Save Our Skies LA v. FAA

Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). However, the FAA has a “categorical exclusion” for editorial changes which have no effect on the flight path of an airplane, bypassing the typical NEPA impact statement requirement. FAA Order 1050.1F 5-6.5.k; see 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(e)(2)(ii).

The FAA promulgated HARYS FOUR and SLAPP TWO, iterations of HARYS ONE and SLAPP ONE promulgated years prior, which made minor editorial wording changes to the departure procedures for the Van Nuys and Burbank airports, respectively. Petitioners sought review, 60 days after the newest iterations were promulgated, of all four orders for failure to analyze the orders in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). However, the FAA has a “categorical exclusion” for editorial changes which have no effect on the flight path of an airplane, bypassing the typical NEPA impact statement requirement. FAA Order 1050.1F 5-6.5.k; see 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(e)(2)(ii). Petitions for review of FAA orders must be filed within 60 days after the order was issued, except where there are “reasonable grounds” to excuse a delay in filing. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). HARYS FOUR and SLAPP TWO, while within the 60-day limit, clearly fit the “categorical exclusion” set for minor editorial changes. HARYS ONE and SLAPP ONE are years outside of the 60-day limit, and Petitioner’s own mistakes do not amount to “reasonable grounds” to excuse a delay. See Americopters, LLC v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726, 734 (9th Cir. 2006). Denied in part and dismissed in part.