EXHI81T

If7&1lZJ.S. Departmert

01 'n".sportafion

;edera! Aviation

Administration Office of Aitp:>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) of B-II, aircraft in a higher category than B-U arc incompatible

with the airport. The City argues that SMO is required to accommodate only B-IT or

lower category aircraft.

SMO is classi tied as a reliever 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 of which 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 a general 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, et seq. Between 1985 and

j 994, 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 of shortening the runway and limiting the aircraft that can use the airport was

first discussed by city officials as a noise mitigation measure in connection 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

in the surrounding community, the idea was not pursued at that rime.

We know of no action by the City to ameliorate the matter short of the proposed ACl",

For example, the FAA is not aware of any request or action by the City to purchase

additional property off the end of the runway or add fiJI on airport property to create a

longer RSA for the existing runway.

The RSA is an airport design feature established by the FAA as a safety enhancement to

protect aircraft arrivals and departures. As a safety enhancement, the RSA is not

necessary for operational safety. The RSA extends beyond the ends and sides of the

runway and is not part of the runway itself. Airports holding an airport operating

certificate under 14 C.F.R. part 139 arc required to incorporate the standard RSA in all

new runway projects and achieve standard RSA when there is major work on an

existing runway, if practicable.

At many airports it is not practicable to obtain the standard RSA, and a smaller RSA is

considered acceptable. In some cases a displaced threshold and the use of declared

distances, which effectively shorten usable runway, serve to provide a standard RSA.

However, those measures arc only employed where they do not interfere with the utility

of an airport, i.c., where the reduced runway length would not significantly interfere

with current and projected operations at the airport. At noncertificated airports, such as

SMO, the FAA wi II require the sponsor to meet RSA design standards if practicable in

connection with an FAA-funded runway project, but there is no regulatory requirement

tv meet RSA standards.

The existence of a RSA is not an operating requirement. It is not required for any

operation under FAA aircraft operating rules (see 14 C.F.R. Parts 91,121,125,135).

Nor is a RSA required to meet the airspace clearance requirements for instrument

approach procedures, under the agency's terminal instrument procedures

manual (TERPS). Safe operation of aircraft requires the availability of a suitable

runway, protected airspace around the runway, and protection of approach and

departure airspace for visual and instrument approaches and departures. SMO has no

airspace obstructions that affect safety of flight, and has a 4,987-foot runway that meets

ail FAA design and marking standards for a runway of that length.

We have no evidence that aircraft using SMO, of any design category, are being

operated on this runway in violation of 14 C.F.R. part 91.9 (a), which requires the pilot

in command to comply with the operating limitations specified in the 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 a Gulfstream G- V or 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 of those aircraft extend into adjacent taxi

lanes. On that basis you have denied permission for them to use the airport in the

future. This is not inherently unreasonable -all but the largest airports will be unable to

accommodate certain sized aircraft without extraordinary measures, if at all. As a result

of this policy, there are no dimensional conflicts with any aircraft that currently operates

at SMO. There have been no complaints to FAA over this policy, and we do not

consider it an issue in the review of the proposed ACP.

There is no question that SMO has an unusually difficult environment on and

surrounding the airport, for constructing even a substantial part of a standard RSA at

either end of the runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to

ends of the runway; there is a substantial drop in terrain from runway elevation at both

ends of the runway; and city streets border airport property offboth ends of the runway.

These conditions have of course existed for decades. While the number and proportion

of jet operations has increased in recent years, jet aircraft in the B-II and higher

categories have used the airport safely for several years.

In its justification for the proposed ACP, the City has cited the protection of residential

areas ncar the ends of the runway as well as the safety of aircraft. The FAA design

standard intended to serve this function is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), which is

defined as "an area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property

on the ground." FAA encourages airport sponsors to acquire sufficient property interest

in the RPZ to exercise 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 is considered an enhancement to safety and is not required for

aircraft or airport operations. Where it is determined to be impracticable for the airport

owner to acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ, the RPZ land usc

standards have recommendation status for the portion of the RPZ not controlled by the

airport owner. To date, however, FAA is not aware of any attempt by the City to

acquire property or use zoning authority to limit the use of land within the standard RPZ

dimensions at SMO.

In summary, because there is no variance from FAA standards with respect to the

runway itsel for to the airspace for visual and instrument approaches and departures at

the airport, there is no safety issue with current aircraft operations at the airport, by

aircraft that can use that runway consistent with their operating limitations specified in

the FAA-approved AFM. The FAA is charged by Congress with regulating the safety

of aircraft 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 of Investigation, even if not preempted such a restriction would

need to be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory under the AlP grant assurances,

and in compliance with the terms of the 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, a proposal to

implement the restriction would require compliance with the review and approval

process set forth in 14 C.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 at this time. However, in view of the special

considerations of the airport environment off the ends of the runway at SMa, we would

be interested in further discussion with the City on technology and other alternate

approaches to mitigation of those 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 of the

airport; and land use compatibility measures by the City.

For this purpose I would like to propose a meeting 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 of the 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.

\/.Ie look 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