Today
74° | 58° |
Thu
70° | 57° |
Fri
69° | 55° |
| Currently | Temp | Visibility |
| SUNNY | 72° F | 10 mi |
|
Wind Speed
6 mph | Direction
WSW | Pressure
29.85 in/Hg |
|
Category C&D Aircraft Updates
 |
| |
January 21, 2011
On January 21, 2011 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld FAA’s determination that City’s Ordinance (No. 2251CCS) banning high-performance Category C & D aircraft from operating at the Santa Monica Airport as part of a proposed Aircraft Conformance Program violates the airport’s contractual obligations to the federal government.
Click here for a full text of the court’s decision>>>
|
Jun 15, 2010
FAA’s Respondent’s brief and a revised briefing schedule in City of Santa Monica vs. FAA (CASE NO 09-1233). The briefing schedule was revised after the Court granted the FAA’s request for a one-week extension to file its brief.
City of Santa Monica Opening Brief>>>
FAA Respondents' Brief>>>
SMO Revised Schedule Order>>>
|
July 8, 2009
On July 8, 2009 the FAA issued its Final Agency Decision and Order as the concluding component of a long-running Part 16 dispute between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica (Docket No. 16-02-08) over needed safety enhancements at Santa Monica Airport. The Part 16 dispute arose from the City’s attempt to implement an Ordinance (No. 2251CCS) banning high-performance Category C & D aircraft from operating at the Santa Monica Airport as part of a proposed Aircraft Conformance Program designed to improve the overall safety of the Airport.
The FAA determined that the Ordinance is invalid ruling that airport owners, including Santa Monica, may exercise their proprietary authority, but that authority does not extend to a ban on classes of aircraft; so the Ordinance is preempted by federal law. The FAA further ruled that the Ordinance constitutes unjust discrimination against operators of Category C and D aircraft and is not necessary for the Airport’s safe operation. Click here for a full text of the Final Agency Decision and Order.
|
May 29, 2009
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.241, the City of Santa Monica, as a party adversely affected by the Initial Decision of the Hearing Officer, may file an appeal to the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Airports within 15 days of the date the Initial Decision was issued. The City filed its appeal on Friday, May 29th, 2009. The City is challenging the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the City’s Ordinance is unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory and thus violates the City’s federal obligations.
Read the appeal>>>
|
May 21, 2009
Chairman Waxman has added an amendment on safety issues at Santa Monica Airport to H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009.
Chairman Waxman continues to work with the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to pressure the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to achieve runway safety area solutions consistent with FAA design guidelines to address the safety concerns at Santa Monica Airport.
Read the amendment>>>
|
May 14, 2009
This afternoon, we received the FAA Hearing Examiner’s decision on the Part 16 proceeding in which the FAA challenged the City’s Ordinance banning C&D Airport from the Santa Monica Airport.
The City team is in the process of analyzing the 114 page decision. Based on our preliminary review, we believe that an appeal to the Associate Administrator is likely and that the final agency decision will be reviewed by a federal appellate court.
The Hearing Examiner found that:
- The Ordinance does not violate the prohibition against creating an exclusive right;
- The FAA’s preemption claim cannot be decided in the context of this hearing and must be decided by a court; and
- The Ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates and thereby violates grant assurances, the Instrument of Transfer and the 1984 Agreement.
In conjunction with the holding of unjust discrimination, the Hearing Examiner concluded that: the Ordinance is not reasonably justified on grounds of safety; alternative safety measures are available to the City; the Ordinance unnecessarily limits the Airport’s usefulness; and the City over-estimates its legal risks because the City could show in court that C&D usage does not create a dangerous condition.
Because the Hearing Examiner concluded that the Ordinance violates the prohibition against unjust discrimination and because the preliminary injunction remains in effect (pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision), the City cannot enforce the Ordinance.
Read the Hearing Examiner's Decision>>>
|
May 12, 2009
On Friday, May 8th, the Ninth Circuit Court issued a very brief opinion upholding the preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the City ordinance that bans C&D aircraft from the Santa Monica Airport. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling should have no impact on the Hearing Examiner’s decision, which will be based on the extensive administrative record. The City expects to receive the Hearing Examiner’s decision by May 15th. The decision will be posted upon receipt.
9th Circuit Memorandum>>>
|
March 11, 2009
The City has filed its pre-hearing brief in advance of the Part 16 hearing, which is scheduled for the week of March 16-20, from 9am to 5pm at the Glen Anderson Federal Building, located at 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 5150, Long Beach, CA 90802. The City's brief argues that: (1) as Airport proprietor, the City is not preempted from adopting an ordinance restricting access to preserve safety and limit liability; (2) the ordinance banning C&D aircraft is reasonable and does not violate the federal prohibitions against unjust discrimination and the creation of exclusive rights; (3) the ordinance is fully consistent with the 1984 Agreement, previous federal grants to the City, and the wartime transfers of airport property; and (4) the Tenth Amendment protects the City against federal coercion to accept aircraft in contravention of federal runway safety standards.
Read the City's pre-hearing brief >>>
|
August 27, 2008
Today the City filed its reply brief in the Ninth Circuit proceding that challenges both Judge Wu’s Preliminary Injunction and the FAA Interim Cease and Desist order. This completes the briefing in this case. The Court will likely schedule oral arguments next, which may occur late this year or sometime in 2009.
City of Santa Monica Reply Brief, August 27, 2008
|
June 3, 2008
On June 3, 2008, the FAA served the city with its opposition to the city’s Application for a Stay Pending Appeal. The city’s Reply to the FAA’s Opposition was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 10, 2008. As indicated below, the Court will make its ruling after consideration of the written arguments submitted by the parties, but there is no fixed schedule for the Court’s ruling on the stay request.
FAA Response to Stay Motion, June 3, 2008
City's response to the FAA's Opposition to Stay Motion, June 9, 2008
|
May 27, 2008
On May 27, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration issued its Director’s Determination in the administrative proceeding it first instituted against the City of Santa Monica in October 2002. The 68-page document asserts that the City did not have the legal authority to adopt the Ordinance prohibiting the use of the Santa Monica Airport by category C and D aircraft. The FAA also references a grant for airport improvement projects accepted by the City in 1994. The grant requires the City to operate the property for 20 years, until 2014. The City received a payment in 2003 at the conclusion of the projects funded by the 1994 grant. It was not a new grant and does not extend the City’s obligations to operate the Airport until 2023 as asserted by the FAA.
The City had previously contested the FAA’s position in its response to the FAA’s Order to Show Cause (see City’s Response to Proposal and the City’s response to FAA’s Cease and Desist Order below). The Director’s Determination is an initial administrative decision of the FAA, but is not the final decision of the agency. The City has the option of requesting an administrative hearing or appealing directly to a second level of administrative review. The City expects to contest the FAA’s determination and will decide in the next few weeks on the manner in which it will proceed.
Read the FAA Director’s Determination
|
May 22, 2008
On May 22, 2008, the City filed an application for a stay of the District Court’s order enjoining enforcement of the Ordinance prohibiting C & D aircraft from using the Santa Monica Airport in order to promote public safety. The application was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The application argues that the City is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because the City, as the Airport proprietor, has the power to conform airport usage to airport facilities in order to protect safety and that no significant harm would result from issuance of a stay, and a stay would promote the public interest.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule after completion of the submission of written arguments by the parties, but there is no fixed schedule for a ruling on stays.
View the application (pdf - 17MB, 233 pp)
|
May 15, 2008
On May 15, 2008, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court heard oral argument from the City of Santa Monica and the United States. Following the Court hearing, the matter was taken under submission by the Court for further consideration. On May 16, 2008, the Court issued a Preliminary Injunction which prevents the City from enforcing Santa Monica Municipal Code §10.04.06.220 and requires the City to permit the use of the Santa Monica Airport by category C and D aircraft for the duration of the lawsuit.
View the court's order
The FAA filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance banning Class C & D aircraft from the airport while the matter is in litigation. A hearing on the preliminary injunction was held on May 15, 2008. As required by the judicial process, the FAA filed its application for the preliminary injunction and the City filed its response for the May 15 hearing in federal district court.
FAA filing for a preliminary injunction
FAA petition in support of the preliminary injunction
City's response to application for preliminary injunction
|
May 5, 2008
On May 5, 2008, the City filed its response to the Interim Cease and Desist Order served on the City on April 23, 2008. In response the FAA served the City with a Supplemental Interim Cease and Desist Order.
FAA's Supplemental Cease and Desist
City's response to FAA's Cease and Desist Order
The FAA issued an Interim Cease and Desist Order on April 23, 2008 and filed an application for a TRO the next day.
After receiving notice of the application for a Temporary Restraining Order, the federal government and the City agreed to forestall enforcement of the Ordinance pending the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order. On April 28, the Judge George Wu issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the City’s Ordinance until the hearing on the preliminary injunction on May 15, 2008.
Temporary Restraining Order granted April 28, 2008
An ordinance banning C and D class aircraft at Santa Monica Municipal Airport to ensure public safety goes into effect on April 24, 2008. The FAA advised Santa Monica on April 21, 2008 that the city should not enforce the ban pending the outcome of the FAA’s administrative investigation. The ordinance will go into effect as scheduled on April 24, 2008 and the city has submitted a response to the FAA. The FAA issued an Interim Cease and Desist Order on April 23, 2008.
Read the FAA’s notice to the city and the city’s response
FAA's Cease and Desist Order
|
April 7, 2008
Immediately after Council acted to ensure public safety by adopting an ordinance requiring aircraft operations at the airport to conform with FAA design standards for Category A and B aircraft, the FAA issued an "Order to Show Cause", requiring the city to justify and legitimize its runway safety program. The city responded on April 7 with a 40-page brief and hundreds of exhibits.
April 7, 2007 Press Release - "CITY DEFENDS RUNWAY SAFETY ORDINANCE BY CHALLENGING FAA ORDER"
City's response to the FAA's Order (PDF)
Read the proposal from the FAA (PDF)
Read the City's response to the proposal (PDF)
Read the FAA Order to Show Cause (PDF)
|
Last updated: 1/27/2011
|