Indian River County v. DOT, 945 F.3d 515

AAF Holdings proposed and built an intercity passenger rail (All Aboard Florida) in two phases; Phase I (Miami–West Palm Beach) completed, Phase II (to Orlando) under construction.
AAF obtained tax-exempt Private Activity Bond (PAB) allocations from DOT: provisional allocations in 2014–2016 and a $1.15 billion allocation for Phase II in Dec. 2017 (later modified to total $2.1 billion issued).
Indian River County sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging DOT’s §142(m) allocation (arguing the Project did not “receive Federal assistance under title 23”) and challenging the FRA’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA; the §147(f) claim was later dropped.
The District Court granted summary judgment for DOT and AAF, finding County within the §142 zone-of-interests, DOT’s PAB allocation lawful, and the EIS adequate; County appealed as to §142 and NEPA.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed: it held County’s interests fall within §142’s zone-of-interests, DOT permissibly construed §142(m) to allow PABs where parts of a project received Title 23 funds, and the FRA’s EIS satisfied NEPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Zone-of-interests under §142	County lacks an arguable interest under §142; cannot sue under APA	County’s environmental/safety interests reasonably relate to §142’s purpose	County is within §142’s zone-of-interests; APA review permitted
§142(m) eligibility — "receives Federal assistance under title 23"	Project as a whole did not receive Title 23 funds; only ancillary crossing work benefited, so PABs unlawful	§142(m) covers projects that in whole or in part receive Title 23 assistance; crossing upgrades are constituent parts	DOT reasonably concluded project "receives" Title 23 assistance; allocation lawful
Deference to DOT’s statutory interpretation	AAF: DOT’s guidance is informal and deserves at most Skidmore deference; Chevron uncertain	DOT: agency interpretation is longstanding and entitled to deference	Court need not decide Chevron; DOT’s interpretation persuasive under Skidmore and upheld
NEPA adequacy of EIS (safety, trespassers, noise, mitigation)	EIS failed to take a "hard look": inadequate analysis/mitigation plan for trespassing, fencing, and noise	FRA conducted extensive analysis, responded to public comments, and adopted mitigation measures	EIS satisfied NEPA; FRA took the required procedural "hard look" and mitigation disclosures were adequate

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118 (zone-of-interests/lenient APA standing test)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (APA zone-of-interests leniency)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (NEPA informational/mitigation principles)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency statutory interpretation framework)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (respect for agency interpretations according to persuasive power)
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (deference doctrines and factors)
Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (NEPA "rule of reason")
Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S. 87 (deference to agency NEPA choices)
Indian River Cty. v. Dep’t of Transp., 348 F. Supp. 3d 17 (D.D.C.) (district-court opinion affirmed)