BAC SP CATEX Burien V FAA 18-71705 Ninth Circuit Court 20191023 0001

Be'fore: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge. Petitioner, the city of Buden (“Buden”), is a town located to the west of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport (“Sea-Tac”). Burien challenges the FAA’s decision to approve a procedure for turning southbound turboprops to the west in certain wind * This disposition is not q)propriate for publication and is not precedent exl;ept as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the So-'uthern District of New York, sitting by designation. cc)nditions (' Ibe Procedure”). The Procedure automates a formerly manual process ol' assigning headings to such turboprops, and has the eRect of concentrating low- flying planes over Burien after takeoff. Buden argues that the FAA failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ('HEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., when it approved the Procedure. We agree in part. NEPA requires agencies such as the FAA to consider and document the environmental impacts of their actions prior to implementing them. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). Although NEPA usually requires agencies to conduct some form of environmental analysis before they act, an agency may idaltify certain actions as “categorical exclusions” (“CATEXs”) that are exempt from environmental review. CrTEXs are reserved for actions that do not “individually or cumulatively have a si£;niacant effect on the human edvironnrent.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. While agencies promulgate their own rules for identifying and applying CATEXs, all agencies aunt “provide for certain extraordinary circumstances in which a normally ex.eluded…
V V