Opinion ID: 768702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Airport and Airway Improvement Act Issues

Text: 45 A. Consistency Requirement. The Improvement Act provides that the FAA may only approve an application for federal funding of an airport project if the project is consistent with plans (existing at the time the project is approved) of public agencies authorized by the State in which the airport is located to plan for the development of the area surrounding the airport. 49 U.S.C. 47106(a)(1). Alternative W-1W is not consistent with Bridgeton's development plans. Therefore, Bridgeton argues, the project may not go forward because the statute mandates that an airport expansion plan be consistent with the development plans of every public agency that has planning authority over any portion of the land surrounding the airport. We disagree. 46 In making its consistency determination, the FAA relied primarily on the endorsement of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, a regional planning commission charged with making a comprehensive plan for the development of the region. Reliance on the approval of such an overseeing agency was upheld in Suburban O'Hare Comm'n v. Dole, 787 F.2d 186, 199 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 847 (1986). Suburban O'Hare was decided under a predecessor statute which required that the project be reasonably consistent with local agency plans. Pub. L. No. 88-280, 8(e), 78 Stat. 158, 160-61 (1964). The legislative history of this earlier provision explicitly recognized that planning inconsistencies are inevitable, that the statute was not intended to require that all Federal aid be withheld until all local area development plans are in harmony, and that in cases of conflict the granting of aid would depend upon the Administrator's appraisal of all relevant facts. H. REP. NO. 88-1002, reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2063, 2067-68. 47 In the 1994 recodification of this provision, Congress omitted the word reasonably, a change described as eliminating surplus. See 49 U.S.C.A. 47106. Historical and Statutory Notes, at p.660 (West 1997). No intent to change the effect of the statute was clearly expressed. See Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 554 (1989). Therefore, based upon the earlier legislative history and the decision in Suburban O'Hare, we reject Bridgeton's contention that the interests of the National Airspace System may be held hostage to the conflicting plans of a single local community, when the relevant metropolitan or regional planning agency or agencies have approved. The FAA's consistency determination was not arbitrary or capricious. 6 48 B. Sponsor certification. St. Charles County asserts that the FAA's Record of Decision violates the requirement that the project sponsor certify it has advised the communities in which the project is located . . . they have the right to petition the Secretary. 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). However, the W-1W project will not extend into St. Charles County, so the County has no standing to raise this claim. See Bennett v. Spear, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161-62 (1997). St. Louis did inform Bridgeton of its right to petition and informed the FAA that it had provided such notice. 49 The petitions for review are denied. The FAA's motion to strike the City of Bridgeton's January 18, 2000, submission under Eighth Circuit Rule 28(j), and the City of Bridgeton's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, are denied.