Lyons v. Federal Aviation Administration
671 F. App'x 674
9th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioners (Lyons, Nguyen, McCarthy, Rothschild) sought review under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 of an FAA final action concerning a proposed Metroplex airspace project.
- Petitioners claimed the FAA prejudged environmental impacts, used arbitrary flight estimates, wrongly assumed no induced flight growth, and used an improper noise baseline.
- The FAA issued an environmental analysis (EA) including detailed noise modeling and used forecasted flights/flight tracks to predict impacts.
- The FAA stated that if the analysis showed significant impacts the project would be altered or tabled.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA prejudged environmental impacts | FAA committed to outcome and timetable, implying predetermination | Statement merely identified preferred outcome; final decision contingent on EA results | No prejudgment; statement reasonable and not binding |
| Use of estimated future flights/flight tracks | Estimates were arbitrary and unreliable | Modeling requires agency expertise and reasonable forecasting | Forecasting was reasonable and within FAA expertise |
| Assumption of no induced flight growth | Project would cause increased flights and growth impacts must be analyzed | Project is designed to improve safety/efficiency, not induce growth | Proper to assume no induced growth; precedent supports omission |
| Use of baseline noise incorporating anticipated flight increases | Baseline should not include projected increases that mask impacts | Agencies may include reasonably foreseeable projects in baseline for cumulative analysis | Proper to use a baseline reflecting expected increases |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2011) (APA standard for review of FAA action)
- City of Mukilteo v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 815 F.3d 632 (9th Cir. 2016) (deference to FAA forecasting and scheduling does not bind final outcome)
- Seattle Cmty. Council Fed’n v. FAA, 961 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1992) (projects improving efficiency/safety need not be treated as growth-inducing)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. FAA, 161 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. 1998) (project implemented to address existing problems may not require discussion of growth)
- Cascadia Wildlands v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 801 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2015) (agencies can incorporate reasonably foreseeable impacts into environmental baseline)