We have counseled more than 60 airports—large and small—in connection with the development and implementation of comprehensive noise management, mitigation, and abatement programs. We frequently advise clients on strategies for implementing noise rules and on developing programs for preferential runway use, noise abatement departure procedures, and related voluntary noise abatement programs.
Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell has provided continuing counsel to airport proprietors, local governments, and community organizations on the noise impacts of aircraft flight tracks and routes, on minimizing the impacts from changes in flight tracks and routes, and on modifications of flight tracks and routes for noise management purposes. We have assisted in preparing and updating noise compatibility studies under FAR Part 150 at airports throughout the country. Recently, we were called on regarding the noise implications of new NextGen flight procedures and the rerouting and concentration of aircraft flight tracks in several metropolitan areas.
Our attorneys have been leaders in the area of noise rules before and after enactment of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and its implementing regulations, FAR Part 161.
Our experience in this area includes:
We also represent municipalities and other local governments affected by airport operations in negotiations and litigation over management and mitigation of airport impacts and the equitable allocation of the burdens and benefits of airport development. Our representation of these government clients calls upon our expertise not only in airport legal issues, but also in related matters such as land use regulation, local government law, constitutional law, and federal and state environmental programs. Additionally, we have successfully defended several nuisance and takings cases for noise damages in state and federal courts brought against airport sponsors.
In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep’t of Transp. Case No. L2006060064 (Feb. 28, 2008); In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep’t of Transp. Case No. L-2001110412 (Nov. 20, 2002); In the Matter of the Application of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., Cal. Dep’t of Transp. Case No. L-9701269 (1998) (successfully represented City of Burbank in successive contested hearings under the California’s noise variance process and obtained conditions requiring additional noise mitigation and abatement measures)
Minnesota ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis Airports Commission (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2007) (represented City of Minneapolis in challenge under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act to sound insulation program at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport; secured settlement providing for sound insulation for 10,000 homes)
City of Naples Airport Auth. v. F.A.A., 409 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (challenge to FAA revocation of grant eligibility of airport proprietor for imposing aircraft noise restriction); Nat’l Bus. Aviation Ass’n v. City of Naples Airport Auth., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (represented airport in challenge to constitutionality of restriction on aircraft operations); Continental Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Naples Airport Auth., 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1236 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (represented airport in defense of restriction on Stage 2 jet aircraft)
Telnack v. Martin County (19th Jud. Circuit, FL, No. 04-459) (2004) (successful defense of class action takings and nuisance case)
Palm Beach Neighborhood Association v. Palm Beach County, No. 98-002739-AG (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1999) (successful defense of takings litigation over aircraft flight tracks)
Guide to Airport Noise Rules and Use Restrictions