FAA

Subscribe to FAA via RSS

On September 8, 2008, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register (73 Fed.Reg. 52074) that it is proposing to modify the standard grant application requirements that are required of a sponsor of a non-primary airport before receiving a grant under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).  This modification would require that a sponsor of…

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee remarked in his opening statement that it is: “inexcusable and unacceptable to ignore rules, regulations and standard practices to accommodate those you have responsibility to regulate especially when you have people’s lives in your hands.”   With that in mind, the Subcommittee heard testimony from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that the FAA had “alarming problems” and “severe lapses” in judgment in its certification process for the Eclipse EA-500, a Very Light Jet (VLJ). VLJs have been heavily promoted as a potential solution to congestion around larger airports, and as a means tobring a convenient, fast transportation alternative to smaller communities that cannot support network commercial air service.

In particular, the OIG made three findings concerning the EA-500 certification process. First, OIG found that the FAA permitted exceptions to its usual design certification process. For example, the FAA accepted an “IOU” from Eclipse that it would meet accepted standard at a later date for the avionics software. For an aircraft that relies heavily on software, the OIG would have expected the FAA to perform rigorous analysis and testing. Second, the OIG found that the FAA awarded Eclipse a production certificate even though the company failed to demonstrate the ability to replicate the approved design. This was despite that fact that Eclipse encountered numerous problems replicating its won aircraft design on the assembly floor both before and after receiving its certificate. Finally, Senior FAA management identified Eclipse as a priority certification and appeared to be lenient with the manufacturer.

Continue Reading U.S. House Subcommittee Investigates Alleged Regulatory Lapses in the Certification and Manufacture of the Eclipse EA-500

If you own a commercial airport that has accepted federal grants and you have sold all or part of the airport’s property, you, no doubt are aware of the provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(l)(5)(A). That provision of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, as amended, limits any request to recoup capital an operating costs from the sale of airport property to those expenses that occurred within 6 years after the expense has been incurred: 

any request by a sponsor or any other governmental entity to any airport for additional payments for services conducted off of the airport or for reimbursement for capital contributions or operating expenses shall be filed not later than 6 years after the date on which the expense is incurred

49 U.S.C. § 47107(l)(5)(A). That new terminal that the City spent $1 million out of its General Fund on seven years ago? According to § 47107(l)(5)(A), you cannot recoup the expense now. Those operating deficits that the airport has been running for the past ten years that the City has covered? Only the last six years can be recouped. Although you may not be planning on selling all or part of the airport now, or even five years from now, it makes sense, because of § 47107(l)(5)(A) to ensure that the owner’s expenses are currently being paid by the airport by requesting reimbursement on a timely basis.

Continue Reading Plan Now, If You Plan to Sell Later: Restrictions on Use of Airport Revenues

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) filed a amicus curiae brief on Friday, September 5, 2008. 

The Brief makes three arguments: how the FAA did not give appropriate weight to noise reduction in balancing the alternatives for the Airspace Redesign Project, how the FAA failed to give appropriate weight to…

Here are a few court  decisions that have come down since April, 2008, regarding aviation and airport development law:

  1. Aerial Banners, Inc. v. F.A.A., 11th Circuit, Case No. 08-10042 (August 26, 2008). The Federal Aviation Administration grants waivers of certain regulations to businesses that tow advertising banners behind airplanes. Without the waiver, a business

…

In February, 2007, almost as an after-thought, theFAA included changes to air traffic control procedures to its Presumed to Conform rule. This last minute addition has the potential to seriously impact communities around the airports where these changes to air traffic control procedures take place. 

Why will this obscure regulatory change affect communities? First, a little background on the subject will be helpful. Air quality and noise are the primary concerns of communities around airports. Since Federal law severely limits the ability of communities to affect the amount of noise produced at airports, many communities have focused on protecting their air quality. The conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act provide a useful tool in that regard. They require that all Federal agencies ensure that their projects will not affect the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is a plan drafted by the state and approved by the EPA in order to come into compliance with other provisions of the Clean Air Act. This “conformity determination” provides communities around airports with needed data concerning the effect the agency’s action will have on the air quality. Moreover, if the Federal agency fails to perform a conformity determination or fails to do it properly, then that it is grounds for the community to object to the Federal agency’s action as a whole.

Continue Reading FAA’s Presumed to Conform Rule Will Affect Communities Around Airports

During July, the Government Accounting Office issued several reports regarding various aviation topics.  One of the topics not covered was the East Coast Airspace Redesign, which was supposed to be issued at the end of July, but now probably will not be issued until the end of August.

Of particular interest was the issuance, on…

In a rather odd, unusual statement, the FAA issued on July 31, 2008, a "Record of Decision and Written Re-Evaluation of the New YorkNew JerseyPhiladelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign Final Environmental Impact Statement."  In response to several requests for supplemental EIS to deal with the congestion management orders for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark,…