Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey
290 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 938 F.2d 190, 1991 WL 100655 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal agency may define the objectives of a proposed action in relation to the specific, localized goals of the project's applicant. The agency is not required to analyze in detail alternatives that do not meet these reasonably defined objectives.
Facts:
- The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority sought to expand the Toledo Express Airport to establish it as a cargo hub.
- Burlington Air Express, Inc., an air cargo company, chose the Toledo Express Airport for its new hub after evaluating seventeen sites in four states.
- The proposed expansion involved constructing a new concrete ramp, a warehouse, and extending a runway to accommodate Burlington's operations.
- The planned expansion would significantly increase aircraft noise over the nearby Oak Openings Preserve Metropark, a recreational area which includes the Springbrook Group Camp.
- The Port Authority hired a consulting firm, Coffman Associates, Inc., to prepare an environmental assessment which was later converted into an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
- The final EIS prepared under the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) oversight considered in detail only two alternatives: approving the Port Authority’s plan for expansion or taking no action.
- The FAA's stated purpose for the action was to facilitate the establishment of an air cargo hub in Toledo to promote local economic development, and it concluded that other locations would not achieve this purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority submitted its airport expansion proposal to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for approval.
- The FAA prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), held a public hearing, received comments, and then published a final EIS.
- The FAA issued a record of decision approving the plan to expand the Toledo Express Airport.
- Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. (petitioners) filed a petition for review of the FAA's final order in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The petitioners' motion to stay the FAA's order pending review was denied by the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal agency violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by defining the objective of its action so narrowly that it only conducts a detailed environmental analysis of the applicant's proposed plan and a 'no action' alternative, while excluding alternatives that would not achieve the applicant's localized goals?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
No. A federal agency does not violate NEPA by defining its objectives in a way that limits the range of reasonable alternatives, as long as that definition of purpose is itself reasonable. The FAA acted reasonably in defining the purpose of its action as assisting Toledo's economic development by establishing a local cargo hub. Under NEPA's 'rule of reason,' an agency must consider reasonable alternatives that can accomplish the ends of the federal action. Here, alternatives such as expanding the airport in Fort Wayne would not accomplish the FAA's defined goal of boosting the Toledo-area economy. An agency may give substantial weight to the needs and goals of the project applicant and should consider congressional directives, such as the policy of promoting cargo hubs while allowing market forces to determine their location. The FAA's decision to limit its detailed analysis to the Toledo proposal and the 'no action' alternative was therefore permissible. However, the FAA did violate a Council on Environmental Quality regulation by allowing the Port Authority, rather than the agency itself, to select the contractor that prepared the EIS and by failing to ensure the contractor executed a conflict-of-interest disclosure statement, which must be remedied on remand.
Dissenting - Buckley, J.
Yes. The FAA violated NEPA by defining its objectives too narrowly and uncritically accepting the applicant's self-serving assertion that Toledo was the only viable location for its hub. NEPA requires an agency to evaluate alternative means to accomplish the 'general goal' of an action, which in this case was to find a permanent home for Burlington's cargo hub, not just to aid Toledo's economy. The FAA had a duty to independently investigate whether other locations, such as Fort Wayne, were feasible alternatives from a technical and economic standpoint, rather than simply deferring to the applicant's 'Toledo-or-bust' position. By allowing the applicant and a third-party beneficiary to define the limits of the environmental inquiry, the agency rendered the EIS a 'foreordained formality' and frustrated NEPA's core purpose of ensuring that federal decision-makers consider all reasonable alternatives.
Analysis:
This decision significantly empowers federal agencies to narrow the scope of the 'alternatives' analysis required under NEPA, particularly when an agency's action is responsive to a local or private application. By granting agencies deference to define a project's purpose in line with the applicant's specific, localized goals, the court makes it more difficult for project opponents to compel consideration of alternative locations or fundamentally different project designs. The ruling reinforces the principle that NEPA is a procedural statute that ensures informed decision-making but does not dictate substantive outcomes. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the 'reasonableness' of an agency's purpose definition, arguing that it is so parochial as to be a sham.
