N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ITY OF B UR IEN,

Pe t i tione r,
v. DANIEL K. ELW ELL, Ac ting Adm inistra

tor; a nd FEDER

AL AVIATION ADM INISTR ATION, R e sponde nts. No. 18-71705

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from t

he Fe de ra l Avia

tion Admi nistra

tion Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : IKUTA a

nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t

Judge
. Pe titione r, the C ity

of B urie n (“ B urie n” ), is a town loc at e d to the we st of the Se a ttle -Ta c om a

Airport (“ Se a -Ta c ” ). B urie n c ha lle nge s the FAA’ s de c ision to
a pprove a proc e d ure for turning southbound turboprops to the we s t in c e rta in wind 

# F IL ED NOV 27 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.c onditions (“the Proc e d ure ” ). The Proc e dure a

utom ate s a

form e rly m anua l proc e ss of a ssigning he a dings to suc h turboprops, a nd ha s the e ffe c t of c onc e n trating lowfly ing pla ne s ove r B urie n

a fte r take off. B urie n

argue s tha

t the FAA fa ile d to
c om ply with theNationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (“ NEPA” ), 42 U.S.C . §§ 4321
e t se q., whe n it a

pprove d the Proc e dure . W e a gre e in pa rt. NEPA re quire s a ge nc ie s suc h a s the FAA to c o nside r and doc um e nt the
e nvironm e nta l im

pa c ts of the ir a c tions prior to im ple m e nting the m . 42 U.S.C . § 4332(2)(c ). Although NEPA usua lly re quire s a ge n c i e s to c onduc t som e form of
e nvironm e nta l a

na ly sis be fore the y

a c t, a n a ge nc y m ay ide ntify c e rta in a c tions a s

“ c ate goric a l e xc lusions”(“ C ATEXs” ) that a re e xe m pt from e nvironm e nta l re vie w. C ATEXs a

re re se rve d for a c tions tha t do not “ individually or c um ulative ly have a signific ant e ffe c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt.” 40 C .F.R . § 1508.4. W h ile a g e nc ie s prom ulga te the ir own rule s for ide ntify ing a n d a pply ing C ATEXs, a ll a ge nc ie s m ust “provide for c e rta in e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e s in whic h a

norm a lly
e xc lude d a c tion m ay

have a signific ant e nvironm e nta l im pa c t ” suc h tha

t
e nvironm e nta l re vie w is re quire d. Id. The FAA ha s prom

ulga te d a se rie s of C ATEXs, liste d in FAA Orde r 1050.1F. The sa

m e Orde r e xpla ins tha

t e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s e x ist suc h tha

t
a pplic a tion of the s e C ATEXs is ina ppropria te if (1) one of twe lve e num e ra te d 2“ e x tra ordina ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” e xists a

nd (2) the a c tion “ m ay

hav e a signific ant im pa c t.” One suc h e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e inc lude s a c tions like ly to

“ c um ulative ly c re ate a signific ant im

pa c t on the hum a

n e nvironm e nt.” B e fore
a pply ing a C ATEX, the FAA m ust pre pa re “ c onc ise ” supporting docum e ntation
c iting theC ATEX use d , de s c ribing why its a pplic ation is a

ppropria te , a nd
e xpla ining tha

t the re are no re le va

nt e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s . In this c a se , the FAA de t e rm ine d tha t e nvironm e nta l re vie w wa s not re quire d be fore it a

pprove d the Proc e dure be c a use this a c tion fe l l within a C ATEX for

“ m odific a tions to c urre ntly a pprove d proc e dure s c o nduc te d be l ow 3,000 fe e t [a bove ground le ve l ] that do not signific antly inc re a s e noise ove r noise se nsitive
are a s.” FAA Orde r 1050.1F, ¶ 5-6.5i. W hile B urie n a

rgue s tha t this de te rm ination
wa s a rbitra ry and c a pric i ous for m

ultiplere a s ons, we are pe rsua d e d by only one of the s e re a s ons. W e a gre e tha t the FAA a c te d a

rbitra rily and c a pric iously by fa iling to c o nside r a ll “ re a sona

bly fore se e a ble ” future a c tions a

t Se a -Ta c in its a

na ly sis of whe the r a c um ulat ive im pa c ts e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e e xiste d . 40 C
. F.R . § 1508.7. Spe c ific a lly , e ve n though the FAA c onside re d a

num be r of pa s t, pre se nt, a

nd
re a s ona bly fore se e a ble future a c tions within the study are a

in its c um

ulative im pa c ts a na ly sis, it fa ile d

to e ve n m e ntion futurea c tions ta king pla c e at Se a -Ta c 3itse lf, e ve n to dismiss the m a s not re a sona

bly fore se e a b le . M ost nota

bly , the FAA fa ile d to a ddre ss a

ny c um ulative im pa c ts tha t m ight ste m from

proje c ts de s c ribe d in Se a -Ta c ’ s Susta ina

ble Airport M a ste r Plan

(“ SAM P” ). Give n tha

t the FAA wa s involve d in the funding a

nd de ve lopm e nt of the SAM P, and tha t a fina l SAM P doc um e nt listing spe c ific e xpa nsion proje c ts wa s publishe d only we e ks a fte r the Proc e d ure wa s a pprove d in April 2018, the FAA ha d to be we ll a

ware of the se pla nning doc um e nts a

nd the substa

n tia l a irport e xpa

nsion de sc ribe d in the m . The FAA should ha

ve a ddre sse d the m

in its c um

ulative im pa c ts a na ly sis. The disse nt prim arily

re l ie s on c a s e la

w sugge sting tha

t a “ re a sona

bly fore se e a ble future a c tion” doe s not inc lude a proje c t “ that

is not y e t propose d” and is “ re m ote in tim e . ” J

one s v . N at’l Marine

Fishe rie s Se rv . , 741 F.3d 989, 1000 (9th C ir. 2013). B ut he re , the FAA’ s own “ De sk R e fe re nc e ” tha t guide s its inte rpre tation of re le va

nt c a te goric a l e xc lusions e xpre ssly sta te s tha t “ [a ] n a c tion

4m ay

be re a sona

bly fore se e a b le e ve n in the a

bse nc e of a spe c ific proposa l .” 1 FAA 1050.1F De sk R e fe re nc e (July 2015). The De sk R e fe re nc e furthe r provide s tha t the
e xiste nc e of “ pla

nning doc um e n ts” (like the SAM P), e ve n if short of a n offic ia l proposa l , provide s im

porta nt e v ide nc e for de te rm ining whe the r a future proje c t is
re a s ona bly fore se e a ble . In suc h c irc um sta

n c e s , e v e n if the FAA c onc lude s tha t the pla nne d proje c ts a

re “ im proba ble or re m ote ,” the De sk R e fe re nc e spe c ific a lly
re c o m m e nds tha

t suc h a c tions “

be m e ntione d in the NEPA doc um e nt with a n indic a tion tha

t the y are not re a sona

bly fore se e a b le .” Inde e d , the a ge nc y

in J one s

1 The disse nt e rrs in sugge sting tha t this interna l guida

nc e doc um e nt is not a prope r sourc e of inte rpre tive guida nc e . Although the

disse nt is c orre c t tha

t the De sk R e fe re nc e sta

te s tha t it “ m ay not be c ite d a s the sourc e of re q uire m e nts unde r la ws, re gula

t ions, Exe c utive Orde rs, DOT or FAA dire c tive s , or othe r a uthoritie s,” it om its the first c la

use of the se nte nc e whic h e xplic itly sta te s tha t the “ De sk R e fe re nc e m ay

be c ite d only a s a re fe re nc e for the guida

nc e it c onta ins.” In fa c t, the FAA quote d the De sk R e fe re nc e in its a nswe ring brie f whe n

atte m p ting to de fine future a c tions a s im proba ble or re m ote e ve n though they have be e n m e ntione d in pla

nning doc um e nts. Thus, while the De sk R e fe re nc e is not a n inde pe nde nt sourc e of la

w re gula ting theFAA, it c an prope rly se rve a s guida nc e for inte rpre ting FAA Orde r 1050.1F, whic h is a n inde pe nde nt sourc e of la w re gula ting theFAA. S

e e Alask a De p’t of Env tl. C

onse rv ation v . E.P.A. , 540 U.S. 461, 464 (2004) (finding tha t a lthough interna l guida

nc e la c ks dispositive

forc e , “ c o ge nt a dm inistra

tive inte rpre tations not the produc ts of form a l rule m aking ne ve rthe le ss wa

rrant re spe c t ” (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l c ha

nge s om itte d)). Probe rt v . Family C e nte re d Se rv

s. of Alask

a, Inc
. , 651 F.3d 1007 (9th C ir. 2011), doe s not c ha nge this outc o m e . Tha

t c a se found tha

t inte rna l guida

nc e wa s not “ a prope r sourc e of inte rpre tive guida n c e ” whe re the guida

n c e e xpla ine d tha

t “ it is not use d a s a de vic e for e s ta

blishing inte

rpre tive polic y .” Id. at 1012. TheDe sk R e fe re nc e c onta ins no suc h la

ngua ge . 5ha d a ddre sse d the future pla ns ra ise d by

pla intiffs a

nd de c line d to e xam ine the ir
c um ulat ive im pa c ts, noting signific ant c ha lle nge s fa c ing the pote n tia l future proje c ts a nd tha t the a ge nc y

“ would c onside r the im

pa c ts of future proje c ts if pe rm its we re sought for the m .” 741 F.3d a t 995, 1000-1001. The

a ge nc y , by

fa iling to e v e n m e ntion theSAM P thus did not m e e t its obliga

tion to e xpla in its a c tions unde r NEPA. Alask

a C tr. For Env ’t v . U.S. Fore st Se rv . , 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ Whe n a

n a ge nc y de c ide s to proc e e d with a n a c tion in the

a b se nc e of
an EA or EIS, the a ge nc y m ust a de quate ly

e xpla in its de c i sion.” ). The disse nt furthe r a sse rts tha t the FAA did not ne e d to c onside r the SAM P in its c um ulative im pa c ts a na ly sis be c a

use this c ourt ha d pre viously he l d tha t
a pproving a

c ha n ge in flight pa

tte rn for turboprops doe s not produc e a signific ant im pa c t. Se e Barne

s v . U.S. De

p ’t of Transp. , 655 F.3d 1124 (9th C ir. 2011). Howe ve r, the la

ngua ge from B arne

s that the disse n t prim arily re lie s on wa s foc u se d on indire c t e ffe c ts unde r 40 C
. F.R . § 1508.8(b), ra t he r tha n c um ulative im pa c ts unde r 40 C .F.R
. § 1508.7, a nd is not c ontrolling here . 655 F.3d a t 1137-39. To the e xte nt the disse nt re a ds FAA Orde r 1050.1F to re le a se the FAA from
any obliga t ion to c onside r whe t

he r e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s e xist upon a ge ne ra liz e d finding tha

t a n a c tion doe s not ge ne ra te a signific ant im

pa c t , it re a ds FAA Orde r 1050.1F in a

m anne r that c o nflic ts with 40 C .F.R . § 1508.4. The

6obliga

tion to c onduc t a

n e x t ra ordina ry c i rc um sta

nc e s a na ly sis im

p o se d by 40 C .F.R . § 1508.4 a

rise s onc e an a ge nc y

ha s a lre a dy

found tha

t a n a c tion doe s not

“ individually or c um

ulat ive ly have a signific ant e ffe c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt” -- in othe r words, onc e the a ge nc y ha s pre l im ina

rily found tha

t a pplic ation of a C ATEX is a

ppropria te . Howe ve r, if a

pre l im ina

ry finding tha

t a p plic ation of a C ATEX is a

ppropria te m e an t tha t the a ge nc y

did not ha

ve to c onduc t a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s a na ly sis, the re would be no situa tion in whic h the
a ge nc y would ha

ve to do so. Adopting the disse n t’ s re a ding would thus re nde r the first prong of FAA Orde r 1050.1F’ s e xtra ordina ry im pa c ts de finition superfluous,
and viola te 40 C .F.R . § 1508.4’ s re quire m e nt tha t a ll a ge n c i e s “ provide for c e rta in
e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s in whic h a norm a lly

e x c lude d a c t ion m ay

have a signific ant e nvironm e nta l im p a c t.” The bottom

line is tha

t, e ve n though the FAA’ s ana ly sis ra m ble s on for 128 pa ge s, tha t c annot e xc use its fa ilure to e ve n a ddre ss whe the r a “ M a ste r Plan” for a
m a jor e xpa nsion of thea irport -- a

pla n tha t the FAA sta ff ha d c om

m issione d a

nd that wa s only we e ks a way from be ing publishe d

-- e nc om p a s se d a “ re a sona bly fore se e a ble future a c tion” that should be c o nside re d within the

FAA’ s c um

ulative im pa c t a na l y sis.

7W e thus GR ANT the pe t ition for re vie win pa rt a n d REM AND this c a se to the FAA with instruc tions to c onside r the pote ntia l c um ulative im pa c t of a ll
re le va nt re a sona

bly fore se e a

b le future a c tions -- inc luding those whic h m ay e xist in the SAM P doc um e nts -- a s pa rt of its e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s a n a l y s is pursua nt to 40 C .F.R
. § 1508.7. 2 DE NIE D IN PART , G R ANT E D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART .

2 W e a lso GR

ANT the Pe titione r’ s m otion to c orre c t the re c ord a s to Exhibit 1 a nd m o tion for c onside ra tion of e xtra -re c o rd e v ide nc e a s to Exhibit 5. We DENY the m otion for c onside ration of e xtra -re c o rd e vide nc e a s to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 6, a nd 7. 8C

ity of Burie n v . FAA , 18-71705 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , disse nting:

“ It’ s ne ve r e nough, no it’ s ne ve r e nough, No m atte r what I sa y ” are the ly ric s to a song by an Am e ric an he avy

m e t a l ba nd, 1 but it c ould be the anthe m of a fe de ra l a g e nc y a tte m

pting to c om

ply with theNationa l Environm e nta l Polic y Ac t (NEPA). He re the Fe de ra l A v iation Administra tion (FAA) provide d a thorough 128-pa ge ana ly sis, whic h

e s ta blishe d be y ond doubt tha t its m odific at ion to a

flight pla n fits into a

c a te goric a l e xc lusion a

nd doe s not c re ate an “ e xtra ordina ry c irc um s ta nc e . ” Inde e d, the m a

jority doe s not c l a im

othe rwise ; inste a d, it m e re ly
re pe a ts the re fra in tha

t the FAA’ s a

na ly s is wa s “ ne ve r e nough,” be c a use it did not
c onside r the c um

ulative im pa c ts of spe c ulative proje c t ide a s tha t we re ne ithe r a dopte d nor propose d by

the Port of Se attle for its a irport. I disse nt.

I NEPA re quire s fe de ra l a ge nc ie s ta king “ m a jor Fe d e ra l a c t ions signific antly
a ffe c ting thequa lity

of the hum an e nvironm e n t,” 42 U.S.C . § 4332, to ta ke a “ ha rd look” a t the e nvironm e nta l c o nse que nc e s of a de c ision, Sav e thePe ak s C oal. v
. U.S. Fore st Se r v . , 669 F.3d 1025, 1036 (9th C ir. 2012). The a ge nc y tha t prom ulga te s NEPA re gula

tions, theC ounc il on Environme n ta l Qua lity (C EQ), 

# FIL ED NOV 27 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. C O U RT O F APPEALS

1 Five Finge r De a th Punc h, N e v e r Enough , The W ay

of the Fist (Prospe c t Park R e c ords 2007).provide s tha t a ge n c ie s m ay

c a te goric a l ly e xc lude c e rta i n ty pe s of fe de ra l a c tions

“ whic h do not individua

l ly or c um ulative ly have a signific ant e ffe c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt” from the re quire m e nt to prep are an e nvironm e nta l a sse ssm e nt or a n e nvironm e nta l im

pa c t sta te m e nt. 40 C .F.R . § 1508.4. The re g ulations a lso re quire
a ge nc ie s to c onside r e xc e p tions to the se e xc lusions by providing for “ e xtra ordina ry c irc um s ta nc e s in whic h a

norm a lly e xc lude d a c tion m ay

hav e a signific ant
e nvironm e nta l e ffe c t.” Id. The FAA ha s de ve lope d a guida nc e doc um e nt, Orde r 1050.1F, for
c om ply i ng with NEPA’ s re quire m e nts. Am ong othe r things, the Orde r inc lude s a list of c a te goric a l e x c lusions. Se e FAA Orde r 1050.1F, C ha pte r 5. One suc h
e xc lusion is set forth in Pa ra g ra ph 5-6.5(i), whic h provide s tha t “ m odific ations to
c urre ntly a pprove d proc e dure s c onduc te d be low 3,000 fe e t AGL tha t do not signific antly inc re a se noise ove r noise se nsitiveare a s” are e xe m pt from NEPA’ s re quire m e nt to prepa

re furthe r e nvironm e nta l a na ly sis. The Orde r a lso provide s that “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s” c onstitute

an e xc e ption to those

e xc lusions. Unde r Para gra

ph 5-2, “ an e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e e xists if a

propose d a c tion involve s” two c irc um sta

nc e s : (1) the propose d a c tion m ust involve any

of a list of 12 c irc um sta

nc e s de sc ribe d in Pa

ra gra ph 5-2(b); a

nd (2) the propose d a c tion “ ha s the p ote ntia l for a signific ant im pa c t.” Id. ¶ 5-2(b). One of the 12 liste d 2c irc um s ta

nc e s is a c a tc h a ll: a

proje c t tha

t ha s a “ [l] ike lihood to dire c tly , indire c t ly , or c um ulative ly c re a te a

signific ant im

pa c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt.” Id. ¶ 5- 2(b)(12). W e give broa d de fe re nc e to the FAA’ s de c isions re ga rding its NEPA
c om plia nc e . W e have e xpla ine d tha t “ an a ge nc y ’ s inte rpre tation of them e aning of its own c a te goric a l e xc lusion should be give n c ontrolling we ight unle ss pla inly
e rrone ous or inc o nsiste nt with the te rm s use d in the re gula

t ion.” Alask

a C tr. For Env ’t v . U.S. Fore

st Se r v . , 189 F.3d 851, 857 (9th C ir. 1999). W e a l so de fe r to the
a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i n a tion a s to whe the r a propose d a c tion fa lls within the

“ e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” e xc e ption. Se e Id. “ Onc e the a ge nc y c onside rs the prope r fa c tors a

n d m ake s a

fa c tua l de te rm i nation on whe the r the im pa c ts a re signific ant or not, tha

t de c ision im

plic ate s substa

n tia l a ge nc y

e xpe rtise and is
e ntitle d to de fe re nc e . Id. In this c a se , the FAA propose d a m odific ation to the

flight pla n use d by southbound turboprops. Afte r de t e rm i ning them o dific ation would not ha ve signific ant noisee ffe c ts, the FAA c onc l ude d tha t the m odific ation to the flight pla n fe ll within the

sc ope of c a te goric a l e xc lusion Pa ra gra ph 5-6.5(i) a

nd tha t no
e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s e xist. The re fore , the FAA c onc l ude d tha t no furthe r NEPA re vie w wa s re q

u ire d. Unde r our de fe re ntia l re vie w, the FAA’ s re a s oning

3and c onc l usions a re una ssa ila

ble , a nd the m a jority e rrs in c re diting the

C ity ’ s argum e nt. II The C ity ’ s c ha lle nge to the FAA’ s c om plia nc e is ty pic a l of this sort of
e nvironm e nta l litiga

tion: it a rgue s tha t the FAA fa ile d to do e nough in a na l y z ing the e ffe c t s of the flight pla n m odific ation. TheC ity fra m e s this c ha lle nge a s a n argum e nt tha

t the FAA’ s propose d flight pla n m odific ation c o nstitute d a n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e unde r the FAA’ s Orde r. Unde r the first prong of the FAA’ s e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e e xc e ption, theC i ty

c l a im s the proje c t ha s a

“ [l] ike lihood to dire c tly , indire c tly , or c um ulative ly c re ate a signific ant im

pa c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt.” Orde r 1050.1F, ¶ 5-2(b)(12). Unde r the se c ond prong, the C ity c la im s tha

t the propose d a c tion “ ha s the pote ntia l for a signific ant im

pa c t.” Id. ¶ 5-2(b). Ne ithe r prong is sa

tisfie d . On its fa c e , the C ity ’ s c la im tha t the propose d proje c t involve s a

“ [l] ike lihood to dire c tly , indire c tly , or c um ulative ly c re ate a signific ant im

pa c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt” is e ntire ly m e ritle ss. The FAA thoroughly

e xam ine d the pote ntia l im pa c ts of the flight pla

n m odific ation, inc l uding providing exte nsive studie s of the noise im pa c ts. The FAA’ s c o n c lusion that the flight pla

n m o d ific a t ion would not ha ve suc h im

pa c ts is we ll supporte d, 4and the C ity

doe s not provide any

e vide n c e to the c o ntra

ry . Inste a d, the C ity

argue s , a nd the m a j ority a gre e s, tha

t the FAA m a de a proc e d ura l e rror by fa iling to c onside r the c um ulat ive im pa c ts of the flight
m odific a tion progra

m toge the r with the Se attle -Ta c om a Airport’ s Susta ina

b le Airport M a ste r Plan (SAM P). As a re sult, a c c ording to the

C i ty an d the m a

jority , the FAA’ s de c ision to re ly on the c ate g oric a l e xc l usion for theflight pla n
m odific a tion wa s a

rbitra ry and c a pric ious, a

nd its NEPA c o m

plia nc e m ust be
re done
. This c onc l usion is fla

tly wrong. A c um

ulat ive im pa c t is “ the im

pa c t on the
e nvironm e nt whic h re s ults from the inc re m e nta l im

pa c t of the a c tion whe n a dde d to othe r pa st, pre se nt, a

nd re a sona

bly fore se e a

ble future a c tions.” 40 C .F.R
. § 1508.7. A “

re a sona bly fore se e a ble future a c tion” doe s not inc lude a proje c t “ that is not y e t propose d ” and is “ re m ote in tim e .” J one s v . N at’l Marine Fishe r ie

s Se rv . , 741 F.3d 989, 1000 (9th C ir. 2013). A proje c t is ge ne ra lly not “propose d” until thea ge n c y

ha s issue d a

Notic e of Inte nt to c o m

m e n c e NEPA c om

plia nc e . N
. Alask a Env tl. C

tr. v . K e mpthorne , 457 F.3d 969, 980 (9th C i r. 2006). Unle s s a proje c t ha s be e n propose d a nd is not too rem ote in tim e , “ a c um ulative e ffe c ts
ana ly sis would be both spe c ulative and pre m ature .” J one s , 741 F.3d a

t 1000 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita

tion omitte d); se e also Le agueof W i lde r ne ss De fs./Blue Mountains 5Biodiv e rsity

Proje c t v . C

onnaughton , 752 F.3d 755, 762 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ Although proje c ts ne e d not be fina l iz e d be fore the y are re a sona

bly fore se e a ble , the y m ust be m ore tha

n m e re ly c onte m plate d.” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d) (c ita tions omitte d )). In this c a se , the FAA disc ha rge d its obliga

tion to c onside r c um

ulative im pa c ts of e ight propose d

proje c ts, but re a sona

b ly c onc lude d tha

t the proje c ts disc usse d in the SAM P we re too spe c ulative and re m ote in tim e . The 2015 SAM P doe s not ide n tify

any proje c t s at a ll; ra

the r, it m e re ly

“ de sc ribe s the goa ls a

n d obje c tive s e sta

b l ishe d by the Port of Se attle c om

m ission to guide

the SAM P, the SAM P proc e s s, a

n d how SAM P goa ls a

nd obje c tive s will guide pre pa ra t ion of a
re c o m m e nde d de ve lopm e nt pla

n.” In othe r words, it wa s a pla n to m ake a

pla n. The 2018 SAM P (whic h wa s not c o m ple te d whe n the FAA de c ide d to re ly on the
c a te goric a l e xc lusion) de sc ribe d “ a n optim a l la

y out of fa c ilitie s re quire d to sa tisfy the unc onstra ine d 20-y e ar fore c a st de m and,” inc luding a se t of “ e n a

b ling a n d
c a pa c ity im prove m e nt proje c ts re quire d to a c c om m odate fore c a st de m and in 2027,” whic h it la

be le d “ ne ar-te rm

proje c ts.” This pla

nning doc um e nt, pre pa

re d by c o nsulta nts for the Port’ s c onside ra tion, is fa r re m ove d from

a propose d a ge nc y a c tion; the Port did not issue any Notic e of Inte nt for a

ny of the proje c ts de sc ribe d in the SAM P, nor doe s the SAM P sugge st tha t the Port wa s c lose to doing so. At 6m ost, the se proje c ts we re “ m e re ly c onte m plate d.” C

onnaughton , 752 F.3d a

t 762 (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). It would bespe c ulative and pre m ature for the FAA to c onside r the c um ulative im pa c ts of a flight m odific ation a long with the se c onsulta nt pla nning ide a s. Se e K

le ppev . Sie rra C

lub , 427 U.S. 390, 406 (1976); C onnaughton , 752 F.3d a

t 762. The m a jority se e m s to think the

FAA wa s arbitra

ry an d c a pric ious m e re ly be c a use it fa i le d to m e ntion theSAM P. Aga in, this e c h oe s the ty pic a l de m and of
m any litiga nts tha t a ge nc ie s m

u st a lwa y s do m ore to c om

ply with NEPA. B ut a

n a ge nc y ne e d not provide doc um e ntation on e ve ry pie c e of ava ila

ble inform ation be fore re ly ing on a c ate goric a l e xc lusion. Inde e d , the C EQ “ strongly disc oura ge s proc e d ure s tha t would re quire the pre pa

ra tion of a dditiona l pa

pe rwork to doc um e nt that an a c tivity

ha s be e n c a te goric a l ly

e xc l ude d.” Guida

nc e R e ga rding NEPA R e gula tions, 48 Fe d. R e g. 34,263-01, 34,265 (July 28, 1983). He re , the FAA did
a ll tha t wa s re quire d unde r its guida nc e doc um e nt, Orde r 1050.1F, a nd m ore : it issue d a 128-pa ge C a te goric a l E xc lusion doc um e nt in whic h it (1) c ite d to the
a pplic a ble c a te goric a l e xc lusion, (2) de sc ribe d how the flight m odific ation pla n fe ll within thec a te goric a l e xc lusion, a nd (3) e xpla ine d why

the re are no e xtra o rdina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s tha t would pre c l ude the flight m odific ation pla n from be ing
c a te goric a lly

e xc lude d . The m a

jority e rrs in re quiring thee q

uiva le nt of a

n 7e nvironm e nta l im pa c t sta te m e nt from

the FAA. In inva lida

ting theFAA’ s de c ision a s a rbitra ry and c a pric ious, them a

jority
re lie s prim arily

on a n inte rna l FAA guida

nc e doc um e nt, FAA 1050.1F De sk R e fe re nc e (July

2015). M a

j . at 4–5. Them a

jority ne gle c ts to notetha t the De sk R e fe re nc e itse l f state s tha t it “ m ay not be c i te d a s the sourc e of re quire m e nts unde r la ws, re gula

t ions, Exe c utive Orde rs, DOT or FAA dire c tive s , or othe r a uthoritie s.” Suc h a n inte rna l guida

nc e doc um e n t doe s not im pose judic ia l ly

e n forc e a b le dutie s on the FAA, c

f
. Loc k w ood v . C

omm’r Soc ial Se c . Admin. , 616 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th C ir. 2010), nor is it “ a prope r sourc e of inte rpre tive guida nc e ,” Probe rt v . Family C e nte re d Se rv

s. of Alask

a, Inc
. , 651 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th C ir. 2011). Ac c ordingly , the De sk R e fe re nc e provide s no support for the m a jority ’ s c onc lusion that the FAA fa ile d to disc ha rge its obliga

tions unde r NEPA. 2 B ut e ve n if the FAA
we re le ga lly

re quire d to follow the

De sk R e fe re nc e (and e ve n if the C ity

ha d ra ise d that argum e nt), a

ny e rror by

the FAA in fa iling to sta

te e xpre ssly that the SAM P ide a s a re im proba b le or re m ote c onstitute s ha rm le ss e rror unde r ba sic princ i ple s of
a dm inistra

tive la w. Se e 5 U.S.C . § 706; Ground Ze ro C tr. for N on-Viole nt Ac tion

2 De spite the m a

jority ’ s he avy re lia

nc e on the De s k R e fe re n c e , the C ity itse lf did not spe c i fic a lly

and distinc tly

argue tha t the FAA fa ile d to follow the De sk R e fe re nc e and tha

t fa iling to do so m

a de its de c ision a

rbitra ry an d c a pric ious. B e c a use “ [w] e will not manufa c ture argum e nts for a n a ppe lla n t,” the m a

jority e rrs in doing so here . Gre e nw o od v . F.A.A. , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C i r. 1994). 8v . U.S. De

p’t of N av y , 860 F.3d 1244, 1252 (9th C i r. 2017) (“ Whe n c onside ring a

n a ge nc y ’ s fa ilure to c om

ply with NEPA, wee xam ine whe the r the e rror m ate ria lly im pe de d NEPA’ s goa ls—

that is, whe the r the e rror c a use d the a g e n c y

not to be fully aw are of the e nvironm e nta l c onse que nc e s of the propose d a c tion, the re by pre c luding inform e d de c isionm aking a nd public pa

rtic i pat ion, or othe rwise
m a te ria l ly a ffe c te d the substa

nc e of the a g e nc y ’ s de c ision.” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)). Eve n if the first prong of the FAA’ s e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s e xc e ption is sa tisfie d, the se c ond is not, be c a u se the C ity ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t the flight pla n m odific a tion “ [m ] ay

have a signific ant im

pa c t” on the hum an e nvironm e nt. In fa c t, the C ity

fa ils to offe r any

the ory a bout how the

flight pla n m odific ation will ha ve suc h a n im pa c t. The C ity

va gue ly sugge sts tha

t the flight pla

n
m odific a tion, in c onjunc t i on with the spe c u lative SAM P, would inc re a se de m and
a t the a irport a

n d the re fore have a

growth-induc ing e ffe c t. B ut we have c onc lusive ly

re je c te d tha t the ory . Se e Barne

s v . U.S. De

p’t of Transp. , 655 F.3d 1124 (9th C ir. 2011). As we e xpla ine d in Barne s , the FAA doe s not ha

v e to
a c c ount for the growth-induc ing e ffe c t s of a flight a rriva l pa th or c ha n ge s in flight patte rns be c a

use suc h c ha

nge s (a s oppose d to “ a

m a jor ground c a

pa c ity e xpa nsion proje c t” ) “ i nc re a se de m and only m argina lly , if at a ll.” Id. at 1138. In othe r words, 9c ha

nge s in flight pa

tte rns do not ha

ve a signific a n t growth-induc ing im

pa c t. Ac c ordingly , the FAA’ s flight pla n m odific ation is de e m e d to inc re a se de m and only m argina lly , a

nd the re fore is not a “ signific ant im pa c t” for purpose s of the
se c o nd prong of thede finition for “ e xtra ordina ry c irc um sta

nc e s.” The C ity

doe s not e ve n sugge st (le t a l one e sta blish) a ny othe r the ory a s to how the flight pla n
m odific a tion, c onside re d with theSAM P, c ould ha ve a signific ant im

pa c t on the hum an e nvironm e nt. In sum , the FAA followe d its Orde r and a ppropria t e ly de te rm ine d tha

t the flight pla n m odific a tion wa s c ove re d by a c ate goric a l e xc lusion. The C i ty ha s fa ile d to provide any

e vide nc e indic ating tha

t the FAA e rre d in not e xpre ssly
ana ly z ing the SAM P, or tha t the flight pla

n m odific ation ha s a

ny signific ant im

pa c t on the hum an

e nvironm e nt. In fa c t, ne ithe r the C ity nor the m a

j ority c an ide ntify
any re a son tha

t the propose d flight pla

n m odific ation doe s not fit within the FAA’ s c a te goric a l e xc lusion. In holding othe rwise , the m a

j ority not only fa ils to give prope r de fe re nc e to the FAA, but a l so provide s e nc oura ge m e nt to theC ity ’ s litiga tion stra te gy of “ ne ve r e n ough.” I disse nt.

1 0