As if it didn’t have enough to do, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is now proposing to expand the definition of “Aeronautical Activities”, which currently includes “any activity that involves, makes possible, is required for the operation of an aircraft/vehicle, or that contributes to, is required for, the safety of such operations” FAA Order 5190.6B
Since the publication of the above-entitled article on April 28, 2022, events have occurred that raised further questions about the immediacy of the closure of East Hampton Municipal Airport on the South Shore of Long Island, New York, owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton.
Specifically, the most recent related cases are Friends…
In a somewhat surprising turn of events, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), on April 15, 2022, approved the closure of East Hampton Airport, owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton, Long Island, New York. The airport is scheduled for closing on May 17, 2022. 87 Fed.Reg. 22617. FAA’s acquiescence appears surprising because of its long and strong resistance to the closure of airports in general. See, e.g., City of Santa Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, 631 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Town plans to convert the currently public use airport into a new, publicly owned, private use facility.
A November 2020 letter from the FAA to the Town detailed four options to obtain local control of the airport: continued operation as a public use airport, negotiations of an agreement for mandatory restrictions on aircraft operators, permanent closure of the airport, or closure and subsequent reopening of a new, private use airport. A fifth option emerged in subsequent discussions between the Town and the FAA to transition the airport from public to private use without closure.
Reopening the airport under what the FAA calls a “prior permission required” model, the Town will be able to impose and enforce restrictions limiting air traffic and noise. Under this model, the Town could prohibit certain aircraft, or certain commercial or private users, impose noise limits; and restrict takeoffs and landings at certain times of the day. In determining which aircraft could use the airport, the Town could also take into account certain environmental factors. Electric aircraft might be favored, for example, over those that use leaded aviation fuel. As the prior permission classification applies, those who wish to use the airport will first need clearance from the Town, and that permission could be granted, revised, or withdrawn. Should the restrictions allowed under this model not meet community needs, the Town could still opt to close the airport entirely.
Both the process and the result sound interesting and hopeful to noise impacted communities. But don’t jump to any conclusions.Continue Reading FAA Defies History by Approving the Closure of East Hampton Airport
In a June 19, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (“Judgment”), the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado, in Board of Commissioners of Adams County v. City and County of Denver, recounted in detail the expert testimony offered by Adams County, that fatally undercuts the traditional reliance by the City of Denver, operator of Denver International Airport (“DIA”), and airport operators in general, on “noise modeling” in place of “noise monitoring” to determine the impacts of the aircraft noise on surrounding communities.
The Judgment exhaustively recounted evidence offered by Adams County, detailing the flaws in the noise modeling utilized by DIA to document compliance with the noise provisions of the “Intergovernmental Agreement [for a new airport], (‘IGA’),” originally entered into between the two parties on April 21, 1988, when the plan for development of the new Denver airport was being initiated.Continue Reading Colorado Court Judgment Finds Noise Modeling Significantly Understates Aircraft Noise
Airport sponsors and their legal counsel have been forced by the COVID-19 pandemic to exercise judgment and make tough decisions regarding the financial accommodations they will offer their commercial aeronautical tenants to help them weather the current storm. In many ways, these decisions have mirrored the difficult decisions employers have had to make to pare down their workforces in order to survive in the wake of this public health emergency and the resultant economic downturn. Airport sponsors are highly motivated to support their valued commercial tenants and to negotiate mutually beneficial financial terms (including rent abatement). But federally-obligated airports must also balance their regulatory obligations to maintain an economically self-sustaining airport and to treat similarly situated tenants equally.
Buchalter’s airport regulatory attorneys have developed the following best practices airport sponsors should consider as they navigate the growing tidal wave of negotiations with commercial aeronautical tenants.Continue Reading Financial Accommodations for Airport Tenants in Response to COVID-19
If there is anything to be learned from the FAA’s distribution of the $10 billion in funds allocated to airports in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, it is that allocating billions of dollars in just a few weeks is more difficult than it sounds. On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was signed into law as Public Law No. 116-136. The CARES Act is aimed at mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on most segments of American business and infrastructure. Title XII of the Act specifically supports airports by directing the FAA to make $10 billion available based on each airport’s level of operations and debt. However, when it came to calculating each airport’s share of the pie, the FAA botched the process by employing a formula that allocated massive amounts to some smaller airports while snubbing larger, busier airports.
In April, the FAA attempted to correct the problem by capping each airport’s CARES Act funding at four times the airport’s annual operating budget. The FAA then issued guidance stating that grant funds not used within four years are “subject to recovery by the FAA,” and designated a four year “period of performance” pursuant to 2 C.F.R. section 200.309. In other words, if you don’t use it, you lose it. But just as the FAA has experienced hiccups distributing the grant funds, airport sponsors will inevitably encounter thorny regulatory issues as they attempt to spend millions of dollars in new grant funding while navigating their compliance obligations under the CARES Act. This begs the question, “What are permissible uses of CARES Act grant funds by airport sponsors?”Continue Reading Permissible Uses of CARES Act Grant Funds by Airport Sponsors
The concern of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regarding the use by airport operators of airport generated revenues to soften budget shortfalls off the airport appears to be growing. In a speech delivered at the November 11, 2019 National Air Transportation Association Leadership (“NATA”) Conference, Kirk Shaffer, FAA’s Associate Administrator for Airports, solicited the assistance of the aviation community in working with jurisdictions on compliance. Mr. Shaffer went on to opine that jurisdictions that operate airports are sometimes unaware of the laws governing revenue diversion, or confused by revenue flows, particularly as related to state and local taxes. He illustrated the problem by sharing the fact that, of the 177 jurisdictions with which the FAA has worked over the past five years on revenue diversion issues, 107 still remain noncompliant.
That number of noncompliant jurisdictions is somewhat surprising as the rules governing the use of airport revenues from airports are fairly explicit. The general rule is that revenues generated by a public airport may only be expended for the capital and operating costs of: (1) the airport; (2) the local airport system; or (3) other facilities owned or operated by the airport operator and directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property. 49 U.S.C. §§ 47107(b)(1) and 47133(a). The use of airport revenue for purposes other than airport capital or operating costs is generally considered “revenue diversion” and is prohibited by federal law. See Policy and Procedures Governing the Use of Airport Revenue, 64 Fed.Reg. 7696, 7720 (February 15, 1999) (“Revenue Policy”). Airport revenues subject to the revenue use requirements include all fees, rents, charges, or other payments received from anyone who makes use of the airport and from the airport sponsor’s activities on the airport. Id. at 7716.
The third prong provides unique revenue allocation opportunities to airport sponsors that own or operate other facilities.Continue Reading FAA Focuses on Controlling Revenue Diversion
In a decision of October 21, 2019, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) defied its own regulations, federal law, and logic in determining that the City of Santa Monica had properly expended airport revenues in the demolition of 3,500 feet of the runway at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (“SMO”), for the express purpose of limiting access by turbojet aircraft.
In its decision, FAA stated “[w]e conclude that airport revenue may be used to fund the payment removal, pavement pulverization, and hydro-seeding project, including the work within the Runway Safety Area, at SMO. The removal of the subject pavements, pavement pulverization and reuse, and the soil stabilization at SMO appears justified as an airport operating cost.” [Emphasis added]. Existing law and governing regulations would, however, appear to lead to the contrary conclusion.Continue Reading FAA Ignores Its Own Regulations in Allowing Expenditure of Airport Revenue to Demolish Runway at Santa Monica Municipal Airport
Thirty-one airports throughout the State of California, including Los Angeles International Airport and San Bernardino International Airport, have been made the subject of new investigative orders pursuant to California Water Code § 13267. These airports, with training/fire response facilities will be required to prepare and submit work plans for review and approval by the State…
On February 26, 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of Buchalter’s client, Bonner County, owner and operator of Sandpoint Airport in Idaho.
In an action originally seeking tens of millions of dollars against the County, the state’s high court held that the County had fully performed the promises that SilverWing…