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 J ULY 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1567 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00378 -CV -F- N ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE EN VIRONMENT OF THE OA K GROVE COMMUNITY, a vol unt ar

y , non -p ro fi t un inc or

por at ed a sso ci at ion , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, RAN S BL ACK , in his official c apacity as Jackson Airport's D istrict Of fice, K E A FU R G RI ME S, in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s an e m plo y ee a nd re spon sib le of

fi ci al of the F ed er al A via tio n A dm ini str at ion , D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 16 , 200 8) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N , a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:We reviewdismiss als for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdi ct i o n d e novo. Barbour v. 1 Haley , 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 ( 11th Cir. 2006).

“[A] per son disclosing a substantial inter est in a n order issued by the
. . . Fe dera l 2 Aviation Administration . . . in whole or in part under t his part, par t B, or subse ction (l) or ( s) of section 11 4 m ay ap p l y

for r eview of

the orde r by

filing a petition for re view in the United States Court of Appea ls f

or the District of Columbi a Circuit or in the court of appea ls of the United States fo r the c ir c uit in wh ic h the pe rs on re sid e s or ha s its pri nc ipa l pla c e of bu sin e ss. Th e pe tit ion mus t be filed not later than 60 day s after the orde r is issued. The c ourt may allow the petition to be filed afte r the 60th day

only if there are rea sonable g rounds for not f iling by the 60th da

y .” 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a)
. T he P la int if

f, the A sso ci at ionof

Ci tiz en s to P ro te ct and P re se rv e the Environm ent of the Oak Gr ove Com m unity (“ Association”), appeals t h e d i strict
co u rt ’s ju d g m en td i s m i s s i n g t h i s a c t i o n fo r l ac ko f s ub je ct m at t erju ri s d i ct i o n . We
a f f i rm. 1 Init s c om

pla int , the A sso ci at iona lle ge s th at the F A A a rb itr ar ily

iss ue d a Fi ndi ng o f N o Sign if

ic an t Im pa ct (“ FO N SI ”) w ithr es pe ct to the pr opos ed

e xpansi on pr ojec t at th e Troy Mu ni ci pa l Airp or t in Troy, Ala ba m a. It al so al le ge s th at th e FAA fa ile d to f

oll owit s own r egul at io ns re qui ri ng a ddi tio na l r ev ie wa nd a ppr ova l of certa in m itigati o n m ea s u res. On a ppeal, the A ssociation m aintains that th e district
co urt ha s j ur isd ic tio n ov er the f ir st cl ai m (t

he “ FO N SI c la im ”) be ca

use the F O N SI is not a final order, an d therefor e, 49 U. S. C. § 461 10(a) does not d ivest the dis trict 2

co urt of j ur isd ic tio n. The Ass oc iati on a lso a rg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ha s j ur isd ic tio n
un de r th e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act, 5 U.S.C. § 70 2, o ve r it s cl ai m th atth e FAA3

failed to com

ply with its own re gulatio ns (the “ procedural claim ”). The district court
co rr ec tly de te rm ine d th at

it la ck ed j ur isd ic tio n ov er

both c la im s. 1. Th e F ON SI C lai m The par t i es d i s agree on whether § 46110 j urisdictio n exists o nly over “ final
or de rs , ” an d if

it doe s, w he the r the F O N SI in thi s c as e is a “ fi na l or de r. ” T he Association argues that § 4 6 1 1 0 g rant s the courts of appeals j urisdictio n onlyover fi na l or de rs , a nd tha t the F O N SI in thi s c as e is n ot f ina l be ca use it re qui re s the Ci ty of T ro y to fi na liz e its w et land m iti ga tio n plan pr ior to the start of c onstru ct ion
. T he F A A r e s p o n d s t h a t § 4 6 1 1 0 j u r i s d i c t i o n e x t e n d s t o n o n - f i n a l a g e n c y o r d e rs . F or supp ort, it ci te s our de ci sio n in Ge orge Kabeller, Inc. v. Busey , 999 F. 2d 1 417 (1 1th Ci r. 19 93 ), whi ch it arg ue s s ta nd s fo r th e p ro po si ti on th at “ an y su it co nc ern in g F AA adm ini str at ive a ct ion , w he the r fi na l or not, li es w ith in the e xc lus ive j ur isd ic tio n of the Ci rcu it Co ur t.” ( Def.’s Br. at 19 .) W e ag re e w ith the A sso ci at ion tha t co urts o f ap pe al s have § 46 110 j ur isd ic tio n onlyover an agency

order that is “ final.” Se e, e . g. , Cit y o f Dan ia Bea ch , Fla . v. FAA , 485 F. 3d 1181, 1187 (D
. C. Ci r. 2007 ); Ameri co pt er s, LL C v. FAA , 441 F
. 3d 7 26, 735 (9 th C ir
. 200 6) ; Ae roso urce, I nc. v . Slater , 14 2 F.3 d 57 2, 57 8 (3 d C ir. 1 99 8) . But weBusey involved § 46110’s prede cessor , 49 U.S.C. app. § 1486(a) (1992). The statutes 3 do not materially

differ
. 4 a l s o a c kn o w l e d g e tha t Buseyr ec ogni ze d anarr owe xc ep tio n to pe rm it § 46 110 3 j urisdictio n where no order ha s bee n issue d, the ab se nc e of “ w hic h m igh t a ff ec t the future adj udicative power of the ci rc u it court.” Id

. a t 14 22. I n si m

ple r te rm s, the Busey exception appli es when an agency ’ s failure to ac t results in a final order never be ing iss ue d, the re by ind ef ini te ly de pr ivi ng the co urt of a ppe al s of j ur isd ic tio n. T his is n ot tha t ty

pe of c as e. T he A sso ci at ion doe s not al le ge tha t the F A A f ai le d to iss ue
an y or de r the re by

de pr ivi ng the c ourts of

appe al s of

§ 46 110 re vie w . I nst ea d, the Ass oc ia ti on ch al le ng es th e o rd er as be in g a rb it rari ly iss ue d. Th eref or e, Busey does not appl y an d w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the F O N SI is a “ fi na l or de r. ” W e co nc lud e th atit is
. Fi rs t, th e FAA tr eat s t he FONSI as a fi na l o rd er. See R. 1- 1, E x. B at 12 ( “ T his de ci sio n c onst itu te s th e Fed eral appr ova l f or the a ct ion s id en tif

ie d a bove
. . . [ an d]
co nst itu te s aF ina l O rd er of the A dm ini str at or

sub j ec t t o r ev ie w b y

the c ourts o f appeals to the United States in acc ordance w ith 49 U. S. C. [§] 4611 0.”) . Wh i le an agency ’ s charac terization of an order is not bind ing, it certai n l y i s inform ative. Ae roso urce, I

nc. , 14 2 F .3d at 5 79
.5

Se co nd, the F O N SI is fi na l be ca us e, whi le the Ci ty

m ust f ulf ill c er ta in

“ m iti ga tio n m ea sur es , ” the F A A did not c onditi on iss uanc e of

the F O N SI on the Ci ty ’ s f ulf ill m en t of th os e m ea sur es . A t no poi nt h as the F A A ind ic at ed that i ts determ ination that the propos ed airport exp ansion “ will n ot have a significant effe ct on the hum ane nvi ro nm en t, ” 40 C
. F. R. § 15 08. 13, is in any w ay de pe nde nt u

pon the Ci ty ’ s s at isf

ac tor y c om ple tio n of the se m ea sur es , w hic h r an ge f ro m f ina liz ing the
w et land m iti ga tio n pl anto m ini ste ri al ta sks suc h a s ob ta ini ng c onstru ct ionpe rm its
. Fi na lly , the c om

pla int c harg es that t he FAA a ct ed a rb itr ar ily

in iss uin g th e FO N SI , ac la im

w hic h te sts the pr opr ie ty of the F O N SI
. I f the F O N SI w er e not in a fi na l f orm sus ce pti ble of

m eanin gf

ul r ev ie w , thi s cl ai m w oul d no t be r ipe , a s th e review ing court would in essence be rendering an advis ory opini on on a prelim inary adm ini str at ive de ci sio n. W e co nc lud e the F O N SI is a f ina l or de r an d c ourts o f ap pe al s ha ve e xc lus ive j ur isd ic tio n ov er thi s c la im

und er § 46 110. O ur de te rm ina tio n th at

the F O N SI is a fi na l or de r ne ce ssari ly r es olv es the Association’ s claim

that the district court had jurisdiction u n d er t h e Declaratory Judg m ent Act (“ DJA ”), 28 U .S .C. § 432 1, to decide whether the FO NS I w as a final order. The DJAperm its any court of th e United States to “ declare the rights and ot her legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U. S. C. § 220 1(a). H o w e v e r , t h a tp o w e r

e x i s t s o n l y “ [ i ]n t h e c a s e o f a c tu a l c o n t r o v e r s y wi thi n it s6

jur isdic tio n .” Id

. ( em pha sis a dde d)
. T he lawis sett le d th at the D JAit se lf

doe s no t grant federa l courts jurisdiction, but rather, authorizes a specific ty pe of relief

in cases

w he re j ur isd ic ti on alr ea dy e xis ts. Sc hil lin g v . R oge rs , 363 U
. S. 666 , 677 , 80 S
. Ct
. 1288 , 129 6 ( 1960 ). Be ca use the di st ri ct

c ourt do es not

ha ve j ur isd ic tio n ov er

the FO N SI c la im , it

la ck ed the pow er

to re nde r a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t on the i ssu e of fin al it y . 2 . T h e Pr o c e d u r a l Cl a i m W e tur n no wto the A sso ci at ion ’ s arg um en t tha t the distr ic t c ourt e rr ed in
r u lin g th at it la ck ed sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r its pr oc ed ur al c la im a ga ins t the FA A. The Association a sserts that the FAAhas failed to com ply with FA A O rder 1050
. 1E , ¶

405 (g )( 4) , w hic h st at es that the F A A sho uld rev ie w and a ppr ove a ny pr opos ed c hange s inor

de le tio n of

am iti ga ti on m easure that w as inc lud ed a s a
co ndi tio n of

appr ova l of

the F O N SI
. T he A sso ciati on a lle ge s th at the F A A ha s no t
re vie w ed or appr ove d th e m itiga ti on p lan c hange s de spi te w ri tte n r eque sts f or im m ed ia te r ev ie w . T he A sso ci at ion ar gue s the dis tr ic t c ourt r et ai ns A PAj ur isd ic tio n over this claim , r egardless of w hether the FO NS I is a f inal order. W e disagree. The dete rm ination of whether the FA A c ondu cted a m itigatio n m easure r eview
as r equir ed

by F A A O rd er

105 0. 1E , ¶

405 (g )( 4) is int ert win ed w iththe m er its of de ci din g whether

the F A A a rb itr ar ily

iss ue d th e FO N SI
. T he re fo re , it is pr ope rl yThe Assoc iation appea led the district cour t’s denial of its motion to alter or ame nd 4 judgme nt, which it file d u n d er F ed. R. Civ. P. 59. See No tic e of Ap pe a l ( R.1 -2 7. ) O n a

pp e a l, howeve r, it did not br ief the merits of this a rgument, and only mentioned it in a footnote. (Pl.’s B r. at 7 n.2.) Conseque ntly , we de em this argument waived. See Tallahas see M em’ l Reg’l Me d. Ctr. v. Bowen , 815 F.2d 1435, 1446 n.16 ( 11th Cir. 1987). 7 r a i s e d i n th e co ur ts of app eal s u nd er § 46 11 0. Se e Ci ty of Oxfo rd , Ga. v. FAA , 428 F. 3d 13 46, 1352-58 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (entertaining, on § 4611 0 petition after issuance of aF O N SI , pla int if

f’ s c la im that the F A A f

ai le d to c om

ply w ithit s own r eg ula tio ns
an d th e pr oc ed

ur al r equir em ents o f N at ion al E nvi ro nm en ta l P oli cy A ct ); Ci tyof Dania Beach , 48 5 F.3d at 11 89 -9 1 (gra nt in g pet it io n for § 461 10 rev ie w aft er FAA failed to engage in environm ental reviewprocess required by FA A O rder)
. 3. C on cl us ion Be ca use the FO N SI is a fi na l or de r, the co urts of ap pe al s ha ve ex cl usi ve j ur isd ic tio n un de r § 46 110 to e nte rt ai n ac ha lle nge to its issuanc e. T he c ourts o f ap pe al s al so ha ve j ur isd ic tio n ove r the A sso ci at ion ’ s pr oc ed ur al c la im

be ca use it is intertwined w ith the m erits of the FO NS I claim . W e theref ore af firm the district
co urt’ s or de r dis m iss ing both c la im s f or la ck of sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. 4 AFFIRMED.