[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Case number 24-1028 et al.

[00:00:03] Speaker 00:
Save the Sound Inc.

[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
Petitioner versus Federal Aviation Administration and Michael Whitaker in his capacity as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Heralik for the petitioners, Ms.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
Jaffee for the respondents.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Council.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
Heralik, please proceed when you're ready.

[00:00:21] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:22] Speaker 05:
Good morning.

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
May it please the court.

[00:00:24] Speaker 05:
My name is Dana Horelik.

[00:00:25] Speaker 05:
I represent the town of East Haven, Connecticut.

[00:00:27] Speaker 05:
I'm joined by counsel for co-petitioner Save the Sound, and I will be presenting argument on behalf of both petitioners today.

[00:00:33] Speaker 05:
I have requested two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:36] Speaker 05:
These consolidated petitions challenge the FAA's fundamentally deficient NEPA review of the proposed expansion of Tweed Airport in southern Connecticut.

[00:00:45] Speaker 05:
Tweed is a small regional airport.

[00:00:47] Speaker 05:
It is located in a FEMA designated floodplain that mostly consists of inland and coastal wetlands and is closely surrounded by densely populated residential neighborhoods that share space in the same floodplain.

[00:00:59] Speaker 05:
In fact, the runway is so close to the neighboring residential communities that you could literally stand on it and hit a baseball into someone's backyard.

[00:01:06] Speaker 05:
The proposed action is but one piece of a massive project to expand the airport in this small community.

[00:01:12] Speaker 05:
Instead of acknowledging the interconnected nature of the comprehensive master plan from which the proposed action was born,

[00:01:18] Speaker 05:
The FAA isolated it and considered it in a vacuum.

[00:01:21] Speaker 05:
In so doing, the FAA was able to escape the unavoidable conclusion that significant environmental impacts will be experienced in this already burdened environmental justice community.

[00:01:32] Speaker 05:
The FAA's environmental assessment and its subsequent finding of no significant impact were arbitrary and capricious for four reasons which we lay out fully in our briefs.

[00:01:40] Speaker 05:
I'd like to focus today primarily on our cumulative impact analysis, but I will begin by briefly mentioning that the environmental assessment did fail to take the requisite hard look at the impacts of the proposed action on flooding, stormwater pollution, and inland and tidal wetlands in the FEMA designated floodplain in which the airport sits.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
Hard look.

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
Sounds like a favorable standard for you.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
Do you think it fairly states NEPA law post-7 County?

[00:02:12] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:02:14] Speaker 05:
Under 7 County, Justice Kavanaugh for the court emphasized that the agency is due deference, but nevertheless must still provide a reasoned analysis for its decision.

[00:02:25] Speaker 05:
And a hard look provides precisely that, that the agency must provide the reasons for why it came to the conclusion it came to, and it can't simply write the ending before it writes the rest of the book.

[00:02:38] Speaker 05:
As agencies and experts in this case pointed out, for example, FAA's analysis underestimates the amount of fill required to mitigate the impacts from localized flooding.

[00:02:48] Speaker 05:
It fails to account for the impact of grading and filling wetlands.

[00:02:52] Speaker 05:
And it utterly fails to provide specific mitigation measures beyond simply referring to third party permitting processes.

[00:02:59] Speaker 05:
It is devoid of the details and reasoned conclusions that a hard look demands and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

[00:03:05] Speaker 05:
The FAA doubled down and compounded this error by ignoring the cumulative environmental impacts of the taxiway reconfiguration, which all parties can see will happen as a connected.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
Really the issue, whether it was arbitrary and capricious for the FAA to use the kind of five year window.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
Isn't that really what that argument comes down to?

[00:03:34] Speaker 05:
I think that's a piece of the argument, Your Honor.

[00:03:35] Speaker 05:
I think the five-year window is convenient given the phasing timeline that was set out in the master plan and thereafter adopted by the FAA in the environmental assessment.

[00:03:50] Speaker 05:
But I think more so is the fact that the taxiway reconfiguration

[00:03:57] Speaker 05:
is and was envisioned initially in the master plan as a necessary and integral part of this entire proposed expansion.

[00:04:04] Speaker 05:
It's reasonably foreseeable and reasonably certain for a number of reasons.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Necessary and integral part of those words, is that your characterization or is that the way that the agency characterized?

[00:04:23] Speaker 05:
I don't want to speak for sister council.

[00:04:25] Speaker 05:
She would probably disagree with that characterization.

[00:04:27] Speaker 05:
So that is our characterization.

[00:04:29] Speaker 05:
But I do believe it's accurately reflected in the master plan and, quite frankly, in the analyses that are lacking in the environmental assessment.

[00:04:38] Speaker 05:
It's clear that the taxiway reconfiguration will take place in the same geographic location as the runway expansion.

[00:04:47] Speaker 05:
It has the same project sponsor.

[00:04:49] Speaker 05:
The same entities will be overseeing it.

[00:04:51] Speaker 05:
It has the same funding.

[00:04:54] Speaker 05:
And the FAA has regulatory authority over both.

[00:04:56] Speaker 05:
The impacts of both projects will absolutely be felt in the same geographic area.

[00:05:03] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, I take it at some point you would agree, or at least you wouldn't disagree, that time horizons and likelihood has to factor into it in some measure, right?

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
So if it's a longer time horizon for when that's going to happen and there's at least some uncertainty about the exact parameters and contours, that seems like it would be germane to whether we would require the agency to consider them as a whole as a cumulative impact or whether it's fair to

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
put one off to the side for now, given the time horizon and the uncertainty?

[00:05:43] Speaker 05:
It would be Jermaine.

[00:05:45] Speaker 05:
It is Jermaine, Your Honor, but the record reflects in this case that this is not a hypothetical potential project that the parties or really that the town and the authority put into a bucket and set to the side to be considered.

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
In the master plan, which envisions the entire proposed action, the taxiway reconfiguration was mapped

[00:06:04] Speaker 05:
precisely, its precise location was mapped out, the layout specifications, the timetable for its completion.

[00:06:10] Speaker 05:
And I will note that it is a phased process, but every phase of the action includes some aspect of a taxiway reconfiguration.

[00:06:21] Speaker 05:
The airport layout plan itself also envisions the taxiway reconfiguration.

[00:06:26] Speaker 05:
The taxiway reconfiguration is the only proposal, the only proposal in the master plan that will bring the runway and taxiway into FAA compliance with the offset, the separation standard, the 400 foot separation standard.

[00:06:41] Speaker 05:
It's currently not compliant.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
But isn't it the case that

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
that standard may not be met, but it's not mandatory standard.

[00:06:53] Speaker 05:
It's not a mandatory standard, Your Honor.

[00:06:56] Speaker 05:
I would agree with that characterization.

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
However, there's no doubt that it certainly plays a large role in ensuring public safety and FAA itself in its brief has conceded that after the construction of the expanded runway will be completed, it will be necessary and FAA said it will be necessary to reassess the safety standards of the taxiway or of the runway in light of current taxiway construction.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
to see what's next.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
So if the agency concedes as it has here that there's going to be a separate NEPA analysis if and when that taxiway reconfiguration is, they proceed with it, what's your prejudice here?

[00:07:39] Speaker 05:
The prejudice is all of the harm that flows from waiting, Your Honor.

[00:07:43] Speaker 05:
There's no doubt that there will be significant impacts and the law requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of related and reasonably foreseeable actions by failing to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed action and also this reasonably foreseeable action.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
But there's a chance that the taxiway reconfiguration may not happen or it may not happen in the same scope.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
I mean, yes, it's planned and it's been

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
designs have been met, but plans change, designs change.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
When that happens, there will be a NEPA analysis, and to the extent that

[00:08:25] Speaker 02:
those impacts from the taxiway reconfiguration are considered, that analysis will have to consider all of the changes from this current project too, right?

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
So at that point, there will be an evaluation of everything, right?

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
There will at that point, Your Honor, but the damage, the harm from the initial action will already have been done.

[00:08:52] Speaker 05:
And to be blunt, the taxiway reconfiguration not happening is precisely what we're hoping to avoid.

[00:09:00] Speaker 05:
We believe that everything should be considered at the same time in order to fully assess and understand what the impact of these actions will have, the true and accurate impact of these evaluations.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
I want to make sure I understand what you said.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
You're trying to avoid there not the taxiway reconfiguration never happening, or just the consideration of all the facts?

[00:09:26] Speaker 05:
The consideration, Your Honor.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
But my point is that it will be considered if and when that reconsideration is actually going to move forward.

[00:09:38] Speaker 05:
And Your Honor, until then, the harm will be in the face of public safety.

[00:09:42] Speaker 05:
The harm will be to the residential neighborhoods that have bought the airport, which are a protective environmental justice community.

[00:09:49] Speaker 05:
The harm will be to the wetlands, the severe flooding that already exists in current conditions.

[00:09:54] Speaker 05:
in the airport and that as experts and agencies pointed out will only be exacerbated by the proposed mitigation measures from FAA.

[00:10:02] Speaker 05:
The harm will be tremendous and even if the taxiway reconfiguration doesn't happen for, we'll use the magic number five, another five years, the impacts

[00:10:13] Speaker 05:
of what this construction project now will have will be felt for years beyond that.

[00:10:19] Speaker 05:
So there's no doubt that the impact will be felt.

[00:10:22] Speaker 05:
And it will be exacerbated by the delay.

[00:10:25] Speaker 05:
By stepping back and considering them together, it will allow all of the agencies with an interest here and the town who's shouldering the burden of the land space where the new terminal will be constructed.

[00:10:39] Speaker 05:
to make a more reasoned analysis and determine truly best mitigation efforts and impacts or efforts to mitigate the impacts moving forward.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
Make sure my colleagues don't have additional questions at this point.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
We'll give you a little time for rebuttal.

[00:10:54] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
From Agency Council now, Ms.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
Chaffee.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Rebecca Jaffe, appearing on behalf of the United States.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
With me at council table is Evan Baylor from the Federal Aviation Administration.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
The court should deny the petitions.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Seven County guides the result here and the court should defer to FAA's reasonable analysis.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
The master plan represents 20 years of potential projects at the airport.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Projects change.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
For example, the runway extension here is 60 feet shorter than the one depicted on the master plan because the airport wanted to avoid impacts to tidal wetlands.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
The project at issue here involves extending the runway to accommodate existing and reasonably foreseeable aircraft operations and address operational constraints from having a short runway.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
There is no proposal before FAA right now to reconfigure the taxiways and no indication that it will happen anytime soon, if at all.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
I want to respond to the point that it's going to be unsafe if the taxiways are not extended.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
First of all, safety is of paramount importance to FAA.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Second of all, the airport is not required to extend the taxiways simply because the runway may be extended.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Instead, FAA and the airport can and will implement various operational controls to maintain safety, even without the ideal taxiway configuration.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
which frankly many airports do not have ideal taxiway configurations.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
The extended runway will have turnaround pavement at each end so airplanes can turn around at the end of the runway.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
The airport will coordinate with air traffic control to establish procedures so that the runway can be safely used as a taxiway.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
If necessary, FAA can increase visibility minimums to make sure that pilots can see if there's a plane on the runway before landing.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
The taxiway reconfiguration as conceived on the master plan requires relocating a portion of a city street and acquiring private properties, which the airport would only do on a willing seller basis.

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
That is not happening anytime soon and certainly not within the next five years.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
As the Supreme Court said in Seven County, the textually mandated focus of NEPA is the proposed action, that is, the project at hand, not other future projects that may be built as a result of or in the wake of the immediate project under consideration.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
The agency may draw what it reasonably concludes is a manageable line, one that encompasses the effects of the project at hand, but not the effects of projects separate in time.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
That's what FAA did here, and that's what was reasonable.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
I will also note that the taxiway reconfiguration, I think petitioners argue the whole point of it is just to meet the new ends of the extended runway.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
Can I interrupt for a second?

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
What's the magic in five years of using five years?

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
Five years, so when FAA looks at cumulative impacts, its NEPA order directs it to look about five years in the future because FAA thinks that's a reasonable look at what is going to be likely to actually happen.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
FAA defines reasonably foreseeable as an action that a proponent would likely complete and that has been developed with enough specificity to provide meaningful information.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
That's at A760.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
If FAA looked, say, 20 years in the future,

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
It could look at all the projects on the master plan, but it would be so speculative.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
Are these properties going to get acquired?

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
Might they not shift the taxiway somewhat over here?

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
Is the taxiway going to happen at all?

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
And there are other projects on the master plan.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
The airport has the idea of expanding the fuel farm, expanding various parking lots.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
But those parking lots might conflict with wetlands that are on the airport property.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
It seems like you could have the... You're taking what somebody defines as a project as a given.

[00:15:22] Speaker 04:
And I'm not sure there's anything talismanic about what somebody happens to call a project because you could definitely have a 20-year project.

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
It would still be one project.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
It's of course true that even if it lasts for 20 years, then things that are on in the future, contingencies could arise, things could change.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
That would be true.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
But I'm not saying this necessarily means that what the agency did is arbitrary.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
But it also doesn't seem like five years is some magic figure than beyond which anything becomes totally up for grabs because you absolutely have projects that are longer termed than that.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
And I take it that if it's all part of one project, even if there's aspects of a project that might or might not change going forward, all of that would be considered holistically together as one whole for purposes of NEPA analysis.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
So I have a couple responses to that, Your Honor.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
First of all, I don't think FAA took the airport's definition of what a project is as a given.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
And its analysis here, FAA didn't just look at the runway.

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
It also looked at, OK, what cuts are we going to do?

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
to compensate for filling other parts of the airport area, what stormwater management is going to happen with the changes, the increased impervious surfaces on the airport property.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
So it didn't just say, OK, we're just going to look at extending pavement on the ends of the runway.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
It said, what are all the things that are going to come along with this?

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
And does this project in and of itself have independent utility?

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
which FAA said it does because they want to address operational constraints from having such a short runway.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
Seven County talks about the agency can draw reasonable lines.

[00:17:13] Speaker 01:
And here, if this is not a situation where FAA said, well, we think it'll take five years for them to build the first half of the runway extension, so we won't look at the second half.

[00:17:24] Speaker 01:
What what FAA said is we think that we have one project in front of us that is concretely proposed and we're going to look at that.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
We don't know that these other things the airport wants to do can and ever will happen.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
If, for example, this was a project to build an entirely new airport, which this is not, but just hypothetically speaking,

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
FAA might say, okay, we think the construction of this entirely new airport might take seven years.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
FAA wouldn't say, okay, we don't have to look at years six and seven and everything that will happen there.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
The point is here, what's a reasonable line for the agency to draw based on the proposal that's in front of it?

[00:18:00] Speaker 01:
And the master plan contains so many things that the airport would like to do.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
But the aviation environment is dynamic.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
Five years ago, Avelo Airlines was not operating at this airport at all.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
American Airlines was with a different type of schedule.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
Then American Airlines left, and then Avelo came.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
So I think FAA also has to be reasonable about

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
What is going to reasonably inform our decision-making here and enable us to consider the action that is in front of us?

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
As the Supreme Court said in Seven County, the goal is to inform decision-making, not to paralyze it.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
It may not have this right, but I thought I saw something in the record.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
that said that the tax away reconfiguration was really more like in the six to nine year range out.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
Did I, am I misremembering?

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
And if that's the case, then I guess to follow up one last question.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Isn't that foreseeable enough or close enough that like, again, what's the magic in five years as opposed to six to nine years?

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
But I may correct me if I've got that factual premise wrong.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
So a couple of points to that, Your Honor.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
First of all, I'm not sure about the six to nine year range.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
I will note that I think a lot of the timelines that the airport had in its master plan have already been shifted back.

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
For example, in the master plan, the airport thought that the runway would be extended and done by 2026.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
And I think the project's gotten pushed back.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
So that first.

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
The taxiway reconfiguration, I think petitioners are framing it as one project that encompasses all of the taxiways, but there are different pieces to the taxiways and independent utility at addressing certain issues.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
So FA always wants things to be more efficient.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
And the taxiways at this airport, which just taking a step back, was built in 1929, long before we had planes of the size that we have now, long before we had the aviation standards that we have now.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
So the taxiways at this airport have non-standard geometry.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
They come up to the

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
runway at acute angles, which is less efficient because then the pilots are kind of turning back in a funny way to look the one way.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
So the airport has reconfigured part of taxiway A already to address the nonstandard geometry at one intersection that FAA calls a high energy intersection, which just means lots happens there.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
So there's independent utility just in fixing the geometry at that intersection.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
So the other thing about the taxiways at this airport is that ideally FAA standards say that you want a 400 foot separation between the middle of the runway and the middle of the taxiway so that you can have planes of a certain size on the runway and the taxiway at the same time.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
This airport doesn't have that.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
So the taxiway reconfiguration, FAA would see utility in just moving a piece of the taxiway further away.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
And so they've already done taxiway A. There's a map at A1145 that sort of shows the different

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
phases of the taxiway reconfiguration and the time when the airport envisions doing it.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
Although, again, all of these time frames have gotten pushed back.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
So on this map, in purple is phase three pavement.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
So that's the furthest away.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
And that's the portions of the taxiway that would go all the way to the ends of the new extended runway.

[00:22:11] Speaker 04:
Phase three is on, that's 10 to 15, that's on in the future, right?

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
So I thought a meaningful portion of the taxiway reconfiguration project was

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
projected to be in phase three.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
Yes, very much of it.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
Um on the map, there's it.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
So, there's some taxiway that is neither purple nor orange.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
That part, that small part was already done.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
Um it's just gray on 1145 and that's because the airport already did it and they they fixed.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
There was non-standard geometry at the intersection with the runway which is less efficient.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
So, the airport already did that.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
There's the phase two is the orange taxiway and that would have utility again because it would fix your non-standard geometry.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
It would give you more separation.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
So there are a lot of different components to this taxiway reconfiguration.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
I think what is likely is that they're going to do the orange

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
Some years in the future, they may never do the purple.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
Because again, to do parts of the purple, they have to buy properties from private property owners.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
They have to extend the airport boundary.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
They have to move a city street.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
All of that is very contingent.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
And in the meantime, FAA obviously cares very much about safety.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
That is of paramount importance.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
And so FAA will work with the airport and say, OK, what procedures are we going to have to make sure that we can have airplanes taxiing on the runway safely and nobody else getting on the runway at the same time?

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
My colleagues don't have additional questions at this time.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
The court should deny the petitions.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:24:04] Speaker 05:
I think if we can take one theme from Sister Council's argument today, it's that and really from the FAA itself is that the FAA here prefers to defer to others in the future to see what will happen.

[00:24:19] Speaker 05:
He or she suggested that they will talk to air traffic control once the expansion is done to talk about how and whether it's safe to back taxi the airplanes.

[00:24:30] Speaker 05:
This expansion is going to be right now the taxiway goes to the end of the runways.

[00:24:34] Speaker 05:
the expansion will extend the runway but leave the taxiways where they are, which means you're going to have lengths of runway with no accompanying or connected taxiway.

[00:24:45] Speaker 05:
So the importance of public safety considerations when thinking about how an airplane that's much larger is going to have to safely turn around and make its way up and down the only runway at this airport, it is troubling.

[00:25:00] Speaker 05:
The taxiway reconfiguration itself is a concrete proposal.

[00:25:05] Speaker 05:
It is listed in the environmental assessment as a future action.

[00:25:09] Speaker 05:
The FAA admits that there is a risk for potential runway incursions as the airport sits right now with the runway.

[00:25:17] Speaker 05:
The reconfiguration plans are there to help mitigate that risk.

[00:25:22] Speaker 05:
The fact that we're standing here today talking about all of these details demonstrates that it's not some hypothetical plan that has been imagined and might happen.

[00:25:31] Speaker 05:
It has been thoroughly and comprehensively thought out and it has been considered a future proposal for this project.

[00:25:39] Speaker 05:
FAA did mention the entry of Avello here into the airport, but curiously, its environmental assessment does nothing more than mention it.

[00:25:46] Speaker 05:
It doesn't consider the fact that between 2021 and 2022, the number of enplainments grew by hundreds of thousands.

[00:25:56] Speaker 05:
It did not consider that impact, the impact of that past event as a cumulative impact.

[00:26:02] Speaker 05:
And lastly, I'll mention that there is a different standard the court should be aware of for segmentation, which considers independent utility and cumulative impacts, which does not.

[00:26:11] Speaker 05:
If there are no further questions, we'd ask that you grant the petitions for review.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
Thank you to both counsel.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
We'll take this case under submission.