## EXHI81T 

# If7&1l

# ZJ.S. Departmert 01 'n".sportafion ;edera! Aviation Administration Office ofAitp:>rt Safely and Standards BOOIndependence Ave

.. S.W. Washngton. D.C. 20591 

### OC'" 1 5 2CD3

Mr. Robert Trimborn Airport Manager, Santa Monica Municipal Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop S. Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Trimbom:

On December 10, 2002, the Santa Monica City Council approved in concept the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the designation of appropriate runway safety areas (RSA) at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). In order to achieve this, the City, through an Airport Design Standards Analysis, proposes to shorten the runway by displacing the landing thresholds by 300 feet at either end of the runway.

The ACP proposal asserts that because the runway at Santa Monica has an airport reference code (ARC) ofB-II, aircraft in ahigher category than B-U arc incompatible with the airport. The City argues that SMO is required to accommodate only B-ITor lower category aircraft.

SMO isclassi tied as areliever airport for Los Angeles International Airport. There arc approximately 400 based aircraft at the airport and approximately] 65,000 aircraft operations each year, more than 101,000 ofwhich arc by itinerant aircraft. As mentioned in the 1984 Settlement Agreement, SMO plays a critical role in the regional and national system of air transportation and air commerce. SMO serves a "vital and critical role in its functions as ageneral aviation reliever airport for the primary air carrier airports in the area
... by diverting private and corporate aircraft away from the air carrier airports and other heavily used airports located in the Greater Los Angeles Area." The ACP would significantly limit the utility ofthe airport since more than 1,000 jet operations would be adversely affected each year.

FAA records indicate that the planning and development ofthe airport has been financed, in part, with funds provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 USC §47101, etseq. Between 1985 and j994, SMO has received $9.7 million in Federal airport development assistance. In addition, the airport has incurred obligations in the form of restrictive deed covenants arising [rom conveyances of land executed on August 10, 1948, and April 8, 1949, under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, 49lJSC §47151-47153.2

The idea ofshortening therunway and limiting the aircraft that can use the airport was firstdiscussed by city officials asanoise mitigation measure inconnection with the May 31, 1985, study entitled "Displaced Threshold Noise Test." For several reasons, including the fact that the displaced threshold would have had very little effect on noise inthe surrounding community, the idea was not pursued atthat rime.

Weknow ofno action bythe City to ameliorate the matter short ofthe proposed ACl", For example, the FAA isnot aware ofany request oraction by the City to purchase additional property offthe end oftherunway or add fiJIon airport property to create a longer RSA forthe existing runway.
The RSA is an airport design feature established bythe FAA as asafety enhancement to protect aircraft arrivals and departures. As asafety enhancement, the RSA is not necessary for operational safety. The RSA extends beyond the ends and sides ofthe runway and isnot part ofthe runway itself. Airports holding an airport operating certificate under 14C.F.R. part 139 arc required to incorporate the standard RSA in all
new runway projects and achieve standard RSA when there ismajor work on an existing runway, ifpracticable.

Atmany airports itisnot practicable toobtain the standard RSA, and a smaller RSA is considered acceptable. Insome cases adisplaced threshold and the use ofdeclared distances, which effectively shorten usable runway, serve toprovide a standard RSA. However, those measures arc only employed where they do not interfere with the utility ofan airport, i.c., where thereduced runway length would not significantly interfere with current and projected operations atthe airport. At noncertificated airports, such as SMO, the FAA wiIIrequire the sponsor to meet RSA design standards ifpracticable in connection with anFAA-funded runway project, but there is noregulatory requirement tvmeet RSA standards.

The existence ofaRSA isnot anoperating requirement. Itisnot required for any operation under FAA aircraft operating rules (see 14C.F.R. Parts 91,121,125,135). Nor is aRSA required tomeet the airspace clearance requirements forinstrument approach procedures, under the agency's terminal instrument procedures manual (TERPS). Safe operation of aircraft requires the availability of asuitable runway, protected airspace around therunway, andprotection of approach and departure airspace forvisual and instrument approaches and departures. SMO has no airspace obstructions that affect safety of flight, and has a4,987-foot runway that meets ailFAA design and marking standards forarunway ofthat length.

Wehave no evidence that aircraft using SMO, ofany design category, arebeing operated on this runway inviolation of 14C.F.R. part 91.9 (a), which requires the pilot incommand to comply with the operating limitations specified inthe FAA-approved Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) and issued under the applicable FAA airworthiness standards.Other airport design standards do not appear to be an issue. You have advised us that aircraft as large as aGulfstream G-Vor Bombardier Global Explorer have wingspans that conflict with vehicle traffic and other aircraft when those aircraft are on the runway. The conflict is that the wingtips ofthose aircraft extend into adjacent taxi lanes. On that basis you have denied permission for them to use the airport in the future. This isnot inherently unreasonable -allbut the largest airports will be unable to accommodate certain sized aircraft without extraordinary measures, ifat all. As aresult ofthis policy, there are no dimensional conflicts with any aircraft that currently operates atSMO. There have been no complaints toFAA over this policy, and we do not consider itan issue inthe review oftheproposed ACP.

There isno question that SMO has an unusually difficult environment on and surrounding the airport, for constructing even asubstantial part of astandard RSA at either end ofthe runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to ends ofthe runway; there is asubstantial drop interrain from runway elevation atboth ends ofthe runway; and city streets border airport property offboth ends ofthe runway. These conditions have ofcourse existed for decades. While the number and proportion ofjet operations has increased inrecent years, jet aircraft in the B-II and higher categories have used the airport safely for several years.

Initsjustification forthe proposed ACP, the City has cited theprotection ofresidential
areas ncar the ends ofthe runway as well asthe safety ofaircraft. The FAA design standard intended to serve this function is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), which is defined as "an area offthe runway end to enhance the protection ofpeople and property
onthe ground." FAA encourages airport sponsors to acquire sufficient property interest inthe RPZ toexercise control over land usc, and funds sueh acquisitions through the Airport Improvement Program. This includes clearing the RPZ of incompatible objects and activities. Residences are considered inconsistent with the RPZ.

Like the RSA, the RPZ isconsidered an enhancement to safety and is not required for aircraft or airport operations. Where itis determined tobe impracticable forthe airport
owner to acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ, the RPZ land usc standards have recommendation status for the portion ofthe RPZ not controlled by the airport owner. To date, however, FAA is not aware of any attempt by the City to acquire property oruse zoning authority to limit the use of land within the standard RPZ dimensions at SMO.

Insummary, because there isno variance from FAA standards with respect to the runway itselfor to the airspace for visual and instrument approaches and departures at the airport, there isno safety issue with current aircraft operations atthe airport, by aircraft that can use that runway consistent with their operating limitations specified in the FAA-approved AFM. The FAA ischarged by Congress with regulating the safety ofaircraft operations, and the proposed action by an airport operator to determine which aircraft can safely usc the airport raises the constitutional issue of Federal preemption.'\5 noted in the Notice ofInvestigation, even ifnot preempted such arestriction would need tobe reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory under the AlP grant assurances, 

### and incompliance with the terms ofthe 1984 Settlement Agreement
Finally, it appears that the ACP, as an artificial restriction on access to the airport by Stage 2 and 3 aircraft, would be subject to compliance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), 49 

### U.S.c. §§ 47521 et seq. Accordingly, aproposal to implement the restriction would require compliance with the review and approval process set forth in 14C.F.R. part 161, the agency regulations implementing ANCA.

For all of above reasons we believe that there is sufficient reason for the City not to implement the proposed ACP atthis time. However, inview of the special considerations of the airport environment off the ends ofthe runway at SMa, we would be interested in further discussion with the City on technology and other alternate approaches to mitigation ofthose conditions. Possible approaches could involve embankment fill to provide additional RSA land; aircraft arresting technology; limited reconfiguration of the runway consistent with other actions and with utility ofthe airport; and land use compatibility measures 

### bythe City.

For this purpose Iwould like to propose ameeting between our regional and headquarters engineering staff and other specialists, and the City and its consultants.

Iunderstand that the City intends to take up the issue ofthe ACP in the near future following completion of certain work by the City's consultant, although to our knowledge no other action to proceed with the conformance plan has been taken since December 2002.
\/.Ielook forward to discussing alternative approaches to this issue with the City.
Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director of Airport Safety and Standards

file: AAS400 WP:G/AAS400NasconceloslFinal Airport Issues/Slvlf) ltr OCT.doc AAS400:MVasconcelos:mv:78730:sb: 10115/03 AAS400/lJA WP-600Nasconcelos