The Los Angeles International Airport North Airfield Safety Study Final Report (“Final Report”), published on May 11, 2010, looks very much like the draft. The Final Report, like the draft, concluded that no safety problem exists on the two runways of the North Airfield. It further concludes that an additional separation of the runways by 340 feet is unnecessary for safety purposes, although useful for increasing capacity. Finally, the study concludes that an additional separation of 100 feet, originally proposed by the Cities of Inglewood and El Segundo, which would allow the addition of a center taxiway, would be sufficient to accommodate any remaining safety concerns. The study, however, reaches the correct conclusions for the wrong reasons.

Continue Reading North Airfield Safety Study Final Report Confirms Earlier Conclusion That the North Airfield is Safe

The United States Department of Transportation has finally taken a step the United States Congress refused to take: it has enacted an Airline Consumer Protection Rule that, among other things: (1) limits to three hours the amount of time passengers at large and medium hub airports must spend on a delayed aircraft without deplaning (with exceptions for safety and security); (2) requires food, potable water and usable bathrooms after no more than two hours; (3) requires provision of medical attention where required; and (4) requires airlines, by July 23, to display on their website delay information for every domestic flight the airlines operate.  www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot8210.htm

It has been Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP’s position from the outset that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure, has always required that passengers be released from delayed aircraft whether on the tarmac or not (see previous Chevalier, Allen & Lichman blog on the subject). However, the courage and proactivity of the Department of Transportation, especially in the absence of the same courage from Congress, deserves approbation from the public and from Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP. The full text of the Final Rule can be found at edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-30615.pdf.

On Monday, May 17, 2010, Chevalier, Allen & Lichman (“CA&L”) spoke to the City Council of the City of Park Ridge, Illinois, at its invitation, concerning Park Ridge’s dramatic and growing noise problem.

Park Ridge is located approximately two miles from the end of a new runway at O’Hare International Airport.  As a consequence of the runway’s recent opening, Park Ridge now experiences 400-500 operations per day at altitudes less than 1,000 feet with Single Event Noise Levels often in excess of 75 dB (a level considered dangerous by the FAA).  The noise affects elementary and high schools, as well as a substantial number of residences.

Recognizing both the severity of the problem and CA&L’s long experience in solving similar problems, the City Council sought CA&L’s views on the way in which legal action may be utilized to both compliment and supplement cooperative dialogue with the airport in finding innovative solutions to the daunting issues faced by Park Ridge.

To view CA&L’s presentation, click here.

On April 26, 2010, the Transportation Research Board published a three volume Airport Cooperative Research Program (“ACRP”) report on “Enhancing Airport Land Use Compatibility.”  The authors’ mandate was “to investigate and present the current breadth and depth of knowledge surrounding land uses around airports and to develop guidance to protect airports from incompatible land uses that impair current and future airport and aircraft operations and safety and constrain airport development.”  Report, Forward.  

It should be emphasized that this publication provides guidance only to local jurisdictions.  It is not regulatory, because the FAA cannot control land use planning in jurisdictions around airports.  As FAA has often acknowledged, land use planning is a purely local function.  If FAA were to presume to control land use planning off airport, it would also be subject to legal and constitutional constraints on land use planning such as the deprivation of a landowners’ reasonable use and enjoyment of property (“nuisance”) and/or the taking of property without just compensation (“inverse condemnation”), a result FAA wants to avoid at all costs.  

Consequently, research concerning land use planning around airports should include, and, in fact, be targeted at, local land use ordinances and regulations such as the airport land use planning statutes in California (Public Utilities Code § 21670, et seq.). 

On April 21, 2010, the EPA announced that it would seek public comment on data available for evaluating emissions and potential exposure to lead in gas used in piston-engine aircraft.  As the EPA stated:

Emissions of lead from piston-engine aircraft using leaded avgas comprise approximately half of the national inventory of lead emitted to air.  EPA estimates that approximately 14.6 billion gallons of leaded avgas were consumed between 1970 and 2007, emitting approximately 34,000 tons of lead.

The EPA will publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register which describes the data that are currently available and being collected that would help evaluate health impacts from piston-engine aircraft emissions.  That will start the 60-day public comment period.

The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to a petition that Friends of the Earth filed on October 3, 2006 requesting that the Administrator find that aircraft lead emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and that EPA regulate those emissions.  The EPA had previously issued a Notice requesting public comment on the Petition in November, 2007, ended up not taking any action.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has long argued that lead is a necessary component of 100 octane leaded aviation gasoline.  For example, two years ago, in response to the Friends of Earth petition, AOPA commented that:

Currently, there is no simple alternative for 100LL avgas.  Any change in the current fuel standard will have a direct impact on the safety of flight and therefore must be fully tested and FAA approved before any operational changes occur.

Thus, it is highly likely that EPA’s new push to get the lead out will be met with some resistance again from AOPA.

UPDATED May 5, 2010

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced in the April 23, 2010 Federal Register that it will release the Draft General Conformity Determination for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) for public comment on April 27, 2010.  Ordinarily, the public has 30 days to submit comments on the Conformity Determination.  [We will update this BLOG when the comment due date in made public.]

The Preferred Alternative would extend PHL Runways 8/26 and 9R/27L to the east, and add a third parallel east-west runway.  Alternative A would also reconstruct and enlarge the terminal complex, increasing it from 120 to approximately 150 gates.

Federal law prohibits Federal agencies from approving or funding any project that is either: (1) not expressly exempt from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) General Conformity Rule; or (2) presumed to conform, until agencies have determined that the proposed project conforms to a State [Air Quality] Implementation Plan (SIP).

If you are concerned about the impacts the CEP Project might have on air quality in the PHL area, the Conformity Determination comment period provides both an opportunity and the means by which to express those concerns to the FAA.  The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the CEP Project is expected to be released in late August, 2010.

ADDED May 5, 2010:

Comments on the General Conformity Determination for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program must be postmarked to Sue McDonald, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office (ADO), 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA  17011 no later than May 27, 2010.  The General Conformity Determination is available at http://www.phl-cep-eis.com.

On Thursday, April 22, 2010, Chevalier Allen & Lichman, LLP, on behalf of its client, 41 North 73 West, Inc. ("Avitat") filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of it Petition for Review of the FAA’s decision to deny Avitat’s Part 16 Complaint which alleged that the proprietor of Westchester County Airport, the County of Westchester, had violated its Grant Assurances by allowing "light general aviation" FBOs to sell jet fuel in contravention of their leases.  Avitat argues that the FAA’s decision that the County had not violated Grant Assurances 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination), 23 (Exclusive Rights) and 24 (Fee and Rental Structure) was arbitrary and capricious.

Pittsfield Township, Michigan, through the law firm Chevalier Allen & Lichman, LLP submitted its comments on the draft Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed lengthening of the main runway at Ann Arbor Municipal Airport.  Although the AIrport is entirely located in Pittsfield Township, the airport is owned by the City of Ann Arbor.  In addition, Chevalier Allen & Lichman assisted in filing the comments of the citizens’ group Committee for Preserving Community Quality.  In general, the comments addressed issues that Pittsfield Township and CPCQ believed the draft Environmental Assessment did not adequately address.