Airport Noise Study Required in Curfew Plan

The Federal Aviation Administration dealt a blow Thursday to those seeking an immediate nighttime noise curfew at Burbank Airport, saying that a comprehensive noise study must be completed first.

“The city of Burbank has produced no persuasive written evidence to support the claim of an exemption for the airport noise restrictions requested,” FAA chief counsel Nicholas G. Garaufis said in a 14-page legal opinion.

Burbank city officials want to bar flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and limit the total number of flights. Officials with the airport, which is jointly owned by the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, have maintained that a noise study must be completed before curfews and flight caps can be imposed.

The FAA’s opinion backed airport officials, rejecting the city’s contention that Burbank Airport was exempt from a 1990 federal law mandating such studies.

“The decision is consistent with what we’ve been saying for quite some time,” said Tom Greer, the airport’s executive director. “The airport does not have the authority to unilaterally impose caps and curfews.”

Reps. Howard Berman (D-Panorama City) and Brad Sherman (D--Sherman Oaks) called the opinion disappointing, but said it would not be the last word.

“This opinion does not preclude the adoption of noise and access restrictions, including a mandatory curfew on nighttime flights, at some point in the future,” Berman said. “It means that the airport must conduct a study to justify any restrictions.”

In a conference call with reporters, FAA officials said Thursday that the city of Burbank could still negotiate with the airlines and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to make mandatory the existing voluntary curfew on flights between 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

That might eliminate the need for the noise study, the FAA said.

“At any time the parties are free to come together and develop their own voluntary restrictions,” said Marie Therese Dominguez, counsel and deputy chief to the FAA administrator. “And we’ve also said we will work with the air carriers to help in that regard.”

The Airport Authority voted last year to launch a noise study. So far, they have hired consultants but officials say it will take more than two years to complete the process at a cost of more than $2 million.

Thus far, only four such studies--including one at Burbank--have been commissioned in the United States, federal officials said.

None of the reviews were ever completed, but at two airports, officials negotiated a resolution with local officials over noise problems.

Still, FAA officials reiterated that the best solution to the Burbank Airport impasse could be achieved at the local level, a point emphasized by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey in her visit to Burbank last August.

The opinion issued Thursday, FAA officials noted, came only because Burbank officials sought clarification and was not intended to be an attempt at resolving the long-running dispute over noise.

But Burbank officials have argued that the airlines routinely break the voluntary curfew, making it necessary for mandatory restrictions and FAA involvement.

They also note that the airlines rejected Burbank Airport’s proposal for an ironclad restriction last year, prompting officials to move forward with the noise review and hire consultants to determine the scope of the study.

“We had been hopeful that the FAA would help in finding a way to resolve this dispute quickly,” said Peter Kirsch, the city’s special counsel on airport issues.

“However, the agency has made it clear that it does not intend to assist in finding creative ways to solve this dispute. While that’s disappointing,” Kirsch said, “it certainly does not change the city’s position at all.”

While the larger dispute goes back to a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred the city from interfering in airport operations and safety, the fight between Burbank and the Airport Authority center on plans to expand the existing 14-gate terminal to 19 gates.

There are seven pending lawsuits over the terminal, which the FAA said in 1980 is too close to the east-west runway, though the agency has not required that the terminal be relocated.

Since then, airport officials have sought to tear down the old terminal and build a new one on 130 acres of land owned by Lockheed Martin.

Burbank officials sought to block use of the land for the terminal, which has led to a series of court fights, in which both sides have traded wins and losses.

A state appellate court ruled last week that the city of Burbank has the power under state law to block the airport’s planned expansion, giving anti-noise opponents a brief victory.

But with Thursday’s decision, the next step is unclear, those involved in the controversy said.

Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale) plans to call together airport and elected officials in an attempt to work out a compromise on building a new terminal, Rogan aide Jeffrey Solsby said.

“This ruling was keeping everybody at loggerheads,” Solsby said. “Now that this has passed, it’s important to bring everybody together and, once and for all, find some closure on this issue. We have to build a new terminal. Every day we wait is a day that public safety is placed in further jeopardy.”

State Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), who called a summit on Burbank Airport, said he planned to convene another meeting in hopes of resolving the issue.

“In light of the FAA decision and the Court of Appeal decision, the entire landscape has changed,” Schiff said.

*

Times staff writer Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this story.