Summary

In September 2007, after 9 years of evaluation and a cost of over $53 million, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced it would begin implementing a new airspace structure for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area. According to FAA, this redesign of routes leading to and from commercial airports will fully integrate the airspace in the region, produce $300 million annual savings, and reduce delay by 20 percent once fully implemented. Critics disagree and cite potential increases in aircraft noise and other adverse environmental impacts. GAO was asked to examine: (1) the extent to which FAA followed legal requirements for its environmental review, (2) the extent to which FAA's methodology in assessing operational and noise impacts was reasonable, and (3) the likelihood FAA will meet its projected time frames and costs of implementation. GAO's legal analysis covered applicable federal laws, regulations, court decisions, and FAA orders. GAO's analysis of FAA's methodology was based on criteria established through review of federal policy, FAA's guidance, prior GAO reports, and standards from the aviation and analytical community. With the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, GAO identified experts in the fields of environmental policies and procedures, airspace operations, and aircraft noise measurement and obtained their views on relevant aspects of FAA's methodology.

GAO evaluated FAA's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental justice directives in conducting the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign project. In assessing compliance, GAO used established court precedent applying these requirements, as well as the standard of review for agency actions established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which is deferential to agency decision making. Courts interpret the APA standard--whether an agency's actions were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"--as mandating that an agency act reasonably in carrying out NEPA's requirements and that the agency's ultimate decisions be reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. GAO reviewed FAA's compliance with respect to five key issues: the statement of the project's purpose and need, the evaluation of alternatives, consideration of the project's environmental effects, public participation, and environmental justice matters. GAO selected these issues based on public concerns raised during and after the NEPA process, congressional interest, the views of experts we interviewed, and GAO's evaluation of the range of concerns presented. Applying these legal requirements and the APA's reasonableness standard, GAO concluded that FAA complied with applicable NEPA requirements and related environmental justice directives. First, the statement of the project's purpose and need--which defines the objective of the project and which, in this case, was to increase the efficiency and reliability of the airspace while enhancing safety and reducing delays--was reasonable. The statement was reasonable in scope, as it was not defined too narrowly or too broadly, and it reasonably excluded noise reduction. Second, FAA developed a reasonable range of alternatives to the redesign and appropriately evaluated these alternatives. As required, FAA included a no-action alternative to serve as a baseline, as well as alternatives that would achieve the project's purpose and need. FAA also discussed options eliminated from detailed analysis, and explored and objectively evaluated the remaining alternatives. Third, FAA acted reasonably in not analyzing the indirect environmental effects of potential growth resulting from the redesign. Because FAA found the redesign in itself would not increase traffic demand and flight operations, it did not consider the potential environmental impacts of these system improvements. In the aviation context, courts have uniformly upheld similar decisions by FAA where, as in this case, the purpose of the project was not to induce growth and the project did not include capacity-enhancing construction, such as the addition of a runway. Fourth, FAA reasonably involved the public throughout the environmental review process. It took actions required to ensure public outreach including conducting an early and open process, providing notice of and holding public meetings, and soliciting and responding to public comments. Fifth, FAA satisfied environmental justice directives in Executive Order 12898 and related guidance and Orders. FAA prepared an analysis that identified minority and low-income populations significantly impacted by the proposed redesign, and determined whether the impact on these populations was disproportionate. FAA also involved these individuals throughout the environmental review process. In addition, FAA mitigated these significant impacts by altering arrival procedures and departure headings, raising arrival altitudes, and other related measures.