Opinion ID: 203404
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Regulatory Scheme and Standard of Review

Text: The road to final approval for an agency action is often a long one; in this case it has been more than ten years since the commencement of the EIS process and five years since the FEIS. It would undermine NEPA's policies if agencies in the interim were allowed to ignore material new information or circumstances which could change the environmental analysis contained in the original EIS. See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 371, 109 S.Ct. 1851. The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA thus require a supplemental EIS if [t]he agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns or [t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1) (emphasis added). That is, an SEIS would be required here if new information paint[ed] a dramatically different picture of impacts compared to the description of impacts in the EIS. Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, FAA Order 1050.1E chg. 1 ¶ 516a (Mar. 20, 2006). [3] The FAA has, by order, imposed further requirements upon itself for airport projects. If more than three years have passed since the FAA approved an FEIS and no major steps toward implementing the proposed action have taken place, the FAA must prepare a written reevaluation to determine whether the FEIS remains accurate, adequate, and current. NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects, FAA Order 5050.4B ¶ 1401(c)(1) (Apr. 28, 2006) [4] ; see also FAA Order 1050.1E ¶ 514b(1) (requiring, after three years of no major action, a written reevaluation of the adequacy, accuracy, and validity of the FEIS). That is, the mere passage of time does not require preparation of an SEIS, only a written reevaluation. The FAA also specifically committed itself in the 2002 ROD to preparing a written reevaluation of whether it was necessary to prepare an SEIS before issuing its final decision on the Centerfield Taxiway, and it has done so. If substantial change has occurred involving the earlier data or other conditions relevant to the FAA's prior decision, the preparation of an SEIS is required. FAA Order 5050.4B ¶ 1401(c)(1); see also FAA Order 1050.1E ¶ 514b(1) (if, after three years, there have been significant changes in ... the affected environment [or] anticipated impacts, an SEIS must be prepared); FAA Order 5050.4B ¶ 1402(b)(2) (requiring an SEIS, regardless of passage of time, if [s]ignificant new changes, circumstances or information relevant to the proposed action, its affected environment, or its environmental impacts becomes available). The written reevaluation determining whether it is necessary to prepare an SEIS need not, however, be made public. FAA Order 5050.4B ¶ 1401(d); FAA Order 1050.1E ¶ 515c. While NEPA requires agencies to take a `hard look' at the environmental effects of their planned action, even after a proposal has received initial approval, Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, an agency need not supplement an EIS every time new information comes to light after the EIS is finalized, id. at 373, 109 S.Ct. 1851. To require otherwise would render agency decision-making intractable, always awaiting updated information only to find the new information outdated by the time a decision is made. Id. The key question for the FAA, then, is determining what constitutes significant new information, and that is a factual question requiring technical expertise. Id. at 376, 109 S.Ct. 1851. The agency's resolution of this question is thus one to which a reviewing court owes considerable deference. See id. at 376-77, 109 S.Ct. 1851. Considerable deference is also owed to the FAA's determination of whether a three-year-old FEIS remains accurate, adequate, and current, as that determination is but a variation on the same question of significance. As a result, the FAA's decision not to issue an SEIS cannot be set aside by a reviewing court unless that decision is arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 376, 109 S.Ct. 1851; see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). An agency's decision is not arbitrary and capricious if that decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors and if it did not commit a clear error of judgment. Marsh, 490 U.S. at 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851; Airport Impact Relief, Inc. v. Wykle, 192 F.3d 197, 202 (1st Cir.1999).