The Cities of Culver City and Malibu petitioned for review of the Federal Aviation Administration's publication of a Categorical Exclusion/Record of Decision regarding the Next Generation Air Transportation System in the Southern California Metroplex. The FAA had originally implemented new air traffic procedures in 2016, which were challenged in the D.C. Circuit and upheld. In 2018, the FAA amended these procedures by adjusting altitude and speed restrictions at specific waypoints. The cities argued that the FAA violated the National Environmental Policy Act by using a categorical exclusion without a full environmental impact statement. While the cities claimed procedural injury from the lack of adequate rationale, the core dispute centered on whether the 2018 amendments caused them harm distinct from the original 2016 procedures.
Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote for the panel, addressing two primary hurdles: timeliness and standing. First, the court ruled that challenges to the original 2016 flight procedures were untimely. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), petitions for review of FAA orders must be filed within 60 days of the order's issuance. The court found no 'reasonable grounds' to excuse the cities' delay, citing precedent that a petitioner's own mistake or filing in the wrong court does not extend the deadline. Consequently, any challenge to the 2016 procedures was barred. Second, regarding the 2018 amendments, the court applied the standing requirements for procedural injuries under the National Environmental Policy Act. To establish standing, the cities had to show a 'reasonable probability' that the specific 2018 amendments threatened their concrete natural resource interests. The court found Malibu's declaration insufficient because the alleged increase in noise and flight paths stemmed from the 2016 procedures, not the 2018 amendments, which only altered altitude restrictions at waypoints that did not overfly Culver City and only one of which overflew Malibu. Culver City failed to submit any affidavit or evidence showing specific injury. Without evidence linking the 2018 amendments to a concrete threat, the cities could not satisfy their burden of proof.
The petitions are dismissed, meaning the FAA's 2018 flight procedure amendments remain in effect without judicial review on the merits of the environmental claims. The decision reinforces the strict 60-day filing deadline for FAA challenges and clarifies that procedural standing under NEPA requires specific evidence linking the challenged agency action to a concrete threat, not just a general interest in environmental protection. The court did not vacate the procedures or remand for further analysis, leaving the 2018 amendments legally operative.