Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Subscribe to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) via RSS

After several months of delays, the FAA filed its Brief for Federal Respondents in the East Coast Airspace Redesign case that is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  As expected, the brief alleges simply that the FAA performed the Environmental Impact Study for the airspace redesign "adequately" – which is all that is required under NEPA – "adequately" addressing cumulative impacts, "adequately" analyzing noise impacts, and "properly" assessing environmental justice impacts.

There is one interesting note contained in the Brief.  The FAA argues that the Airspace Redesign is "presumed to conform" with the Clean Air Act (Brief, p.108).  If the project is "presumed to conform" the FAA can forego its duty under the Clean Air Act from performing a conformity applicability analysis.  This position is contrary to the position that the FAA took in a lawsuit brought by Delaware County, Pennsylvania, in which the FAA argued the Airspace Redesign project did not rely on the presumed toContinue Reading FAA Files Its Brief In The East Coast Airspace Redesign Lawsuit

In the January 9, 2009, edition of the Federal Register, the FAA announced that the Record of Decision (ROD) for the development and expansion of Runway 9R/27L and other associated airport projects at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport is now available.  With the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, opponents of the project have 60 days (i.e., until Tuesday, March 10, 2009) to file a Petition for Review of the ROD and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

The FAA identified "Alternative B1b" as its "preferred alternative" in the ROD.  That was also its preferred alternative in the FEIS.  This alternative includes the expansion of Runway 9R/27L ti an overall length of 8,000 feet and width of 150 feet.  The runway will extend to the east without encroaching onto NE 7th Avenue and would be elevated over the Florida East Coast Railway and U.S. Highway 1.  The western extent of the runway is the Dania Cut-Off Canal.  Alternative B1b also includes the following projects:

  • construct a new full-length parallel taxiway 75 feet wide on the north side of Runway 9R/27L with separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L;
  • contruct an outer dual parallel taxiway that would be separated from the proposed north side parallel taxiway by 276 feet;
  • construct connecting taxiways from the proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing taxiways;
  • construct an Instrument Landing System (ILS) for landings on Runways 9R and 27L;
  • Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned and permanently closed due to the increased elevation of the expanded Runway 9R/27L at its intersection with Runway 13/31.

Opposition to the expansion centers around the increased noise that the expansion will bring, as well as damage to the surrounding environment.

Continue Reading FAA Issues ROD Approving Expansion of Ft. Lauderdale Airport

On October 28, 2008, Acting FAA Administrator Bobby Sturgell rolled out the FAA’s 2009-20013 "Flight Plan" at a speech in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The "Flight Plan," in which FAA sets goals for itself, is "the strategic plan for the agency, the plan to help [the agency] prepare for the future."  In the past year, for example, as Acting Administrator Sturgell pointed out, the FAA "reached 25 out of 29 goals," with the remaining goals "probably" being achieved by November 20, 2008.  In other words, the goals set in the Flight Plan are projects and issues that the FAA has good reason to believe it can achieve over the stated planning horizon.

Priority one, according to the Flight Plan, is "dealing with congestion and delays . . . both in the air and on the ground.  Toward that end, the FAA plans to "identify and address capacity-constrained airports and metropolitan areas."  The FAA has identified Atlanta, Chicago Midway, Fort Lauderdale, John Wayne Orange County (CA), Las Vegas, Long Beach, Oakland, Phoenix, San Diego and San Francisco as being "capacity constrained" and provided these airports with a "toolbox" which includes "technological, procedural, and infrastructure improvements to be considered for implementation at airports based on additional capacity needs in the future."

In addition, in FY 2009, the FAA plans to "increase aviation capacity and reduce congestion in the 7 metro areas and corridors that most affect total system delay."  Those areas are:  San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago, Charlotte, New York and Philadelphia.  Apart from continuing the controversial airspace redesign for the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan area, and the slot auctions for JFK, Newark and LaGuardia, which all spawned lawsuits, the FAA plans on moving forward with the redesign of the airspace for the remaining 7 metro areas.

Continue Reading FAA’s 2009-2013 Flight Plan Includes 5 More Airports Due for an Airspace Redesign

On September 26, 2008, the FAA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the construction and operation of proposed airfield improvements to Palm Beach International Airport (PBIA) “to accommodate existing and projected aviation demand.”  Comments on the DEIS are due no later than November 24, 2008.  Since the Airport Sponsor (Palm Beach County) seeks to enhance capacity at PBIA, one would think that there would be a concomitant increase in environmental effects of the project over what would be considered the "no action" alternative, i.e.,  not doing the project.  However, the FAA claims that there will be a net decrease in environmental effects (after construction) because the project will not increase capacity above what is already planned and delays will be reduced.  See below for an analysis of that issue. That being said, the FAA admits to there being a shift in the noise contours and an increase in air pollution created by the airport, at least temporarily by the construction created by the Project.

The major "airfield improvements" that the FAA is requesting approval for are:

  • Modifications to Runway 9R/27L.  Relocate and construct Runway 9R/27L 100 feet south of its existing location to  length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet.
  • Modifications to Runway 13/31.  Shorten the southeast end of Runway 13/31 currently 6,932 in length) by 3,412 to provide a standard Runway Safety Area and extend the northwest end of Runway 13/31 by 480 feet.  The total adjusted length of Runway 13/31 would be 4,000 feet.

According to the DEIS, "once constructed and operational, the improved Runway 9R/27L would be primarily used as an arrival runway, and existing Runway 9L/27R would be used as the primary departure runway.  Because of its shortened length . . . Runway 13/31 would be used only by small, G[eneral] A[viation]-type aircraft."

The FAA admits that Proposed Project will result in significant increases in noise.  In 2013, the Proposed Project would cause 386 housing units and 957 people to experience a DNL 1.5 increase or greater.  By 2018 the number of affected housing units will increase by 423 and another 1,049 people.  Both of these increases are considered to be "significant impacts" under FAA criteria.  For these people, the FAA is deciding whether to offer:

  • Acquisition and relocation of homes;
  • Purchase of an avigation easement;
  • Sound insulation in exchange for an avigation easement; or
  • Purchase assistance.

Moreover, there will be impacts on property that do not experience an increase of DNL 1.5.  FAA criteria does not consider these impacts to be significant, therefore no mitigation will be proposed for the Project.  The FAA states that the "Airport Sponsor [Palm Beach County] may initiate an update to their current FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program to mitigate noise impacts to these additional homes."

The FAA relies heavily on the assumption that the Proposed Project will not increase capacity beyond what is already forecast.  Thus, it claims environmental benefits based on the reduction of time that aircraft spend idling and taxiing due to a decrease in delays created by the Proposed Project.  This assumption, however, ignores the economic principle "induced demand," that is, if delay times are decreased during peak hours, then the airlines will, most likely, schedule additional flights thereby increasing the number of aircraft on the runways, which will increase idling and taxi time.  This is not a concept that is foreign to the FAA, since it includes in its Benefit Cost Analysis Guidance for Airport Sponsor a specific formula that equates a decrease in delay time with an increase in aircraft operations.  See, p.41 and Appendix C of FAA Benefit Cost Analysis Guidance.

With respect to air quality, although the FAA admits to a short-term rise in emissions due to construction of the Proposed Project, the FAA claims that the Proposed Project will result in fewer emissions than if the Project is not constructed.  This outcome is based on the FAA’s assumption that increasing the capacity of the airport will not cause the airlines to schedule additional flights over and above those already forecast.  Thus, the decrease in emissions "is due to the reduced aircraft taxiing times associated with the planned improvements to the airports."  Thus, if the airlines schedule flights over and above those already forecast, this benefit is eliminated or, at least, seriously diminished.  This would be an increase not only of "criteria pollutants" (i.e., Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrous Oxides, and Particulate Matter) but also of "Hazardous Air Pollutants" and greenhouse gases. 

Moreover, despite recent studies indicating that emission of pollutants above 3,500 feet above ground level has an effect on air pollutant levels on the ground (click here for a summary of the Taubman and the Clark studies, click here (on p.3) for a summary of the University of Maryland study), the FAA ignores the effect that such high level emissions will have.

In addition, although the FAA did "inventory" Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) at PBI, it did not perform a Human Health Assessment.  The FAA claims that because the EPA has not set a "National Ambient Air Quality Standard" (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act, it need not assess the impact that the Proposed Project will have on the emission of HAPs.  However, this ignores the NEPA requirement that all environmental effects of a federal project must be assessed.  NEPA does not limit the air quality assessment solely to "criteria pollutants."  Thus, a Human Health Assessment of the HAPs would be appropriate in this case.

A couple of final notes:

  • Comments on the DEIS are due no later than November 24, 2008. 
  • That being said, it should also be noted that if one were to bring a lawsuit against the FAA after the FAA decides to implement this Project, that person is limited to raising issues before the court that he or she raised before the FAA.  In other words, if no one comments on the Project on a particular issue prior to the FAA making its final decision, that issue may not be raised in a subsequent lawsuit.

Continue Reading FAA Publishes a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Palm Beach International Airport’s Airfield Enhancement Project

The FAA recently published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for its "Capacity Enhancement Project" (CEP) (warning! this is a large file, the DEIS is broken up into Chapters at the end of this post) at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL).  Comments on the DEIS are due no later than November 10, 2008.  Since…