January 2010

With the current emphasis on “renewable energy” and sustainability, along with a healthy dose of federal funding, many companies have been developing plans for wind farms to help move this nation from the grip of over-reliance on petroleum products for its energy needs. While barriers to their construction are not new, with wind turbine companies fending off Endangered Species Act lawsuit (endangered bats running into blades) and other environmental issues, the FAA recently raised an additional issue: obstruction to aviation.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2010, the FAA found that 15 of Gamesa’s proposed 30 wind turbines for Shaeffer Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, exceed “obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect” on the airspace above the ridge or nearby airports and flight routes. Two days later, on Friday, January 8, 2010, the FAA ruled that one of the two wind turbines proposed for the Dartmouth, Massachusetts owned land is a hazard to air traffic and must be lowered. 

The FAA may have learned its lesson, since back in April, 2008, it was told to go back to the drawing board with its “Does Not Exceed” determinations for a proposed wind farm above a proposed airport just south of Las Vegas in Ivanpah, Nevada. Clark County v. FAA. There, the court determined that the FAA’s findings flew in the data that the 400 ft towers would penetrate the FAA’s 40:1 slope and that 83 turbines would appear as a “fleet of jumbo jets” to the air traffic controllers.

It may be prudent, then, to review the process established by the FAA for determining if an object will be considered to be an “obstruction.”

Notification

Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R., Part 77) establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for:

  • Evaluating the effect of the construction or alteration on operating procedures
  • Determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation
  • Identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation
  • Charting of new objects.

Notification allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance thus preventing or minimizing the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace.Continue Reading Wind Farms Run Into Turbulence with the FAA

Developers and local land use jurisdictions beware.  The California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”) has initiated an update of the 2002 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook which is scheduled to be completed in 2010.  The Handbook provides guidance to County Airport Land Use Commissions (“ALUC”) in the imposition of height and other zoning and land use restrictions around airports.

An initial problem arises from the Handbook’s interpretation of the airport land use planning process as set forth in the California Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code § 21670, et seq.  The California Supreme Court has defined airport land use plans as in the nature of “multi-jurisdictional general plans,” Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission, 41 Cal.4th 372, 384 (2007), that often supercede local zoning at distances as great as five miles from the end of each runway.  For land use jurisdictions, this means that carefully crafted local regulations within those areas are rendered essentially null, because land use jurisdictions must bring their general and specific plans into consistency with airport land use plans within 180 days of the airport land use plan’s approval, or overrule the approval of the Airport Land Use Plan by a two-thirds vote.  Gov. Code § 65302.3.Continue Reading A New Edition of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook May Mean Trouble

Your local airport is becoming a drain on the local economy. Sure, it provides a few jobs, adds a certain cachet to the area and provides a hobby for the few people who can afford to purchase and maintain aircraft. But the annual expense of keeping the airport running – and running safely – is becoming more and more like a lead weight on your budget. “Let’s just close the thing,” you say. But wait, remember all that money you accepted from the FAA as part of the AIP grant program to lengthen the runway, pay for new taxiways, and purchase property? The FAA remembers. And before you can close the airport, there are many hurdles to clear set by the FAA to discourage the closure of airports.

1.            Take A Look At The Grant Assurances

First, take a look at the documents in your possession – the grant agreements you received from the FAA and signed as a condition of receiving the grants. As you are no doubt aware, under various Federal grant programs, you have agreed to assume certain statutorily defined obligations pertaining to the operation, use and maintenance of the Airport [49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)], that are described and implemented in FAA Order 5190.6B and memorialized in the application for Federal assistance as Grant Assurances, which become a part of the grant offer and bind the grant recipient contractually upon acceptance. 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a); FAA Order 5190.6B, “Guide To Sponsor Obligations” pp. 2-13 to 2-18.

Continue Reading Considering Closing an Airport? Be Careful! The FAA Has Set Many Pitfalls to Trap You.

The January 2, 2010 edition of the Los Angeles Times contained an op-ed piece by David Steinberg (not the comedian, but a screenwriter from Santa Monica).  The editorial beautifully capsulizes the irrationality of the Transportation Security Agency’s response to the recent attempted bombing of a Delta airliner bound for the United States from Amsterdam in which the TSA instituted regulations during an overnight session (when participants were apparently not fully awake).  Those regulations, governing incoming flights to the U.S. from certain foreign airports, include requiring that passengers remain locked in their seats during the last hour of flight, and removal of all pillows and blankets to overhead bins during the same period. 

In his editorial, Mr. Steinberg recounts his family’s odyssey home from a vacation in Aruba the day after the attempted bombing.  Their adventure included: (1) the baggage handler, designated as “frisker,” becoming embarrassed as he patted down Mr. Steinberg’s four year old son; (2) the same “frisker” apparently recognizing the absurdity of his act, gratefully passing on the frisk of Mr. Steinberg’s two year old daughter; and (3) Mr. Steinberg’s two year old screaming “bloody murder” as the flight attendant yanked the pillow from under her head.

Honestly, when does enough arbitrary and capricious regulation become enough?  First, the government mandates that passengers have to practically disrobe to get on a plane.  Now the government wants to regulate when passengers can go to the bathroom once they get there.  And for all that nonsense, the attempted bomber got on the plane to the United States, with explosives, not in his shoes, but in his underwear!  Does that mean passengers will now have to take off their underwear and put it through the scanner?Continue Reading New TSA Regulations Are Arbitrary and Capricious