ELR Citation: ELR 20828
No(s). s. 92-1151 et al (D.C. Cir. Mar 18, 1994)

The court holds that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) decision approving a plan to expand Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and declaring portions of the expansion project eligible for federal funding fully complied with FAA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court holds that the scope of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and the alternatives FAA considered in the FEIS demonstrate that the Agency took a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of the expansion project. FAA's categorical exclusion of particular elements of the airport layout plan from consideration in the FEIS was based on a reasonable interpretation of FAA regulations to require separate evaluation of an otherwise excludable element only if that element, by itself, meets certain criteria—not if the project as a whole meets the criteria. The court holds that FAA properly considered the cumulative impact of all project elements labelled "independent" and most, if not all, elements labelled "speculative." The court notes, however, that FAA must review certain elements apparently not considered in the FEIS. The court holds that FAA properly considered alternatives to the project as required by CEQ regulations. In defining the project's purpose, FAA neither constrained its consideration of alternatives to the FEIS nor improperly considered the economic goals of the project's sponsor. Also, the record shows that FAA gave reasoned consideration to off-site alternatives. The court upholds FAA's use of established noise measurement methodology to determine whether the project would "use" any historic property within the meaning of the Department of Transportation Act §4(f). FAA's reliance on this methodology was not arbitrary or capricious, because the court has previously deferred to the Agency's expertise in choosing the appropriate way to measure noise and has specifically approved FAA's use of the method at issue. Also, the court upholds FAA's use of the residential property standard to measure the effects of noise on historic sites, because all of the historic sites at issue are residential properties and the residential-use standard is not necessarily inappropriate just because the residence is historic. Finally, the court holds that FAA's conditional approval of a proposed runway did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). FAA did not approve the expenditure of federal funds for the runway and it expressly conditioned its approval on completing the process of consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under NHPA §106.

Counsel for Petitioners
Eliot R. Cutler
Cutler & Stanfield
700 14th St. NW, Washington DC 20005
(202) 624-8400

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

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, BUCKLEY, and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.