City of Mukilteo v. US DOT, No. 13-70385 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioners challenged the FAA's decision that no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary to commence operating commercial passenger service at Paine Field in Snohomish County. The court held that the scope of the FAA's demand-based projections were not arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the FAA determined that there were no connected actions for this project and petitioners have failed to provide anything more than mere speculation that the FAA’s actions now will lead to more aircraft activity at Paine Field in the future than covered in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Therefore, it was not arbitrary for the FAA to have included no connected actions in the final EA. The court also concluded that the FAA’s Finding of No Significant Impact was not predetermined by the creation of an optimistic schedule for completing the environmental review or statements favoring commercial service at Paine Field. Here, the FAA performed its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, obligations in good faith and did not prematurely commit resources to opening the terminal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Federal Aviation Administration / Environmental Law. The panel denied a petition for review challenging the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) decision that no Environmental Impact Statement was necessary to commence operating commercial passenger service at Paine Field near Everett, Washington. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and its implementing regulations, the FAA was required to analyze all “reasonably foreseeable” environmental impacts CITY OF MUKILTEO V. USDOT 3 of its decision to open Paine Field to commercial passenger traffic. The panel held that the scope of the FAA’s review was not arbitrary and capricious. The panel further held that the FAA’s demand-based flight operation projections for Paine Field were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The panel also rejected the petitioners’ contention that the FAA violated 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25, which requires agencies to consider “connected actions” in NEPA documents, and held that it was not arbitrary for the FAA to have included no connected actions in the final Environmental Assessment. The panel rejected petitioners’ bias-based arguments, and held that: the FAA’s Finding of No Significant Impact was not predetermined by the creation of an optimistic schedule for completing the environmental review or statements favoring commercial service at Paine Field; and the FAA performed its NEPA obligations in good faith and did not prematurely commit resources to opening the terminal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.