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

However, no decision on the proposed action shall be made by the agency until the later of (1)ninety days after publication of the DEIS; or (2) thirty days after publication of the FEIS. Id.§ 1506.10.As to Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants failed to adequately consider the FAA’sinput, this Court is convinced that Defendants timely engaged the FAA in the EIS process. TheAR clearly indicates the inclusion of the FAA as part of the IICEP process as early as December1997. The FAA initially responded in January 1998 and thereafter maintained an activeparticipatory role which began with attendance at the public scoping meetings and culminatedwith the issuance of the FAA’s Final Aeronautical Study in July 2000.Moreover, CEQ regulations proscribe Defendants from making a decision until ninetydays after publication of the notice of the DEIS or until thirty days after publication of the noticeof the FEIS. Here, the AR reveals that the notice for the DEIS was published on March 30,1999, and that the notice for the FEIS was published on February 1, 2000. Because the RODwas signed in April, 2000, this Court finds that Defendants fully complied with the timingrequirements under NEPA; and because the FAA’s independent Formal Aeronautical Study wasnot issued until July 28, 2000, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are incorrect in insisting that thestudy should have been a part of the RBTI AR before the decisionmaker. Consequently, thisCourt concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims that the FAA was not timely involved in the NEPA RBTIprocess and that Defendants failed to consider the FAA’s input are without merit.E. Baseline/AlternativesPlaintiffs contend that, from its inception, the RBTI’s purpose and need analysis wasconducted using artificially inflated baseline numbers, particularly with regard to the operation47