Center for Community Action v. FAA

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Administrative Law
  • Date Filed: 11-18-2021
  • Case #: 20-70272
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Siler, C.J. for the Court; Bumatay, C.J.; & Rawlinson, C.J., dissenting
  • Full Text Opinion

“Judicial review of agency decisions under [NEPA] is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that an agency action may only be overturned when it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Center for Community Action and the State of California (collectively, “Petitioners”) petitioned for review of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Record of Decision pursuant to the Environmental Assessment (“EA”) of an airport Amazon facility (the “Project”). Petitioners assigned error to the FAA’s finding of no significant environmental impact. Petitioners argued that the FAA’s analysis was erroneously conducted in several ways, and therefore did not conform to the National Environmental Policy Act’s (“NEPA”) “hard look” requirement. Further, petitioners alleged that these failures raised a substantial question as to the Project’s environmental impact, triggering the FAA’s requirement to produce an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). The Administrative Procedure Act “specifies that an agency action may only be overturned when it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise’” unlawful. Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003). NEPA requires production of an EIS "only if the effects of the project are highly uncertain.” Am. Wild Horse Campaign v. Bernhardt, 963 F.3d 1001, 1008 9th Cir. 2020). The Court found that Petitioners had failed to raise a substantial question as to the uncertainty of the Project’s environmental impact. Therefore, the FAA was not required to produce an EIS. The Court also found that Petitioners failed to show “arbitrariness or capriciousness” in the FAA’s methods of calculation because they could not identify any subjective or unlawful methods used in the EA. Therefore, the Court held that the FAA’s decision could not be overturned. PETITION DENIED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top