusion improper
NHPA / consultation: whether FAA fulfilled duty to consult and notify local government and public re historic properties	FAA consulted only low‑level Aviation Dept. staff not authorized to represent City and failed to notify local officials/public as required	FAA contends it consulted City Aviation staff and SHPO and relied on SHPO concurrence	Court held FAA’s consultation inadequate under NHPA regulations: agency must identify and consult appropriate local representatives and notify consulting parties/public
Section 4(f) / substantial impairment: whether FAA properly assessed whether routes ‘‘use’’ parks/historic sites or substantially impair enjoyment	FAA improperly relied only on Part 150 noise guidelines and failed to consider whether affected historic sites were ‘‘generally recognized quiet settings’’; thus substantial impairment not properly evaluated	FAA relied on Part 150 and urban context to find no substantial impairment	Court found FAA’s analysis arbitrary and unsupported: should have investigated whether quiet setting attribute existed and not relied solely on Part 150

Key Cases Cited

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (final agency action / reviewability) (clarifies finality test)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action arbitrary and capricious standard)
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 752 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (reasonable‑grounds exception where agency left docket open)
Safe Extensions, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 509 F.3d 593 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (reasonable‑grounds exception where FAA instructed parties to await revisions)
Friedman v. FAA, 841 F.3d 537 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (finality analysis for agency action)
Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA, 808 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (reviewability under §46110 and final order discussion)
American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (importance of informing public so they may request environmental review)
BFI Waste Sys. of N. Am. v. FAA, 293 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (review standard: substantial evidence requirement)
Electronic Privacy Info. Ctr. v. FAA, 821 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (observing rarity of reasonable‑grounds exception)
Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 827 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (timeliness precedent discussing narrowness of exceptions)