Memorandum Opinion and Order - US District Court - Northern ...

implementation of the RBTI. In addition, Defendants correctly point out that (1) the FAA is thefinal approval authority for special use airspace and cannot take a position on any particularspecial use airspace proposal prior to the completion of the NEPA and aeronautical processingphases, see FAA Handbook 7400.2D, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and (2)Plaintiffs have failed to show that Defendants’ post-ROD consideration of the FAA’s FinalAeronautical Study regarding the use of the Lancer MOA/ATCAA in any way violated thetiming requirements of NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1506.10.This Court is persuaded, therefore, that Defendants took a hard look at the potentialadverse environmental consequences of the RBTI and, when judged against the rule of reason,fully complied with the action-forcing procedures of NEPA.B. Public CommentsPlaintiffs complain that Defendants overlooked substantive comments from the public,other agencies, and its own experts. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants, without meaningfuldiscussion, summarily dismissed legitimate criticisms regarding the impacts of the RBTI onranching operations, the presence of unburned fuel emissions, the effects of wake vortices and jetblasts on people and ground structures, and the potential to adversely impact property values.Defendants respond by arguing that the scoping process ran from publication of theNotice of Intent on December 19, 1997, through April 3, 1998. Throughout that time, publicmeetings were held in nine locations across western Texas and northeastern New Mexico, aswell as in La Junta, Colorado, and Harrison, Arkansas. Thereafter, Defendants contend thatmore than 900 copies of the DEIS were sent to agencies, the public, and various repositories,39