FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 31 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Stephen N. L imbaug h, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Missouri, sit ting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1393 4

____ ____ ____ _ Doc ke t- F AA CITY OF OXFORD, GEORGIA, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, MA RI O N C. BL A K E L Y , A dm ini str at or of the F ed er al A viatio n A dm ini str at ion , Res po nd en ts , CITY OF COVINGTON, GE ORGIA, GE ORG IADE PA RT MEN T O F T RAN SPO RT AT IO N ( “ GD OT ”) In te rv en or s.

____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

a n O rd er of the Fe de ra l A viatio n A dm ini str at ion

____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 31, 200 5) Before TJO FL AT and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and LI MBA UG H , D istrict * Judg e.An AL P is a document which shows “ [p] roposals to construc t new runw ay s, runway 1 extensions, t erminal building s, or other ma jor and supportive de velopment.” F AA Or der 5050.4A ¶ 30(b) (1985). The FAAmust approve r evisions to the AL P. 49 U.S.C . § 47107(a) (16)( B) . The City of Covington sought to obtain FAA a pproval of its re vision to t he AL P before it phy sically

modified the airpor

t. See 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)( 16)(C)( “[T] he owne r or op e rator wi ll n ot m ake or

a llo w a ny a lte ratio n o f t

he a ir po rt if the a lte ratio n d oe s n ot c omp ly wi th the plan the Sec reta

ry approve s, and the Sec reta ry is of the opinion that the alteration may aff ect adver sely the safe ty , utilit y , or ef

ficienc y of the a irport.”) 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a) grants this court jurisdiction to reviewfinal orde rs of the F AA. 2 Th is s e c tio n p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : [A] person disclosinga substantial intere st in an order issued by . . . the Administrator of the F eder al Aviation Administration with respec t to aviation dutie s and

po we rs de signate d to be c arr ie d o ut b y the Ad min ist rator . . . ma y a pp ly for r eview of

the orde r by

filing a petition for re view . . . in the cour t of appe als of the United States for

the circ uit in which the person r esides or ha s its principal pla c e of bu sin e ss. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). The City of Oxford has a substantial inter est in the FA A’s orde r bec ause, a s in dic ate d in

the fo llo wi ngte xt, th e City a buts the Cov ington

Munic ipa l A ir

po rt . 2 TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e: The C ity of O xford, G eorgia petitions this court to review the Fe deral Aviation Adm inistration ’ s (“ FA A” ) order approvin g revisions to the Airport Lay out Plan (“ AL P”) at the Covingto n Municipal Airport. T he City asserts that 1 2 the FA A f

ailed adequately

to assess the environ m ental im pacts of the airport renovation p roj ect proposed in th e A LP , a s required by the National E nvi ro nm en ta l P oli cy

A ct ( “N E PA ”) , a nd tha t the F A A f ai le d to c om

ply w iththe procedural requirem ents im posed bythe National Historic Prese rvation Act (“ NH PA ”) f

or analy zing the projec t’ s im pacts on his toric properties. W e find that the F A A f

ulf ill ed it s ob lig at ion s un de r N E PAa nd the N H PA , a nd the re fo re de nyTh e a ir po rt c on sis ts o f a

ru nw ay , a taxiwa y , a te rm ina l bu ild ingand

10 a uto mob ile 3 pa rk ingsp a c e s. 3 th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. T he Co vin gto n M uni ci pa l A ir port i s ar eg ion al a ir

port l oc at ed

in the Ci ty

of Co vin gto n, G eo rg ia . T he a ir port’ s w es te rnboundary

abut s th e ci ty

li m its of the 3 Ci ty of O xf or d. O xf or d is asm al l t ow n w ithahis tor ic dis tr ic t l ist ed on the Na tional Register of Historic P laces. T he historic dist rict is located a f ewm iles south east of the air

port and contain s Oxford College of E m ory University . In ad di ti on , th e Uni te d M et ho di st Ch ur ch de em s t he cit y to be a “ Met ho di st Sh rin e,” the onlycity

in the United States so designated, and thus cons iders Oxford to be of hi st or ic al si gn ifi can ce. Co vin gto n e nde av or s to r en ova te the a ir port so that i t m ay

be tte r se rv e Coving ton and th e surroundin g com m uniti es. The proposed renovations accor d w iththe G eo rg iaA viatio n S y ste m P lan ( “ G A SP ”) , w hic h th e G eo rg iaD ep ar tm en t o f T ra n s p o rt at i o n (“GDOT” ) p ro m u l g at ed i n an ef

fo rt t o re s p o n dt o Ge o rg i a’s curr en t aviatio n ne ed s. A n os te nsi ble goa l of the G A SP is to p ro vid e, w ith in a fo rty -f ive m inu te dr ive of

e ac h G eo rg iac om

m uni ty , a n a ir

port c ap ab le of

landi ng 95 % pe rcen t o f th e b us in es s an d c or po rat e ai rcra ft f

le et .The L evel I , L evel I Iand L evel I I Iclassifications ex isted befor e the GD OT promulg ated 4 the GASP. The GASP retains this nomenclatur e and se ts objectives re g ardingthe ty pes of fac iliti es that airpor

ts in each c ateg ory

should possess. P re ci s i o ni n s tru m en tap p ro ac hp ro v i d es ac cu ra t e l at er al an d v ert i ca l gu i d an ce fo r l o n g, 5 wide runw ay s and per

mits l anding s with low visibi lity . See g ener ally Thomas A. Hor

ne, Precision Approa ches: Riding the Rails to 200 and a half in Instrument Insights: Tec hniques for Pr e c ise F lying , A OPA P I L OT M AGAZ I NE , available at http://www.aopa.or g /pilot/ features/ii_9805 (last visited Oct. 12, 2005). 4 The G AS P classifies e ach G eorgia airport as a Le vel I, Le vel II or Le vel III airport. L evel III airports are the m ost hig hly developed airports and are defined 4 as “ ge ne ra l aviatio n a ir

ports o f re gio na l si gni fi canc e ca pable of a cc om m oda tin g co m m er ci al a ir cr af

t or avari ety of bus ine ss and c or

por at e j et a ir cr af t. ” A cc or din g to the G A SP E xe cu tiv e Sum m ar y , pub lis he d in200 1, “ a m ini m um r unw ay le ngth obj ec tiv e of

5, 500 fe et

ha s be ene sta

bli she d [ fo r L ev el I II a ir

ports] . ” T he E xe cu tiv e Sum

m ar y goe s onto state that “ ide al ly , ope ratio ns at L ev el I II a ir ports shou ld a lso be a ide d by

apr ec isi on i nstrum en t a

ppr oa ch . ” O the r “ obj ec tiv es ”

5 ide nti fi ed by the G A SP f

or L ev el I II a ir

ports i nc lud e a m ini m

um r unw ay w idth of 100 fe et a nd a 2, 500 square f

oot m ini m um te rmina l/a dm ini str at ive bui ldi ng w ith pu bl ic res tro om s, a c on fere nc e are a an d a pi lo t’s l ou ng e. The C ovin gton Municipal Airport is classified as a L evel III airport and has a runway 4,203 feet long and seventy -five f eet w ide. T o m eet the G AS P obj ec tiv es , Co vin gto n se ek s to e xte nd the r unw ay by appr oxi m at el y

1, 300 fe etIn addition to these modifications, Covington soug ht FAA a pproval to re locate visua l 6 approa ch desc ent indicators, install an Airpor t Weather Obse rvation Sy stem, relocate the runw ay protec tion z one, re -g rade runwa y safe ty are as and install a Me dium I ntensity Approa ch L ighting Sy stem. The no-build alter

native wa s that the projec t would not go f orwa rd. 7 The EA stated that extending the e astern e nd of the runw ay would “not re sult in any 8 signific ant environme ntal impacts.” It concluded that the two other “ build” alternatives would, on the other ha

nd, “re sult in si g nificant socioe conomic impacts” and would “c onflict with the land use plan f

or Oxford.” 5 an d to w ide n it

by tw en ty -f ive f ee t. A ft er

thi s is don e, Co vin gto n pl an s to e xte nd the para lle l t ax iw ay . T he e xte nsi on and w ide nin g of the r unw ay , a lon g w iththe extension of the parallel ta xiway , are the only airport m odifications to which funds ha ve be enc om

m itt ed . T he G D O T is pr ovi din g 75 % of the f undi ng, w ith Co vi ng to n p ro vi di ng th e ad di ti on al 25 %. Coving ton so ught FA A a pproval for these m odifications , and it hired an 6 independ ent contractor, W ilbur Sm ith Associates, to prepar e an E nvironm ental Assessm ent (“ EA ”) discussing the environm ental im pacts of the proposed m odi fi catio ns. W ilb ur

S m ithstu die d f

our a lte rn at ive s: e xte ndi ng the e as te rne nd of the r unw ay , e xte ndi ng the w es te rne nd o f the r unw ay , e xte ndi ng b othe nds of the runway

and “ no-buil d.” Its E A c onclud ed that the extension of the easter n 7 en d of the r unw ay , w hic h C ovi ngt on p re fe rr ed to the oth er

a lte rn at ive s, w oul d be the le as t di sr

upt ive of the thr ee “ bui ld” a lte rn at ive s. 8 While W ilbur Sm ith cond ucted its stu dy , C ovin gton spons oredThe HPD is Geor g ia’s State Historic Pre servation Office r (“ SHPO”). 9 6 archae olog ical and historical survey s to determ ine whether the proje ct aff ected sites of histo rical or archaeological significance. These survey s, w hich wer e com pleted in Jun e 2000, concluded that no historical or archae olog ical re sources w oul d be im

pa ct ed by the pr oj ec t. I n N ove m

be r 2001 , the F A A se nt a le tte r to the Historic Pr eservation Division (“ HP D” ) of the G eorgia D epartm ent of Natural Re sour ce s a ski ng i t t o c onc ur w iththe de te rm inatio n th at the pr oj ec t w oul d no t 9 af fe ct his tor ic pr ope rt ie s. T he H PD r es pond ed in May 200 2; i t r eque ste d th at

the FA A c onsu lt w iththe Ci ty of O xf or d, E m or

y U niv er sity , a nd the N orth G eo rg ia Conference of Methodist Chu rches. T hese parties had wr itten letters and placed telephone calls to th e H PD seeking to becom e “ consult ing parties.” The F AAheld a “ special interest” m eeting for the City of O xford, E m ory U niv er sity

a nd the N orth G eo rg iaCo nf er en ce of Me tho dis t C hur ch es on July 16, 2002 . This m eeting cam e on the heels of W ilbur Sm ith’s r elease of the first D raft EA. One weeklat er, o n J ul y 23 , th e FAA he lda pu bl ic he ari ng at t he air po rt, rece iv in g c omm en ts fro m th os e in att en da nc e an d t he Cit y of Ox fo rd . T he H PD c ont ac te d th e FA A in Se pte m be r 2002 to state that i t c oul d no t co m m en t o n t he DraftEA andto su gg es t t ha t Co vi ng to n re vi se it s n oi se est im at es . Co vin gto n f

oll ow ed thi s su gge sti on and r ev ise d it s aviatio n f or ec as ts thr oughtheThe ACHP pre fac ed its response by claimingthat it had “no author ity to overturn a

n 10 ag ency ’s findingof no ef

fec t or no adve rse e ffe ct.” It based this conclusion on a Septe mber 19, 20 01 , d e c isi on

by the U. S. D istri c t Co ur

t f or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , whic h inva lid ate d c e rt a in NHPA re gulations. See Nat’l MiningAss’n v. Slater, 167 F . Supp. 2d 265 (D.D.C. 2001), re v’d, Nat’l MiningAss’n v. F owler, 324 F .3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The A CHP concurr ed, howe ver, with the standards the FAAused in assessingnoise impacts. 7 y ear 2020 . T he n, on J anuary 10, 200 3, the F A A he ld a spe ci al int er es t m ee tin g to di sc us s n oi se im

pa ct . T he F A A tr an sm itt ed

the r es ult of Co vin gto n’ s r ev ise d no ise a na ly sis to the H PD . T he r es ult

w as that no his tor ic al , r es ide nti al or oth er se nsi tiv e ar ea s w oul d s u ff erad v er s e a u d i t o ry ef

fe ct s fr o m

t h e p ro je ct . Th e H PD re s p o n d ed t o t h e F AA’s tr an sm itt al on Apr il 17, 200 3, statin g th at it c oul d no t r ea chac onc lus ionr eg ar din g auditory eff ects of the proj ect. It suggested that the FAAconsult with the United St at es A dvi sor

y Co unc il on H ist or ic P re se rv at ion( “ A CH P” ). T he F A A se nt a le tte r to the A CH P on Apr il 30, 200 3, r eque sti ng tha t the A CH P de fe r to the fin di ng th atth e p ro

ject wo ul d n ot crea te an y ad ve rs e au di to ry

effe ct s. Th e ACHP re spon de d th at

the F A A w as “ fr ee to co nti nue w ithit s r ev ie wof thi s un de rt ak ing unde r de te rm inatio n th at

e xpansi on o f Co vin gto n’ s ne wr unw ay w ill ha ve no adve rs e vis ua l e ff

ec t, a nd [ that] the re w ill be no n ois e ef fe ct s, to his tor ic pr op ert ie s.” 10 On July 8, 2004, the FA A issued a Finding of No Significant Im pact (“ FO NS I”) and Record of D ecision (“ ROD ”), approving Covingt on’s proposedPetitioner contends that the F ONSIdid not contain an ade quate a ir quality assessment 11 beca use the a ssessment was ba sed on the a ssumption t hat Newton county , the county in which the airpor t is located, wa s “in attainment” f or air qua lity . Petitioner points out t hat Newton County is no longe r in attainment; thus, it argues, the F AA er red in indulg ing that presumption. Petitioner admits, however , that the FAA ac tually rea ssessed the pr oject’s impac ts on air quality . Given this admission, the issue is mootand will not be furthe r addr essed. 8 pr oj ec t. T he F O N SI c onc lud ed that the pr opos ed

pr oj ec t w oul d no t si gni fi cantl y im pa ct the e nvi ro nm en t and i nc lud ed af ind ing of no a dve rs e ef

fe ct on h ist or ic pr ope rt ie s. T he Ci ty

of O xf or d r ec ei ve d c opi es of

the F ina l E A a nd the FO N SI /R O D on July

21, 200 4, a nd p ro m

ptl y f ile d th e pe tit ionf

or r ev ie wnow be fo re us. In suppo rt of its petition, the City of O xford (the “ Petitioner”) c ontend s that the F A A vio la te d N E PAby ( 1) f ai lin g to a sse ss the e nvi ro nm en ta l i m pa ct s of the propos ed proje ct in conjunction with relocation of Ge orgia Highway 142 (“ S. R. 142” ) an d th e co nstru ct ionof ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing ; ( 2) f ai lin g to a sse ss the a ir qua lit y in lig ht o f the f

ac t tha t the a ir

port i s lo cate d inac ounty that i s no t “ in atta inm en t” f

or a ir qua lity standard s; a nd ( 3) e xe rc isi ng i nsuf fi ci en t ov er sig ht 11 ov er Wilb urSm it h i n i ts pre pa rat io n o f th e EA. Peti ti on er ar gu es th atth e FAA vio la te d th e N H PAby

( 1) f ai lin g pr ope rl y

to inv olv e co nsul tin g part ie s; and ( 2) fa ili ng a de qua te ly

to co nsi de r the pr oj ec t’ s a dve rs e au dit or y e ff ec ts o n hi sto ri c pr ope rt ie s. II.Th e Ad min istrativ e Pr oc e dure Ac t pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art : 12 The re viewingcourt shall . . . (2) hold unlawf

ul and set aside a g ency

action, finding s and conc lusions found to be – (A ) a rb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an a

bu se of dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in acc ordanc e with law . . . . 5 U.S.C. § 706. 9 W e re view an a gency ’ s final decision to d eterm ine whether it is arbitrary an d c ap ri ci ous. 5 U . S. C. § 70 6. S ee a lso Mars h v. O re gon N at ur al Re s. Co unc il, 12 490 U . S. 360 , 375 -7 6, 109 S . Ct . 185 1, 186 0, 104 L . E d. 2d 3 77 ( 1989 ) (h old ing that f ed er al c ourts a

ppl y the “ ar bitrary a nd c ap ri ci ous” standard , a s op pose d to the

“ re as ona ble ne ss” standard , w he n r ev ie w ing f ina l a ge nc y

de ci sio ns unde r the A dm ini str at ive P ro ce dur e A ct ). T his standard of r ev ie wpr ovi de s th e re vie w ing co urt w ithve ry

li m ite d di sc re tio n to r ev er se a n a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n. N orth Bu ckhe ad

Ci vic A ss’ n v. S kin ne r, 903 F . 2d 1 533, 153 8- 39 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . T he re vie w ing c ourt m ay

not sub sti tut e its j udgm en t f or that of the a ge nc y

but m ust , in st ead , def

er t o t he ag en cy ’s tec hn ic al ex pe rti se . Id. at 15 39 . Inthe N E PAc ont ex t, the r ev ie w ing c ourt m ust e nsur e that the a ge nc y

too k a “ hard loo k” a t the e nvi ro nm en ta l c onse que nc es of the pr oj ec t. S ie rr a Cl ub v . U. S. Ar m y Corps of E ng’r s, 295 F. 3d 12 09, 1216 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). T he agency ne ed not ha ve r ea ch ed

the sam e co nc lus ionthat the r ev ie w ing c ourt w oul d r ea ch ; th e ag en cy

m us t m erel y

ha ve reac he d a co nc lu si on th atres ts on a rat io na l b as is .§ 1 02 (2 )( C) of NE PA p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : 13 (2) [A]ll ag encie s of the F eder al Gover nment shall . . . (C) include in e very

rec ommendation or re port on proposals for leg islation and other major F eder al ac tions significa ntly aff ectingthe quality

of the human environment, a

detailed state ment by

the re sponsible official on – (i) the e nvironmental impact of the proposed a ction . . . . 42 U. S.C. § 4 33 2( 2) (c ). Th is r e qu ir e me nt a pp lie s whe n a

n a g e nc y a pp ro ve s a sp e c if ic pr oje c t, such as the one in this case. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18. 10 Id. The r eviewing court m ay overturn an agency ’ s decision o nly if: (1 ) the de ci sio n do es not

r el y on f ac tor s th at

Co ngr es s in te nde d th e agency to consid er; (2) the agency failed entirely

to consid er an im portant a spe ct

of the pr obl em ; ( 3) the a ge nc y of fe rs a n e xpl an at ion w hic h r uns co unt er

to the e vid en ce ; or

( 4) the de ci sio n is so im pla usi ble that i t c an not

be the r es ult

of dif fe ri ng v ie wpoi nts or

the result of agency

expertise. Id . W e th eref

or e rev ie w th e FONSI/ ROD on ly to d et erm in e whe th er t he FAA adequately

assessed the proje ct’ s im pacts in accordance w ith statut ory re qui re m en ts and r ea ch ed r at ion al c onc lus ion s ba se d onthe e vid en ce ga the re d.

A. NE PAim poses procedural requirem ents upo n federa l agencies to ensure th atth ey ad eq ua te ly ass es s t he en vi ro nm en ta l i m pa ct s o f act io ns th ey

un de rta ke . 42 U. S. C. § 433 2(2)(C) . See also Dep’ t of T ransp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S . 13 752, 756 , 124 S . Ct . 220 4, 220 9, 159 L . E d. 2d 6 0 ( 2004 ) (“ N E PAim pose s on ly p r o c e du r a l r e qu i r e me n t s o n f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . . . . ” ) ; S i e rr aC l ub v . U . S . A rmy Co rp s. O f E ng’ rs , 295 F . 3d at 12 14 ( “N E PAc re at es a‘ part ic ular bur ea uc raticThe NEPA r egulations provide: 14 “ Envir onme nta l a sse ssm e nt” : (a ) M e ans a

c on c ise pu

bli c do c ume nt f

or wh ic h a F e de ra l a g e nc y

is r e sp on sib le that serve s to: (1 ) B ri e fl y

pr ov ide su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e and

ana ly sis fo r d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t o prepa re a n environmenta l impact statement or a findingof no sig nificant impac t . .

. . (b) Shall include br ief discussions of the ne ed for the proposal, of

alternatives . . ., of the e nvironmental impacts of the proposed a ction and alter natives, and a

listi ng of ag encie s and per sons consulted. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. The NEPA r egulations provide: “‘F inding of no signific ant impact’ me ans a doc ument 15 by a F eder al ag ency

briefly prese nting the r easons why an ac tion . . . will not have a signific ant eff ect on the huma

n environment . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. 11 de ci sio nm ak ing pr oc es s. ’ ”) ( quot ing S ie rr a Cl ub v . Mars h, 872 F . 2d 4 97, 497 ( 1st Ci r. 198 9) ). T o c om

ply w ithN E PA , a n a ge nc y

m ust f ir st p re pare a n E A . 40 C. F. R. § 15 01. 4. A n E A is a br ie f doc um en t tha t a llo w s th e ag en cy to de te rm ine w he the r to p re pare am or e de ta ile d st at em en t of e nvi ro nm en ta l c onse que nc es , known as an Environm ental Im pact Statem ent (“ EI S”). 40 C.F .R. § 1508 .9. If 14 the a ge nc y

de ci de s th at

the e nvi ro nm en ta l c onse que nc es of the a ct iona re not sufficient to justify

the preparation o f an E IS, the agency m ust prepare a F ON SI de ta il in g wh y

fur th er en vi ro nm en ta l re se arch is no t ju st ifi ed . 40 C.F.R. § 1501 .4(e ). 15 1. NE PArequires a federa l agency to analy ze the cum

ulative im

pacts of a pr op os edpro

ject i n c on

jun ct io n wi th an y

ot he r, rel at edact io ns . 40 C.F.R. §The NEPA r egulations provide: 16 “Signif icantly” as use d in NEPA require s considerations of both contextand i n t e n s i ty:

. . . ( b ) . . . T h e f

o l l o w i n gs h o u l d

b e u s e d i ne v a l u at i n gi n t e n s i ty:

. . . (7) Whether

the ac tion is related to other a ctions with indivi dually insignifica

nt but c umu lativ e ly

signif ic ant i mpa c ts. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. 12 1508 . 27. T his r equir em en t pr ev en ts a pr opon en t f

ro m br eakin g apr opos al int o 16 sm all pieces that, when view ed indiv idually , a ppear insigni ficant but that are signi ficant w hen viewed as a whole. 40 C.F .R. § 1508 .27(b)(7) (“ Significance cannot be a voi de d by

te rm ing a n a ct ionte m

por ar y or br eakin g it

down in to s m al l co m pone nt p ar

ts. ”) . T he N E PAr eg ulatio ns d ef ine “ cu m ulativ e im

pa ct ” as “ the im pa ct on the e nvi ro nm en t w hic h r es ult s f ro m the inc re m en ta l i m

pa ct of the a ct ion when added to other past, prese nt, and rea sonablyforesee able future ac tions . . . .” 40 C.F. R. § 150 8.7. An a gency , ther efore, m ust on ly consider the environm ental im pa ct s o f fu tu re ac ti on s t ha t ar e fo res eeab le . The inquiry

into whether a f

uture action is foreseeable should be condu cted w itha n e y e tow ar d th e pur pose s un de rl y ing N E PA . N E PAc ont ai ns an im pli ci t

“ rule of re ason,” “ which ensures that agencies deter m ine whether and to what ex te nt t o pr ep ar e anE IS ba se d onthe use fu lne ss o f an y ne wpot en tia l i nf

orm at ion to the decision m aking process.” Public Citizen, 541 U.S . at 767, 124 S. Ct. at13

2215 (2004). T his “ rule of re ason” requires an agency to condu ct the N EP A pr oc es s wi th a vi ew to th e p ur po se s u nd erl y in g NEPA. See id . NEPA serv es two pur pose s: Fi rs t, “ [i ] t e nsur es that the a ge nc y , in re ac hin g it s decision, will have available, and will car efully consider, de ta ile d in fo rm at ionc onc er nin g si gni fi cant en vir onm en ta l i m

pa ct s. ” S ec ond, it

“ guarante es that the relevant inform ation will be m ade available to the larger au die nc e that m ay

a lso play ar ole in both th e decisionm aking process and th e im plem entation of that de ci si on .” Id . a t 76 8, 221 5- 16 ( al te ratio n inor igi na l) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ) (quot ing Ro be rt son v. Me tho wV al le y

Ci tiz en s C ounc il, 490 U . S. 332 , 349 , 109 S . Ct . 183 5, 184 5, 104 L . E d. 2d 3 51 ( 1989 )) . S ee a lso N orth B uc khe ad Ci vic A ss’ n, 903 F . 2d at 15 40 (d isc uss ing the “ tw in a im s” of N E PA ). A n a ge nc y

m ust c onsi de r the c um

ulativ e im pacts of future ac tions only if doing so would further the inform ational purpo ses of N E PA . R es tr ic tin g c um ulativ e im

pa ct a na ly sis to fo re se ea

ble f uture a ct ion s en sur es that the de ta ils of the se a ct ion s are suf

fi ci en tly c onc re te f

or the a ge nc y

to ga th er i nf or m at io n u se fu l t o i ts el f an d t he pu bl ic . a. Pe tit ion er c ont en ds tha t the F A A sho uld ha ve c onsi de re d th e cu m ulativ e im pa ct s th at w oul d r es ult

f ro m the pr opos ed

pr oj ec t and the r el oc at ionof S . R. 142In addition, the city deter mined that the runwa

y ’s sloping te rra in would make the 17 installation of the navig ational aids imprac ticable. 14 be ca use the ins ta llatio n of

gr ound -b as ed

na vig at ion al a ids r equir ed f or pr ec isi on ins tr um en t a ppr oa chw oul d ne ce ssi ta te the r el oc at ionof the r oa d. A t on e poi nt, Co vin gto n ha d c onsi de re d in sta lli ng n av igatio na l a ids f or the a ir port t o m ee t the obj ec tiv es se t f

orth b y the G A SP . C ovi ngt on u lti m at el y r ea ch ed the c onc lus ion that the im

ple m en ta tio n of

pr ec isi on i nstrum en t a

ppr oa chw oul d pr ove inf

ea sib le be ca use it w oul d r equir e the r ea lig nm en t of S . R. 142 a nd c onsi de ra

ble land ac qui sit ionthr oughe m ine nt d om ai n. 17 T he re is sim

ply not e noug h e vid en ce that the r el oc at ionof S . R. 142 w ill ev er oc cur to j ust if

y the a sse ssm en t of

it s e nvi ro nm en ta l i m

pa ct s. I n f

ac t, S . R. 142 is c ur re ntl y be ing w ide ne d init s pr es en t l oc at ion . T he w ide nin g of ar oa d init s current location hardly

indicates an intentio n to thereafter m ove the road to a new lo cat io n. I f C o v i n g t o n c h o o s e s t o p u r s u e ap r e c i s i o n i n s tr u me n tap p r o a c h a ts o me poin t in the future, ther e is no guarantee that it would require the re location of S.R. 142. Am yri ad of pos sib le sc en ar ios c oul d a cc om pany af uture de ci sio n to im plem ent precision ins trum ent approach . For exam ple, tec hnol ogical inno vations , such as G lobal Positi onin g Sy stem (“ GP S”), could allow the airportGPS is a sate llite based navig ational sy stem. I t works throug h a re ceive r that dec odes 18 information from a

series of satellites. This information allows the re ceive r to measur e the distance be tween it and the satellites and, thus, to determine its latitude, long itude and height. See Ge nera lly

Richard B . L ang ley , In Simpl e Te rms, How Doe s GPS W ork? (Mar . 27, 2003), available at http:// g g e.unb.ca /Resource s/HowDoesGPSWork.html (last visited Aug . 26, 2005). Covington expected that, at some point, GPS technolog y would allow airpor

ts to provide prec ision inst rument appr oach w ithout ins talling c ostly g round-ba sed navig ational aids. As of the time the EA wa s prepa red, G PS t echnology

had not progresse d to the point that it could be used for g ener al aviation air

ports. The EA doe s note, howeve r, that “pr ecision GPS approac h will be implemented [for Covington Municipal Airpor t] at a late r date if it is found to be fea sible.” 15 to b e equip pe d w ithpr ec isi on i nstrum en t a ppr oa chin the f

uture w ith out u n d e r g o i n g t h e s a me c o s t l y s t e p s t h a ta r e c u rr e n t l y n e c e s s a ry. 18 By br oa dly r ec om m en din g th at

L ev el I II a ir

ports p oss es s apr ec isi on ins tr um en t a ppr oa ch , the G D O T in no w ay bound C ovi ngt on t o r el oc at e a m aj or high way , and it is clear that Covingto n chose not to pursue thi s optio n. I f Co vin gto n c hoos es to ins ta ll pr ec isi on i nstrum en t a ppr oa chin the f

uture , the re is no g uarante e that i t w oul d ne ce ssi ta te the r el oc at ionof S . R. 142 . T he F A A w oul d ha ve no b as is u

pon w hic h to a sse ss the e nvi ro nm en ta l i m pa ct s of suc h apr oj ec t, other than pure speculation . Requiring the FAAto assess the im pacts associated w iththe im

ple m en ta tio n of

pr ec isi on i nstrum en t a

ppr oa chw oul d se rv e no p ur pose w ith in the N E PAf

ram ew ork. b. Pe tit ion er goe s onto ar gue that the F A A sho uld ha ve c onsi de re d th eT h e t i t l e p a g e t o th i s d o c um e n ts t at e s th ati ti s th e “ A i r p o rtLay o u tP l anN ar

r at i v e . ” In 19 the do c ume nt i tse lf

, it is r e fe rr e d to a s th e “ Ai rp or t L ay out Pla

n U pd ate .” Re g ard le ss o f what it is called, it is not the AL P which the FAA has a pproved. Rathe r, it is a narr ative attac hed to the draf t AL P submi tted to the FAAby Covington. See F AA Airpor ts Division for the Southern Reg ion, Airport L ayout Plan (AL P) Review and A pproval: A Guide for AD O Prog ram Mana g ers § VI I I .B.1 ( discussing the circ umstances in which “ [a] Nar rative Repor

t should be submitt ed alongwith the draf

t AL P”). Acc ordingto the GASP objectives, L evel I I Iairports should contain a 20 te rm ina l/a dmi nis tr ativ e bu ild ingof at le a st 2 ,5 00 sq

ua re fe e t. T he re is n o e xplanatio n o ff e re d in th e A LP N ar

r at i v e f o r th e 5 0 0 s qu ar e f

o o td i s c r e p an c y

b e tw e e nth e G A S P o b

j e c t i v e an d

th e A LP Nar rative r ecommenda

tion. The EA note s that the airpor t contains a 20,000 squar e foot ter minal/administ rative 21 bu ild ing . We a ssume thi s to be a ty po g ra ph ic a l e rr or

and that th e dr a ft e r o f t

he EAint e nd e d to s t at e t h atth e a i rp o rtco n t ai n s a 2 0 0 0 s qu ar e f o o tt erm i n al b u i l d i n g. 16 cu m ulativ e im

pa ct s of the pr opos ed

pr oj ec t i n c onj unc tio n w iththe c onstru ct ionof a ne wte rm ina l bu ild ing a t the a ir port. C ovi ngt on’ s A ir

port L ay out

P lan N ar rativ e (“ A L P N ar

rativ e” ) ide nti fi es the c onstru ct ionof ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing a s a 19

“ ke y co m po ne nt in th e fu tu re d ev el op m en t o f ai rp or t fa ci li ti es .” The ALP N ar rativ e goe s onto not e that the te rm ina l bu ild ing “ shou ld h av e a m ini m um of about 30 00 squ are feet available.” T he AL P N arrative states that the airport 20 curr en tly de vot es onl y

1, 960 square f

ee t of spa ce to se rv e as ate rm ina l. 21 Pe tit ion er f ai ls t o sh owthat C ovi ngt on h as pr ep ar ed aspe ci fi c plan f

or co nstru ct ing ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing . C ovi ngt on d id n ot s ee k F A A appr ova l f or the c onstru ct ionof

ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing a s part of it s pr opos ed

r ev isi ons to the A L P. Whil e N E PAr eg ulatio ns a im to pr ev en t pr opon en ts f

ro m “ te rm ing a n a ct ionIn Airport Ne ighbor s Alliance , the 10th Circuit held that “the test for deter mining 22 wh e the r p art ic ula

r a c tio ns c ou ld b e c on sid e re d c umu lativ e imp a c ts o f t he pr op os e d a c tio n [is ] whether the ac tions were ‘ so interdepe ndent that it would be unwise or ir rational to complete one without the others.’” 90 F.3d at 430 (quoting Webb v. Gor such, 699 F .2d 157, 161 (4th Cir. 1983)). In addition to quoting Webb, the Tenth Circuit cited Sierr a Club v. Froe hlke, 534 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1976) and Tr out Unlimit ed v. Morton, 509 F .2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1974), both of wh ic h w e re a lso c ite d in

Web b. F ro e hlk e and

Tr out U nli mit e d, ho we ve r, we re de c ide d p ri or to the promulg ation of the NEPA r egulations, which wer e first issued in 1978, and a re the ref ore pe rs ua siv e on ly

to t he e xtent th at th e y

do no t c on fl ic t w iththe re gulatio ns . The re gulations ask whether future a ctions are fore seea ble, not whether

they are interdepe ndent. The standa rd adopte d in Airport Neighbors Alliance , there fore , cannot be the pr op e r s tand ard . Wh ile int e rd e pe nd e nt a c tio ns may a lso be fo re se e a

ble , w e mus t be fa ith fu l to the te xt of

the re gulatio ns by

no t a ssumin gthat inte rd e pe nd e nc y is the so le c on sid e ra

tio n in de te rm ini ngwh e the r a

n a c tio n is fo re se e a

ble . T he de te rm inatio n o f whe the r a futur e a c tio n is fo re se e a ble tur ns on the sp e c if

ic fa c ts o f t

he c a se . T he int e rd e pe nd e nc e of pr op os e d a c tio ns wi th po te nti a l f

utu re a c tio ns sh ou ld b e c on sid e re d a lon g sid e oth e r p e rt ine nt f a c ts a nd c ir c ums tanc e s to deter mine whether

there is a sufficie nt likelihood that an action will occur to rende r that ac tion fore seea ble. See Society

Hill Towers Owners’ Ass’n v. Rendell, 210 F .3d 168, 181-82 (3r d Cir. 2000) (“ [A] court must also consider the likelihood that a g iven projec t will be constructed a long with the interdepe ndence of other pr ojects.”) . 17 tem porary or breaking it into sm all com ponent parts,” 40 C.F .R. § 1508 .27(b)(7), the c onstru ct ionof

ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing w oul d be ase parate pr oj ec t f ro m the pr opos ed m odi fi catio ns s uc h th at

it w oul d be c om

ple te ly r ea sona ble to pe rf

orm the propos ed m odifications without constructin g a new term inal buil ding . See Airport N ei ghbo rs A lli an ce v. U . S. , 90 F . 3d 4 26, 430 ( 10th C ir . 199 6) . T he onl y le g on 22 w hic h P et iti one r’ s arg um en t st an ds c om es in the f orm of age ne ra l st at em en t i n th e A L P N ar rativ e, ide nti fy ing ane wte rm ina l a s a“ ke y c om pone nt” to the developm ent of the airport, found am idst a laundry list of recom

m endations which se em to de ri ve dir ec tly

f ro m the G A SP . T his state m en t, standi ng a lon e, doe s no t sh ow t ha t t he co ns tru ct io n o f a n ew te rm in al bu il di ng is for es eeab le .I f, in t ime , Co vin g ton se e ks F AAa

pp ro va l to re vis e its AL P to sh owa pr op os e d p lan to 23 construct a

new ter minal building, the F AA may then be r equire d to analy ze the cumulative impacts of that proje ct in conjunction with the projec t curre ntly at issue. See 40 C.F .R. § 1508.7 (“‘ Cumulative impact’ is the impact on the e nvironment which re sults from the incre mental impact of the a ction when a dded to other pa st . . . actions . . . .”). Until then, environmental analy sis would be premature. 18 W ithno c onc re te plan to c onsi de r an d li ttl e ind ic at ionthat C ovi ngt on p lans to c onstru ct

ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing , inv es tig at or s and r es earc he rs w oul d be fo rc ed to an al y ze the e nvi ro nm en ta l i m pa ct of apr oj ec t, the param et er s and specifics of w hich would be a m ere guess. T his result contravenes the NE PA pur pose s of pr ovi din g th e ag en cy

a nd the pub lic w itha cc ur at e an d r el ev an t inf orm at ion . T he c onstru ct ionof ane wte rm ina l bu ild ing is not af or es ee ab le act io n u nd er NEPA. 23 2. Petitioner claim s that the FAAfailed to exerc ise sufficient oversight ov er W ilbur Sm ith, the independent con tractor that pre pared the E A. T he NE PA regulations exp licitly

provide for a situation in which “ an agency perm its an ap pli cant t o pr ep ar e ane nvi ro nm en ta l a sse ssm en t” a nd r equir e onl y that the ag en cy “ m ak e its ow n e va luatio n of the e nvi ro nm en ta l i ssu es a nd t ak e re spon sib ili ty

f or the sc ope a nd c ont en t of the e nvi ro nm en ta l a sse ssm en t. ” 40 C. F. R. § 15 06. 5( b) . S ee a lso C. A . R. E . N ow , I nc . v. F A A , 844 F . 2d 1 569, 157 1 (1 1thCi r. 198 8) ( de ny ing pe tit ionf or r ev ie ww he re the F A A ba se d it s F O N SI onTh e NH PA p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : 24 [T] he hea d of any

Fe dera l depar

tment . . . havingauthority to license a

ny undertaking sha ll, . . . prior to the issuance of any license, . . . take into acc ount the ef fec t of the under

takingon any

district, site, buildi ng , structure , or objec t that is included in or elig ible for inclusion in the National Reg ister. 16 U.S.C. § 470f. The NHPA re gulations define “ undertaking” as “a projec t, activity , or p r o g r amf un d e d i nw h o l e o r

i np artun d e r

th e d i r e c to r

i n d i r e c tj ur i s d i c t i o no f

a F e d e r a l a g e n c y, including . . . those requiringa F eder al per mit, li cense or appr oval.” 36 C.F .R. § 800.16(y ). The NH PA regulations provide that “[t] he ag ency officia l shall consider a ll written 25 reque sts of individuals and org anizations to participate as c onsulting par ties and, in consultation with the SHPO . . . determine whic h should be consulting pa rties.” 36 C.F .R. § 800.3(f)( 3). 19 an EA prep ared by an in de pe nd en t co nt ract orhi redby the pro ject’s p ro po ne nt ). T he F A A e va luate d and s ign ed the E A , a nd w e re fu se to hol d th e FA A to an y hi gh er s ta nd ardth an th atreq ui redby the NEPA regu la ti on s. B. Like N EP A, the NH PAim poses pu rely

procedural re quirem ents. I t requires an ag en cy

to “ ta ke in to acco un t” th e effe ctof a ny “un de rta ki ng ” o n h is to ric al si te s. 16 U . S. C. § 47 0f

. T he f ir st s te p inthe N H PApr oc es s in vol ve s c onsu ltatio n. T he 24 ag en cy be gin s by

c onsu lti ng w iththe S H PO . 36 C. F. R. § 80 0. 3( c) (3 ). I n a ddi tio n, the agency

m ust attem pt to in volv e the public in th e process and to identify

“ consult ing parties.” 36 C. R.F . § 800.3(e) -(f ). 25 If the a ge nc y

de te rm ine s th at

the und er

ta kin g w ill not

a ff ec t any his tor ic properties, it m

ust prov ide docum entation of this finding to the consulti ng partiesTh e NH PA r e gulatio ns sp e c if ic a lly pr ov ide fo r t

he sit uatio n in wh ic h a n a g e nc y mus t 26 un de rt ake bo th t

he NE PA a

nd the NH PA p ro c e ss. Th e a g e nc y is r e qu ir e d to inc lud e his tor ic prese rvation issues in the EA a nd FON SI/ROD and to otherwise satisfy the re quirements of the NHPA. 36 C.F.R. § 800.8. The a g ency ’s obligations would be satisfied if the ACHP fa iled to respond within the 27 15-day time period. 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(c )(3) (i). 20 an d th e SH PO . 36 C. F. R. § 80 0. 4( d) (1 ). T he a ge nc y ’ s ob lig at ion s are sa tis fi ed if 26 ne ith er the S H PO nor

the A CH P, if

it ha s e nte re d th e pr oc es s, obj ec ts t o th e fin di ng wit hi n t hi rty days aft er re cei vi ng th e d oc um en ta ti on . 36 C.F.R. § 800. 4( d) (1 )( i) . I f, how ev er , the S H PO or ac onsu lti ng p ar

ty not if ie s th e ag en cy

of its dis ag re em en t w iththe f ind ing , the a ge nc y

m ust e ith er c onsu lt w iththe di sa gr eei ng pa rty to r es ol ve th e m at te r orreq ue st th e ACHP t o re vi ew th e fi nd in g. 36 C . F. R. § 80 0. 5( c) (2 )( i) . T he A CH P w oul d th enpr ovi de a n op ini on a s to the fin di ng wit hi n fi fte en da y s af te r rec ei vi ng th e d oc um en ta ti on . 36 C.F.R. § 27 80 0.5 (c)( 3) (i) . Petitioner claim s that the FAAfailed to abide by the procedural re qui re m en ts o f the N H PAby f ai lin g pr ope rl y

to inv olv e co nsul tin g part ie s inthe N H PApr oc es s. I n part ic ular, P et iti one r co nte nds that the F A A did not pr ope rl y inf orm the c onsu lti ng p ar

tie s of the sub j ec t m atte r of

the se co nd s pe ci al int er es t m eeting and prem aturely cut off the consultation process. Petitioner, f urtherm ore, co nte nds that the F A A f

ai le d to pr ovi de it

w ithdoc um en ta tio n of

the f ind ing of no21

ad ve rs e eff

ect . T o su ppor t i ts c la im that the F A A im

pe rm iss ibl y

“ shor t- ci rc uit ed ” the N H PAc onsu ltatio n r equir em en ts, P et iti one r of fe rs that the inv itatio n to the se co nd special interest m eeting stated the m eeting’ s purpos e as the discussion of revised av ia tio n f or ec as ts and n ois e co nto ur s, r athe r than th e dis cu ssi on o f “ his tor ic preservation issues.” T he NH PAregulations sim ply required the FA A to identify co ns ul ti ng pa rti es an d i nv it e th em to pa rti ci pa te in th e NHPA pr oc es s. 3 6 C .F.R. § 800.3(f). T he regulations do not speak to th e form and content of written inv itatio ns t o m ee tin gs w ithc onsu lti ng p ar tie s. G ive n th at

the r ev ise d a viatio n foreca sts and no ise contour stu dies wer e conducted for the purpose of NH PA co m pli an ce , it sho uld ha ve be enobv iou s to P et iti one r that di sc uss ion s a t the m eet in g wo ul d i nc lu de hi st or ic pre se rv at io n i ss ue s. Pe tit ion er a lso r em ind s us that i t r eque ste d an a ddi tio na l sp ec ia l i nte re st m eeting, a r equest which the FA A ignored. Prior to this request, the F AAhad held two special interest m eetings and a pub lic m eeting. T he FA A had r evised av ia tio n f or ec as ts and c ondu ct ed

noi se c ont our

a na ly sis in re spon se to co nc er ns ra ise d by the S H PO a nd the c onsu lti ng p ar tie s. T he F A A pr ope rl y

e xe rc ise d it s dis cr et ionin co nc lud ing that no f urthe r m ee tin gs w oul d be use fu l. Pe tit ion er ne xt c la im s th at

the F A A vio la te d th e N H PAby f ai lin g to pr ovi deFAAregulations establish “uniform methodolog y” for assessingairport noise impac t. 28 14 C.F.R. pt. 150, App. A § A150.1. 22 it w ithdoc um en ta tio n of

it s f ind ing of no a dve rs e ef

fe ct . P et iti one r se em s to ope rate und er

the e rr one ous vie wthat the F A A w as r equir ed to pr ovi de it

w itha ll si gn ifi can t wri tt en co rres po nd en ces be twee n t he FAA and th e SHPO o r th e ACHP. T he F A A w as onl y

r equir ed to not if y c onsu lti ng p ar

tie s of it s f ind ing of no adve rs e ef

fe ct . 36 C. F. R. § 80 0. 4( d) (1 ). T he r eg ulatio ns r equir ed the E A a nd FONSI/ ROD to co nt ai n t hi s fi nd in g. 3 6 C .F.R. § 8 00 .8(a )(3 ). The re co rdsh ows th atPet it io ne r rec ei ve d c op ie s o f th e Fi na l EA an d F ONSI/R OD on Ju ly 21, 2 00 4. T he F A A f

ulf ill ed it s du ty to pr ovi de P et iti one r w ithnot if ic at ionof the f ind ing of no a dve rs e ef

fe ct . Pe tit ion er f ina lly a tta ck s th e FA A ’ s f

ind ing of no a dve rs e ef

fe ct by a rg uin g th atth e FAA us edfla wedm et ho do lo gy in a ss es si ng no is e im pa ct s. Th e FAA based its no ise analy sis on revised aviation forecasts prepar ed during th e N HP A co ns ul ta ti on pro ces s at th e b eh es t o f th e SHPO an d t he co ns ul ti ng pa rti es . St an dard m ethodo log y

w as use d to c onc lud e that a ir cr af t op er at ion s w oul d no t im pa ct a ny his tor ic pr ope rt ie s. 28 T he m ethodo log y

use d to m ak e te ch nic al de te rm inatio ns, suc h a s no ise im pact, is a m atter of a gency expertise. This court’ s role is sim ply to ensure thatFAAregulations define DN Las “the 24-hour avera g e sound leve l, in decibels, for the 29 period fr om midnight to midnight, obtained af ter the a ddition of ten decibe ls to sound levels for the per iods betwee n midnight and 7 a .m., and betwe en 10 p.m., and midnig ht, local time.” 14 C.F.R. § 150.7. 23 t h e a g en cy u t i l i ze dl eg al l y ad eq u at e p ro ce du re s i n ap p l yin g i t s ex p er t i s e. We the re fo re ow e part ic ular de fe re nc e to the F A A ’ s c hoi ce of m ethodo log ie s w ith w hic h to a na ly ze noi se im pa ct s. S ee C. A . R. E . N ow , I nc . , 844 F . 2d at 15 73. FA A r eg ulatio ns p ro vid e a m ethodo log y f or de ve lop ing noi se c ont our m ap s an d de te rm ini ng whe the r ai rc ra ft noi se w ill a dve rs el y

a ff ec t surr ound ing properties. T hese regulations m andate the use of day -night average sound level (“ DNL”) to de te rm in e n oi se im pa ct s. 14 C.F.R. p t. 1 50 .3(b ), App . A §

29 A 150. 3( b) . N ois e le ve ls b el ow65 D N L a re c onsi de re d a cc ep ta ble f or a ll land use s, a lth ough“ [l ] oc al ne ed s or va lue s m ay

dic ta te f urthe r de lin eatio n ba se d on local requirem ents or determ ination s.” 14 C.F. R. pt. 150, App. A§ A150.101(d). Pe tit ion er obj ec ts t o th e FA A ’ s us e of the 65 D N L standard

f or thi s pr oj ec t, ar gui ng tha t a

hig he r standard

sho uld appl y w he n hi sto ri c pr ope rt ie s are inv olv ed . Pe tit ion er r es ts this a rg um en t ondic taf ro m aD . C. Ci rc uit

opi nio n st at ing that the 65 D N L thr es hol d m igh t be ina ppr opr ia te f

or “ a vil la ge pr es er

ve d sp ec if

ic al ly in order to convey

the atm osph ere of rural life in an earlier (and presum ably

quieter) century .” City

of G rapevine v. D ep’ t of T ransp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1508 (D .C. Cir.In upholding the F AA’s a pplication of the 65 DN Lstandard to historic pr operties, the 30 D. C. C ir c uit

g oe s o n to no te : There is no reason, how ever , to believe that the use standard a pplicable to a private home is inapposite merely beca use the home is historic. The ref ore, w e up ho ld i n a ll r e sp e c ts the no ise me a sure me nt m e tho do logy that th e F AAus e d in this case. City of Gra pevine, 17 F .3d at 1508. The F AA is not require d to deviate f rom the DNL

standard it normally

uses to assess noise impac ts merely beca use a home or, in this case, a town is deemed historic. Th e F AAfo un d th at th e e xten sio n o f t he ru nw ay wo uld a c tua lly imp ro ve no ise 31 c on dit ion s in

surr ound ingare a s. 24 1994 ). E ve n if

w e w er e to f

ind thi s di ct a pe rs ua siv e, P et iti one r of fe rs no 30 evidence that Oxford is preser ved specifically

in order to portray

som e historical tim e pe ri od. F A A r eg ulatio ns e sta bli sh a cc ep ta

ble noi se le ve ls whil e pr ovi din g fo r ag en cy

dis cr et ionto de viate f

ro m the se standard s if

c ir cu m stanc es r equir e. 14 C.F .R. pt. 150, App. A§ A150.101(d). In this ins tance, the FA A deter m ined that circum stances did no t so require, and we r efuse to second-guess th at de te rm inatio n. S ee C. A . R. E . N ow , I nc , 844 F . 2d at 15 73 ( fi ndi ng F A A ’ s us e of 65 DN L thre shold to be “ legally adequate”). Ina ddi tio n, P et iti one r ar gue s th at the F A A did

not giv e due c onsi de ratio n to noi se de ri vin g f

ro m ove rf lig hts , that i s, noi se f

ro m plane s, a rr ivi ng i n and de part ing f

ro m the a ir port, w hic h f

ly ove r O xf or d. T he F A A too k in to a cc ount a ll ope ratio na l a ct ivi ty

f or ec as te d a t the a ir

port, inc lud ing f

lig ht p at hs, in de te rm ini ng that Oxford w ouldnot suffer fr om adverse noise im

pacts. O nce again, this court

3125

ha s no dis cr et ionto se co nd- gue ss the F A A ’ s de te rm inatio n. III . N E PAa nd the N H PAim pose pr oc ed

ur al r equir em en ts o n f

ed er al a ge nc ie s, an d it is thi s c ourt’ s r ole onl y

to en sur e that the se pr oc ed ur es a re f oll ow ed . I n th is ins tanc e, the F A A f

oll ow ed the c or re ct pr oc ed ur es . T he F A A , the re fo re , did not act in an ar

bitrary and capricious m anner in approving Covingt on’s proposed pr oj ec t. P et iti on f

or r ev ie wis DEN IED . SO ORDE RED.