Guy Heide v. Marion C. Blakey, No. 05-2184 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - FAA. FAA Administrators's decision that certain noise exposure maps comply with applicable federal regulations was not a final, reviewable order.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2184 ___________ Guy Heide; Michael A. Kosel; Duane Taylor, * * * Petitioners, * * v. * * Marion C. Blakey, Administrator, * Petition for Review of a Federal Aviation Administration; * Decision of the FAA. Glen Orcutt, Community Planner, * Minneapolis Airports District Office, * [UNPUBLISHED] Federal Aviation Administration; * * Respondents, * * Metropolitan Airports Commission, * * Intervenor on Appeal. * ___________ Submitted: October 6, 2006 Filed: October 11, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110, Guy Heide, Michael Kosel, and Duane Taylor (petitioners) petition for review of a decision of the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Administrator) determining that certain noise exposure maps comply with applicable federal requirements. We conclude that the FAA Administrator s decision is not final and thus is not a reviewable order within the meaning of section 46110. See, e.g., Village of Bensenville v. FAA, 457 F.3d 52, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (order under § 46110 must possess the quintessential feature of agency decisionmaking suitable for judicial review: finality ; to be final, agency action (1) must not be tentative or interlocutory, but represent consummation of decisionmaking process, and (2) must determine right or obligation or otherwise create some legal consequence); Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2006) (in defining order under § 46110, finality is key ; agency decision must impose obligation, deny right, or fix some legal relationship; if order provides definitive statement of agency s position, has direct and immediate effect on day-to-day business of party asserting wrongdoing, and envisions immediate compliance with its terms, order is sufficiently final to warrant § 46110 review), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W. 3074 (US Aug. 4, 2006) (No. 06-211); Aerosource, Inc. v. Slater, 142 F.3d 572, 578 (3d Cir. 1998) (to be reviewable under § 46110, order need not be formal, but must be final and must impose obligation, deny right, or fix some legal relationship). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed. Petitioners motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. ______________________________ -2-
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.
