Westlaw Cite:
2005 WL 3722717
Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)|Bahlke, Bill|DuBose, Reagan L.|Soloff, Howard G.|Mellgren, Laurence K.|Watkins, David|Haughey, Joseph|Kwass, Robert|Jacobs, Herbert|Erkmen, Levent
Respondent(s):
Pompano Beach (Fla.)
Airport(s):
Pompano Beach Air Park (PMP)
Holding:
Finding violation in part.
Abstract:
Complainants Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) filed a complaint against Respondent City of Pompano Beach, Florida, owner of the Pompano Beach Air Park, alleging that Respondent violated its obligations under its quitclaim deeds, executed under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, 49 U.S.C. ยง 47152(2), to make the Air Park available to the public on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination and without granting an exclusive right. Complainants argued that these violations occurred as a result of the City's adoption of ordinances prohibiting and restricting certain aeronautical operations at the Air Park, including stop-and-go operations, intersection take-offs, manned glider operations, touch-and-go operations, taxi-back activity, prolonged engine run-ups, and the inclusion of rotorcraft in these restrictions. The Director found that Respondent was in violation of its unjust discrimination obligation, but not its exclusive right obligation.|Reasonableness of Restrictions:|Airport owners may impose reasonable rules or regulations to restrict or deny use of the airport for purposes deemed to be incompatible with safety. However, when such a restriction triggers a complaint, the FAA Airports Office will review the supporting justification and make the final determination regarding the reasonableness of an access restriction. (pp. 21-22). Restrictions based on safety and/or efficiency require supporting justification from the appropriate Flight Standards and/or Air Traffic Offices.|Restrictions on stop-and-go operations and intersection take-offs could not be enforced as safety and efficiency restrictions without justification from FAA Flight Standards and/or FAA Air Traffic. (p. 24). Without support, these restrictions are contrary to Respondent's obligation to make the airport available to the public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. (p. 26).|Respondents' reliance on records of individual complaints to justify noise restrictions was insufficient where the records showed that five people comprised 57 percent of the noise complaints while 10 people made up 73 percent of the complaints. For purposes of assessing the reasonableness of noise restrictions, the relationship between community annoyance and noise exposure levels is the best available source of predicting the social impact of noise on communities around airports. The measure of community annoyance is the percentage of the area population characterized as "highly annoyed" by long-term exposure to noise of a specified level (expressed in terms of DNL). (p. 32).|Part 150 Study:|"While the FAA encourages airport proprietors to implement airport noise compatibility programs under Part 150 because this provides an effective process for determining whether the proposed restriction is consistent with applicable legal requirements, it is nonetheless a voluntary process. The City has not accepted grants to complete a Part 150 study under the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement (ASNA) Act of 1979 . . . and so had no federal obligation to complete a Part 150 study." (p. 33).|Access Restrictions:|"[T]he FAA interprets the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(1) that a federally-funded airport will be 'available for public use on reasonable conditions' as requiring that a regulation restricting airport use for noise purposes: (1) be justified by an existing noncompatible land use problem, (2) be effective in addressing the identified problem, and (3) reflect a balanced approach to addressing the identified problem that fairly considers both local and federal interests." (p. 33).|Restrictions and limitations on certain aeronautical activities that negatively impact training requirements (specifically, touch-and-go, taxi-back and engine run-ups) could not be approved by the FAA unless otherwise justified. (p. 37).|"The presumption that aeronautical users could use other nearby airports to conduct these activities [touch-and-go, taxi-back and engine run-ups] does not relieve the City of its obligation to accommodate these activities..." (p. 37).
Index Terms:
Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Noise|Unreasonable restriction|Safety|Denial of access|Surplus Property Act