Opinion ID: 36501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: FAA’s Procedure on Limited Remand

Text: As published in the National Flight Data Digest, modified IR-178 included eleven segments with floor altitudes lower than those evaluated in the EIS. The FAA claimed this was an inadvertent error and this court granted a limited remand to correct it. Petitioners now argue that the FAA failed to follow its own regulations in making the correction.62 61 Petitioners also assert that the original EA for IR-165 was insufficient under NEPA. This claim concerns past, rather than continuing, agency action (the Air Force’s adoption of the EA). Because this past action occurred in 1985, the claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). 62 Regardless of whether the FAA followed its own procedures on the limited remand, petitioners do not contest that the RBTI altitudes now conform to those evaluated in the EIS. Thus, their original argument that implementation of unevaluated adverse effects (lower altitudes) invalidates the EIS is now moot. 29 The FAA’s Order on Special Military Operations, FAA Order 7610.4J, provides certain procedures for establishing or modifying a MTR. Order 7610.4J requires, inter alia, a certain form, coordination with the Regional Air Traffic Control Center and others, and consideration of minimization of disturbance to persons and property on the ground. The FAA did not follow these procedures on remand, and argues that Order 7610.4J does not apply to corrections like those at issue, which originate within the FAA. We find the FAA’s argument persuasive. Order 7610.4J speaks of route revisions sought by “military unit[s],” not ministerial revisions to correct internal error. Moreover, the FAA sought the remand to correct the altitudes to conform to those in the EIS, which had already considered minimization of ground disturbance. Because the result would be the same—modification of the altitudes to conform to the EIS–whether the FAA followed the procedure of Order 7610.4J or not, petitioners have not been prejudiced by the FAA’s chosen procedure on remand, and we see no reason to invalidate the correction.63 63 Pacific Molasses Co. v. FTC, 356 F.2d 386, 390 (5th Cir. 1966). Petitioners also argue that the FAA exceeded the scope of the limited remand by issuing an Addendum to the Lancer MOA NRDD. Petitioners contend that the FAA issued this document to shore up its assertion that the NRDD served as the ROD for both the Lancer MOA and modified IR-178 (see discussion below). As discussed in the next section, we find the NRDD as it existed before the FAA added the Addendum adequate as a ROD for the entire RBTI. Thus the FAA did not exceed the scope of the limited remand by issuing 30