Opinion ID: 196673
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FAA's Approval of Airport Redevelopment.

Text: reviewed the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), PDA's proposal to redevelop airport-related property at Pease, as required by the Surplus Property Act. In its ROD, it approved each of the items in the ALP, either unconditionally or conditionally, and recommended that the Air Force proceed with its proposal to make property at Pease available for use as a civilian airport. It gave unconditional approval to the minor, interim and Phase I redevelopment outlined in the ALP but, to ensure conformity, only conditional approval to key items in the ALP. It concluded that its approval conform[s] with the approved SIP. Regarding the later phases of the redevelopment, which could have a significant impact on air quality, FAA approval will be required once plans for them are made final and proposed for implementation; that approval will be granted only after the FAA determines whether additional air quality analysis and a new conformity finding are required. Further, FAA approval will be required for any new projects not depicted in the ALP, providing additional assurances of conformity. 2. Plaintiffs' Challenges of the Conformity 2. Plaintiffs' Challenges of the Conformity Determinations. Determinations. Plaintiffs charge that the agencies' conformity determinations ignore evidence demonstrating that redevelopment -36- would cause new CO violations, increase existing ozone violations, and delay attainment of the clean air standards. Instead of properly addressing these problems prior to approval of the project, they contend, the agencies improperly shifted to New Hampshire the burden of achieving future conformity through amendments to the SIP. a. Evidence of Violation of Conformity Criteria. a. Evidence of Violation of Conformity Criteria. Plaintiffs contend that the redevelopment of Pease will cause new violations of the NAAQS for CO, increase violations of the NAAQS for ozone, and delay attainment of CAA standards, in contravention of section 7506(c)(1)(B).
(i) Evidence Regarding Effects of Phase I Redevelopment. The NHDES studies discussed in the Varney letter Redevelopment. and the post-FEIS studies on the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange indicate that Phase I redevelopment activities will conform to the section 7506(c)(1)(B) criteria, as long as New Hampshire improves the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange as required.7 As discussed above, NHDES studies used 1989 and 1990 emissions estimates as the baseline for performing the conformity analyses. The EPA, Air Force, and the FAA adopted those studies in making their conformity determinations. 7 New Hampshire is committed to making these improvements because, as noted above, NHDES's conclusion that Pease redevelopment through Phase I meets the conformity criteria was based on the assumption that this interchange would be improved. See supra p. 42 n.6. Similarly the FAA's conformity determination was based in part on improvement of the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange. -37- Section 7506(c)(1)(B) states that [t]he determination of conformity shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions . . . . NHDES explained that it selected 1989 and 1990 rather than 1991 (the year it performed the analysis) as baseline years because 1989 was the most recent year representative of full- scale military operation at Pease. This appears to us to be the most relevant comparison, since Congress's intention in Section [7506(c)] is clearly to evaluate new developments in the context of pre-existing conditions . . . . We assume that Congress did not intend that a project like Pease redevelopment would be penalized under [7506(c)] because there is a temporal gap between the federal government's decision to terminate operations at Pease and the start- up of the State's redevelopment of the base, during which a temporary reduction in the emission inventory occurred as a result of activity phase-down. Use of 1991 as a baseline, it added, would unfairly penalize the Pease redevelopment project, since 1991 emissions of CO, NOX and VOCs are significantly less than historical norms because of the Air Force's cessation of activities at Pease. Under the Chevron doctrine, an agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to weight when the statute is silent or ambiguous. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-3 (1984). As an abstract matter, the words of the statute, most recent estimates, would not be considered ambiguous; a literal interpretation would require the agencies to use 1991 data. See 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B) (conformity determination shall be -38- based on the most recent estimates of emissions . . . .) (emphasis added). Courts have, however, recognized that [a] statute may be ambiguous if its application leads to an irrational or absurd result. Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 970 n.3 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing In re Rodman, 792 F.2d 125, 128 n.8 (10th Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Real Estate Known as 916 Douglas Ave., 903 F.2d 490, 492 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991). Courts have also recognized that [t]he plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the 'rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters.' United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989), (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982)) (emphasis added). This appears to us to be one of those rare cases where the plain meaning would lead to a result that is irrational and at odds with the intention of the legislature. Read literally, the plain language of the statute as applied in base-closing cases would require conformity determinations to be based on a wholly artificial situation, the interval during which military operations have shut down and civilian activities not yet started. The likely consequence in many cases would be to preclude any economically beneficial use of a closed military base. Such a result is irrational and presumably unintended by Congress. In view of Congress's strong support of civilian redevelopment of closed military bases, see -39- infra pp. 57-58, it would not have wanted to erect a major obstacle to economically beneficial, post-closing uses of a base. Thus, the agencies' reliance on the NHDES studies based on 1989 and 1990 estimates was reasonable under the circumstances. Those studies support the determination that Phase I redevelopment meets the statutory conformity criteria.
(ii) Evidence Regarding Effects of Post-Phase I Redevelopment. Other air quality studies conducted by NHDES, Redevelopment. however, suggest potential violation of the conformity criteria in later phases of Pease redevelopment, absent mitigation measures. With respect to CO emissions, the FEIS indicated that by the year 2010 redevelopment was expected to generate 68,000 daily vehicle trips into the Pease area. The main area of concern for traffic congestion causing emissions increases is the intersection of Spaulding Turnpike and Gosling Road. Post-FEIS air quality studies of that intersection indicated that, while construction of the new Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange by NHDOT would bring the area into compliance with NAAQS for CO through the end of the decade, traffic volumes associated with Pease redevelopment and regional growth through the full build-out year 2010 could cause violations unless a second entrance interchange to Pease was constructed. Redevelopment would therefore contribute to new violations of the NAAQS for CO sometime after the turn of the century. Similarly, an EPA memorandum dated July 24, 1991, indicated that, while Phase I of Pease redevelopment was expected -40- to generate only 2.5 tons per day of HCs (a major ozone precursor), Phase II extending to the year 2002 was estimated to generate 4.8 tons per day. At that level, Phase II would increase existing violations, as well as delay attainment, of the NAAQS for ozone absent some other changes or the institution of mitigation measures. b. Mitigation Measures. Plaintiffs contend that the b. Mitigation Measures. supporting agencies improperly shifted the burden of compliance to New Hampshire and the SIP process and that the mitigation measures agreed to by the parties failed to meet the statutory criteria of the conformity provision. (i) Carbon Monoxide. With respect to CO emissions, (i) Carbon Monoxide. the MOU requires PDA to conduct a surface transportation study, develop a traffic model and master plan for the Pease area, conduct intermittent CO analyses, and implement mitigation measures as needed. As to the latter, the MOU states categorically that PDA, and if necessary in conjunction with any other appropriate state agency, will implement measures necessary to reduce projected traffic increases and/or air emissions impacts to a level which will not result in any violation of, or any contribution to a violation of, the NAAQS for carbon monoxide. (Emphasis added.) These commitments are sufficient to ensure compliance with the statutory requirement that Pease redevelopment will not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS for CO, see 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)(I), for two reasons. -41- First, PDA's open-ended commitment to implement necessary mitigation measures includes by implication a commitment to implement the mitigation measures already identified in the area of the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange. Specifically, it includes a commitment by PDA, along with NHDOT and other necessary state agencies, to build the second access to Pease, unless later studies reveal preferable alternatives for satisfying the commitment. See supra pp. 38-39. Corroborating this commitment is a July 31, 1991, letter from PDA to the Air Force stating that compliance with the NAAQS would require completion of improvements to the Spaulding Turnpike/Gosling Road interchange as well as construction of a second access to Pease prior to the time the improved interchange reaches maximum capacity. To permit construction of the second access, PDA requested that a portion of the golf course at Pease be made available. In the Application and Acceptance for the transfer of airport property, the Air Force agreed to transfer the needed portions of the golf course. Second, the agreement requiring ongoing studies and analyses and implementation of mitigation measures as needed was a reasonable way to ensure conformity under the circumstances. The details of the redevelopment project are not fixed and its time line is extended. As the FAA pointed out in its ROD, air quality impacts stemming from certain aspects of the airport development were speculative when the conformity determinations -42- were made because the project-specific design detail necessary to assess those impacts properly and develop a range of alternative mitigation measures was lacking. Similarly, the nonaviation business tenants at the on-airport industrial park had not yet been selected. In addition, over the 20-year life of Pease redevelopment, other environmental factors in the region, as well as technologies available to address them, may change. Given these uncertainties, a commitment to pursue ongoing studies and analyses and to implement appropriate mitigation measures based on demonstrated needs was a reasonable approach to meeting the statutory requirement. (ii) Ozone Precursors. With respect to ozone (ii) Ozone Precursors. standards, the MOU requires NHDES to work with PDA and incorporate projected emissions from Pease redevelopment into the SIP revisions.8 Unless and until the new SIP is approved, however, it bars PDA from developing Pease beyond the level anticipated to generate 3.3 tons per day of hydrocarbon emissions--the level of emissions from Pease permitted under the existing SIP. Thus, the MOU does not place the entire burden of addressing HC emissions on the SIP process. To the extent that the MOU does rely on the SIP process to deal with projected increases in HC emissions, however, it 8 According to the 1990 Amendments, New Hampshire was required to revise its SIP to achieve at least a 15% reduction in VOC emissions (including HCs) from 1990 levels on or before November of 1996 (accounting for any growth in emissions after 1990), and 3% additional annual reductions on average thereafter through 1999. See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(1)(A) & (c)(2)(B) (Supp. III 1991). -43- does so properly under the circumstances. The 1990 CAA amendments required New Hampshire to revise its SIP to address VOC emissions (which include HC emissions) within approximately three years. See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c), (b)(1). See supra p. 14. NHDES's commitment to consult with PDA and incorporate emissions from Pease development into required revisions of the SIP is consistent with the SIP process and NHDES's role as the state agency responsible for developing the SIP. While the EPA and the legislature set ultimate standards and goals--including the NAAQS and deadlines for attaining them--the state prescribes in its SIP how it will achieve those goals. See 42 U.S.C. 7407. Thus, if NHDES chooses to incorporate into the required revisions of the SIP certain levels of emissions from the Pease project, that is its prerogative under the statutory SIP process. By agreeing to incorporate Pease emissions into SIP revisions that will reduce overall ozone-precursor emissions in the region, NHDES has enabled PDA to undertake the redevelopment without increasing the severity of or delaying attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Presumably New Hampshire will accommodate increased HC emissions from Pease and achieve interim required emissions reductions and timely attainment of the NAAQS for ozone by cutting VOC emissions in other areas. This will permit later stages of Pease redevelopment to go forward without increasing existing violations of the NAAQS for ozone or delaying attainment -44- of the NAAQS for ozone or other CAA standards. 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1)(B)(ii), (iii). Unless and until a new SIP incorporating higher levels of emissions from Pease is approved, however, the MOU prohibits redevelopment of Pease beyond a level producing 3.3 tons per day of HC emissions. While the cap is in compliance with the terms of the existing SIP, it is not so clear it will ensure that Pease redevelopment activities will not increase the severity of existing ozone violations and delay compliance with ozone standards. Whether redevelopment will increase the severity of existing violations depends in part on the baseline emissions. When compared to 1989 emissions, 3.3 tons per day represents no increase in the severity of violations of the NAAQS for ozone. Because, as we stated earlier, use of 1989 estimates is reasonable under the circumstances, see supra pp. 45-47, and because the existing SIP permits this level of emissions, the provisions of the MOU satisfy the conformity requirements under section 7506(c)(1)(B)(ii). Regarding delaying attainment of the ozone standards, plaintiffs appear to suggest that to meet the section 7506(c)(1)(B)(iii) criteria, emissions from the Pease project must be consistent with the VOC emissions reductions set out in 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(2). Prior to incorporation into a revised SIP, however, these reductions apply only in conformity decisions related to transportation plans, programs and projects and therefore are not relevant here. See 42 U.S.C. -45- 7506(c)(3)(A)(iii); see also 136 Cong. Rec. S16973 (October 27, 1990) (Statement of Senator Baucus, sponsor and manager of the Senate bill) ([Transportation] plans and programs adopted for areas that are nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide during the interim period shall contribute to annual emission reductions consistent with the emissions reductions schedules adopted in the bill for such areas. . . .) (emphasis added).