~ FAA upholds agency decision on jet ban
July 9, 2009
FAA upholds agency decision on jet ban
The Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday upheld an earlier decision by an FAA hearing officer to prevent the city of Santa Monica from banning private jets with fast landing speeds from the municipal airport.
In a 57-page opinion, FAA officials rejected an appeal by the coastal city, which contended that it had the power to ban jets for safety reasons and that its policy did not discriminate against types of aeronautical activity.
City officials challenged a May 14 FAA report that concluded the controversial jet ban “unjustly and unreasonably” discriminates against specific aircraft.
The FAA upheld part of that ruling — that the ban violates the terms of federal grants received by the airport. Agency officials also said that the city does not have the authority to ban certain types of aircraft.
The city contends that jets with faster landing speeds, such as Gulfstreams, Cessna Citations and Challengers, are at risk of running off the runway and crashing into surrounding neighborhoods. Such aircraft, however, have never crashed at the airport and their safety record is better than that of propeller planes at the facility, the FAA hearing officer concluded.
Santa Monica now has the option of challenging the FAA decision in federal court.
– Dan Weikel
Recent ODRA Cases
Updated: 9:25 am ET August 1, 2008
Results: – 6 Records found FAA Order 16-02-08
Matter COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Docket 16-02-08
Date Served 05/14/2009
Decision This matter arose from a dispute between the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards (“AAS”) and the City of Santa Monica, California (“City”) the proprietor of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (“SMO”). More specifically, the dispute involved an ordinance enacted by the City that purports to ban certain categories of aircraft from operating at SMO. Following an investigation and related proceedings conducted pursuant to regulations found at 14 C.F.R., Part 16, entitled “RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FEDERALLY-ASSISTED AIRPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS” (“Part 16″) the Acting Director of AAS issued a Determination (“Director’s Determination”) concluding that the Ordinance is inconsistent with: the City’s obligations under two assurances contained in grant agreements between the FAA and the City (“Grant Assurances”); provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47151-153 (“SPA”); and the terms of a Settlement Agreement entered into between the FAA and the City on January 31, 1984 (“1984 Agreement”) between the parties. Finally the Director’s Determination also concluded that the Ordinance “is preempted under Federal Law.” A formal adjudication process was conducted in this dispute in accordance with Subpart F of Part 16 by the ODRA Director, who was appointed as the hearing officer for this matter. After having reviewed and given due consideration to the record evidence, as well as the arguments of the parties, he concluded as follows: (1) The ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates against classes of aeronautical activities, and, thus, is inconsistent with the City’s obligations under Assurance 22 of the Grant Agreements between the FAA and the City; (2) the ordinance does not grant an “exclusive right” within the meaning of 47 U.S.C.§ 47107(a)(4), and, thus, is not inconsistent with the City’s obligations under Assurance 23 of the Grant Agreements between the FAA and the City; (3) the ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates in the operation of the Airport, and, thus, is inconsistent with the obligations of the City under the Instrument of Transfer of the Airport property completed pursuant to the SPA; (4) the ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates in a manner inconsistent with the 1984 Agreement that expressly reserved final authority over issues of safety to the FAA; and (5) the concept of preemption provides context to consideration of whether, under the circumstances here, the City acted properly in adopting an ordinance that precludes categories of aircraft from utilizing SMO solely on the grounds of safety. The Preemption Doctrine, however, does not provide an independent basis for FAA administrative action against the City under Part 16 inasmuch as the Doctrine is not one of the enumerated “authorities” that authorize and govern Part 16 proceedings involving Federally-assisted airports. (Initial Decision).