On July 22, 2009, the deadline expired for public comments on an application filed with the FAA by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to impose a mandatory curfew on all aircraft operations at the Bob Hope Airport.  This is the first such application submitted for formal FAA review under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.  The City of Burbank, along with numerous residents living in neighborhoods surrounding the Airport, submitted comments in favor of the curfew.  Several aviation industry groups submitted comments opposing the curfew.  The FAA has until November 1, 2009, to render its decision the application.  Click on the link below to view and download comments submitted by our client, the City of Burbank.  To access all comments, visit www.regulations.gov and search for Docket FAA-2009-0546.

On July 15, 2009, Kaplan Kirsch's John Putnam released a white paper The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:  How Would the Bill Passed by the House Affect the Aviation Industry?  The paper provides a summary and analysis of the key features of the Waxman-Markey Bill with potential consequences for the airport and aviation industries.  Click on the link below to view and download a copy of the paper.  For information and other documents on the subject of aviation-related climate change, click on the Climate Change link at left.

On July 8, 2009, the FAA issued a Final Agency Decision and Order in an enforcement proceeding brought by the FAA against our client, the City of Santa Monica, based on the City's decision to ban Approach Category C and D aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport.  For background, see articles in Airport Law Alert #7 and Alert #9 and our news post dated May 14, 2009.  In the final order, the FAA concluded that the ban was preempted and violated Grant Assurance 22 (economic nondiscrimination).  However, the FAA also found (i) that the ban did not grant an exclusive right in violation of federal law and Grant Assurance 23, and (ii) that claims by the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards that the ban violated terms of a 1984 agreement between the City and the FAA and terms of transfer under the Surplus Property Act of 1944 were not reviewable in the Part 16 proceeding.  Click on the link below to view and download a copy of the Final Agency Decision and Order.

On July 2, 2009, the FAA dismissed a Part 16 complaint filed against our client, Montrose County, Colorado.  A company located adjacent to the Montrose Regional Airport alleged that the County had granted an exclusive right to the on-Airport FBO and engaged in economic discrimination.  Complainant's factual allegations concerned its unsuccessful efforts to become the second full-service FBO at the Airport.  The FAA correctly determined that the County did not violate the Grant Assurances.  Click on the link below to view and download a copy of the Director's Determination.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the City of Las Vegas' challenge to a change in departure procedures at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport.  In City of Las Vegas v. FAA, petitioners challenged the Environmental Assessment prepared by the FAA analyzing the environmental consequences of reinstating a turn to the north for certain flights departing from the airport.  The court summarily rejected each of petitioners' claims under NEPA and the Clean Air Act.  Click on the link below to view and download the court's decision.

On June 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied twelve consolidated petitions challenging the FAA's decision to redesign the airspace surrounding airports in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia.  In an unpublished opinion, the court in County of Rockland v. FAA rejected each of the claims presented by the petitioners, including arguments based on NEPA, the Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f), and the Clean Air Act.  Click on the link below to view and download the court's decision.

On May 14, 2009, an FAA Hearing Officer issued the Initial Decision in an enforcement proceeding against our client, the City of Santa Monica, based on the City's decision to ban category C and D aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport.  After a hearing in March 2009, the Hearing Officer held that the ban was inconsistent with (i) Grant Assurance 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination), (ii) deed restrictions in an instrument transferring Airport property from the federal government to the City under the Surplus Property Act, and (iii) the terms of a 1984 agreement between the City and the FAA.  The Hearing Officer found for the City in concluding that the ban did not grant an exclusive right in violation of federal law and Grant Assurance 23 and that the FAA's claim that the ban is preempted is not reviewable in an administrative proceeding under FAR Part 16.  The City and the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards have until May 29, 2009, to file an appeal of the Initial Decision with the FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning and Environment.  To view and download a copy of the Initial Decision, click the link below.

On May 5, 2009, the FAA dismissed a Part 16 complaint filed against our client, the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority.  The owner of a shoe shine concession at the Nashville International Airport alleged that the Airport Authority had discriminated against it in violation of 49 CFR Part 23.  Factual allegations primarily concerned the Complainant's sublease with a master concessionaire.  The FAA correctly determined that the Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination.  Click on the link below to view and download a copy of the Director's Determination.

On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied petitioner's challenge to the FAA's approval of a new commercial service airport in Panama City, Florida.  The airport sponsor proposed to construct a new airport to replace an existing airport with inadequate runway safety areas and limited opportunities for expansion.  The court, in NRDC v. FAA, rejected each of petitioner's arguments challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement and further rejected petitioner's argument that the FAA's decision did not satisfy the requirements of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act.  Construction of the new airport is ongoing and scheduled to be completed in 2010.  Click the link below for a copy of the court's opinion.