The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and General Aviation Manufacturers Association have filed amicus briefs backing a lawsuit NBAA and five other stakeholders filed over the FAA’s Santa Monica Airport (SMO) settlement agreement. NBAA and the five stakeholders earlier this year had filed the lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in an attempt to block the January 28 agreement between the FAA and city of Santa Monica over the fate of SMO. The agreement essentially permits the city to immediately shorten the runway and to close SMO in 2028.
NBAA and the stakeholders earlier this month filed a brief in that case, charging that the FAA had disregarded statutory requirements in signing the agreement. In the amicus briefs, GAMA and AOPA agreed with that contention and outlined concerns about the national implications of such an agreement. The FAA has until the end of September to respond, but the agency has requested an extension until October 23.
The GAMA brief noted “statutory and regulatory requirements at issue in this case protect public interest in the national aviation system,” and said, “The decisions underlying the settlement agreement flout [regulatory requirements].” GAMA added it is “concerned about the precedent this case sets not only at Santa Monica Airport but also at other airports.”
The legal framework governing the U.S. airport infrastructure reflects not only the public value of the airport but also that airports are part of a national system rather than “local isolation,” GAMA argued in its brief. It noted the importance of consistent application of airport noise regulations and said, “Allowing the city of Santa Monica to circumvent [such regulation] sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the stability of the national transportation system and continued progress in noise reduction.”
AOPA also argued for the preservation of the public’s right to enforce compliance with grant agreements, deed restrictions and other commitments. “The settlement agreement appears to negate this important public right and to effectively circumvent the FAA’s mandated responsibility to investigate and enforce compliance with obligations,” the association said. “The FAA cannot avoid the responsibility it owes to the public it serves by modifying the terms of grant and deed-based obligations in a settlement agreement.”
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and General Aviation Manufacturers Association have submitted amicus briefs backing a lawsuit NBAA and five other stakeholders filed in response to the FAA’s Santa Monica Airport (SMO) settlement agreement. NBAA and the five stakeholders filed the lawsuit earlier this year with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in an attempt to block the January 28 agreement between the FAA and city of Santa Monica over the fate of SMO. The agreement essentially permits the city to shorten the runway immediately and to close SMO in 2028.
NBAA and the stakeholders filed a brief in that case in August, charging that the FAA had disregarded statutory requirements in signing the agreement. In the amicus briefs, GAMA and AOPA agreed with that contention and outlined concerns about the national implications of such an agreement. The FAA requested an extension until October 23 for its response deadline.
“This case concerns continued access to a public-use airport, which cannot be considered in a vacuum,” GAMA told the court. The case has “implications not only at Santa Monica Airport, but also more broadly for the National Airspace System and the aviation industry.”
GAMA added that statutory and regulatory requirements are in place to protect the public interest in the national aviation system, pointing to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) of 1990, which established a national standard to phase out noisier aircraft and promote development of quieter aircraft.
“The decisions underlying the settlement agreement flout these regulatory requirements,” GAMA said, adding, “For decades, these requirements have helped to preserve Santa Monica Airport in the face of efforts to restrict operations and/or close the airport. GAMA is concerned about the precedent this case sets not only at Santa Monica Airport, but also for other airports.”
The legal framework governing the U.S. airport infrastructure reflects not only that airports have public value but also that airports are part of a national system rather than “local isolation,” GAMA argued in its brief. It noted the importance of consistent application of airport noise regulations and said, “Allowing the city of Santa Monica to circumvent [such regulation] sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the stability of the national transportation system and continued progress in noise reduction.”
AOPA also argued for the preservation of the public’s right to enforce compliance with grant agreements, deed restrictions and other commitments. The city has accepted public funds and benefits for the airport, both through federal grants and the transfer of property under the Surplus Property Act, AOPA noted. This gives the public the right to seek enforcement of the assurances, and the FAA has the responsibility to investigate and enforce any alleged violation.
“The settlement agreement appears to negate this important public right and to effectively circumvent the FAA’s mandated responsibility to investigate and enforce compliance with obligations,” the association said. “The FAA cannot avoid the responsibility it owes to the public it serves by modifying the terms of grant and deed-based obligations in a settlement agreement.”