October 12, 2001

The Honorable Norman Y. Mineta

U.S. Secretary of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Mineta:

We are writing in reference to the August 29, 2001 FAA Airspace Determination for the proposed civil aviation reuse of MCAS El Toro released October 9, 2001 ("Airspace Determination"). The determination finds that the proposal would negatively impact air traffic in the already highly congested Los Angeles basin, and thereby calls into question the viability of the proposal. However, other aspects of the determination and its implications require clarification.

The negative findings in the Airspace Determination have profound implications for Orange County’s (the "LRA") planning process for civilian reuse of the base. It is fiscally irresponsible for the community to build, and for the federal government to financially support, an airport that cannot be operated safely without severe restrictions on aircraft type, load factors, and consistent delays in arrivals and departures. Furthermore, the determination will be detrimental to regional and national airspace system efficiencies. We respectfully request immediate clarification of the following issues:

• Is the determination "conditional" within the terms of Section 157.7(b), addressing the significant airspace conflicts that were identified in the Airspace Determination, or is this a "no objection" determination? The determination states that it has been issued pursuant to 14 CFR Part 157. Must Orange County, as the airport sponsor, now make changes to the plan, before proceeding further?
• Does the proposed airport meet the statutory criteria for federal grant assistance? Federal law mandates a former military airport must reduce delays at existing airports, enhance airport and air traffic control capacity, or reduce current or projected flight delays to be eligible for federal grant assistance. The Airspace Determination finds that the proposed airport, as planned, would significantly increase flight delays.
• Does the FAA consider the determination to be "favorable" under the agency's requirements to permit disposal of the El Toro base for civil aviation use?  As you know, FAA Order 5150.2A, details the FAA's obligations under federal law governing the disposition of federal surplus property.  It states that a favorable airspace determination is required to obtain FAA endorsement of a former military airfield for disposal.
• We request that analysis in the Airspace Determination be recalculated on the basis of the LRA’s Airport Master Plan that operates on a daily schedule similar to other airports in the Los Angeles Basin. The Airspace Determination analyzed operations between the hours of 6 AM to 5 PM. The LRA is not proposing, and we do not believe the FAA is concurring that a $3 billion proposed airport would cease operations at 5 PM.
• We request a quantification of anticipated effects regarding the northern departure routes from the proposed El Toro Airport and its impact on the surrounding area airport airspace system. The Airspace Determination reveals severe conflicts in departures to the North, which could result, according to the report, in a 3 hour 12 minute delay at John Wayne and Long Beach Airports for every northern departure out of El Toro Airport. The Airspace Determination does not address implications for Los Angeles International and Ontario Airports and other airports in the region, nor the ripple effect that arrival and departure delays would have throughout the national airspace system.
• We have waited for over two years for the FAA to provide a straightforward answer to this key question: Can the planned airport be operated under any wind conditions without any takeoffs on the westerly Runway 26? The Airspace Determination still does not answer this question with a direct answer. The LRA’s Airport Master Plan for El Toro states "Runway 26 will never be used." We know that wind conditions at the airport will demand that the westerly runway be used occasionally, as the Air Line Pilots Association and others have repeatedly pointed out, or else takeoffs from the airport by loaded commercial aircraft will cease. The Airspace Determination acknowledges that the Runway 26 departure "would also be consistent with surrounding air traffic flows in the Southern California Basin" but does not explicitly acknowledge, under FAA requirements, that pilots can request clearance to use that runway if conditions demand that it be used.

Mr. Secretary, thank you for the hard work you and your staff did in preparing the Airspace Determination, thank you too, for providing the additional clarifications we have brought to your attention.

Sincerely,

Darrell Issa Ken Calvert Gary Miller