BURBANK CAN'T FORCE FLIGHT CURFEW AT AIRPORT, FAA RULES.

Byline: Lee Condon Daily News Staff Writer

Federal Aviation Administration officials ruled Thursday that a mandatory curfew on night flights cannot be grandfathered in at Burbank Airport and a formal study would be needed to impose flight limitations.

The long-awaited ruling dashed the city of Burbank's hopes to short-cut the process and strengthened the airport's hand in resisting a curfew unless it is found to be justified in a formal survey known as a Part 161 study.

The 1990 Airport Noise & Capacity Act bars airports from instituting new noise rules, but airports can apply for curfews and noise restrictions by doing a Part 161 study. No airport in the country has ever completed a Part 161 study.

``The city of Burbank has produced no persuasive evidence to support the claim of an exemption for the airport noise restrictions requested,'' FAA lawyers wrote in their opinion.

FAA officials suggested again that the best answer to the long-running dispute that has stalled construction of a new terminal at Burbank is for the warring sides to negotiate a settlement with all sides involved, including residents and the airlines.

City officials acknowledged the ruling was a defeat but insisted they still want a mandatory curfew.

``Obviously, we're not happy with this,'' said Burbank City Manager Robert ``Bud'' Ovrom. ``This opinion closes an avenue for us.

``We don't care how the airport gets a curfew, whether it's through Part 161 or an exemption.''

Thomas Greer, executive director of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said the FAA's opinion confirms what airport officials have been saying for years.

``Our position is we could not unilaterally grant a cap and curfew,'' Greer said. ``Had it been grandfathered in, I think we would have done a curfew. Now the FAA says we can't.''

He said a voluntary agreement is the best route, although his staff is committed to completing the Part 161 application for a formal mandatory curfew.

``I don't know what the 161 study is going to produce. I'd rather negotiate a deal with the city of Burbank,'' Greer said.

``The Airport Authority is not opposed to anything that is going to get us that terminal building. If it involves the airlines making concessions to us, we'd welcome that. If the FAA can make that come about, we'd welcome that.''

Burbank had claimed a curfew and a noise budget could be grandfathered in because local noise restrictions were put in place in 1977, well before the 1990 national law was enacted.

Burbank wants a mandatory curfew on night flights and a noise budget before approving construction of a new terminal that would better service airport users.

``Unfortunately, if the FAA's opinion stands as written, it eliminates one of the avenues for resolving the dispute quickly,'' said Peter Kirch, a lawyer for the city of Burbank.

The FAA opinion was the second major bombshell within a nine-day period in the war over the future of Burbank Airport. The city of Burbank scored a major victory May 5 when the Court of Appeals ruled that the airport must get the city's permission to expand the airport and to buy land for an expanded facility.

Marie-Therese Dominguez, chief of staff for FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, said a voluntary agreement is better than the difficult study process.

``The reason we encourage voluntary agreements is that it is much less expensive and time-consuming than a Part 161,'' said Dominguez, who is the FAA's liaison to Burbank. ``At any point the parties are free to come together and make a voluntary agreement.''

All sides recognize the difficulty of getting the airport's six commercial airlines to voluntarily agree to any restrictions. Still, Dominguez said the FAA will offer any assistance it can, including talking with carriers about participating in a voluntary agreement.

Rep. James Rogan, R-Pasadena, had pushed the FAA for an opinion for months.

On Thursday, he invited Burbank city officials, Airport Authority members and other local politicians to a meeting June 1 in order to start negotiations.

Rogan spokesman Jeff Solsby said the congressman wants to start negotiations by proposing that all sides agree to a new 16-gate terminal and to start construction immediately. Room would be left for future additions if they are warranted by passenger demand.

Rogan's 16-gate terminal is only slightly bigger than the current 14-gate terminal. The city and the airport could debate further expansion once they have agreed that construction should start, Solsby said.

Airport officials say the terminal needs to be moved from its current location because it is situated 300 feet too close to both runways at the facility.

``We are saying we need to get started on construction in the name of safety,'' Solsby said. ``Every day that we don't work toward building a new terminal is a day that the public's safety is placed in further jeopardy.''

Ovrom said the city likely would reject Rogan's idea because the congressman is trying to separate the issue of construction from the issue of noise.

``Rogan's suggestion is let's do it the airport's way,'' Ovrom said.

But Solsby countered that Rogan also is trying to help Burbank get its curfew.

``We are drafting, as we speak, legislation to make an exception to (the Airport Noise & Capacity Act) and give Burbank the authority to impose a locally controlled curfew,'' Solsby said.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Mission Hills, said he was disappointed by the decision.

``The (airport) must compromise on the construction of a new terminal and sensible limits on aircraft noise, and they must deal in a reasonable manner with all interested parties,'' he said.

State Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, said it is time for the city and the airport to start trying to work out a deal again.

``We have a new landscape now. It's a productive time to bring people back to the table,'' Schiff said.