From: Gerald A. Silver, Pres.

Homeowners of Encino, Stop the Noise Coalition

Re: Comments Submitted On Behalf Of Homeowners Organizations Regarding The Next Vny Part 150 Steering Committee Meeting, Wed. Nov. 8, 2000 - Airtel Plaza, Van Nuys - 7 Pm

The following letter was sent to LAWA giving our suggestions and comments on the current Noise Compatibility Plan (NCP).

___________________________________________________________________

STOP THE NOISE!

PO Box 260205, Encino, CA 91426 email: gsilver@sprintmail.com [On Letterhead with names of 30 Participating Organizations]

10/12/2000

Mr. Maurice Laham Environmental Management Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Committee Meeting: Wed., Nov. 8, 2000 One World Way, PO Box 92216 Location: Airtel Plaza, Van Nuys - 7 pm Los Angeles, CA 90009-2216

Re: List Of Potential Measures That Should Be Added To NCP:

Thank you for sending me a letter dated Sept. 21, 2000 in which you list a variety of potential measures that could be included in the VNY Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). I would like to raise several questions regarding the list you submitted, and add several other measures that should be considered as part of the Part 150 measures.

Changes and modifications need to be made in the outdated Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) before it should be sent to the FAA for approval. These changes should include new noise abatement measures such as a phase out of Stage 2 jets, helicopter curfews and limits on the number of Stage 3 aircraft that can join the fleet, or fly in as itinerants. Without an aggressive new NCP, the Part 150 Study will have failed to protect the community and its residents.

1. Please explain why there is almost a 30% difference between the data provided to us in your letter of Sept. 20th and the data previously provided to us on July 6th. I understand that these data were prepared using two slightly different versions of the INM---version 6.0 and 6.0a. Yet the results are very different.

These figures represent a substantial increase in the number of acres, dwelling units, parcels and population affected by VNY noise. Can this large increase be explained simply because of using version 6.0a of the INM? In particular the difference of almost 30% between versions 6.0 and 6.0a when describing the 2004 future acreage conditions raises many questions about the validity and accuracy of the data being reported. It seems that each time the committee is given data, it is markedly different than that previously reported. Inconsistent data reporting makes its very hard for committee members to make valid recommendations.

2. We have several questions regarding the potential mitigation measures that were provided to us in your memo of Sept. 21st.

a. Your measure 3a. would establish a correlation between rental rates for leases and tie downs with the level of noise generated. You state that "Such a program would most likely require a Part 161 Study to be conducted." Can you give the foundation for this conclusion, and cite any specific precedents, case law or FAA regulations where changes in lease rates correlated to noise levels required a Part 161 Study?

b. Your measure 3b. would establish differential landing fees with higher fees for noisier aircraft and lower fees for quieter aircraft. You state that "A Part 161 Study would probably be required for this type of measure."

Can you give the foundation for this conclusion, and cite any specific precedents, case law or FAA regulations where differential landing fees required a Part 161 Study.

c. Your measure 4. would increase fines for aircraft operators who violate existing ordinances at VNY. You state that "A Part 161 Study would most likely be required for this type of measure." Can you give the foundation for this conclusion, and cite any specific precedents, case law or FAA regulations where increased fines for violating ordinances required a Part 161 Study.

d. Your measure 6. would establish daytime noise limits for aircraft operating at the airport. You state that "A Part 161 Study would most likely be required." Can you give the foundation for this conclusion, and cite any specific precedents, case law or FAA regulations where grand-fathered noise regulations, proposed prior to ANCA required a Part 161 Study. In this regard, it must be remembered that a daytime maximum noise limit of 77 dBA was proposed prior to the passage of ANCA. This could easily be applied to Stage 2 aircraft since it is grand-fathered.

3. Your list of possible noise control measures would not be complete without consideration of the many measures that have been approved by the FAA in other Part 150 Studies. Your list should also include new measures that would address the noise problem, but might require a Part 161 Study. It has been suggested by the LA City Attorney, that a Part 161 Study could be completed in a year or two, well within the current Part 150 study horizon.

We would like to ask that the Steering Committee to investigate the feasibility of the following additional measures for inclusion in the NCP:

a. A phase-out to Stage 2 jets.

 This measure was proposed prior to the adoption of ANCA and should therefore be grand-fathered and implemented without the need for a Part 161 Study.

b. A cap on the number of Stage 3 jets that can be based at VNY.

 Without a cap, or some kind of controls on the growth of Stage 3 jets, there will be a huge increase in the noise contour around VNY. This increase could easily overshadow all other noise control measures combined in the NCP. This measure would likely require a Part 161 Study, and should be one of the major recommendations of the Part 150 Study.

c. Expand the noise study area to include the 60 and 55 CNEL contours.

 The current noise model that relies on the 65 CNEL is grossly inadequate. It does not reflect the potential growth and affected areas that are greatly impacted outside the 65 CNEL. Other airports have included measures in their Part 150 Study approved by the FAA. [see Chico, CA Airport Part 150 Study, Kansas City International Airport, MO, Part 150 Study]

d. Add "Noise Sensitive Areas" to the list of NCP measures.

 Some Part 150 Studies include the definition of noise sensitive areas as a key measure to minimize noise. [see Chico, CA Airport Part 150 Study]

e. Adopt a noise-sensitive marketing policy for VNY.

 Some airports have established formal marketing policies that discourage the basing of Stage 2 aircraft and certain types of training at their airport as part of their Part 150 Study. The FAA has agreed that this measure is rationally related to a noise objective, and well within the "authority" of an airport. [see Glendale, AZ Part 150 Study]

f. Adopt a measure that would equalize departures routes.

 This measure was approved by the FAA for Sky Harbor Airport. [see Sky Harbor Airport, Phoenix, AZ Part 150 Study]

g. Establish a 1500 to 2000 foot AGL required minimum altitude for helicopters. This measure was approved for the Burbank Airport [see Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, Burbank, CA Part 150 Study]

h. Adopt a "top of the runway" departure policy.

 Agreements have been reached with operators that encourage specific points on the runway for departure. By encouraging flights to begin takeoff at the top of the runway, rather than at midfield, planes would be airborne at higher altitudes over residential communities. (see Naples Municipal Airport, FL Part 150 Study]

i. Establish Airport Influence Area.

This measure recommends that the airport establish an Airport Influence Area around the airport. This area is created to encompass those areas where noise complaints have been recorded and includes the area covered by the noise contours for the year 2005. Various specific land use measures within this area could be implemented.

j. Conduct public informational meetings on the progress of the Part 150 Program.

The airport should annually monitor aircraft noise levels and the level of activity at the airport to determine if significant and unexpected changes have occurred to the base year NEM, and to determine if the Part 150 program is being successfully implemented. These results should be provided at annual public information meetings to discuss the progress of the Part 150 plan and to educate and inform airport users and the affected communities.

Discussions with airport users regarding community complaints associated with airport operations should also be included in these annual reviews.

Recommendations for updating the NEMs and Part 150 program should also be provided if unexpected changes occur before the 5-year period and significantly affect the land use compatibility situation around the airport, and/or the noise abatement cost assumptions used in the development of the current plan. [see Naples Municipal Airport, FL Part 150 Study and Kona International Airport, HI Part 150 Study]

k. Provide a Full-Time Noise Abatement Officer.

 The Officer should be responsible for operation of the permanent monitoring system, community liaison regarding noise issues, collection of and response to noise complaints, implementation of the NCP, and ongoing noise compatibility planning efforts. The Officer is a critical element of the ongoing implementation and success of the NCP. [see Ft. Lauderdale, FL Part 150 Study]

Finally all members of the Steering Committee should be informed about the presence of the official FAA web page that lists and describes in detail the major Part 150 Studies that have been completed. This valuable resource should be carefully examined before a final list of NCP measures are recommended or approved.

The URL is: http://www.faa.gov/arp/app600/14cfr150/RecApp.htm

We again wish to caution you regarding the feasibility of using soundproofing as the principal measure to reduce noise at VNY. We believe that it is highly unlikely that the "1200 previously incompatible dwelling units shown as incompatible," will all be soundproofed. Many of the residents that we have talked to are insistent that more measures need to be taken to abate noise. They want a phase out of Stage 2 jets, helicopter curfews, limits on Stage 3 operations and the like before they will seriously consider soundproofing their homes.

Thank you for placing these items before the Steering Committee. We would appreciate your distributing this letter to all Committee members.

Cordially yours,

Gerald A. Silver President--Homeowners of Encino, Stop the Noise! Coalition

cc: Elected officials, homeowner associations

Part 150 Index

Van Nuys Airport page