Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00378/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

In December 2004, the City of Troy submitted an Environmental Assessment of 1

the Project to the FAA. On August 15, 2005, the FAA issued a Finding of No Significant

Impact (“FONSI”) with respect to the project's effect on the quality of the human

environment. Plaintiff claims that the FAA violated its procedures by issuing the FONSI

without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. Complaint (Doc. # 1). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS TO )

PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE )

ENVIRONMENT OF THE )

OAK GROVE COMMUNITY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-378-MEF

) 

UNITED STATES FEDERAL )

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND O R D E R

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

(Doc. # 25). In this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that the FAA violated the Administrative

Procedure Act ("APA") by not following its own environmental regulations with its

approval of a proposed improvement project at the Troy Municipal Airport in Troy,

Alabama. Complaint (Doc. # 1, ¶ 1). On September 4, 2007, this Court granted 1

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. # 23). 

By the instant motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to alter that ruling. 

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 4
In its Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Plaintiff argues that this Court has

subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s APA claim if the FONSI is a final order. 

Therefore, Plaintiff asks this Court to determine whether the FONSI is a final order. For

the reasons stated below, the Court does not need to determine whether the FONSI is a

final order because even if it is, this Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Administrative Procedure Act provides judicial review for those injured by

agency action. 5 U.S.C. § 702. Congress determines the court in which judicial review

occurs. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958). Unless a

statute provides for judicial review in a particular court, district courts have jurisdiction

over APA claims. City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 931 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “If,

however, there exists a special statutory review procedure, it is ordinarily supposed that

Congress intended that procedure to be the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review

in those cases to which it applies.” Id. With respect to claims involving FAA orders, 49

U.S.C. § 46110(a) provides that 

a person disclosing a substantial interest in an order issued by the Secretary of

Transportation . . . may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review

in the . . . court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person

resides or has its principal place of business.

Id. Subsection (c) states that the courts of appeals have “exclusive jurisdiction to affirm,

amend, modify, or set aside any part of the order and may order the Secretary, Under

Secretary, or Administrator to conduct further proceedings.” § 46110(c). 

Plaintiff argues that if the FONSI is a final order, then the Eleventh Circuit Court

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 4
of Appeals would have jurisdiction over the issue of “the proper application of [the

National Environmental Policy Act] and the controversy over the level of environmental

review applied to [the airport] project,” but this Court would have jurisdiction over the

APA claim. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. # 25, ¶ 5). Thus, Plaintiff

characterizes the APA claim as a “separate allegation” that is not within the scope of the

Court of Appeals’s jurisdiction. However, an APA claim is precisely the type of claim

that is addressed by 49 U.S.C. § 46110. This Court, like other courts that have considered

this issue, rejects Plaintiff’s argument that “a gap between FAA Act jurisdiction and

general APA jurisdiction exists.” Promptair, Inc. v. Hinson, 1996 WL 680005, at *4

(N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 1996) (citing Suburban O'Hare Comm'n v. Dole, 787 F.2d 186, 193

(7th Cir. 1986)). 

Even if there was a jurisdictional gap between the FAA Act and the APA, the

Court of Appeals would still have exclusive jurisdiction in this case. “[S]tatutes such as

Section 46110(c) that vest judicial review of administrative orders exclusively in the

courts of appeals also preclude district courts from hearing claims that are ‘inescapably

intertwined’ with review of such orders.” Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc., 245 F.3d 182, 187 (2d

Cir. 2001) (quoting Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc., 187 F.3d 263, 271 (2d Cir. 1999)). “A claim

is inescapably intertwined in this manner if it alleges that the plaintiff was injured by such

an order and that the court of appeals has authority to hear the claim on direct review of

the agency order.” Id. (citing City of Tacoma, 357 U.S. at 336, 339). In this case, the

APA claim is “inescapably intertwined” with the review of the FONSI. Plaintiff alleges

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 4
that it was injured by the FONSI because it “eliminat[ed] the need for an Environmental

Impact Statement.” Complaint (Doc. # 1, ¶ 17). 

Although the courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review claims involving FAA

orders, district courts have subject matter jurisdiction “over broad constitutional

challenges to FAA practices because the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C.A. §§

40101-49105 (1995), provides no remedy for such claims.” Foster v. Skinner, 70 F.3d

1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Mace v. Skinner, 34 F.3d 854, 858-60 (9th Cir. 1994)). 

In Foster, Plaintiff claimed that “the FAA violated the Administrative Procedures Act by

not publishing rules regarding suspensions, and not giving Foster notice and an

opportunity to comment on the rules.” Id. at 1087. The allegations involved broad

constitutional challenges, and not claims specific to the Plaintiff’s individual case. Id. at

1088. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court had subject matter

jurisdiction. Id. In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the APA by

issuing a FONSI without considering an Environmental Impact Statement. This

allegation does not involve a broad constitutional challenge, but rather that the FAA did

not follow its procedures in this particular case. 

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, it

does not need to reach the issue of whether the FONSI in this case is a final order. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

(Doc. # 25) is DENIED. 

Done on this the 31 day of October, 2007. 

st

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00378-MEF-SRW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 4