EXHIBIT 

# 1~117

••• a n I a U il II i., ;1

March '12 7008

Mr D Kirk Shatter Associate Adn'lrl'st"a:or fa' A"'poris Feceral Av'at·c'l4.dr'1"1!stralron ,<)00lndepende nce Ave nue N

### v. Vvasbinqton. DC 20591
Re Santa Monica MunicloalAirport
- Runway Safety Areas

Than", yOJ for outilri'lg the Federal Aviato» Administration's (FpAl position regardlnq runway safety areas fa' the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (Airport) It rerna-ns tile City's oosmon that rnaxn-uzrnq the safety for operators Of aircraft passengers anc for residents ;'vln9 adjacent to tne Airport by applying rAA standards for runway safety areas IS vital to he long term interests of lne Airport. The Cty Council h<Js indicated its mteres: "1 hearing !'le FAAs explanation Of its position regarding Runway Safety Areas and accepts 'yOW offer to appear att-ie City Council meeting of March 25 2008 to provide that explanation
1'1 rev;ewing your letter of March 7 2008 tne City has concerns 'egarcfng :he nonstandard safety opt.ons proposed for the west end of the runway ar o the complete absence o' any safety options proposed for the east end of the runway

Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) - The Cays pleased that tne 

### rAA has agreed With the City's position that a 1,OOO-ft.Runway Safety Area (or lO-kllot :::\.1ASequivalent) is needed Or] tne west end of the runway However. thc Efvl;\S graphic forwardeo to the City on March 6. 2008. and referred to In yow March 71cttcr Indicated an
CAA recommendation for a 250 foot EMAS bed With a 25 foot lead-In to the EM,';S bed The analysis (attachment A) requested by FA? and oertormeo by Engineered i\rresllr'Y Systems Corporation (ESeQ) the manufacturer of EMAS, shows that a 250 ft Ff.• 1A.Sbed at SMO 'would orov.ce IO-knot stopping capability for only 2.of tile 7 aircraft selected tor analysis by ESCO In other words the 250-ft EMAS bed would not provide 70 knot stopping capability for 5 of the 7 aircraft selected for analysis Perhaps the wronq graphl: was inadvc'1crtly sent to tbe City 0'1 ~.~arch 6 If so. please provide the actual dimensions of the 70 knot EMI\S irstallation referred to In your March 7 letter

## o Kirk Shaffer, Associate Administrator

March 12, 2008 Page 2 of 3

To provide some frame of reference, both the attached January 18 2006 ESCO data, which was attached to the January 20 2006 (attachment B) letter sent by Davrd Bennett of the FAA, and the subsequent attached May 30,2006 (attachment C) ESCO data which expanded the number of options modeled demonstrate that a 70 knot standard could be met witt' either a 250 foot E].•. 1.c..S bed with a 350 foot lead if' or a 40C foot FM .• \S bed with a .:5 'oct lcad-ir: ", idditlO'1 to 'reeting the 70 knot stanoard on t-ie west sice of t"'!:" rlw\,'JaY the Crtv IS also conccrncc acc.i: orcvonq adequate safety protect.on fcr the east side of 1'1(;rYH,'<:1'';A.s ~'-e orevious F,::"A,A,elf'l'liS:fater r/drion C Blakey statec II" ne J~jne 12 2C06 letter to Ccnqressmar Her rvvvaxrnan concerr-mq ;~S,A,$ a: SMO '~!tc !!ave ;' r)U'O tr,«. ccn~:e'ns of

Your letter mcicatcs tria: 97'/ o· aircraft ooeratons are to Ih~ vvESt ] tH'

## c: tv S Ci8t3 .ncicates that tre aC-lai -Clure is somewhere between 94°/. and 9,/'.< ieavlr93-6 ot operatiors I:,)the CdS! ;::!\;\ s position ISappar ently that tI'IS is a suffrcie-vlv low rc-nocr as '0 not WWfWl: any safe!', protectior f so, the City does rot ll'l{jer~ta'ld IlCYN an impact on a "action of tr cse ooera: CIS due ro Implel1ertatcn of se-ne R~~;A,ilN'Ietner :hr::llJgr tte .ise 0' declarec distances or other means! ;J1i tte eas: Side would ur.oose an Impact on oueratiors ttat is unacceptable to the F.AA Tlus is partict.lar y hIS since FAF:S statutory mandate IStt-at the safe cceratron of the r-at.o-ial arroort and arrwav system IS ItS higrest pnorrtv Coiseuue-r.iv an 

### rAA P()5IltJf1 hal tnere shoi.lo De '10 fYC" •• 'SCfl c:fsCifet'! marquis "or the .3-6" of tile: operations that (He easl()C,md (apparertly oue :0 concerrs (WW irnpie"',entatlor of sa-ety rna-qir s that would affect a 'T1Ucr 'C'/J:3r evel C:/ope-ations: would appear teo tx' contra v to the agency's statutory rnanda:e 10 prorrote safety' Perhaps the City has rrust.r destocd '-,A/:"5 positron. and .ne aqercy wcu d s.ippor: saie.y enharcerne-u 'ry the east Sloe 0- the runway '/',;e V.'O,I d appreciate FA,b, ctantication c' rs POSition In tns 'eqarc Hold Line
- ,6,ltroJgh 1'],s pronosal IS not 'elate:j to t'le runway sai<,ty discussions 80C"iC .no Citv apprcc.atcs the F,tv\s conside-ation ot cnanqe s :o the procedures fo, aircrar; rrover ter t or tr c t.e.d In orcer to !l11r1TZe ~'le trrre arrcratt spend IJr" the taxiways and a: :"8 departure end of tile runway. the City has -ist U:C:8 two ocl.c.cs In cooperation with t-ic ;-AU., The !:::R Engine Star: :'Jroccc:ures fTlnlTIZC .ncdcluv between encrr.e start and depa":.He Cv ravir'q fixed-wing t.irbine aircraft obtain a departi.re release ::no 'ren ,AirTraffic Centro ouor to Stdrti'lg Its engines 0' :axi:ny tc :'le ;::R f-old f\/eas on ~'lC taxiwavs The IFR He,d ,s,rea I')r(]cedure~ WO''''i:1efor an ,lfP;l on Ihe laxll/Jay 2:-)C) feet :'om the er-d of the .urwav [o: aircra't to hold while vv3itin'J for cfenal1u-e clearance trom .AIr -':Jffc Conu ot. ,A,lth:JuQ'lthe City rarely receives cornctamts re<;lar,j '19 :he hotcrr-q tunes for '/I='~ traffic the CI!\l \,';ioJldbe glad to discuss 'he in:::IUSI0f1of 'IFF: traffe '1 the current :::ngine Start and Iioid Area Prcceci, res, includinq the impacts on Sideline noise Of' resrcentrat areas to the north anc impact of the wesler!v winds C'1 anv a.rcraft noise or engwe orrussrons w-ren noldmq on the tdXW<J,/S,D Kirk Shaffer. Asscc.ate Adrrunistrator March' 2 2008 Page 3 of 3

3 PEEER RNAV Departure - The City remains very interested in this new nrccedure Cowing the ne:.•• eloornent of this procedure and during Its prio- U'lsuccessful test oer od. tre CIt.y'S staff at the Airport was not. consulted about mplernentatron of thrs orccedure. Its our uncerstand.nq that on.y aircraftwith appropriate navqauonat equipment ~(;PS"RN.AV· will be able 10 use this procedure Lnder the prior attempt only' one user of the Airport had t'l6 apnroonate equpment. It ISalso our understar-dinq that t'18 new oroced.rre noes not Change tnc current f1i;r1t path :0 areas over resme ntral areas. oi.t -wctves a change In the fligrit path after it has crossed the coastline The City would aporec.ate ~eceivlng a full bneflng cf this new procedure ana oresentation to the City S Arrport Commission

4 NOTAMs - ·'!'.ider o.sserrunauon of the Cltys Fly Neighbor.,. Prograt'l ISan ongoing goal for the City and the F.AAs participation in trial effort ISa Positive development. Rarsmq the awareness of 111e users of the Airport regarding the qeograohlcally constrained nature of the Airport's facilities IS a good interim step. but It cannot substitute for real runway safety areas on the runway Use of the NOT A.Ms and other methods 0' outreach to pilots operators and owners of aircraft In coruunction With runway safety' areas that meet the 70 knot standard will si[Jn,f:cantty increase the safety for everyone V;lfln D' livinq near the ,A,Hp::>It. provldtng a bfleflflg to City staff and a presentation to the Cltys Airport Cornmis sron on trus Issue WOL.I,j be a qood 'irst step In startmq the draloque on trus recommendation to address the Airports rum•••. av safety Issues. Aner many years of drscussion the Crty appreciates tile f !--.A.'5recognition trat 'U'lwav safety systems should meet the 70 knot standard Consistent with formeAdmin-strater Blakevs statement thai safety unprovernents shoulc appy at noth ends ot tile 'U'1Way, [he City IS ready to Implement true '1'j knot runway safely system at both ends of tre runway for the safety 0' those or board the aircraft ano for res dents liv!ng adjacent to :t"e Airport Ifvc»: have any ouestic-isor comments crease do not hesitate tc contact the City
::;')cerel~'.

o Lamont Ewell City Manager

cc •

•. ·ayor and City Counc: ~'/arsha Jones \'~outrle City Attorney Robert 1 rrnborn. Acting Airport :JlreCtor Attachments A. ESCO Modelinq (Marc]: 2008) :J lJavld lJe'lnet Letter(January 20 2006, C ESCC Modeling Data tf\llay JC 2006)

## ARP-l Letter to Santa Monica City Manager - March 7, 2008

L:3 :-;ep~Jrtt'lenr Q+- ~ro.,scc1naion Associate Admll1'stralor ferAirports 800 Independence Ave. SW W""h,nglon, DC 20591 Federal Aviation Administration

March 7,2008 vlr, P Lamont Ewell City \1anager City of Santa Monica I(i85 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401

RE: Engineered Material Arresting System at Santa Monica Airport
Dear Lamont: Thank you very much for pulling your team together yesterday to discuss this important subject. Itrust that you received the Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) graphic showing approximate dimensions which we dispatched yesterday afternoon. As promised, this letter generally outlines the four clements that we propose to move this project forward: 1. EMAS: We are proposing that the City have the option to select either rhc 40-knot installation at each runway end, as previously discussed in detail, or a 70-knot installation at the departure end of Runway 21, as generally depicted in yesterday's graphic. The latter includes consuming more current runway pavement than the FAA has previously been willing to approve. Although there are additional operational impacts associated \•• ith using more pavement. we are willing to permit this impact, as the City so forcefully argued for the protection ofa 1000-foot Runway Safety Area (70-knot EMAS equivalent) in our recent meeting here in Washington. Of course. selecting this option will mean that nothing is done elsewhere on the runway that would further shorten its length. We, nonetheless, hope that the City will select the 70-knot installation, as it clearly addresses whatever safety risk may exist on this already safe airfield; that is. coverage of97% of your operations including 90';'0 ofthe Category C and D operations. 2. Hold Line: We propose moving the hold lines on both taxiways to the approximate position of the current IFR hold lineonTaxiway A and making those hold lines applicable to all aircraft, IFR, and VFR. This should help insure that, in circumstances when an aircraft 15 held for departure. the noise and emissions experienced on properties adjoining the airport are decreased The emissions should go back down the taxiway, Slaying on the airport. and the noise off the airport will he sideline noise. which is naturally less than exhaust noise.3. PEEER R'\A V Departure: Our Air Traffic Organization has accelerated its work in redesigning this departure at the request ofmy office. As you know. the former departure was not successful, as we were not able to achieve 3 nautical miles separation from LAX departures, The redesigned PEEER isvirtually ready for announcement and public release. Wecertainly arc hoping for success this time. and ifwe achieve it. the procedure should very substantially decrease the number of aircraft held idling on the ground at SMO, as departures will run independently from the LAX departures, except to the south. This is an operational benefit to the aircraft as well as anoise and emissions benefit to folks on the ground, 4. 'JOTAMs: As we discussed, the FAA has recently transitioned to electronic Notices to Airmen (NOrAMs) We propose to add two items along with the NOTAMs whenever a pilot files a flight plan into or out of Santa Monica, The first order of business in safety is prevention; thus, the pilot will get an FAA InFO (Information For Operators) as part of a Runway Safety Area Awareness Program, This InFO will describe the particular circumstances ofthe Santa Monica Airport, including the absence of Runway Safety Areas. and provide operational best practices for avoiding overruns. Further. the pilot will get a copy of the Santa Monica "FlyNeighborly" program, including operations and noise abatement procedures. which you developed. Again, we're aiming at increased safety and mitigation ofimpacts on those around the airport, Ichallenged my staff to put aside their previous work on this matter and approach the problem WIth fresh eyes and adean sheet of paper. Ibelieve they have done exactly that, as evidenced bythese four elements. As we discussed, Ihave already blocked March 25, 200H,on my calendar to come to Santa Monica to discuss these clements indetail with your staffand the Council. In the meantime. I will be happy to answer any questions that may arise and hope that the Council will see fit to forego further action on its pending ordinance banning certain aircraft from the airport.

D! Kirk Shaffer Associate Administrator for Airports

cc: Chairman James L. Obcrstar Chairman Henry A. Waxman Congresswoman Jane Hannan Acting Administrator Robert A. Sturgell 2U.S.Department

of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Associate Administrator for Airports 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591

November 26, 2007 The Honorable Richard Bloom Mayor, City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, #209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor Bloom and Members ofthe Council: As you remember, Ispoke before the Council on August 28 ofthis year. At that time, I outlined the FAA's determination that itwould be possible to install an effective safety enhancement (an EMAS system) ateach end ofthe runway, without significantly affecting use ofthe airport. Such an enhancement is still available, and that there is nojustification for further limitation on the use ofthe airport for safety reasons. My testimony was in furtherance ofmy commitment to you and the management ofyour airport to keep the lines ofcommunication open and to take personal ownership ofaddressing your concerns. Your proposed revision to Section 10.04/06/150, however, changes the conversation altogether. It shifts from what we heretofore accepted as your good faith concerns about safety to one about unreasonable denial ofaccess to an important, federally-obligated reliever airport in our national system. Theproposed ordinance would ban category C and D aircraft at SMO. The preamble to the ordinance and other statements by city officials suggest several reasons for the ban. These include:

• The airport was designed as aB-II airport and was designed for small general aviation aircraft.

• The runway is not safe for operation ofcategory C and D aircraft, because ofthe nonstandard runway safety areas (RSAs) and because the runway is "too short" for these aircraft.

• Current FAA standards require anRSA at Santa Monica Airport, and this requirement can't be modified orwaived.

• The location ofresidential communities near the runway ends creates an unusual risk forthese communities.

• The "conformance plan" banning category C and D aircraft is consistent with the 1984 Settlement Agreement and federal law.

• The FAA proposed runway end enhancements do not meet the RSA standards for category C and D operations.2

As Imade clear inmy testimony inAugust, the airport was not designed for small general aviation aircraft. The runway was built specifically forthe large, multi-engine aircraft being manufactured by Douglas and has always been used by some number ofgeneral aviation aircraft larger than the B category. The runway is safe for any operation permitted by the aircraft certification manual for that aircraft type. Accordingly, the runway may be too short for certain operations but will not be too short for any operation that requires less runway length than the runway available. The RSA standard ispart ofFAA's airport design standards and is not an operating requirement ofcondition. No FAA aircraft operating rule requires a standard RSA, and there is no basis inFAA regulations forprohibition ofany operation based on the status of the RSA. Having aresidential community close to the end ofthe runway does not affect the safety of normal operations. Rather, itincreases the potential for injury from an aircraft accident off the end ofthe runway. For that reason, FAA standards define arunway protection zone (RPZ), an area offthe end ofarunway end that is free ofincompatible land uses, including residential areas. Many communities have undertaken tobuyout homes and other incompatible uses inRPZs, often with financial assistance from the FAA. To our knowledge, Santa Monica has not seriously considered this option, even though itisthe only certain way toremove allrisk ofharrn topersons orproperty on the ground in those areas. You will recall that Ireiterated inmy August testimony the FAA's willingness to help SMO establish RPZs and to fund the project, just as we have across the country. The proposed ban on category C and D aircraft isnot consistent with the Settlement Agreement orthe city's other obligations forreasonable access to the airport. The safety of an aircraft's operation is afunction ofthe requirements forthat operation in the aircraft certification manual. Ifthe runway meets those requirements, there is no safety basis for prohibition ofthat operation. The airport's design category is not relevant to a safety determination for that operation. Accordingly, the city has not provided areasonable basis forthe restriction ofaircraft types that are using the airport in full compliance with FAA safety regulations. Ifthe FAA determines that arestriction onthe use ofSMO is unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory, that restriction would be inviolation ofthe city's grant assurances, its surplus property deed restrictions, the Settlement Agreement, various U.S. Constitution provisions, and quite possibly the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. Let me speak very frankly, ladies and gentlemen. What you are considering by this proposed ordinance is flatly illegal as drafted. The FAA isresponsible, as you know, forthe enforcement ofeach ofthese requirements. The city should expect the agency to expeditiously use its authority and all available means, ifthe ordinance is adopted asproposed, to insure that all federal rights, investments, and obligations areprotected and that no aircraft is denied access to SMO.3

That route is definitely not the Federal Aviation Administration's preference. As I stated in August, the FAA's preference isthe use ofan engineered material arresting system at each end ofthe runway. This would be asubstantial safety enhancement for SMO, which can be obtained with the minimum loss ofrunway necessary for an EMAS bed that meets FAA design standards. That safety enhancement would be ofequal benefit to aircraft crews and the communities near the runway ends. Itwould be afederal investment ofmillions of dollars inthe safety ofyour citizens. Itis where our money and yours should be spent. If the city desires further protection for citizens living near the end ofthe runway, it should also consider implementation ofthe FAA standard for arunway protection zone, which is designed specifically for that purpose. Ihope that you will keep the lines ofcommunication open with aview toward implementing the safety enhancements Ihave reiterated above. I am atyour disposal in that regard and am willing to meet with you on short notice to make them happen. Iencourage you to pick that course ofaction, rather than the ill-considered ordinance that isbefore you presently.

## OCT 

## 1 2 Z001

The Honorable Jane Harman House ofRepresentatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Harman: Thank you for your letter ofAugust 14about Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) in SantaMonica, California. Iapologize forthe delay inanswering your letter. The Federal Aviation Administration has proposed that the city ofSanta Monica (city) install two engineered material arresting systems (EMAS), one ateach end ofthe runway. These EMAS beds would stop an aircraft of 12,500 pounds ormore that overruns the end ofthe runway at aspeed upto 40knots. Itwould also substantially slow aircraft athigher speeds, although not even astandard EMAS orrunway safety area can guarantee to contain all overruns. Your letterrefers to different proposals, but FAA has consistently preferred a 130-foot EMAS bed with a25-foot or 30-foot setback from the runway end. The current proposal benefits from the manufacturer's finding that the smaller setback is acceptable. The FAA proposal would result inthe unprecedented loss ofnearly 150 feet ofrunway at SMO. This isbecause ofthe limited space available offthe runway ends. FAA design standards provide for the maximum runway safety areapracticable. An improvement that would adversely affect the use,ofthe airport isnotpracticable. The loss of 150feet of runway will have some effect on operations. However, that lost isjustified bythe fact that it will achieve asignificant safety improvement. Also, itisthe minimum length necessary to install,anEMAS that meets the 40-knot performance provided inthe FAA EMAS specification. As your letter notes, alarger EMAS bed may stop aircraft at speeds above 40 knots. However, EMAS beds that provide performance higher than 40 knots require the taking of more runway, with acorresponding adverse impact onuse ofthe airport. There have been no overruns by ajet aircraft at SMO, and we have no basis toconclude the likelihood ofahigher speed overrunjustifies imposing a significant restriction onthe users ofthe airport. The FAA considered five criteria forreview ofrunway end improvements at SMO, and we believe the FAA proposal best meets these goals: (l) make animprovement in safety for aircraft crew andpassengers; (2) reduce the likelihood ofan overrunning aircraft reaching aresidential area; (3) have aminimal adverse impact onthe utility ofthe airport; (4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point andthe beginning ofthe takeoff roll closer tothe communities; and (5) befeasible from an engineering and cost standpoint.2



### SMO isone ofthe most important reliever airports inthe country, ranking 15thinthe United States. Reducing the runway length further could severely undermine the airport's roleasareliever forLos Angeles International Airport and other aircarrier airports inthe southern California region. Shortening the SMOrunway further would also divertjet traffic to otherairports intheregion. Wewillcontinue towork with the city to agree onafinal arrangement forrunway end improvements. However, webelieve the loss ofrunway atanimportant and busy airport should belimited towhat is absolutely necessary. IfIcanbeoffurther help, please contact meorMs. Megan Rosia, Assistant Administrator forGovernment and Industry Affairs, at(202) 267-3277. Sincerely,

Robert A. Sturge Acting Adminis ator

## Presentation to Santa Monica City Council D. Kirk Shaffer Associate Administrator forAirports Federal Aviation Administration August 28, 2007 Introduction Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Council: First, we thank you for the opportunity to discuss our ideas for the enhancement ofthe runway safety areas at Santa Monica Airport, and to answer your questions. We alsowant to express our sincere appreciation to Bob Trimborn, Martin Tachiki, and the other city staffwho have worked very hard on the development and review ofthe several proposals forimproving the runway ends. We fullyunderstand the concerns about the lack of standard runway safety areas, or RSAs, atthe airport. Given the terrain, itwould just not be feasible to add standard RSAs on either end ofthe runway. At the same time, we recognize that this airport serves avery important need in the regional and national airport systems. The airport has more than 160,000 operations ayear because it's agood, well-run airport, in an areawith astrong demand from allsegments of aviation. Many ofthe operations atthe airport are recreational, but asignificant number are businessrelated, and arepart ofthe city's and the region's business economy. Along with its safety responsibilities, the FAA has the responsibility of assuring reasonable access to federally assisted airports by allsegments ofthe aviation community. The Cityhas similar obligations, under its obligations to the Federal government and under the 1984 settlement agreement, and I'm sure the Citytakes its responsibilities as seriously aswe do. 

### Background
We do think there is an opportunity to enhance the safety ofthe runway ends at the airport, and we have in good faith tried to identify ways to improve the airport's runway safety areas. Iwould point out that RSAs are not required at ageneral aviation airport like SMO, but they have the same benefits as they do at acommercial airport, and we think it's important to try to get them to the extent practical. 

### Just to be clear Before I talk about our decision, Iwant to sayweknow that feelings run pretty high on this issue, on both sides-the community, and the airport users. The City and the FAA accepted comments from both the public and from aircraft operators and businesses using the airport, and I personally read every one ofthose comments. There are acouple things Iwould like

### to make clear right up front, because there seem to be some misconceptions, and I think it

willhelp to focus the discussion on the realissues. First, the RSAissue we're discussing today is about safety benefits, and that's all.Federal law provides ways to formally consider measures to mitigate aircraft noise or emissions, but safety standards can't be used to get there. Second, the airport may not meet every design standard that we use to fund new construction, although it does meet most ofthem. But that in itself doesn't limitthe classes of aircraft that can use the airfield, at Santa Monica or any other airport. Third, there is simply no safetybasis to limitjets atthis airport. Statistically jet aircraft have abetter safety record than piston engine aircraft. Jet engines are more reliable than piston engines, andjet aircraft generally have more power, especially on one engine. In fact, the larger business jettypes arebuilt to the same standards as commercial airliners. Fourth, the airport doesn't get anunusual proportion ofjet traffic. Eighteen to 20 thousand jet operations out of 160,000 total operations is about 12percent of the airport's operations. This is typical for busy general aviation reliever airports, and far less than some. Teterboro in New Jersey, in comparison, has about 60percent jet operations. Finally, I sometimes seethe complaint that anidea doesn't, quote, "guarantee" safety. We at FAA are continuously working to improve the safety of every aspect of aviation. But we can never know where or how the next accident willhappen, any more than you could know that driving on the highway. We do what we can to reduce the probability ofan accident, and to mitigate the damage ifone happens, but we can never guarantee aparticular event won't happen. However, asthe result ofthe extensive oversight ofaviation safety in this country, aviation accidents arevery rare, and getting more rare each year. 

### StaffReport
We read the staffreport for this discussion, and Iwould liketo mention some points on which we differ with it. The report gives the City's goal as "maximizing" safety, but not preserving the utility ofthe airport. In the realworld, we get the best safety outcome we can, consistent with the airport serving its purpose in the system. Second, the report states the FAA design is deficient because it does not meet category B-2 or D-2 airport design standards. This just isn't arealistic goal for this airport, and the real goal is to achieve safety improvements without losing the value ofthe runway and the airport. We build RSAs off the end ofthe runway to the extent we can; but we don't take away the use ofthe runway to get them. The report saysthe FAA design extends the runway closer to homes. That's not true. The RSA would be extended closer to the community, but the runway ends would both be farther from the airport boundary (and the community) than they are now. The report says the FAA design would only benefit aircraft above 12,500 lb. Actually an EMAS would have some arresting effect on aircraft below 12,500lb.; it's just not designed for that. For aircraft

### well below 12,500 lb. that require less runway length, there is no need for additional

measures, because the existing runway already effectively provides an RSA. The report says the aircraft fleet at SMO has evolved to larger and faster aircraft. Certainly not larger. The airport as itis today was built for DC-4's and -6's, which are larger than a Gulfstream G-IV. That's why the runway is the same width as the runways atLAX, and the pavement is far stronger than the 60,000-lb. limit imposed on operations today. Jets are generally faster on takeoff and final approach than props, but not always, and not by an order of magnitude. In the end, the fleet change just reflects the national trend toward modern engine technology; the percentage ofjet traffic at SMO is typical for reliever airports. The report says the EMAS would capture only about 50% of overruns. The 50% number is taken from an FAA design standard advisory circular, and cannot be used to predict events at aparticular airport. In any event the national data includes many incidents where a runway was wet or covered with snow and ice. An airport with adry runway more than the average, like SMO, would be expected to have fewer overruns, and to have any overruns be at lower speed. The report says that aircraft undershooting to any degree would hit the retaining wall. Actually undershooting aircraft would have 155 feet of level ground before the runway end, in addition to the 1,000 feet before the touchdown zone. That's more than today. And the consequence of hitting the hill at that point today isn't really any different. Maybe that's why undershoots at SMO that damage aircraft are rare: One since 1982. 

### FAAapproach torunway end improvements
Let me start by talking about the process we used to consider improving arunway safety area. FAA Order 5200.9, Financial Feasibility andEquivalenry 

### ofRunwqy Seifety Area Improvements and Engineered Material Arresting Systems define the way we consider how arunway end can be improved: First, "Any portion of land that willincrease the RSA, even ifitis but an incremental increase (see Paragraph 4abelow) and will not result in meeting the standard fully is preferable and will serve as a starting point for the consideration of additional alternatives." Second, "Incremental gains must be obtained whenever possible

.... Other alternatives would then be considered for obtaining the remainder of the safety area." The alternative of reducing runway length can be considered only when the existing runway length exceeds the length required for the aircraft types expected to use the airport. Since Santa Monica's 4,987-foot runway does not provide excess runway length for many aircraft types using the airport, reducing runway length to get more runway safety area is not an option.

### Third, "when itis not practicable to obtain a safety area that meets current standards,

consideration should be given to enhancing the safety of the area beyond the runway end with the installation of EMAS. So that's what we did. When we started, there weren't really any good options. At the time, engineered material arresting systems, or EMAS, could not be installed in avery small area, because the EMAS bed needed to be set back too far from the runway end. Ifitwas too close, as we learned at LaGuardia Airport, the jet blast would eventually break up the EMAS surface. At one time we even looked into amilitary-style arrestor net, but for several reasons that simply wouldn't work at this airport. 

### EMAS About ayear ago, itbecame apparent to us that improvements in the EMAS technology would allow an EMAS bed with satisfactory performance to be installed in avery confined area, close to the end of the runway. FAA standards define a standard EMAS installation as having a70-knot performance-that is, the ability to stop the aircraft for which the EMAS was designed ifthat aircraft enters the EMAS at up to 70 knots. However, few EMAS installations are able to meet the standard, and our specification considers performance of 40 knots or better as sufficient to go ahead with aproject.
We have favored the 40-knot EMAS system for Santa Monica for two reasons. First, there isn't enough room off the ends of the runway for the EMAS, so some runway will be required. It is essential that the use ofgood, existing runway be kept to the absolute minimum. We're not going to solve one problem and create another. Second, the use of the most compact possible EMAS system allows us to use that solution at both ends of the runway, with benefits for operations in both directions, and the same benefits for the communities off each runway end.

### Declared Distances

Another idea that the city staff and the FAA considered isthe use of "declared distances." That means defining the runway pavement to be shorter than it actuallyis. The effect is that an operation that would require most ofthe available runway length would not be allowed. We ultimately found that declared distances were an unnecessary restriction on the use of the airport, given the greater benefits ofEMAS. First, the declared distances would have no benefit for smaller aircraft, because they can operate on shorter runway distances and therefore already have an effective RSA. Second, declared distances have little benefit for aircraft above 12,500lb. that would be stopped by the EMAS bed anyway. Aircraft just below 12,500lb. would also get some benefit from the EMAS. And finally, against these minimal benefits, there would be asubstantial adverse effect on operations. In effect, operations that can be conducted routinely with perfect safety on the available runway, and would be stopped bythe EMAS ifthere was aproblem, would be prohibited. There is simply no safety case for this kind ofrestriction, and itwould have to be considered discriminatory and unreasonable. Moreover, more than halfofthese aircraft operate under commercial or fractional ownership rules, and those operations already operate under restrictions that require pilots to calculate available runway at 80% or even 60% ofthe actual runway length. So they're already operating with asafety cushion. 

### Evaluation ofideas
Because there is so little area to work with offthe end ofthe runway, allofthe ideas considered by the cityand the FAA had some effect on the usable length ofthe runway itself. This is unprecedented. While we have approved declared distances for much longer runways at some commercial airports, we have not approved the use ofexisting runway itself to add to the runway safety area. Since there were multiple interests affected, positively and negatively, we defined 5goals for consideration ofa solution. Any enhancement to the runway ends at SMO should: (1) make an actual improvement in safety for aircraft crew and passengers; (2) reduce the likelihood of an overrunning aircraft reaching aresidential area; (3) have aminimal adverse impact on the utility ofthe airport; (4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point and beginning ofthe takeoff roll closer to

### the communities at each end of the runway than they are now; and

(5) be feasible from an engineering and cost standpoint. (1) and (2) Only EMAS provides an actual physical capability of stopping or slowing an overrunning aircraft. (3) Only the smallest EMAS system that meets FAA standards meets the requirement of aminimal effect on airport operations. Larger EMAS systems and declared distances begin to have substantial adverse effects. We know the City's consultant found minimal effect on operations of aloss of 300 feet of runway, but we have looked at the same data several ways, and have concluded the impact would be much higher. (4) Declared distances meet this goal but not others. If EMAS is used, it should be the shortest EMAS bed that meets FAA specifications. The larger the EMAS bed, the closer every landing and takeoff roll would be to the community at the end of the runway. (5) We don't have exact information on what can be done and what it would cost. However, airports have graded terrain in far more challenging locations to obtain levelland for arunway safety area. Here, we are only looking for about 30 additional feet on each end. So, it appears to be areasonable and feasible solution, but obviously an engineering study would be needed for afinal determination. 

### Conclusion The one solution that meets or best meets each of these goals is the most compact possible EMAS installation (i.e., a40-knot performance EMAS bed) at each end of the runway. This system provides an actual, physical stopping effect on overrunning aircraft that directly benefits both persons on the aircraft and the areas off the ends of the runway. Stating this decision alittle differently, we find that itis practicable to get a40-knot EMAS bed at each end of the runway, after some earthwork that appears to be feasible from the standpoints of both engineering and cost. This solution requires an unprecedented sacrifice of runway, which was vehemently opposed by most airport users. Nevertheless, with aloss of runway of less than 150 feet, we believe that the change in use of the airport from this amount of runway loss would not be an unreasonable restriction on access. Because the substantial benefits of an EMAS system that meets FAA standards can be obtained with the loss of no more than 150 feet of runway, we believe itwould not be reasonable to further shorten the runway to obtain greater performance from the EMAS.
I hope the City will agree, and that we can find away to get this project done.•.. 1200 EIGllmENTII STREETNW.

### smm 400 \\ASIllNGTON. DC200al3·2527 Tel; (202) 711;{·9000. Fax: (202) ;mt-ll;{64 E-mail: inro@nbaa.org • Web: www.nbaa.org

August 24, 2007 D. Kirk Shafer Associate Administrator forAirports Federal Aviation Administration 800Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: Santa Monica Airport Dear Mr. Shafer: TheNational Business Aviation Association (NBAA), onbehalf ofitsmorethan 8,000 members many ofwhom utilize and/or arebasedatthe SantaMonica Airport (SMa), takes strong exception onbothpolicy and legal grounds to anyaction thatwould sacrifice runway capacity forRSA orotherenhancements notrequired bylaworbyregulation. Nonetheless, NBAA will notchallenge the airport access restriction described inyour letter ofJuly 31,2007 to Robert Trimborn, the SMa Airport Manager, forthereasons discussed below. The infrastructure supporting our national air transportation system is made up of precious resources, none more precious than runway capacity. Runway capacity needs to be increased, and any action that reduces that capacity is, quite literally, a step in the wrong direction. That iseven more sowhere, as here, the obvious intentunderlying the reduction isto limit orbar aclass ofusers, the reduction isnotrequired by law orregulation, andthe reduction would produce littleifany safetybenefit.l
Inour letterofFebruary 22, 2007, we notedthe importance ofSMa as ageneral aviation airport andthe history ofthe airport's efforts tobaror substantially limitjet operations. Wealso emphasized that as amatter ofsound policy, the FAA should not allow RSAs to beretrofitted at airports unless there was a clear consensus within all parts of the aviation community as to whether, when and how that should be done. Finally, we pointed outthat there is a mandatory process for developing such a consensus, namely the procedures required by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 and Part 161 of the FAA's regulations whenever an airport action would restrict access by Stage 2 and Stage 3 jet aircraft, as it would here. All of those considerations remain applicable. That aside, we recognize that inthis one instance, there are some unique circumstances that arguably mitigate in favor of allowing the measures outlined in your letter to go forward.

1 That isparticularly true with respect to theproposed EMAS atthe end ofRunway 3, since that runway is used 5% ofthe time. An EMAS atthe end ofthat runway is unlikely toprovide any meaningful safety benefit given the small number of operations and would create a negative operational impactwholly outofproportion to anymarginal safetybenefit achieved.First, while the loss of 145' of usable runway distance will have a material impact on jet

operations that will require operational planning to accommodate, the airport still will be functional. Second, there are unique topographical and other space considerations that come into play at SMO that are not found at other airports. However, we emphasize that we are taking this position solely for the purpose of bringing an end not only to the RSA matter but also to all efforts by this airport to limit or exclude jet operations. We would expect that if the measures outlined in your letter are implemented, the FAA would prohibit SMO from pursuing any additional attempts to reduce the utility of the runways at SMO, or to otherwise restrict jet operations at SMO, thus securing the future of SMO as an unrestricted general aviation airport (as contemplated by both the applicable federal airport grant assurances and the 1984 agreement between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica). There also are some issues raised by the memorandum accompanying your letter to Mr. Trimborn, to the extent that the memorandum reflects developing FAA policy. We agree that any airport enhancement must have a "minimal adverse impact on the utility of the airport." That, in effect, is the ANCA/Part 161 test for an access restriction, i.e., anything other than a restriction with a de minimis effect. We also agree that a flight is adversely affected if it were required to lose a passenger or reserve fuel? However, the memorandum seems to imply that this test should then be applied to an FAA planning guideline that uses 500 flights per year as the threshold for substantial impact. That guideline may work for other purposes, but itplainly does not apply to an ANCA/Part 161 analysis, nor should it. If a user flies in and out of an airport no more than a few times a year, access to that airport still is critical to that user. In truth, an access restriction has ade minimis effect only when, as here, the users are willing to abide by it.
We genuinely appreciate the effort that you and your staff have dedicated to this matter and the openness ofthe process. As always, ifyou have any questions we would be delighted to respond. Sincerely

Steve Brown Senior Vice President Operations

CC: David Bennett, Director Office ofAirport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration

2 The other cited examples, a 500 lb. reduction in fuel or a reduction in fuel that would reduce range by 200 nautical miles, to the extent they are not overtaken by the other examples, should have lower thresholds. We also do not understand either the purpose or the source of the 60% useful load test, which atthe very least appears to be redundant.

### 5: 43 PM 

## FAA/O~C OF THE ADMIN NO. 0667 P. 2

COMtAITrE<: ON HOMElAND SeCUffiTY - COMMliil!E ON Ei'lEFjGY AND COMME:RCE

SUa.tbNMln, I; OJ. :'"fLQ:~""'U •.

~r;;.TJrON!O f>H;) THf, !rm:CIA'" SveeOMMItt&.oll l:NE.Ile~ ""0 AlR OUALITY Sve~Q~""rn;" Ql< Ir'lTI!l.~NCE, lfU:oRMI\TJOIJ S~AfI;1NG. NlD TtRROII:S'" Rl~ A$M$$"~"

CHAIR SUGCOMr..l1TTr.< ON 80"0(." ~1""'_e

••••• e G\.aa,I>.L COutITEf"EJ\f1QAt;~ BLue OOG CO~L1TlOIll 

## CONGRESSWOMAN JANEHARMAN 36TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA NEw Cr:MOCAA"r COALITION

NAT1O!'IAl

SEcunrrv WO.,.NC G"ou, C().QIAlR CONGRESSIONAl. SPACEPO~ACAUCUS

CO·C.IAlR August 14,2007

Marion C. Blakey Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave, SW Washington, D.C. 20591-0001 

### /

Dear Administrator Blakey, I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the FAA's decision regarding runway safety measures for the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). After months ofinput from SMO officials and the surrounding community, Ibelieve that the FAA's recommendation to mitigate the risks of runway overshoots is insufficient to guarantee the safety of airport users or the neighboring residents. Over the last year the length of the proposed Engineered Material Arresting System (E~S) has been shortened from a250-foot proposal inDecember. to a 165-foot bed in.Mtrch, to now a 130- foot bed with a25-foot setback at each end. Additionally, despite requests from SMO officials that declared distances be applied as well, no declared distances were included in the decision. According to the FAA and tothe manufacturer ofthe EMAS beds, this 155-fooUo!al EMAS bed is guaranteed to stop aircraft landing at a speed at orbelow 40-knots. At SMO, planes traveling at this speed encompass only 50 percent ofrunway overruns, That leaves half of all aircraft operations at the airport in danger ofcontinuing through an EMAS boo, down an embankment where they threaten to cross busy streets and enter nearby residential neighborhoods. Such a. n incident could be tragic. Continued access to 'the airport needs to be balanced with safety for all- pilots, passengers and neighbors alike. I do not believe that the current FAA recommendation meers this standard. I hope we can continue to work together to design safety enhancements that provide greater confidence to all,

EHARMA~~ -.;~ ...

R~~PONCTO: lI.~: 

## o 2321 ROS~C;I\I\N6 AVEltUe

$UIT6 3270 E~SOOUNDO,CA 50145 PHONE: IJl0) 5~~:lB FAY.:(310) ~5 WA~rJ.~: 

## o NOG RAY!lURN HO\J$I; OFACl< BUIU)IN~

WASHl1~GTON. oc 20515 PHoN~: (202) 22s-anc FAX: {202l 22s..7290 W.J!.1llJHlU2I!l: 

### o 5«<' NORTH ,li.VA\.Olll SOIJ1.EV,o.IID $l)ln 307 WIl.l.<I...,GTo.'Il. CA 907411 hIONG; [310] 54~a:2e2 FA:<: (~101

54H250 Website: w-NW.~I."SC.gov/harmar) Pftll<"".Q ONll("'CUQ 'APEA

Fo.x I'r-on 2£122675047 08/15/£17 17:28 Pg: 2Associate AdmlrttslralOr for Airports SOOlndependeflce Avenue. SW Washington. DC 20591 us. Depa'tmem of Tronsport'crtioo Federal Aviation AdmInIstrdion
July 31, 2007 Mr. Robert Trirnborn Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport Office ofthe Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr.

# ~W--

Atour meeting onJune 12,wepresented our view that it should he possible to obtain a significant safety enhancement atSanta Monica Airport (SMO) through the use ofa compact engineered material arresting system (EMAS) ateach end ofthe runway. With some grading, which we believe tobe feasible, this canbe done in away that minimizes any adverse effect on the use ofthe airport. At the meeting. we also agreed to consider two other factors: the performance ofa40-knot EMAS bed for aircraft entering thebed at speeds higher than 40 knots. andthe useofdeclared distances inaddition to the EMAS. Weobtained the EMAS performance information from ESCO, the manufacturer ofEMAS, and that information was also provided tothe City. That information showed that an EMAS bed will substantially slow an aircraft slightly above the design stopping speed ofthe EMAS, but the slowing effect diminishes as speed increases. No system can guarantee that there will never be an incident ofsome kind, however, and we believe that reducing runway length further toprotect against an increasingly narrow setofconceivable circumstances is not warranted. Runway safety areas are designed forthe protection of aircrews, not to guarantee that an aircraft will never getbeyond the safety area. For protection ofpersons and property near the end ofthe runway, FAA.design standards provide for anmway protection zone that limits the land uses inthat area. The runway protection zone is recommended but not required atgeneral aviation airports like SMO. We appreciate the presentation atthemeeting by Coffman Associates on the estimated impacts ofvarious proposed actions on operations atthe airport. We considered that information, aswell asour own analysis ofessentially the same operations data. We also considered both the benefits and operational effects ofusing 300-foot declared distances in addition to an EMAS installation. After consideration ofall the information provided by the city onJune 12and the additional information obtained since then, webelieve the following measures willbe areal enhancement ofsafety atSMO. The measures will affect some individual flights, but will not affect the general use ofthe airport and its value to the Southern California region. The attached paper explains the decision inmore detail, but in summary itis:• The goal, which webelieve isfeasible, isto install anEMAS unitwith 40-knot performance with the minimum taking ofexisting runway pavement Taking runway foranEMAS installation isunprecedented and is considered acceptable inthis case only because itisessential toachieve the 40-knot performance provided inFAA specifications. Taking more runway isnotjustified, because alarger EMAS isnot required toobtain aninstallation that meets FAA specifications.

• Webelieve that with feasible grading, anEMAS bed can be installed at each end of therunway with atotal reduction inrunway length ofless than 150 feet. Obviously engineering work wiJIbe required toconfirm the exact numbers.

• Grading ofeach runway end toprovide additional levelland atthe endofthe runway, tothe extent possible without moving theperimeter road (although possibly reducing theperimeter road toone lane attherunway ends).

• Installation ofa DO-foot EMAS bed with asetback of 25 feet from the runway end ateach end ofRunway 3-21. Total distance required forthe two EMAS beds would be 310 feet.

• The 25-foot setback atthe farend ofthe runway would be considered tobe a "stopway" which, under FAA standards, can be included intake-off run available (TORA) and landing distance available (LDA) ascalculated bypilots foroperation attheairport.

• The use ofdeclared distances would provide avirtual runway safety area for aircraft too light tobenefit from the EMAS. Most ofthose aircraft do notrequire the full runway formost operations, sothere would be little adverse effect, but also little real benefit. For aircraft heavy enough to benefit from the EMAS, the EMAS itself provides asystem thatmeets FAA performance specifications, andthe impact on operations thatwould result from further shortening oftherunway through declared distances is notnecessary. Welook forward to any further comments you and your consultants have on this paper, and to speaking tothe City Council onAugust 28, Ifyou have any questions, feel free tocall me at(202) 267-9471. Sincerely 

# DMt::

Associate Administrator forAirports 2

## Federal Aviation Administration 

# Memorandum Date: July 31, 2007 To: orforAirports, ARP-I From: Prepared by: Dave Bennett, Director, AirportSafety and Standards, AAS-l Subject: Santa Monica Runway Enhancements

Attached is apaper discussing our conclusion on thereview ofthe runway enhancements at Santa Monica Airport.

AttachmentSMO RunV\'ayEnd Enhancements

Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is an important general aviation reliever airport for Los Angeles International Airport and apopular and valuable airport in its own right fur business and recreational aviation inthe Southern California Region. The single 4987' X 150' runway safely accommodates all aircraft currently using the airport, including the Gulfstream G-IV. However, the airport's location and terrain make itimpossible to achieve astandard runway safety area (RSA) atthe runway ends. RSAs are designed to provide asafe stopping area for aircraft that leave the runway pavement Also, the cities ofSanta Monica and Los Angeles have elected not to implement arunway protection zone (RPZ) beyond either runway end by removing residential and other non-compatible land uses. RPZs are provided in FAAairport design standards to avoid concentrations ofpersons in the areas immediately offthe end of arunway, Reeommended Enhancements On these facts, the FAA sought to identify runway end safety enhancements at SMO that would, to the extent possible: (1) make an actual improvement in safety for aircraft crew and passengers;

(2) reduce the likelihood ofan overrunning aircraft reaching aresidential area; (3) have aminimal adverse impact on the utility ofthe airport, (4) avoid moving the runway touchdown point and beginning ofthe takeoff roll closer to the communities ateach end ofthe runway than they are now, and (5) be feasible from an engineering and cost standpoint. After consideration of the views ofthe City ofSanta Monica, airport users, and the communities near the airport, and consideration ofrecent developments inaircraft arresting technology, we believe the following actions will meet allofthe above objectives: 1 Add land ateach end ofthe runway through addition offill and use ofretaining walls, to extend through the inside lane ofthe perimeter road ateach end. The perimeter road will remain inthe current location hut he reduced to one lane for several hundred feet ateach end of the runway. We estimate this action could result in approximately the following distances oflevelland offeach end ofthe runway: Runway 21 Runway 3 Total 100' 40' 140' 2. Install a DO' engineered material arresting system (EMAS) ateach end ofthe runway, using as much land as is available ateach end, and using existing runway only to the extent neces .. sary. 3. Mark the threshold ofthe runway ateach end 25' from the end ofthe EMAS bed. This provides a setMck 10minimize jet blast damage tothe EMAS bed ontakeoff.Effect on RunvnlY lengtlt

The above actions would have the following effects onrunway length: Existing runway length: 4987'
STEP 1 Total length ofexisting runway plus available land (after earthwork to level terrain): 4987' +140' 5127' Length of EMAS beds: 130' at each end
STEP 2 Remaining runway pavement with a 130' EMAS ateach end: 5127' -260' 4867' STEP 3 Runway length. Runway pavement minus 25' setback between the EMAS bed and the runway threshold ateach end. This would be the new published runway length: 4867' 48]7' STEP 4 Actual Distance availablefor takeoff and landing. Runway pavement minus 25' for EMAS setback between the EMAS and the threshold, but without deducting the 25' setback at the farrunway end. This number represents the actual length ofpavement from the runway threshold to the EMAS bed at the far end ofthe runway. Because the 25' setback atthe farend ofthe runway is considered "stop way" that can be included in calculations for landing and takeoff, this number would also be the published landing distance available (LDA) and the accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) on takeoff: 4867' -25' 4842'Impact onAirportOperations and Utility

There ISno disposable orexcess runway atSMO. The existing fleetmix already uses the existing runway with significant weight penalties. 51\10's 5,OOO-foot runway is needed to accommodate not only existingjet operations, but also smaller aircraft types. Any reduction inrunway length will affect some operations atthe airport. The greater thereduction, the more operations are affected and the greater the adverse effect. Areduction ofless than 150feet from the existing runway length is not expected to have asignificant impact onoperations, either onoperating weights oron thepossible stage lengths offlights from the airport. A loss of 100-150 feet from arunway with a length of4,987 feet appears operationally acceptable, yetwith EMAS provides a safety benefit that exceeds that ofa 300-foot declared distance, at least foraircraft atorabove about 12,500 lb. Even atthis small reduction in runway length, however, some operations would be affected, including the Gulfstream G-IV on take-off on long-range flights, the G-rV landing below 50,000 lb. andthe Learjet 4S take-off at20,000 lb. Bytaking into consideration realistic operational variables and matching them to the actual fleetmix at SM0, and bytaking into account real data andreal operational considerations, the FAA determined that reducing runway length 250-300 feetbegins to have asignificant effect on current operations. Tile City estimated less than 300 flights ayear are affected, looking only at5 aircraft types, limiting impact to flights over 1,500 nautical miles, and considering only takeoffs. Moreover, the City took the position that there would be an adverse effect only ifthe operator was required tocancel an intended operation. FAAanalysis considered aflight adversely affected ifthat flight were required to lose asignificant amount offuelorpayload (e.g, 500 lbinfuel, apassenger, animpact onreserve fuel, orreduction infuel thatwould reduce range by more than 200 nautical miles), operate atless than 60percent ofuseful load, orwould need to make an intermediate fuel stop onthe way to its final destination with at least a60 percent load. Operations ofany aircraft below' 60% useful load are analogous tonot being able toderive substantial benefit from the aircraft's capabilities. While some flights only require operation with small loads orasmall number ofpassengers, an airport change that limits all flights ofthat aircraft to low payload is clearly arestriction on use ofthe airport, Moreover, FAA airport planning guidance defines therecommended length ofarunway as afunction of many factors, one ofthe most notable being arunway length to accommodate the critical aircraft and the longest nonstop distance tobe flown by that aircraft from the airport. The runway length atSMO already limits theoperations ofaircraft types that commonly usethe airport, so any loss ofrunway isimportant. A loss ofjust afew hundred feethas animpact onthe accelerate-stop distance requirements ofseveral B-

### nandturboprops aswell as turbojets, Inaddition, Part 135 airtaxi operations and Part 9lK fractional operations already require areduction in runway length forcalculation ofrunway available. As aresult, ifthe runway were shortened by even 300 feet, Part 135 operations would effectively have available only 2,812 feetfor landing and Part 91K operations would have available only 3,749 feet. This effect would clearly apply tomany ofthe aircraft using SMO, including smaller types until now considered by the City tobe unaffected by ashorter runway.The analysis conducted by the FAA showed that 2,000 to 3,000 operations ayear would be adversely

affected, Short- and medium-haul flights bylarge types generally were notaffected, although some current operations to cities like Seattle, Denver, and Chicago by medium and smaller type aircraft would be affected. Longer-range flights beyond the mid-west to the east coast would be substantially affected by the loss 01'300 feet ofrunway, for many types. To put this impact inperspective, the FAA Airports planning guideline for substantial use is 500 annual operations ayear, and FAA Air Traffic uses the effect onone operation per day as the threshold of significant impact, or 365 annual operations. The conclusions of our analysis of the impacts onairport users remained the same through several different methods of analysis, and were supported by the comments of airport users who responded to a proposal presented at an FAAJCity meeting in December 2006, While user comments unanimously opposed the December proposal, some comments by users indicated they were willing to sacrifice a small amount of runway to obtain the benefits ofabasic EMAS installation. Several users indicated they would accept a 165-foot EMAS installation (130' EMAS bed and 35' setback) on the departure end of'runway 21, for a loss orpsvement of slightly less than 165'. No users supported the loss of more runway in order to provide alarger EMAS bed or declared distances. EMAS effectiveness A 130' EMAS bed with no setback from the runway end can stop the following aircraft types leaving the runway at 40 knots, with at least the main gear coming to arest in the EMAS bed.

These aircraft types represent frequent operations at SMO, and the weights listed are representative of actual aircraft operating weights for SMO operations (as opposed to maximum certificated weights). The weights indicated were derived primarily from users, aircraft manufacturer input, and FAA's own research. The EMAS bed will slow an aircraft leaving the runway at speeds higher than 40 knots, although the reduction in speed diminishes as the speed increases above 40 knots. For example, the aircraft types listed immediately above would exit the EMAS bed at the speeds indicated if entering the EMAS bed at 50 knots, 60 knots, and 70 knots respectively: Leave runway/cnter EMAS

50 knots 60 knots 70 knots Exit EMAS (in knots) :5

- high 20's low 30's to low 40's high 40's to high 50'sInsum, even acompact l30-foot EMAS bed would stopor significantly slow all oftilelarger aircraft

types using 

## s~m. Additional measures Inorder tosupplement the benefits ofthe EMAS installation, theFAA recommends that:

• The City, with thecooperation and assistance oftheFAA, implement ajoint education and information program with FAA based onthe Flight Standards Service Information forOperators (InfO).

• The City consider the feasibility ofaproperty acquisition program to remove homes from the RPZs, even if'the program removes only afew homes anddoes so over time. Such aprogram would beeligible forFAA grant funding. Conclusion. Insummary, the addition ofasmall amount oflandateach runway end through earthwork, and the addition ofacompact EfvlAS installation ateach end oftherunway, could provide the significant safety benefits ofan EMAS with arelatively small reduction inrunway length. Specifically, distance available fortakeoff andlanding would bereduced fromthe4,987 feetavailable now to4842 feet,areduction of 145feet. Ihe DO-foot EMAS installation would stop any aircraft type using SMO that leaves therunway ata speedupto40knots, and slow anaircraft moving faster than that. Additional measures, whether inthe formofalarger EMAS installation oruse ofdeclared distances to effectively shorten therunway, would provide adiminishing enhancement ofsafety along with anincreasingly adverse effect onnormal operations atthe airport. Accordingly, such measures were notconsidered tomeetthe objectives outlined above.

Existing Runway 

# n Existing Level Pavement 

# I NewGradedAddition 

# o 130' EMAS BedCOMMITTEE ON

HOMELANOSECUAITY COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Sv BCOM..."EE ON INTtU1G€Na:.IMOAMAll0..- SHAAIr~G. At«) TE'RRO,,"SM RISK.Assess~eNT

CHAIR SV3CCMMfT"rt.E. ON TEUCQf.SoVlUNICJ..nO~s AND1llI! IN~ERNET SUDCOMMmEE ON E~nGYAl'loAIR OUAlITY SUJCOMl.Mn'E'£ ON BoRDEII. MARI_e, "Nt> (lLo •••• ~CCUNWl1CMOftlS" BLUE DOG COALITION 

### CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN 36TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA NEW DEMOCRAT COAUT10N

I'lAnONAl SECUIa",WORl<lN" GRoup

CO-CHAIR CONGRESSIONAL SPACE POWER CAUCUS

CO-CHAIR June 5,2007

Marion C. Blakey, Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Dear AdminiswatOfB'iakey: ~: <h-

/" Over the past year wehave also spoken about the PEEER 1RNAV Project atSanta Monica Airport (SMO). This pilot project was intended to test new procedures using tbe latest global positioning satellite technology coupled with sophisticated onboard flight management systems. The combination leads tomore precise arrival and departure tracks, providing pilots with highly accurate navigation information inalltypes of weather, Thepilot project was tested onNetJets operations at SMO. NetJets flights comprise approximately 25% ofSMO's dailyjet operations. After initial testing ended in August 2006, there was asix-month period forreview and analysis. The flnal report 'was expected this month. There were high expectations from your staff, constituents and me that the PEEER 1 RNAVprocedures could soon beapplied to alljets at SMO. Doing sowould reduce the amount oftimejets sit atthe end oftherunway before take off, resulting inless idling on the ground and therefore lessjet fuel exhaust fumes spewing into adjacent neighborhoods. Unfortunately, [have just learned that the FAA Western-Pacific Regional office has concluded the program does not provide enough separation between jets departing from SMO and aircraft departing from LAX. My office was toldthat this means the FAA must goback and redesign the flight path way points. After this, these will need toreceive approval and be retested. We were told this entire process is likely totake up to another year. Iam sure you can understand my frustration thatthis process isnow delayed forayear.

ReSPON010: a.~: 

### o 2321 ROSECRANS AVENUE

SUiTE 3270 EL SE<l\JNOO, CA 911245 PHONE' (310) 643-3536 FAX: (310) 643-6445 WM.!!!.!ll9J.OO, 0&: 

## o 2400 RAYBURN Houst OFFICE BUILDING

YIIASHlNG"lON, DC 2051!> PHONE: {2021225-6220 FAX: (202122.&--729ll W!LMINGWN: o 644 NORTH AVALON SOULrVARl)

SU)TE 307

. WILMINCTON, CA 90744 PHONE: {al 0) 548-8282 FAX: (310) 54$--8250 Website: 1rYWw.house.govlharrn<lr> PAl/lTEe 00 IlECYCCED P.AP£AJune 5, 2007 Page 2 Also frustrating are statements byalocal FAA representative at arecent Santa Monica Airport Commission hearing which seemed to pull back from previous FAA discussions regarding the installation ofrunway safety measures at SMO. The statements pulled back from aconcept plan preliminarily agreed tobythe FAA andthe City ofSanta Monica that a250-foot Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) bedbe installed onthe west end ofthe runway and a600-foot Runway Safety Area be designated on the east end ofthe runway. Jetflights atSMO have increased from 1,176 ayear in 1983

### toover 18,000 ayear in 2004. As you know from ourmany conversations, Iam seeking to fmdmeasures to mitigate the impact ofthejet noise andjet fuel odors, on neighbors, some ofwhom live closer than 300 feet from the airport's runway. Therefore, Iurge you toexpedite, as much as possible, the second round ofthe PEEER 1 RNAVpilot project. 

## ralso hope you will personally help toachieve atruly consensusbased solution onrunway safety.%204IU1'YIlUltNHOIJU Qmlll! f!lJ1Ul!N;

WIW4l~,·DC 2Oll1&-OOaO (202)225-$874 ~OU",OCWIW.J(IfIJ~ 

### FAA-070523-0 18

IlIS1;1<ICl' OO1'fCe: llAallWnr THIRDS'r1ltl!T $tJ~ eoo 1.00AAGUll1 CA!lOO4i-41S3
• 1323.l$61.104/) r&181878-1~O (310)65~" 

# ~Ol1weJJ

# oftb£

# _ntteb ji)tates

Jilous£ ofl\.qJttftntat.ibe& 

# .«'bitt~ont

1l.c20515...o530 HENRYA. WAXMAN aO-r/ol DI$TAlCT, CAUFOItNIA AND GO\'E"'NMENT AEFOIlM ~eMfl£R COMMl1"ttfiON ~NERGYANQ¢Q~-ee



### May 22,2007 

## MarionC. Blakey Administrator FederalJ\viation Administration 

### SOp·Irtdependence Avenue, 

### SW Washiftgto~p.C. 20591

..

0001 DearAdministrator Blakey: I

### amwriting toexpress 

### myconcern with the FAA's failure to act 

### coust:ructNely on the serious need 

## for~afetY

upgrades 

## atSanta Mdnica Airport SantaM<lIlicaAirport (SM0)i$one()ftb~ most h,ea:vilyused single runway airports in the.United Sta~es. Its~quelaYoulpreSent8 si~ficantsatetYTi.sks loa~Qrtusers

.and the surrCll.mdin~communhy. Approxbnately 75%oftheairport is surrounded hyresidence$, with somehomes located as close as 250.feet from the runway. Both ends oftbe runway ate lined with houses, buffered only by abrupt hill slopes andpublic .streets.The 5,OOO~footrunway was 'builtd.ecades ago \Villi

### norunway safety areas (R$As) and the safety risks have been CO.l'.I):pounded

by the changing fleet

### mix andincreased frequency atthe airport bylarger business 

## Jets. Since 2000, 

## rhave contacted the FAA onnumerous occasions to 

### convey the urgent need forthe FAAtQ work with the City ofStmtaMonica, 

### whiohopetatesSMO, to address the 

### need fo.rtheiinstallation ofRSAs atboth ends oftbe a.ir,port.l)espiteongoing disoussions between the FAA personnel and City staffftom 2003to 2006, itappears thatthe FAAremains unwilling to 

### engageina full·f~tb effort to address runway 

### saretyinadequaciesat SMO. Most recently, during aM~clt~6.2007 meetinfl ofthe 

### Santa Monica Airport Commission, anFAA-representative delivered astat~1llent apruptlytetreatingfrom anRSA concept plan developed bythe FAA and the City. The statement conveyed the FAA's preliminary conclusion that a 16.5

.. foot

### Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) bed rather than the2S0-foot EMAS bed discussed inthe concept plan would he appropriate forthe more heavily used west end ofthe runway. The preliminary decisiQn also abandoned the original concept plan'Sproposal for a600"foot RSA onthe east end ofthe runway infavor ofan unspecified shorter RSA. This drastic unilateral change shatply undercut previous discussions on the issue and tQok 

### place without any opporttiIlity forpublic comment orfor review and input ,from. the City.

81:3/20' d

## ** 80'39ldd 18101 

## ** FAA-070523-0 18

May 22, 2007 Page 2


### The FAA has conveyed that itreached thispreliminary conclusion on thebasis of comm.ents fromairo.raft operators during aDecember 12,2006 meeting held attheirWestern PllcificRegional :Headquarters. While some comments from aviation 'UseTS indicated that adoption orthe original concept plan could restrict Someaircraft from operating atSMO, I understand the majority recognized that.mcst.aircraft would stillbeableto

### continue operating albeit

## atreduced weights and shorter operating.distances. TheFANs move toalter theconceptproposal before other stakeholders were given the opportunity tocomment has created atroubling perception thatthe .FAA

### is favoring access and convenience :f'oraviation users attheexpense ofsafety. ItisnlY lJ.f1derstanding thatthe new

## FMpropo$alwould drastiC£l1lY reduce the .,tfectiveness oftheRSAsas compared. tethe original COnceptplan presented to thealrportusers. Insteadofa 250",footEMAS bed capable ofstoppingJl Qulfstream IV exiting therunway at70 l<nots? 

### theFAA' sproposed design would only stop thesanlC aircraft exitiu!J the.runway at40 to 45knots

...A.dditionalIYtitappearsthatthellew u,substitute1'proposal does notmeetth~FAA's 

### desJ$I1~idelines fortheilirport.SMO' SAirport

### Reference Code ofB"Il requires axnini.mUXllof 300'ofsafetyfU'eaatboth ends. ofthetu:nway. SMO isfrequented by over9,000 Ca.tegpry CandD aircraft operations per year.P AA desigllguid.,lines specify 

### a 1,OOO~footrunwaysafety

### area.forthese types ofaireraft operations. While many intbecommunity have questions aboutWhetherthe original RSA concept plan would be sufficient to a<idresssafety risks intheevent ofanaccident involVingaCor D aircraft, the FAA'sp;reli,r,tiinary conclusion appears tobeentirely inadequate. These concerns arC heightened by the;factthatthenew proposal. fails to specificallY addres~remedia.tionfor the east ~rtdofthert'!.J:1\Yi;lY. 

### which isrnore commonly used inthe event ofpoorvisibility or<Uffieult weatherconditiOl1s. TheFAA muSt stop draggIng itsfeet Thei.nttod\.lction ofadequate and~quivalent RSA enhancements ~t



### both ends ofthetunW4y that addtess the safety requireUJentsoftljeair(:raft U$ingtheairport absolutely essential ~d long overdue. lcall.on the FAA to abandon its prelimina:Qi'j and enga.geinagood~faithprocess thatin¢ludes input onthe original concept plan 

## rron} allstakehold~t's inboth the aviation andnon~~lVia.tion p.ublic. Retreating to a lesssafeJ.l.SA solution makes no sense atall. Most imponantly, Iurge the FAA

### toundertake a deoision

.. makingprocess thatputSsafety first. Sincerely,

Lt:'@SL926 01 29t:'tS22202

### FAA-070523-0 18

2204AAvaUFWHoVSE OF'FJcEBUlt.OING WASHINGTON,fl.,C. 2Q515·05~m 202.22.5.,3978 V<t.WW.wAXMAN.HGYSl~·G0'i.

SUITE 600 LosANGELES, CA 90048-4163 323.651.1040 

## CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATives



## HENRV 

# A

..

WAXMAN 3Q"IliI)J$TRICl' OFCAUFO~NIA



### FACSIMILE TfiANSMISSION 

### IFTHIS FAX ISINCOMPLETE,. PLEASe 

### CALt.202/225-3976 

# To:

. Admini$trator 

## Manon Blakey 

## Fax.: (202)2Ei'{-5047 

# From: Representallve Henry·A. Waxman 

## Date: May 22, 2007



# Comments: 

# PElges(Incl. eover): 3 CHAIRMAN CoMMrrres ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVEf\NMENT Rer:ORM

MEMBER COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

80/10'd Lv0SL926 01 29vIS22202 Nl::JWXeP1 AClN3H NOH Cl.::l

st~91 LB02 22U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave., Sw. Washington, DC 20591



### APR 1 1 2007
Mr. Mark Young, Chairman Airport Commission City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mr. Young: Iappreciate your providing an opportunity forBrian Armstrong, Manager ofthe Federal Aviation Administration Los Angeles Airports District Office, to make apresentation at the Airport Commission meeting on March 26. Iunderstand that the Commission will take up the issue ofrunway safety enhancements at Santa Monica Airport atthe Commission's next meeting on April 23, and Iwould like to offer some comments forthe commissioners' consideration before that meeting. From the press reports onthe March 26 meeting, itappears some members ofthe community believe that the FAA stepped back from aprocess ofworking with the City to enhance runway end safety atthe airport. That was certainly not our intent, and we look forward to meeting with City representatives to discuss comments received from both airport users and from community members. Iwould note that the ideas discussed by Mr. Armstrong on March 26 differed from the proposal presented by the City only in dimensions, not inthe measures proposed. The proposal presented to airport users onDecember 12and to the Commission on March 26 involved an engineered material arresting system (EMAS) on the departure end of Runway 21, and use ofdeclared distances forRunway 3. Mr. Armstrong's statement proposed those same measures, but with smaller dimensions similar to EMAS beds installed on commercial runways atBurbank Airport, Midway Airport in Chicago, and other locations. Ofmore concern to us isthat some ofthe comments quoted inthe press tended toportray the FAA as concerned primarily about access to the airport rather than safety. First, we assume the City is also concerned about reasonable access to the airport, given the City's legal obligations toprovide reasonable access under Federal grant agreements, surplus property deed provisions, andthe 1984 Settlement Agreement. However, itismost important to understand that the issue isnot simply safety versus access; the sacrifice of existing runway to provide runway safety area itself has safety implications that need to be considered. The use ofrunway pavement toprovide alarger EMAS bed would reduce the available runway for all operations onRunway 3. The touchdown point for Runway 3 landings and the beginning ofthe takeoff roll forRunway 3takeoffs would both be closer to the end ofRunway 3than atpresent. These facts need to be considered in determining the optimum safety benefit ofany proposed safety enhancement atthe airport.Finally, we believe that the benefits ofany physical enhancements to the runway ends

could be increased through additional pilot education and awareness. We would like to discuss aprogram for awareness and other voluntary measures that we believe could make a significant contribution to safe operations atthe airport. We appreciate the cooperation ofMr. Robert Trimbom and other City officials inthe analysis ofpotential measures to enhance safety atthe airport, and look forward to our next meeting. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards

cc: Robert Trimbom 2J r-07-07 04:09pm From-SANTA MONICAAIRPORT 

# i) til

~ 310-572-4495 T-114 P.02/03 F-135
Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport DirQCtor 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South santa Monica,Califomia90405

City of Santi' donie ••

'"

March 7, 2007 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards. 

### MS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: March 26, 2007 Airport Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Bennett, On behalf of the City of Santa Monica, Iwould like to formally invite you and your staff to attend the March 26. 2007 Santa Monica Airport Commission meeting to assist in briefing the Airport Commission on the concepts for runway safety enhancements. As we discussed in an earlier email, City staff will brief the Airport Commission in a workshop format to allow for a free-flow of

## a & A. We are planning to give the Airport Commission a technical presentation similar to the presentation made at the FAA's meeting of December 12, 2006. I will lead off the discussion with a brief historical overview leading up to the current RSA concept, Steve Benson with Coffman Associates will present a technical/ operational overview of the concept followed by a representative from ESCO (hopefully Kevin won't have hisflight delayed again). While I understand that you want to discuss the comments received from the Airport users tomorrow, we believe that it is important to have the public comment on the same ACP concept that aviation users based their responses on when proViding operational data. I am very reluctant to discuss changing the current runway safety area concept prior to receiving comments from the Airport Commission and the general public. At the request of the City Manager, I presented an historical over view leading up to the current runway safety enhancements to the City Council last Tuesday. As part of the presentation, I briefed them on the current runway safety area concept. At the end of the presentation, the Council directed staff to give a technical presentation of the concept to the Airport Commission for further review and comment by both the public and the Commission. To change the RSA concept before we have had a chance to brief the Airport Commission would send a message to the community that the users had more input into the process then the residents surrounding the Airport.

tel: 310458-8591 1

Fax froflt 31B 572 4495 B3/B7/B7 18:53 Pg: 2M?r-07-07 04:09pm From-SANTA MONICAAIRPORT 310-572-4495 T-114 P.03/03 F-135

It doesn't surprise me that a majority of the comments from the SMO users were negative
- some bordering on vitriolic. My quick review of the comments indicated that most users elected to provide an editorial comment on the RSA concept and not provide the technical data we requested. Even thouph we made it abundantly clear during the Dec 12th meeting that the RSA proposal was a joint FANCity concept, virtually all respondents felt it was strictly a City proposal that should be rejected by the FAA. We need to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the technical data submitted to determine what real impact the proposal would have on the users. Since the Airport Commission meeting is on a Monday night, maybe we could meet at the Airport the following Tuesday to review and discuss the public comments made durinq the meeting and the comments received from the SMO users. Please let me know if you or one of your staff can attend the Airport Commission meeting.

Sincerely 

# ~= ~rin1born .---- Airport Director

cc: Martin Tachiki



### 2

Fax frolll 318 572 4495 83/87/87 18:53 Pg: 3U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave

.. SW. Washington, DC 20591



### DEC 1 2006

To whom itmay concern: The Federal Aviation Administration is working with the City of Santa Monica in order to improve the runway safety areas (RSA) atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). The City of Santa Monica has recently developed aproposal to enhance the Airport's RSAs, and the FAA will be considering the City's proposal inthe near future. As part of the review and consideration process, the FAA is seeking comments from airport users. To this end, the FAA will hold ameeting on December 12, 2006, atits Regional Office in Lawndale, California. We would like to invite you, as aparty interested in operations at SMa, to attend and participate inthe discussion. The meeting location and contact information is as follows: Address: Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Regional Office 15000 Aviation Blvd. Lawndale, CA 90261
Location: Time: Contact: Triangle Room, 1stFloor I:00-5:00 pm Lyn Brekke, (310) 725-3550 Please allow some extra time toprocess through building security. You can identify your meeting as the Santa Monica airport users briefing. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airports Safety and StandardsSanta Monica Airport Office of the Airport Director 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, California 90405

City of Santa Monica'" Septem ber 7, 2006

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Dear Mr. Bennett, This is in response to your August 11, 2006 letter to Arthur Berg regarding safety improvements at Santa Monica Airport. We are most anxious to progress towards a consensus of appropriate runway safety improvements that will enhance the overall safe operation of the Airport. Although your letter reflects to some degree a misunderstanding of our RSA proposal, I agree that it makes more sense to meet in person at FAA headquarters in Washington rather than engaging in a further exchange of letters. Accordingly, I would propose a pre-meeting between FAA and SMO, immediately followed by a meeting with representatives of ESCO and aircraft manufacturers, such as Cessna, Bombardier, Gulfstream, Raytheon/Beechcraft and DassaultiFalcon. Prior to our meeting with the aircraft manufacturer representatives, itwould be helpful if they completed a cursory analysis of their aircraft performance characteristics for an airport like Santa Monica Airport and have such data available for discussion during our meeting. To facilitate the data collection, and to standardize the data reporting, I have taken the liberty of attaching a suggested sample Aircraft Manufacturers Runway Length Survey that could be distributed to the various companies. The meeting with the aircraft manufacturers would provide them with a greater understanding of our safety concerns and the meeting, together with the information gleaned from the survey, would be helpful in determining the extent of operational impacts of various RSA alternatives. We welcome this opportunity to further meet in the near future to fully review and discuss proposed RSA enhancements at Santa Monica Airport. We have asked Arthur Berg and Tom Devine of Kaplan, Kirsch and Rockwell to contact your office regarding the issues to be covered at the meeting and to facilitate the meeting dates and times.
Sincerely, 

# ~~_=c:

_ ~i~:~or~

cc: Martin Tachiki Arthur Berg Tom Devine Attachment

tel: 310458-8591 

### 1U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofAirport Safely and Standards 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591



### AUG 11 2006

Mr. Arthur P. Berg Kaplan Kirsch 

### &Rockwell LLP 730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 New York, NY 10019 

### Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Dear Mr. Berg: Thank you for your letter ofJune 13onbehalf ofthe City ofSanta Monica concerning runway safety area (RSA) enhancements at SMa. As we have pointed out inprevious correspondence, the Federal Aviation Administration is very interested in enhancing certain runway safety issues atthe SMa,but any solution must take into account the safety impacts on all aircraft using the airport, and consider the effect ofany enhancements onthe basic utility ofthe airport. Inresponse tothe City's initial proposal to shorten the runway and limit operations to category B-II aircraft, the FAA andthe city, inletters andmeetings, have exchanged several ideas forthe improvement ofthe airport's RSAs. Most recently, on May 12,2006, the FAA wrote to the City andprovided additional details regarding the FAA's position on the City's proposal. The FAA proposed anEngineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS), 165' x 200' wide, that would provide protection for all aircraft using SMa exiting the runway up to 40knots, meeting the FAA's criteria for installation. The EMAS installation alone would provide protection incases ofrunway overruns atthe end of runway 21 and would be effective with larger aircraft operating at SMa, from the 17,000-pound Learjet 35 to the 73,000-pound Gulfstream G-IV. Because 95-98% of operations are on Runway 21, the 165' EMAS atthe end ofRunway 21 would provide the highest safety benefit relative to the sacrifice ofusable runway pavement. Runway safety enhancement forRunway 3 could be achieved through the use ofdeclared distances. An EMAS installation forthe Runway 3 departure end isnotpracticable for several reasons. First, only 2-5% ofthe airport's operations use runway 3. Second, while those operations generally occur inpoor weather conditions, the Los Angeles climate does not produce the kinds ofrunway contamination, e.g. snow and ice, that significantly increase the runway length required. Finally, anEMAS installation forRunway 3 would require use ofseveral hundred feet ofexisting runway, which would have the effect of actually reducing the existing safety margin for almost alloperations using Runway 21, by moving the touchdown point further down the runway.2

The FAA's suggestions provide a significant safety enhancement foroperations ofaircraft exceeding 17,000 pounds, andminimize the loss ofactual pavement to avoid any compromise inthe existing level ofsafety forall other aircraft operating atthe airport. Inits June 13,2006 letter, the City instead proposed alarger EMAS installation ateach end ofthe runway. The City proposal would result inthe loss of600 feet ateach end, for atotal loss of 1,200 feet, reducing SMa's runway length to approximately 3,800 feet. This would not, as the City states, have a "minor impact on airport users." A 1,200-foot reduction would preclude more than 18,000 ofthe airport's current annual operations and would reduce available pavement to such anextent that safety forother users ofthe airport would be degraded, not enhanced. Ironically, reducing the runway length by 1,200' for EMAS installations would effectively eliminate operations by most ofthe aircraft that could benefit from the EMAS. The City's June 13proposal, therefore, cannot bejustified on grounds ofsafety orpractical benefits. The June 13 letter refers to FAA standards in support ofthe City proposal, but misunderstands what those standards provide. Even atcommercial airports, the FAA does not require that existing runways be shortened to accommodate anRSA, when the normal use ofthe runway would be adversely affected. The language inAdvisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 7, simply means that modifications to standards arenot issued for runway safety areas because non-standard RSAs are evaluated through the separate process. That process is adetermination ofpracticability, asprovided inAC 150/5300-13 and FAA Orders 5200-8 and 5200-9. The FAA strongly supports the availability of standard RSAs atgeneral aviation airports like Santa Monica aswell as commercial airports subject to 14C.F.R. Part 139. However, in each case thepracticability ofmeeting the standard must be considered in determining how an RSA canbe improved. At this point, even without aconsensus on aparticular RSA configuration, Ithink we would benefit more from conversations with the EMAS manufacturer, ESCO, and with airport users than from afurther exchange ofletters onproposed configurations. Iwould like to schedule separate meetings inWashington, DC with ESCO, aircraft manufacturers and subsequently with user organizations. Ameeting in Santa Monica with airport users and other interested local parties would follow. Ifyou agree, please letus know your general availability. You can call me at202-267-3053, orRick Marinelli at: 202267-7669. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and StandardsU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation AdmInistratIon Office ofAirport Safety and Standards BOO Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591



### AUG 1 2006

Mr. Arthur P. Berg Kaplan Kirsch &Rockwell LLP 730 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 New York, NY 10019 Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Dear Mr. Berg: Thank you for your letter ofJune 13on behalf ofthe City of Santa Monica concerning runway safety area (RSA) enhancements at SMO. As we have pointed out inprevious correspondence, the Federal Aviation Administration is very interested in enhancing certain runway safety issues atthe SMO, but any solution must take into account the safety impacts on all aircraft using the airport, and consider the effect ofany enhancements on the basic utility ofthe airport. In response to the City's initial proposal to shorten the runway and limit operations to category B-II aircraft, the FAA and the city, in letters and meetings, have exchanged several ideas for the improvement ofthe airport's RSAs. Most recently, on May 12, 2006, the FAA wrote to the City and provided additional details regarding the FAA's position on the City's proposal. The FAA proposed an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS), 165' x 200' wide, that would provide protection for all aircraft using SMO exiting the runway up to 40 knots, meeting the FAA's criteria for installation. The EMAS installation alone would provide protection in cases ofrunway overruns at the end of runway 21 and would be effective with larger aircraft operating at SMO, from the 17,000-pound Learjet 35 to the 73,000-pound Gulfstream G-N. Because 95-98% of operations are on Runway 21, the 165' EMAS atthe end ofRunway 21 would provide the highest safety benefit relative to the sacrifice ofusable runway pavement. Runway safety enhancement for Runway 3 could be achieved through the use ofdeclared distances. An EMAS installation for the Runway 3 departure end is not practicable for several reasons. First, only 2-5% ofthe airport's operations use runway 3. Second, while those operations generally occur inpoor weather conditions, the Los Angeles climate does not produce the kinds ofrunway contamination, e.g. snow and ice, that significantly increase the runway length required. Finally, an EMAS installation for Runway 3 would require use of several hundred feet ofexisting runway, which would have the effect of actually reducing the existing safety margin for almost all operations using Runway 21, by moving the touchdown point further down the runway.The FAA' s suggestions provide a significant safety enhancement for operations of aircraft

exceeding 17.000 pounds. and minimize the loss of actual pavement to avoid any compromise in the existing level of safety for all other aircraft operating atthe airport.
In its June 13, 2006 letter. the City instead proposed a larger EMAS installation at each end ofthe runway. The City proposal would result in the loss of600 feet at each end. for atotal loss of 1,200 feet. reducing SMO's runway length to approximately 3,800 feet. This would not, as the City states. have a ''minor impact on airport users." A 1,200-foot reduction would preclude more than 18,000 ofthe airport's current annual operations and would reduce available pavement to such an extent that safety for other users ofthe airport would be degraded, not enhanced. Ironically, reducing the runway length by 1,200' for EMAS installations would effectively eliminate operations by most of the aircraft that could benefit from the EMAS. The City's June 13proposal. therefore, cannot bejustified on grounds of safety or practical benefits. The June 13 letter refers to FAA standards in support ofthe City proposal. but misunderstands what those standards provide. Even at commercial airports, the FAA does not require that existing runways be shortened to accommodate an RSA, when the normal use ofthe runway would be adversely affected. The language in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 7. simply means that modifications to standards are not issued for runway safety areas because non-standard RSAs are evaluated through the separate process. That process is adetermination ofpracticability, as provided in AC 150/5300-13 and FAA Orders 5200-8 and 5200-9. The FAA strongly supports the availability of standard RSAs at general aviation airports like Santa Monica as well as commercial airports subject to 14C.F.R. Part 139. However, in each case the practicability ofmeeting the standard must be considered in determining how an RSA can be improved. At this point, even without aconsensus on aparticular RSA configuration, Ithink we would benefit more from conversations with the EMAS manufacturer, ESCO, and with airport users than from afurther exchange ofletters on proposed configurations. Iwould like to schedule separate meetings inWashington, DC with ESCO. aircraft manufacturers and subsequently with user organizations. A meeting in Santa Monica with airport users and other interested local parties would follow. Ifyou agree. please let us know your general availability. You can call me at202-267-3053, orRick Marinelli at: 202267-7669. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards

# Ifll

KAPLAN 

## KIRSCH ROCKWELL

June 13,2006

VIA FACSIMILEAND U.S.MAIl. Mr. David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety & Standards Federal Aviation Administration. 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 Re: Safety Improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) Dear Dave: Thank you for your recent letter to Bob Trimbom, Airport Manager, concerning improving safety at SMO by the creation of runway safety areas (RSAs). We are looking forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the FAA to resolve this critical safety problem and we welcome your invitation to make clear the City's views. First, it is of utmost importance, for the safety of aircraft users, U5eI'5of adjacent roads and nearby residents, that RSAs are created for both Runway 21 and Runway 3. Rick Marinelli, of your staff, in a telephone conversation with me following our meeting, acknowledged that the FAA realized that it was not feasible to provide safety improvements for one runway without also providing safety improvements for the other runway. Furthermore, although it is true that most operations are 00 Runway 21, accidents by their nature are unpredictable, and therefore, it would be imprudent not to 

### enhance the: safety ofboth Runway 21 and Runway 3. Second, the goal of Santa Monica bas always been to bring itself into 100% compliance; with the FAA's runway safety area standards. Particularly in view of the topography of SMO, built on a mesa with sharp drop offs at tbe ends of each runway, followed by a busy two lane road and residential housing, nothing less is acceptable. FAA's EMAS proposal, which your letter states would only protect against 50% of reported runway overruns, does not meet FAA established standards. Therefore, we must continue to work together to find an alternative solution that does comply with those standards. We wish to emphasize that we are not proposing our own standards but are simply proposing to comply with established FAA RSA safety standards. Significantly, the FAA has concluded that full compliance with these standards is so critical to safety that no variance can be granted. (AC

Attorneys at t:..•.. Otnv('r • NewYork • W2shington, 1)(; KaplllIl Kirsch &. ROtlcwcllLI.r 730 flifth Avenue,Suit\!900 New York. NY10019 lei; (2IZ) 265-7008 fax: (646) ~14·S440 wwwkaplftflki~ch.comMr. David L. Bennett

June 

## u,2006 Page:2

150/5300-13 CHG 7, SecJ05 c.) Additionally, as stated by the FAA, "aircraft can and do overrun the:ends of runways, sometimes with devastating results." (AC 150/5220-22A, Sec. 3) This statement is particularly applicable to SMO. 

### In the absence: of adequate 

### RSAs, due to its unique characteristics, the probability ofan aircraft overrun at SMO having "devastating results" isvery high. 

### We have had preliminary discussions with the 

### EMAS manufacturer, which has proposed some alternatives that will comply with the FAA standard of stopping all aircraft overrunning the runway at 70 knots or less, which accounts for 90% of aircraft overruns. These alternatives should be explored with aircraft manufacturers to identify the effect they would have on aircraft currently using the airport. At our meeting, and also in a subsequent conversation with Rick Marinelli, it was agreed that the contacts with manufacturers would be handled jointly by the FAA and SMO. We also appreciate the FAA's agreement to include SMO in meetings with and infonnation collection from airport users. In order to have asolid empirical data base, we:believe that the contacts with tbe manufacturers should precede any meetings and information collection from airport users. It is important to proceed expeditiously in implementing adequate runway safety areas at SMO. Consequently, we will be calling you shortly to coordinate contacting aircraft manufacturers and consulting with airport users. We believe that the final results win show that 1000/11 compliance with FAA RSA standards can be achieved with arelatively minor impact on airport users.

cc: JeffMathieu: Marty Tachiki; Bob Trimbom; Tom DevineU.S. Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofAirport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave

.. SW. Washington. DC 20591



## MAY 12 ~J06

Mr. Robert D. Trimborn Airport Manager Santa Monica Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimborn: Thank you formeeting with us about proposed safety improvements at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). This is to respond to concerns expressed atthat meeting, and to note understandings reached between SMO and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Please letme know ifyour view of any ofthese understandings differs. Airport neighbors are concerned that the FAA ispromoting safety improvements only for one end ofthe runway. You expressed that while the vast majority ofoperations are on Runway 21, Runway 3 isin use during periods ofinclement weather. We note that those periods ofinclement weather are almost always foggy days, not rainy days when braking action would be affected. We agree that it is appropriate to consider safety improvements forboth directions, but continue to believe that efforts should be skewed toward improving safety inthe most used direction. Engineered Materials Arresting Systems (EMAS) would provide protection for all aircraft using SMO exiting the end ofthe runway at40 knots or less, meeting FAA's criterion forinstallation. Limited data suggest an effectiveness of approximately 50%. However, we believe that many low-speed overruns are not reported, and that the actual effectiveness would be much higher. Also discussed, was the possibility ofcombining EMAS with «declared distances". This would require pilots tobase runway length calculations on atheoretically shortened runway, but would not physically shorten the runway any more than actually required for the EMAS installation. Some increase in effectiveness ofthe EMAS would result, however input from the EMAS manufacturer and airport users will be necessary to evaluate that benefit versus effects on runway utility. We do not believe itwould beprudent to displace runway thresholds at SMa. While we do not intend to minimize the effects ofrunway undershoots, we must consider the overall safety of all landings and takeoffs. A seeming improvement can actually decrease overall safety, and we believe displacing runway thresholds at SMO would have that effect.2

A shortened runway would prevent the use ofcertain aircraft, but for the rest would simply remove usable pavement. Few pilots would see that as asafety improvement. We believe the increase inprotection topilots landing short would result in agreater decrease inprotection against overruns. We have agreed to include SMO in any meetings with or information collection' from airport users. We believe input from these users will be essential in determining the most appropriate safety improvements atSMO.
Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and StandardsU.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Associate Administrator for Airports 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter ofFebruary 16to Mr. David Balloff onbehalf ofMr. Stephen Mark about runway safety at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). Specifically, Mr. Mark refers to an article inthe Los Angeles Times dated January 15criticizing the Federal Aviation Administration for not addressing runway safety at SMO. We do not agree with Mr. Mark's characterization ofthe FAA's position on this matter. The FAA is very interested in enhancing runway safety atfederally obligated airports, and the Agency has an ongoing program ofproviding Federal grant funding specifically for the improvement ofrunway safety areas. The FAA and the city ofSanta Monica are evaluating alternatives that we believe can provide apositive enhancement torunway safety atSMO. FAA and city officials met most recently onFebruary 16to outline the next steps in developing arunway safety enhancement program at SMO. 1trust this information ishelpful. Sincerely, 

## Originalsigned by: 

## Catherine M. Lang Catherine M. Lang Acting Associate Administrator forAirports Enclosure Transmitted Correspondence
CntJ# 2006047 5-0/FAA-060307 -007 WP: G:/AAS-400NasconceJos/Final Airport Issues!20060475-0 Feinstein SMO.doc AAS-400:MV asconcelos: 78730:031 14/2006:wcck:031 16/2006 AAS-400111

ARP1 AGI!AWP-600N asconce1os Statistics: 20060475-0 Feinstein SMO.doc. 182 words Original, 14Mar 200613:08 Style Index 32 Average for aLetter Average Sentence Length 18 Excellent Passive Index 0 Excellent:·eb. J. 

### '2006 :0; 16AM 

### No. 0455 p, 

### 2



## .EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER&DODGE LLP 750 Lexington Avenue NC'N York,N'):' 10022 212308.4411 fax 212.308.4844 eapdlaw.corn Arthur P. Berg 212.912.2781 direct dial 212.308.4844 fax abcrg@eapdJaw.com 

### February 2, 2006

VIA FAX AJ.~DFIRST CI"ASS MAIL Mr.

### David L.

### Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Re: Compliance by Santa Monica with FAA RSA Standards 

### Dear Dave: We appreciate the time 

### you spent the other day discussing FAA's January 20, 2006 

### letter containing two FAA proposals 

### to meet the need to create runway safety areas ("RSAs'') at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (the "Airport"), The City of Santa Monica (the "City") views 

### as very positive developments both 

### theJanuary 20 

### letter andyour suggestion that we meet soon to discuss the City's questions 

### concerning the proposals and to work together to resolve our concerns. We would like to meet with you as soon aspossible, and we will call your office shortly with dates when the City's representatives would be available. In the meantime, in order to ensure that the meeting is as productive as possible, we thought it would be a good idea to provide you with the City's initial questions and concerns, sothatyou and your staff can analyze them now and address them before, oratleast at,themeeting. Impact ofPlacement ofthe Elt:fASBed at One End ofthe Runway in Conjunction with a Declared Distance of4,687 Feet 

### 'While it 

### is true, as stated in your letter, that a vastmajority ofthe Airport's operations occur on Runway 21, we have concerns asto the impact ofFM's proposals on operations that occur in the other direction, i.e., on OR

### unway 3. As you know, the City has no control over the direction in which operations occur. "hat isprimarily anFAA air traffic determination, and, at night, when theTower isunmanned, a)ilot determination. Ofparticular concern isthat oJerations aretypically switched to an eastbound orientation during inclement weather

- precipitation, difficult winds, etc.

- when the margins of safety should be increased, not decreased. :n light ofthese factors, how does FAA intend to handle

NYC_227300_2IMBATISTA BOsrON IFT. l.AUDERDALE. IHARTFORD INEW YORKIPROflDENCEISHORTanis ISTAMFORD IWESTPAL"! B.EAOi Iwn.MlNGTON ILONDONFeb. 

### 3. 2006 10: 17AN1 

### No, 0455 P. 3

EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER&DODGE L.L.P

eastbound operations? On a shorter runway (due to the installation ofEMAS), with no safety margin at the take-off end (where FAA has stated that RSAs are critical), typically during adverse weather conditions, would larger and/or faster aircraft be prohibited from using the Airport foreastbound operations under FAA's proposal? 

### Safety Benefits ofthe FAA ElvJASIDeclaredDistance Proposal The City believes that assessing the adequacy ofthe FAA's EMAS proposal requires an understanding ofits safety benefits and its effect on current operations at the Airport. It would be very helpful to have a summary of the safety benefits that the proposed 165-foot bed of 

### E11AS, together with adeclared distance of4,687 feet, would provide to the various aircraft that FAA expects to be able to use the A'rport, For instance, would there be full RSA equivalency for certain categories of aircraft, but less than full RSA equivalency for others? What is the likelihood that there would be adequate protection to prevent a large and/or fast aircraft from going beyond theproposed RSA and EMAS bed? Ifsuch an aircraft didpass through the EMAS bed, how far would it likely travel? The FAA letter and attachment indicate that the 16S-foot ElvIAS bed will stop an aircraft going 40 knots or less, rather than 70 knots or less (as would a standard 

### EMAS bed). We understand that this isconsistent with FAA guidance onEMAS, when afull EMAS bed cannot beinstalled, but itwould behelpful tounderstand the significance ofthe difference, and how the 40-knot stopping power would provide an adequate level of safety. Also, under FAA's proposal, how would FAA prohibit orrestrict operations byaircraft for which the EMAS stopping power was not sufficient? 

### Declared distances

### for ASDA 

### andLDA of4,687 feet With regard to FAA's second alternative of a declared runway length of 4,687 feet, the City has much the same concerns as it has for the FAA's EMAS Plus Declared Distance proposal. Specifically, to what degree will it enhance safety, what effect will 

### ithave on current operations at the Airport, and how would the FAA restrict orprohibit operations ofaircraft that would not have adequate RSA 

### protection? Environmental Review The FAA letter states that, "any FAA decision required for a change to the runway environment at SMa would require environmental review." The City would be concerned ifthis would unduly delay implementing the important runway safety improvements, However, it is the City's understanding that such an environmental review need not entail a lengthy process; rather 

### itcould consist ofan environmental assessment that would not seriously delay the project. If, as expected, there were no significant environmental impacts from installation ofthe EMAS bed and/or use of declared distances and the operational limitations that would necessarily be imposed by FAA to ensure adequate: margins of safety, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSl) could be issued. Itwould be helpful ifyou couldprovide FAA's estimate ofthe type of work andthe time involved in completing the environmental processing ofthe project.

·2·ieb. 

### 3, 

### 2006 iO: 17AM 

### No.0455 P. 4

EDWARDS ANGELL 

### PAlMER&DODGE LLP

Siting oftheEMAS Bed 

### Based on our discussion, the City willreview the airport layout, the topography, and the location oftheperimeter road nearthe west endoftherunway, and suggestthe appropriate siting for 

### apossible 165-ft. EMAS bed. Consultation withAirport Users 

### The City appreciates the fact~hatthe FAA understands thatthe City should be aparty to any discussions the FAA undertakes with airport users concerning the impact ofthe different proposals on their operations. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind the guidance contained inFAA's Runway SafetyArea Program Order, which, after stating thatuse ofdeclared distances "requires athorough understanding ofuser needs and views, since their cooperation is an integral factor in selecting this alternative," goes on to emphasize that, "the 

### airport, in conjunction with FAA, will determine thefinai disposition ofthis type ofsituation." Order 5200.8 Appendix 2, p, 

### 3. (emphasis added.) Thus, it is clear that aircraft operators who may 

### disagree with aproposed RSA modification involving declared distances donothave aveto over such determination. Conclusion 

### The City is pleased that FAA shares the City's concern that the RSA issue must be addressed andresolved in atimely manner andthat safety must beenhanced atthe airport forthe benefit ofairport users and the surrounding community. We look forward tomeeting with you in the near future to move forward in devising an acceptable resolution ofthe important safety concerns regarding operations attheAirport. Very truly yours, 

# ~!~

APB:mrb

·3

.U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofAirport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave SW Washington, DC 20591"

.
clAN 20 2006 Mr. Robert Trimborn Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport Office ofthe Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimborn: We have considered theproposal and supporting information inyourletter ofSeptember 8, 2004. As noted inour earlier letters, we arevery interested in safety enhancements tothe runway environment atSanta Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). Atthe same time, werecognize the importance ofSMO to aviation inthe Southern California region, andwe are interested in preserving the utility ofthis airport and its availability to all classes ofoperator that can safely use the airport. The reconfiguration ofthe runway proposed inyour letter would provide a300-foot runway safety area ateach end oftherunway through acombination ofdisplaced thresholds and declared distances. Ontakeoff, the fullrunway length would be available for calculating takeoff distance andtakeoff run available (TORA), butthe declared distance for acceleratestop distance available (ASDA) would be4,687 feet, areduction of300 feet from current conditions. For landing aircraft, the combination ofa300-foot displaced threshold would reduce pavement available by 300 feet. Thedeclared landing distance available (LDA) would be 4387 feet, or600 feet less than atpresent. The displaced threshold has nobenefit for overruns, but serves asprotection foraircraft that land short oftherunway pavement. Statistically, undershoot incidents atairports are significantly less common than overruns. Areview ofNational Transportation Safety Board accident records indicates that SMO follows the standard pattern. One short landing accident has occurred atSMO since 1982, a nonfatal accident in 1992. The existing runway safety area at SMO presently extends only ashortdistance beyond each end ofthe runway. While the approved airport layout plan lists the airport reference code as B-II, the design aircraft, based onthe current usage ofthe airport, isD-II. To meet the FAA standard for arunway serving that aircraft, theRSA would have toextend 1000feetbeyond each end ofthe runway. Itis clearfrom the outset that astandard RSA forD-II aircraft is not possible without major construction offthe ends ofthe runways, involving substantial grading, relocation ofpublic roads, andthetaking ofresidential property. Tomeet that standard without affecting areas offthe ends ofthe runway would beimpractical, asitwould require shortening the runway tothepoint ofvirtually eliminating itsutility.2

When itisnot possible toprovide astandard RSA, itmakes sense to design anonstandard RSA in amanner thatwill provide thehighest net safety enhancement that isconsistent with the basic functionality oftherunway. As mentioned above, undershoots areexperienced much less frequently than overruns. Also, airport operations data for SMO indicate that 95% to 98% ofoperations areonrunway 21. Itis clearthatthe highest safety benefit would be achieved from ameasure that addresses overruns onrunway 21, which couldresult either from landings orfromrejected takeoffs onthatrunway. Itisalso generally beneficial to preserve asmuch actualpavement aspossible for operations onrunway 3-21, bothto preserve access to the airport andtoprovide the maximum pavement forbraking aircraft. Theproposal in yourletter meets these objectives fortakeoffs, albeit with some effect on access to the airport resulting fromthe reduced ASDA of4,687 feet. For landings, however, yourproposal would reduce actual pavement available by 300 feet, toprovide an approachendRSA forundershoot protection. The safety benefit oftheproposed changes, aside from theundershoot protection, would result from prohibiting some aircraft from taking offata certain weight, oratall, inorderto eliminate marginal operations which appearto require almost allusable pavement. Forall other landing operations at SMO, however, the benefit ofthe proposal islimited toundershoot protection, andthatbenefit would beoffset by aloss of300 feet ofrunway length. We are concerned that areduction inrunway length of300 feetormore would have an adverse effect on safety in anyincident where there isthe potential for an overrun, regardless ofthe design group ofthe aircraft. Given the special circumstances that exist atSMO, webelieve areduction inavailable pavement forlandings to obtain undershoot protection would notresult inanet enhancement to safety. We suggest two alternatives forenhancing safety foraircraft overruns at SMO. Engineered material arresting system (EMAS) anddeclared distance of4,687feet. We understand that there isnot sufficient land atthe ends ofthe runway for astandard EMAS installation, which would take approximately 600 feet including both the setback from the runway andthe EMAS beditself. Youhave rejected EMAS onthis basis inyourprior letters. However, FAA standards provide for anon-standard EMAS installation where a certain minimum benefit canbeachieved. That benefit isconsidered the ability to stop the design aircraft leaving therunway end at aspeed not less than 40knots. We took apreliminary lookatthepossibility ofinstalling EMAS atthe departure end of runway 21 only, since most operations atSMO use thatrunway. Our correspondence with the Engineered Arresting Systems Company indicates thatthe installation ofan_EMASno more than 165feet inlength atthe end ofrunway 21 couldprovide protection foroperations at SMO where an airplane exits thatrunway at40knots orless (preliminary report attached). EMAS installations arecustom-designed for the size aircraft thatuse aparticular airport. As aresult, the overrun protection provided bythis EMAS installation would extend to a substantial portion ofthe aircraft fleetusing SMO, including all ofthe largest aircraft types using the airport. This 40-knot stopping performance meets ourcriterion forpracticability ofinstallation ofEMAS. The option ofinstalling a 165-foot EMAS would require grading andpossibly use ofasmall length ofexisting runway, butonafirst look itappears feasible from anengineering standpoint.3

Declared distancesfor ASDA andIDA of4,687feet. Without EMAS, asmaller safety enhancement could beobtained bythe use ofdeclared distances alone without adisplaced threshold orotherphysical change tothe runway. This option would have less adverse effect on airport access than the city's proposal, because itwould retain all existing pavement foruse inboth takeoff and landing, andwould affect fewer operations. Ineach ofthese alternatives-the city's andthe two alternatives wepropose inthis letteroperators that use SMO would beaffected to some degree. Forthatreason we intend to discuss these alternatives informally with users to getbetter information onhow they would be affected. Also, wenote that any FAA decision required for achange to therunway environment at SMO will require environmental review. We look forward to your comments ontheseproposals andto further discussions with you onhow besttoenhance safety atSMO. Sincerely, 

# au

David L. Bennett Director ofAirport Safety and Standards EnclosureU.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Airports Division Federal Aviation Adrninistration PO. Box 92007 Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007

November 22, 2004
Mr. Trimborn Airport Administration Building 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Mr. Trimborn:
We are in receipt of your letter and documents dated September 8, 2004 addressing the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), the runway safety area determination and the City's current position with regards to the reduction in runway length and the employment of declared distances. We are currently evaluating the documentation you submitted, including Addendum #1, and expect to respond to the City's proposal in the near future. However, in order to properly assess the actual impact of the City's proposal on aircraft operations at the Santa Monica airport and the airport's ability to meet its role as one of the most important reliever airports in the Los Angels area, we request that the City provide the following information:

a. Fleet mix and operational count for aircraft above 10,000 lb. for the years 1999-2002 in addition to the information provided in Table A3 of Addendum #1 and in Table D of the original study. b. Number of annual 14 CFR Part 135 and Part 91 operations at the airport. c. Number of annual flight segments (500, 1,000, 1,500 nautical miles) of aircraft weighing over 25,000 lb. operating into and out of the airport. d. Consistent with (b) and (c) above, take-off an landing information (such as runway length) for aircraft above 25,000 lb. in increments of 1,000 lb. at Sea Level and up to 3,000 feet density altitude in 1,000-foot increments e. Estimated impact of a runway reduction on trust reverser operation by aircraft weighing more than 15,000 lb. f. Estimated displaced aircraft operations to other nearby reliever airports that would result from the proposed change in accelerate-stop distance available and landing distance available.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Rick Marinelli at (202) 267-7669.
Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airports Safety And Standards

# 8 til

~ Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405
City of Santa Monica'· September 8, 2004

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Mr. Mark AMcClardy Manager Airports Division AWP-600 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Airports Division P.O. Box 92007 WWPC Los Angeles, California 90009 Subject: Airport Layout Plan and Runway Safety Area Determination Dear Mr. Bennett, Enclosed please find anupdated Airport Layout Plan ("ALP") forthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport ("Airport"). Pursuant to 49 V.S.c. §47107(a)(l6) and Grant Assurance No. 29, the City is submitting anALP that complies with the FAA's direction tokeep the ALP current inregards to airport facilities and structures such as the runway, taxiways, aprons, structures, hangars and roads. Additionally, the updated ALP depicts proposed facility improvements and alterations. Consistent with its designation inthe Santa Monica Airport Agreement, executed on January 31, 1984 ("1984 Agreement") and the ALP approved on October 31, 1986, and the subsequent designation as aB-II airport on the ALP approved on August 20, 1991, the City has updated the ALP toreflect the requirements ofAC 150/5300-13 andFAA Orders 5200.8 and 5200.9. As discussed in itspublic hearings and inits meetings with the FAA, the City seeks to comply with the Runway Safety Area ("RSA") Program objective set forth inFAA Order No. 5200.8 that all RSAs atfederally obligated airports conform to the extent practicable to the RSA standards contained in AC 150/5300-13. As aptly stated inFAA Order 5200.8, the RSA, whose dimensions are established based upon the Airport Reference Code ("ARC"), is intended to provide ameasure ofsafety inthe event ofan aircraft's excursion from the runway by significantly reducing the extent ofpersonal injury and aircraft damage during overruns, undershoots and veer-offs. As the supporting documents filed with the revised ALP demonstrate, implementation ofthese FAA standards will enhance the overall safety of

tel: 310 458-8591 • fax: 310 572-4495 1operations on the ground atthe Airport and the safety ofthe residents living inthe areas

surrounding the Airport. One ofthe documents filed concurrently with this ALP isAddendum #1 to the Design Standards Study forthe Santa Monica Airport. The main part ofthe study was delivered to the FAA during prior meetings with City staff. The addendum addresses issues raised by FAA staffin its meeting with the City onNovember 20,2003. As is evident from the addendum, the City has reviewed the feasibility ofusing anEngineered Materials Arresting System ("EMAS"), other arresting systems, partial and full RSAs and maintaining the status quo. In the City'S opinion, the Aircraft Conformance Program represents the best compromise forthe Santa Monica Airport. Atthe November 20, 2003 meeting, FAA representatives agreed to undertake astudy ofthe issue ofRSAs atthe Santa Monica Airport as currently configured. Therefore, after carefully considering and analyzing the available technology and data relative to practicable RSA enhancements, the City ofSanta Monica has determined that the only way to achieve the appropriate RSA criteria consistent with FAA safety standards isto employ declared distances. As depicted on the revised airport layout plan, both runway thresholds would be displaced 300 feet. Once approved, the declared distances would bepublished forboth runway 3 and Runway 21 as follows:

• Landing distance available (LDA)

-4,387 feet

• Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA)

-4,787 feet

• Takeoff run available (TaRA)

- 4,987 feet

• Takeoff distance available

- 4,987 feet The physical length ofthe runway remains inplace in accordance with the 1984 Agreement. Enclosed please find, foryour review and information, acomplete set of approved plans and specifications detailing the 300' displacement ofthe thresholds ofRunway 03 &21. The City looks forward to reviewing the FAA's findings with respect to the issue ofRSAs atthe Santa Monica Airport aswell as its comments on the documents submitted concurrently with this letter. Since senior FAA staffmembers from Washington D.C. were not able to attend the November 20, 2003 meeting atthe Santa Monica Airport, we would welcome the opportunity to review and discuss, in detail atthe FAA Headquarters, the City's intentions and the methodology used to implement Runway Safety Areas. Ifthe FAA is interested inreceiving afurther briefing by the City, please letus know potential dates that such ameeting could occur. Ifyou have any questions concerning this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact either Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director ormyself. Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration and cooperation inthis matter.
Sincerely,

~ ~'Trim~rn Airport Manager



### 2Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405

C ity of Santa Moniea~ May 10, 2004 David L. 8ennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett, Thank you for responding to the City's November 26, 2003 letter, which recapped the November 20, 2003 discussion between Airport staff, City consultants and FAA staff regarding the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the absence of runway safety areas atthe Santa Monica Airport ("Airport"). Since several statements in your letter of February 4, 2004 vary from the understandings reached bythe participants in the November 20, 2003 meeting, the City would like to stress the importance of those understandings and the need to implement them. The City believes that your comment regarding the Airport's design standards and the 1984 Agreement is a narrow reading that fails to fully set forth the intent of the 1984 Agreement. Your suggestion that any aircraft with a wingspan of less than 79 feet (Group II maximum wingspan) is acceptable at SMO is inconsistent with the 1984 Agreement and the safe operation of the Airport. Section 8 of the 1984 Airport Agreement states as follows: "The Airport will be-capable of accommodating most kinds of general aviation aircraft, generally consistent with Group II Design Standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.48 dated February 24,1983." Reference to the use of the Airport by Aircraft Category A and 8 aircraft at the Santa Monica Airport can be clearly determined by the 1984 Agreement's reference to FAA AC 150/5300-48 which states in pertinent part "The standards, recommendations, and guidance material in this Advisory Circular (AC) define an airport suitable for the less demanding Aircraft Approach Category 

### A and 

### B airplanes, i.e. airplanes with approach speeds of less than 121 knots. The other airports need to be designed and maintained to the standards and, to the extent physically feasible, to the recommendations in AC 150/5300-12, Airport Design Standards
- Transport Airports, current edition." During the November 20, 2003 meeting, the participants had significant discussions about a Runway Safety Area (RSA) determination. The FAA staff present at the meeting agreed to conduct an RSA determination based upon safety enhancements proposed by the City of Santa Monica. However, during the discussion of the RSA's (or the

tel: 310 458-8591 1Airport's lack thereof), Mark McClardy assured all present that the FAA Western Pacific

Region Airports Division would also conduct a Runway Safety Area Determination of the existing airport configuration. Unfortunately, you were unable to attend the November 20, 2003 meeting and were unaware of this representation to the City. Though the FAA and the City have had differences of opinion on matters, the City has always appreciated the FAA's commitment to implement its representations to the City. For that reason, we assume that the FAA will honor its representation to conduct the Runway Safety determination of the Airport's current configuration. Itwould be helpful to the City for the FAA to set atimetable to complete this review inthe near future. The importance of completing this Runway Safety determination for the Airport's current configuration is evidenced by the fact that the FAA has made virtually hundreds of RSA determinations of existing runway configurations at airports throughout the United States. However, your ietter failed to mention the FAA's commitment to complete this determination as part of the effort to reach an understanding on the safe operation of the Santa Monica Airport. In addition, I was somewhat troubled by an incident that occurred during a session at the recent Airport Management Short Course in Monterey. When I asked Andy Richards, Manager, San Francisco Airport District Office, what I should do if FAA staff declined to give an airport an RSA determination, he was a little perplexed by the question. However, he said that he would be happy to help if I gave him a call for assistance. When someone in the audience informed Mr. Richards that I was the manager of Santa Monica Airport, he quickly reversed himself and said that "all other airports in the region would get an RSA determination except Santa Monica"
- virtually everyone present laughed at my expense. This is not a laughing matter. This is a life and death matter. NTSB records indicate there are on average 

### 10aborted takeoff and landing overruns at U.S. airports annually. The record shows that the most severe accidents have occurred at locations that had non-standard RSA's. As you are well aware, Santa Monica Airport has no RSA
- no margin of safety. When discussing the potential loss of life and destruction of property as a result of the lack of an RSA at SMO, Miguel Vasconcelos, FAA Airport Compliance Specialist, asked me in a rhetorical way "has ajet aircraft ever gone off the end ofthe runway?" Does the FAA have to wait for people to die and property destroyed before itacts? Your letter further complicates the City's concerns with regards to liability exposure. Even though you indicate that "no FAA officialhas the authority to indemnify the Cityof Santa Monica, nor accept any responsibility that has not been specifically assigned to the FAA under statute. We agree, however, that the City of Santa Monica is not responsible forsafety assessments orRSA determinations made by the FAA pursuant to its statutory safetyauthority." While your letter stated that the FAA could not accept liability for the absence of a runway safety area, it is clear that liability generally flows to the entity responsible for making the safety 'determination. By moving forward on the representations made at the November 20,2003 meeting, we can move this issue from



### 2theoretical discussions regarding liability to the operation of the Santa Monica Airport in

a safer manner. We are in the final process of completing our studies regarding the potential use of EMAS and alternative aircraft arrestment systems. We welcome the opportunity to further meet and discuss with FAA engineering and specialist staff in the near future to fully review the proposed RSA enhancements at Santa Monica Airport.
Sincerely,

~~~B rimborn Airport Manager

cc: Susan McCarthy, City Manager, City of Santa Monica Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney, City of Santa Monica Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director, City of Santa Monica Marty Tachiki, Deputy Attorney, City of Santa Monica R. Austin Wiswell, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Mike Shutt, Mead & Hunt Steve Benson, Coffman Associates Mark McClardy, Airports Division Manager AWP-600, FAA WPR Miguel Vasconcelos, Airport Compliance Specialist, FAA HQ

3U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

### FEB
- 3 aJ04

Mr. Robert Trimbom Airport Manager, Santa Monica Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimbom: Thank you foryour letter ofNovember 26,2003, summarizing themeeting of November 20, 2003, between representatives of Santa Monica Airport, its consultants, and theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA). While we agree that the letter is generally representative ofwhat was discussed atthe meeting, we would liketo clarify several statements to ensure allparties have the same understanding ofwhat we will attempt to accomplish inthe coming months. First, youmention that the 1984Airport Agreement between FAA and the City of Santa Monica mandated thatthe airport conform to B-ll design standards. Wenote that the agreement actually does notmandate conformance with design standards, and makes no mention ofAircraft Approach Category B. The agreement calls for "accommodating most kinds ofgeneral aviation aircraft, generally consistent with Group IIDesign Standards". Next, we agreed that wewill make aRunway Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Program determination based upon theproposed safety enhancements presented by Santa Monica Airport and its consultants aspart ofourjoint study effort. ARSA determination will represent aconclusion as towhether the safety enhancements presented mayor maynot bepracticable. The RSA practicability review will only consider possible enhancements tothe RSA, andisnot an assessment ofthe existing configuration. Aircraft operating onthe existing runway atSanta Monica, within theparameters set forth intherespective FAA-approved aircraft flight manuals and conforming to the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations governing the operation ofaircraft, are operating safely. That point was emphasized by Mr. James Whitehead ofthe FAA Office ofFlight Standards atthemeeting onNovember 20, 2003. Finally, regarding the lastpoint inyour letter, no FAA official has the authority to indemnify the City ofSanta Monica, nor accept any responsibility that has notbeen specifically assigned totheFAA under statute. We agree, however, that the City of Santa Monica isnot responsible forsafety assessments orRSA determinations made by the FAA pursuant to its statutory safety authority.We look forward tomeeting again with your office once your consultants areready to

present proposed safety enhancements. Those proposals will be assessed bythe FAA under its RSA Improvement Program. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director ofAirport Safety and Standards 2

# e 111 

# -J Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405
City of Santa Monieaw
November 26, 2003 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Subject: Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) Dear Mr. Bennett, As I mentioned in our telephone call yesterday, we truly appreciated the opportunity to meet with FAA regional and headquarters staff on November 

# zo". The respective FAA teams headed by Mark McClardy and Miguel Vasconcelos were attentive and allowed usto fully describe our concerns regarding safety and the continued safe operation ofthe Santa Monica Airport. Having these gentlemen visit and inspect the Airport demonstrated the unusually difficult environment on and surrounding Santa Monica Airport, for accommodating even a substantial part of a standard RSA at either end of the runway. In addition we believe that the FAA teams learned first hand that we were merely trying to utilize existing FAA guidelines to conform to the B-II design standards mandated bythe 1984 Airport Agreement by and between the FAA and City of Santa Monica

. At the conclusion of the meeting the respective parties agreed to provide the following no later than March 1, 2004: 1. City shall conduct further consultant studies to better access the life safety benefits of deploying an Engineering Material Arresting System, commonly known as EMAS atthe end ofthe runway 21 and 3; Furthermore, a related study to combining an arresting fence/net system (that was demonstrated during the meeting) isto be studied; 2. City shall propose and assess mitigated benefits of a more limited property acquisition and clearance program to provide a minimal margin of safety to lives and structures nearest the end of the runways;

tel: 310 458-85913. FAA shall make a RSA determination for Santa Monica Airport in its existing layout; a subsequent second RSA determination will be made following the submittal of the aforementioned City studies to ascertain the relative improvements derived bytheproposed enhancernents: and 4. 

### FAA shall provide the City with a clear statement of responsibility bythe FAA for indemnifying and relieving the City of responsibility for safety assessments, determinations and enforcement relative to Santa Monica Airport's RSAs. For erroneous or negligent decisions bythe pilot in command, it is understood that neither the FAA nor the City is responsible.

We both share the same goal of achieving a resolution to our concerns relative to safe operations of aircraft at Santa Monica Airport. We lookforward to meeting with FAA staff atthe earliest possible date once the above matters have been accomplished. Ifyou have any questions or desire further clarification regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call.

Robert Trimborn Airport ManagerU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

### NOV 

### 10 2003 Mr. Robert Trimbom Airport Manager Santa Monica Municipal Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop S. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimbom: As you know, on October 21,2003, theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) docketed the complaint by the National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Bombardier Aerospace Corp., andDassault Falcon Jet Corp., filed under Title 14,Part 16ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations. The complaint, docketed as Docket 16-03-11, relates to the new weight-based landing fees atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa) by the City ofSanta Monica. We have learned that the City has begun the levy and collection ofthose landing fees atSMa. Unfortunately, the City opted to start implementation despite the FAA having urged the City onAugust 14to delay implementation ofthe landing fee until the FAA had completed its informal review oftheproposed landing fees. We made that request because itappeared to us that certain aspects ofthe weight-based landing fees schedule could be inconsistent with the City's Federal obligations. At this time, we again urge the City to suspend implementation ofthe new schedule landing feeuntil the current formal Part 16process is complete or, inthe altenative, that the cityplace allincremental revenue collected under the new schedule in an escrow account until afinal determination onthe compliance issue. Ifyou have any questions, Ican be reached at (202) 267-3053. Sincerely, 

# CLw

David L. Bennett Director ofAirport Safety and StandardsSanta Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405

City of Santa Moni(~a

November 6, 2003 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett, Thank you for your October 15, 2003 letter regarding the City's proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) for the Santa Monica Airport. While the City disagrees with the position set forth in your October 15, 2003 letter regarding the ability of the City to adopt the ACP program, we appreciate your recognition of the Airport's unusually difficult environment on and surrounding the airport. As we have discussed in the past, it isthe close proximity of the homes, the unusual topography and the evolving fleet mix tending toward larger and faster corporate jets that prompted our comprehensive safety review of the Airport's operational compatibility. The ACP is not an artificial restriction on access to the airport. On the contrary, the proposed ACP seeks to address operational incompatibility and ultimately ensure the safest possible operating environment for the flying and non-flying public by recognizing the Airport's design and physical limitations. We welcome the opportunity to further meet with FAA engineering staff and specialist to fully review the proposed ACP and discuss meaningful and technically feasible alternatives to meet FAA RSA design guidelines. I propose that we meet at 9:00 a.m. on November 20, 2003 atthe conference room located within the Santa Monica Airport Office. The City will have its consultants in attendance that will give a full briefing regarding the technical analysis that led up to the development of the ACP.
Sincerely, 

# ~·m--- Airport Manager

cc: Marsha Moutrie tel: 310 458-8591U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591



### r The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your letter ofOctober 6 forMr. andMrs. Jay Segal about the use of Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) byjet aircraft. We believe Mr. Segal is expressing concern about the July 1Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed policy notice inthe Federal Register. This proposed policy [Docket No. FAA-2003-15495] deals with weight-based restrictions atairports. The notice makes explicit the specific guidance FAA applies in cases inwhich airport sponsors make use ofweight-based restrictions as ameans ofprotecting airfield pavement, while remaining in compliance with their Federal obligations toprovide reasonable access on anondiscriminatory basis. The FAA isusing the notice to seek comments on the guidance weprovide inreviewing the use ofweight-based airport access restrictions as ameans ofprotecting airfield pavement. We do not believe this guidance would result in larger aircraft using SMO. Mr. Segal may also be reacting to the City ofSanta Monica's study ofa ban on aircraft with wingspan of79 feet ormore or afinal approach speed of 121 knots ormore. We have expressed our concerns about this idea to the city, although we have not suggested that the airport should accept larger aircraft that currently use the airport. There isno question that SMO has anunusually difficult airport environment for meeting allFAA standards. There isnot enough land to construct astandard runway safety area at either end ofthe runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to ends ofthe runway. There is also adrop interrain from runway elevation atboth ends ofthe runway. City streets border airport property offboth ends ofthe runway. These conditions have ofcourse existed fordecades. While the number andproportion ofjet operations have increased inrecent years,jet aircraft have used the airport safely for many years. While we do not believe that any new limitation onuse ofthe airport has yetbeen justified, we have met with city officials and expect to have further discussions with the city on conditions atthe airport.Ifyou oryour staffneed further help, please contact Mr. David Balloff, Assistant

Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277. Sincerely,

Woodie Woodward Associate Administrator forAirports Enclosure Transmitted Correspondence File: 20031033-0\A20031 007012 WP: G:AAS400N asconcelos/FinalAirportIssues/20031 033.doc AAS-400:MV asconcelos:78730:wcck: 10/15/2003 :RT:sb: 10/29/03 AAS-400\1 \1ARP\AOA-3\A WP-600\MVasconcelos Statistics 20031 033.doc, 332 words Original, 28 Oct 2003 11:59 Style Index 39, Good for General Writing Average Sentence 20, Excellent Passive Index 13,Excellent 209:38 3103928091 BAILEY 

### & PARTNERS ~ 202 267 5301 NO. 592 [;1002

2S,-SDONALD I)O\J<;l.A,S Loop !\:ORTH S!i(':(lNIl FLOOR SAN,A MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405-2.959 Pl-IONJ;(:lIO),92-5000 F"x (3lO) 39:<-8091 PATl(ICl( E. BA1UY ATTOfl.N£Y Ill' LIlVi' j');I/\lLJ;Y (~6AI LEYPARTNE lIS. COM

OFFICF.S IN SANTA MONICA & SAClUU\f£NTO

October 29, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE 202-267-5301

David L. Bennett Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-l Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avc., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591
Dear Dave:
On behalf of our nationally based aviation clients, we thank you for your very thoughtful and articulate letter of October 15, 2003 to Mr. Robert Trimborn, Airport Manager of Santa Monica Airport. It addresses the issues very well.
Ifthis office 

### can be ofany assistance toyou in collecting data orother information on the ACP issue, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,

~~P~k B 

### '1---· arnc· , a1 ey BAILEY & PARTNERS 

### PEB/js

G;\R\lnway\Corrc.,pondcnco\50'\I\cttOO I.wpdU.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration OfficeofAirport Safetyand Standards 800 IndependenceAve., S.w. Washington, D.C. 20591 

### OCT 1 5 2003 Mr. Robert Trimborn Airport Manager, Santa Monica Municipal Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop S. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimborn: On December 10, 2002, the Santa Monica City Council approved in concept the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the designation of appropriate runway safety areas (RSA) atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). In order to achieve this, the City, through an Airport Design Standards Analysis, proposes to shorten the runway by displacing the landing thresholds by 300 feet ateither end ofthe runway. The ACP proposal asserts that because the runway at Santa Monica has an airport reference code (ARC) ofB-II, aircraft in ahigher category than B-II are incompatible with the airport. The City argues that SMO isrequired to accommodate only B-II or lower category aircraft. SMO is classified as areliever airport forLos Angeles International Airport. There are approximately 400 based aircraft atthe airport and approximately 165,000 aircraft operations each year, more than 101,000 ofwhich areby itinerant aircraft. As mentioned inthe 1984 Settlement Agreement, SMO plays acritical role in the regional and national system ofairtransportation and air commerce. SMO serves a "vital and critical role in its functions as ageneral aviation reliever airport forthe primary air carrier airports in the area ... by diverting private and corporate aircraft away from the aircarrier airports and other heavily used airports located inthe Greater Los Angeles Area." The ACP would significantly limit the utility ofthe airport since more than 7,000jet operations would be adversely affected each year. FAA records indicate that the planning and development ofthe airport has been financed, inpart, with funds provided bythe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP), authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49USC §47101, etseq. Between 1985 and 1994, SMO has received $9.7 million inFederal airport development assistance. In addition, the airport has incurred obligations inthe form ofrestrictive deed covenants arising from conveyances ofland executed on August 10, 1948, and April 8, 1949, under the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, 49 USC §47151-47153.2

The idea ofshortening the runway and limiting the aircraft that can use the airport was first discussed by city officials as anoise mitigation measure in connection with the May 31, 1985, study entitled "Displaced Threshold Noise Test." For several reasons, including the fact that the displaced threshold would have had very little effect on noise inthe surrounding community, the idea was not pursued atthat time. We know ofno action by the City to ameliorate the matter short ofthe proposed ACP. For example, the FAA isnot aware ofanyrequest or action bythe City topurchase additional property offthe end ofthe runway or add fill on airport property to create a longer RSA forthe existing runway. The RSA is an airport design feature established by the FAA as asafety enhancement to protect aircraft arrivals and departures. As asafety enhancement, the RSA isnot necessary for operational safety. The RSA extends beyond the ends and sides ofthe runway and is not part ofthe runway itself. Airports holding an airport operating certificate under 14C.F.R. part 139 arerequired to incorporate the standard RSA in all new runway projects and achieve standard RSA when there ismajor work on an existing runway, ifpracticable. Atmany airports itis notpracticable to obtain the standard RSA, and a smaller RSA is considered acceptable. In some cases adisplaced threshold and the use ofdeclared distances, which effectively shorten usable runway, serve toprovide a standard RSA. However, those measures are only employed where they do not interfere with the utility ofan airport, i.e., where the reduced runway length would not significantly interfere with current andprojected operations atthe airport. Atnoncertificated airports, such as SMa, the FAA will require the sponsor to meet RSA design standards ifpracticable in connection with anFAA-funded runway project, but there isno regulatory requirement tomeet RSA standards. The existence of aRSA isnot anoperating requirement. Itisnot required for any operation under FAA aircraft operating rules (see 14C.F.R. Parts 91, 121, 125, 135). Nor is aRSA required tomeet the airspace clearance requirements for instrument approach procedures, under the agency's terminal instrument procedures manual (TERPS). Safe operation ofaircraft requires the availability ofa suitable runway, protected airspace around the runway, andprotection ofapproach and departure airspace forvisual and instrument approaches and departures. SMa has no airspace obstructions that affect safety offlight, andhas a4,987-foot runway that meets allFAA design and marking standards for arunway ofthat length.

", We have no evidence that aircraft using SMa, ofany design category, arebeing operated on this runway inviolation of 14C.F.R. part 91.9 (a), which requires the pilot in command to comply with the operating limitations specified inthe FAA-approved Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) and issued under the applicable FAA airworthiness standards.3

Other airport design standards do not appear tobe an issue. You have advised us that aircraft as large as aGulfstream G-V orBombardier Global Explorer have wingspans that conflict with vehicle traffic and other aircraft when those aircraft are on the runway. The conflict is that the wingtips ofthose aircraft extend into adjacent taxi lanes. On that basis you have denied permission forthem to use the airport in the future. This isnot inherently unreasonable-all but the largest airports will be unable to accommodate certain sized aircraft without extraordinary measures, ifatall. As aresult ofthis policy, there areno dimensional conflicts with any aircraft that currently operates at SMO. There have been no complaints to FAA over this policy, and we do not consider it an issue inthe review ofthe proposed ACP. There isno question that SMO has anunusually difficult environment on and surrounding the airport, forconstructing even asubstantial part ofa standard RSA at either end ofthe runway. Housing built many years ago is located relatively close to ends ofthe runway; there is asubstantial drop interrain from runway elevation atboth ends ofthe runway; and city streets border airport property offboth ends ofthe runway. These conditions have ofcourse existed fordecades. While the number and proportion ofjet operations has increased inrecent years,jet aircraft inthe B-II andhigher categories have used the airport safely for several years. Initsjustification forthe proposed ACP, the City has cited the protection ofresidential areas near the ends ofthe runway aswell asthe safety ofaircraft. The FAA design standard intended to serve this function is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), which is defined as "an area offthe runway end to enhance the protection ofpeople and property onthe ground." FAA encourages airport sponsors to acquire sufficient property interest inthe RPZ to exercise control over land use, and funds such acquisitions through the Airport Improvement Program. This includes clearing the RPZ ofincompatible objects and activities. Residences are considered inconsistent with the RPZ. Like the RSA, the RPZ is considered an enhancement to safety and isnot required for aircraft or airport operations. Where itis determined tobe impracticable for the airport owner to acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ, the RPZ land use standards have recommendation status forthe portion ofthe RPZ not controlled by the airport owner. To date, however, FAA isnot aware ofany attempt by the City to acquire property oruse zoning authority to limit the use ofland within the standard RPZ dimensions at SMO. In summary, because there isno variance from FAA standards with respect to the runway itself orto the airspace forvisual and instrument approaches and departures at the airport, there isno safety issue with current aircraft operations atthe airport, by aircraft that can use that runway consistent with their operating limitations specified in the FAA-approved AFM. The FAA is charged by Congress with regulating the safety ofaircraft operations, and the proposed action by an airport operator to determine which aircraft can safely use the airport raises the constitutional issue ofFederal preemption.4

As noted in the Notice ofInvestigation, even ifnotpreempted such arestriction would need tobe reasonable and notunjustly discriminatory under the AIP grant assurances, and in compliance with the terms ofthe 1984 Settlement Agreement. Finally, it appears that the ACP, as an artificial restriction on access to the airport by Stage 2 and 3 aircraft, would be subject to compliance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA), 49 U.S.c. 

### §§47521 et seq. Accordingly, aproposal to implement the restriction would require compliance with the review and approval process set forth in 14C.F.R. part 161, the agency regulations implementing ANCA. For all ofabove reasons we believe that there is sufficient reason forthe City not to implement the proposed ACP atthis time. However, inview ofthe special considerations ofthe airport environment offthe ends ofthe runway at SMa, we would be interested in further discussion with the City ontechnology and other alternate approaches to mitigation ofthose conditions. Possible approaches could involve embankment fill toprovide additional RSA land; aircraft arresting technology; limited reconfiguration ofthe runway consistent with other actions and with utility ofthe airport; and land use compatibility measures bythe City. For this purpose Iwould like topropose ameeting between ourregional and headquarters engineering staff and other specialists, andthe City and its consultants. Iunderstand that the City intends to take up the issue ofthe ACP inthe near future following completion ofcertain work bythe City'S consultant, although to our knowledge no other action toproceed with the conformance plan has been taken since December 2002. We look forward to discussing alternative approaches to this issue with the City. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director ofAirport Safety and Standards File: AAS400 WP:G/AAS400/Vasconcelos/Final Airport Issues/SMa ltr OCT.doc AAS400:MVasconcelos:mv:78730:sb: 10115/03 AAS40011/AWP-600N asconcelosDIANNE: fEINSTEIN

Ci<I.IFOflNIA 

# ~tatfs 

# [nate
WAS INGTON. pc 20510- 504 hn :llfelnsfElio,lieOllte.g v



### Mr. Quentin Burgess Manager Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., 

### SW Washington, D.C. 20591 

### October 6, 2003

INQUIRY FROM: 

## Mr. andMrs. Jay S gal 

### RE: Weight Restrictions at Santa Monic Airport Dear Mr. Burgess: COMMITTEEON Af'FROPRfAnoNS COMMITIEE ON gNERGY AND NATURA~ fl"'SOURces

COMMrmE QNTHI: JL/PICfARY COMMITTl=EON RULESAND AOMINISTRAno", S~~ECT COMMlrrEE ON INTEl.l,lGENCE



### Iam forwarding the attached co tituent inquiry re arding the ability ofthe Santa Monica airport to impose usage restrictions fory 

### urreview. Ibeli vethat my constituent WO\Jldbenefit fromyour response to the specific issues aised inthe enc], sed letter.
I

### would appreciate 

### itifyou waul return your

### resp nse to me 

### as quickly aspossible sothat I can share the information with Mr. and s. Segal. Sho ldyou have any questions, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at ( 2) 224-3841. Best Regards.

Sin erely

### yours,

D' eFein~tein Uni ed States Senate

DF:kmmSanta Monica Airport Office of the Airport Director 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, #2 Santa Monica, California 90405-3279 Phone #: (310) 458-2251 FaX#: (310) 391-9996 City of Santa Moniea~
August 12, 2003

David L. Bennett Director Office of Airport Safety and Standards Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett: I am writing to follow up on both our meeting with City Attorney Marsha Moutrie about the conformance program and your recent telephone conversation with Bob on that topic and others. Let me begin by saying that we all appreciate the time you have taken to speak and meet with City representatives about important airport issues. We value these opportunities to share our concerns and perspectives. As you know, the conformance program is particularly important to the City. Its importance flows from the unique, physical characteristics of our airport and its surroundings. SMO is immediately adjacent to, and surrounded on three sides, by residential neighborhoods. Immediately to the east and west of the runway ends are busy arterial streets with homes just across those streets. Further, SMO is situated on a plateau with a hill to the east and a sharp drop off to the west and southwest. These realities leave little, or no, room for human error. Accordingly, in order to fulfill our obligation to preserve public safety, the City must proceed with the conformance program at the earliest opportunity. At present, we are completing the requisite environmental review and awaiting the conclusion of certain engineering work. We expect that those efforts will conclude within the next six weeks and that we will be situated to move forward with the conformance program in the fall. Meanwhile, the Part 16 proceeding remains pending. I was encouraged to hear your administrative process would likely be completed within that same time frame. We look forward to receiving the agency's determination in the near future. Yours truly,



# ~~.~ B Trimborn Airport Manager07/10/2003 07:08 310-725-5849 FAA SAFETY STDS BR PAGE 03

U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Western-PacIfic Region Airports Division Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92001 LOSAngeles, CA 9000902001


## Jut 

# 022003

Mr. Rob';ll:-t D. 'T,;J.;;i.ro.boJ;n, CAE Airport Manager Santa Monica Municipal Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop, 8#3 Santa Monica, CA 90405-3279

Dear Mt. Trimborn: Proposed Amendment of Santa Monica Code Ordinance Seotion 10.04.06.100

Weight-Based Landing Fees at Santa MOnica Airport
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently reviewing the city of Santa Monica's (City) proposed amendment of Ordinance Section 10.04.06.100 addressing landing fees ~nd associated documentation for consistency with the City's federal obligations. The runway pavement cat.a and rationat e used by the City to ceve i op the landing tee schedule will be subject to FAA evaluation. We respectfully request th~t the ~;rp~r~ nnt ;mplp.mp.nt or enforce the proposed landing fee schedule until the FAA has had an opportunity to evaluate the p:r:oposaland provide comments, as necessary. If you have any questions, plea06e contact Ruben Cabalbag, Supervisor, Standards Section, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3621. Sincerely,

Wayne Heibeck. Acting Manager, Airports Division

Cc: AAS-400, AWP-600A, AWP-620A.,AWP-67.1 File: Santa Monica Compliance File D;\Word\20030617·03(a) AWP-620:ELChan:X3620:rnmw:7/2/03Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas loop South. Suite3 Santa Monica. California 90405

City of Santa Moni<~a' May 21,2003 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett: On behalf of the City of Santa Monica and Marsha Moutrie, Iwant to thank you, once again, for taking time out of your busy schedule to visit the Santa Monica Airport. We thought itwas very important that you see, for yourself, both the exceptionally close proximity of homes to both ends of the runway and the unusual topographic situation of the Airport with hills immediately to the east and a bluff to the west. These realities leave virtually no room for human error. Together with the evolution of the fleet mix toward larger and faster jets, these realities prompted our comprehensive safety review of the Airport's operation compatibility. As we explained during your visit, this review led to the inevitable conclusion that it is virtually impossible to modify or change the physical layout of the Airport to safely accommodate the more demanding C & D category aircraft in a manner consistent with current FAA design standards. The proposed Aircraft Conformance Program seeks to address this operational incompatibility and thereby ensure the safest possible operating environment for the flying and non-flying public.

We were encouraged to learn from you that your technical and engineering staff were revisiting the issue, and we look forward to receiving information about the results of their analysis as soon as possible. Ifthere is additional information we can supply which would facilitate and expedite their work, we will, of course, supply it promptly. Also, as I mentioned during your visit, we would be happy to provide anyone on your staff with a tour of the Airport if that would advance their work. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist.

Vve hope and trust that this matter can be resoived iiithe very near "future. itwas a pieasure visiting with you at the MAE Conference, as well as at the Airport, and I look forward to continuing our open and frank dialogue at the earliest possible date.
Sincerely,

~~ Robert Trimborn Airport Manager

cc: Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney

1

tel: 310 458-8591

# e '1

-~ Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405

C 11y of Santa Monica;M May 7,2003 Mr. William Withycombe (AWP-1), Regional Administrator Western Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 WWPC Los Angeles, California 90009 Re: Request for Grant Reimbursement for AlP Project No. 3-06-0239-06(11) Dear Mr. Withycombe:

On August 13, 2002 the City of Santa Monica submitted the Final Outlay and Request for Reimbursement form and the final Construction Report for the above referenced project. The amount ofthe grant reimbursement request totaled $240,600. This AlP project represented the last federally funded capital improvement project as recognized in the 1984 Settlement Agreement. Following the City's submittal of this request, Iwas contacted by John Milligan who informed methat the FAA had decided towithhold the grant reimbursement pending the outcome ofthe Notice of Investigation (FAA Docket No. 16-02-08) initiated bythe FAA on October 8,2002. The requested reimbursement funds represent asubstantial amount of revenue that could be utilized for much-needed and differed airfield maintenance projects. I implore the FAA to reconsider this matter and approve the requested grant reimbursement so the funds can be used to enhance and maintain the Santa Monica Airport. As always, Itruly appreciate your help and assistance in these types of matters. Ifyou have any questions or desire further clarification regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me at (310) 458-8772. Sincerely, 

# ~~~_. Bob Trimborn Airport Manager Santa Monica Airport

cc: David Bennett

tel: 310 458-8591

### April 27,2003 BOARDOF DIRECTORS2003 DIRECTORS 

# SANTA MONICA AIRPORT ASSOCIATION 3021 Airport Avenue Suite 210, Santa Monica, California 90405-6117



### Mr. David L. Bennett Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards Federal Aviation Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Chariman: Barry Schiff Dale Benson James Platler Emeritus: Donald H Brandsen Chris Brunt Dick Rohaly Joe Chizmadia James Ross President: James Barton Daniel Cytron Dave Shaby Vice-President: Bob Young Walt Davie Randy Stein Secretary: Mary Elizabeth Booth Ruth Dugan-Reid Paul Wolcott Tresurer: Judi Barker Bernie Harris Bill Worden Griff Hoerner Veronica Jones 99's Position: Jule Lamm Dorothy Limbach Bob Lench Rachel Bonzon Gery Moret 

### 202-366-4731 Dear Mr. Bennett; Our Association was pleased that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was going to address the conduct of the City of Santa Monica (City) in your filing of a 14 C.F.R., Part 16, Subpart D Complaint, FAA Docket NO.1 6-02-08 against the City. However, in reading that document it appears that the FAA is not going to seriously address the Displaced Threshold Runway issue for SMO Runway 3/21. As noted in the FAA's complaint the City is in the process of either relocating or displacing SMO Runway 3/21. We hope that the FAA would prosecute the Displaced Threshold Runway issue with the same effort anticipated for the Group 1 1 Design Standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.4B dated February 24, 1983. The Association therefore submits the following for your consideration.

Relocated or Displaced Runway 3/21 SMO

Relocation of Runway 3/21 SMO The 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement precludes the City of Santa Monica from any attempts of relocating SMO runway 3/21 as stated in the following Sections:
Sec. 8, pg. 9 "The City will operate and maintain the Airport

....or its capacity in terms of runway length and width, taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1, 2015." Sec. 9, pg. 9 "At the present time the Santa Monica Airport has one runway designated 3/21 which is5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. This runway will be continuously maintained in good operating condition by the City. " Sec. 12, pg. 11 "The full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will be available for use by landing airplanes in an emergency situation." 

### Displaced Threshold Runway 3/21 SMO The 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement precludes the City of Santa Monica from displacing the thresholds of runway 3/21 as stated in the following Section:
Sec. 12, pg. 11 "If it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase. no further testing will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced." 

### Threshold Displacement Preliminary Test The City of Santa Monica conducted the Preliminary Test for a Displaced Threshold per the terms of the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement in Section 12 as stated: "A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or decrease community noise impact." 

### The Preliminary Test was conducted, and found an increase in noise impact to the community if the landing threshold was displaced, thereby making the reminder of Section 12 of the 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement inapplicable

.. If we can be of any further assistance please don't hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted,

Donald H Brandsen Legal 

### & Political Action Committee Chairman Santa Monica Airport Association

PS See Attachments:

1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Highlights 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Section 12 History of Documents

.

### , 984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Highlights January 24,1984 RESOLUTIONNUMBER

_ CONTRACTNO. 4069(CCS) Executed January 31, 1984 SANTA MONICAAIRPORT AGREEMENT Sec. 7, pg. 7 & 8 Section 7. Material Terms of Agreement. b. The runway/taxiway configuration as shown on the Airport Layout Plan (Section 9 and 10). Sec. 8, pg. 9 Section 8. Commitment to Operate Airport The City will operate and maintain the Airport as aviable functioning facility without derogation of its role as a general aviation reliever airport as described in section 2(b)(i) of this Agreement or its capacity in terms of runway length and width, taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1, 2015. Sec. 9, pg. 9 & 10 Section 9. Runway/Taxiway Configuration. At the present time the Santa MonicaAirport has one runway designated 3/21 which is 5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. This runway will be continuously maintained in good operating condition by the City. It is recognized that the VASI lights may be relocated if the landing threshold is displaced pursuant to Section 12. Sec. 10, pg. 10 Section 10. Runway Exit System. In addition, a centrally located area adjacent to the runway will be established, designated, and maintained to permit aircraft to exit the runway without using a designated taxiway. Sec. 12, pg. 11 & 12 Section 12. Displaced Landing Threshold. The city has indicated adesire to modify the existing runway by displacing the threshold by 500 feet for airplanes landing at the airport. A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or decrease community noise impact. If it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced. The full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will be available for use by landing airplanes in an emergency situation.

### 1984 Santa Monica Airport Agreement Section 12 January 24,1984 RESOLUTION NUMBER

_ CONTRACT NO. 4069(CCS) Executed January 31, 1984 SANTA MONICA AIRPORTAGREEMENT 

### Section 12. Displaced Landing Threshold. The city has indicated a desire to modify the existing runway by displacing the threshold by 500 feet for airplanes landing at the airport. There is some uncertainly regarding the effect of such an action in two areas: (1) whether this action would increase or decrease noise; (2) what effect, if any, there would be on air safety and the ability of the Airport to provide the level and type of service described in Sections 2(b)(i) and 8. In order to analyze the potential effects of displacing the landing threshold by 500 feet, the parties agree to establish a trial program for a period not to exceed one (1 ) year during which the effects of displacing the landing threshold by 500 feet will be investigated. A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or decrease 'community noise impact. If it is determined that noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced. If it is not determined that noise impact is likely to increase, the landing threshold will be displaced for a period of up to one year, and the various effects of threshold displacement will be examined. A final determination concerning this question of runway displacement will be made by the City after consultation with the FAA at the conclusion of this study based on the results of the study. This final determination can be made at any point in time within the designated oneyear period. The parties agree to cooperate in the design and conduct of the test and to consult concerning the data obtained. The full runway length of 5,000 feet will be available at all time for takeoff and will be available for use by landing airplanes in an emergency situation.

### HISTORY of DOCUMENTS Document Index 5/16/1984 SMAA BOD minutes re: Acting Airport Director speeks, City intends to implement the agreement in good faith. Brandsen concerned about implementing displaced threshold. 7/23/1984 SMAA BOD meeting and agenda re: GAMA/NBAA participation in noise abatement procedure development by Hank Dittmar. Includes 6/1 5/84 minutes re: Test of a Displaced Threshold for runway. 4/15/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: "Motion was approved to urge the City to not perform a "moved monitor" test of the displaced threshold, but to actually paint a displaced line on the runway." 5/20/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: A line will be painted on Runway 21 to test the displaced threshold. 

### 04558-04571 15531-15544 5/31/1985 Draft Displaced Threshold Noise Test Santa Monica Municipal Airport by Vincent Mestre of Mestre Greve Associates May 

### 31, 1985. Statement: "An investigation was conducted at the time which identified the potential noise reduction as well as an estimate of aircraft that may not be able to use the airport as a result of the shorter runway ("Airport Layout Plan and Noise Mitigation Program for Santa Monica Airport," September 

### 1983)."; and "The first phase test was designed to measure the maximum noise benefit that would occur from an ideally flown (from a noise point of view) displaced threshold approach. The second phase test would be used to measure something closer to the real noise benefit that might result from a displaced threshold. If the first phase test showed that the displaced threshold had no significant potential for noise reduction then the testing would not continue and the displaced threshold alternative would be eliminated from consideration."; and "5. Conclusions The difference in noise level, both in terms of Lmax and SENEL, for an ideally flown displaced threshold is insignificant when compared to the ability of the human ear to detect small differences in noise levels between aircraft noise events. Under even the most ideal circumstances the noise benefit of the displaced threshold is lower than the 3 dBA difference needed for noticeable benefit to the human observer. The displaced threshold will not produce even this 3 dBA difference. The human ear is just barely able to discriminate differences of 3 dBA between separate discontinuous noise events. For that reason, and the fact that the displaced threshold

### in practice may not even produce the small benefit measured here, the displaced threshold is not recommended for further consideration. II
7/1 5/1985 SMAA BOD Minutes re: liThe displaced threshold test report sent to FAA, indicating that there were no statistically significant changes in noise level based on relocating the threshold."
9/3/85 landing threshold would cause more noise to West of Airport 0431 9/23/1985 Airport. SMAC agenda re: Report on Test of Displaced Threshold Runway at

04550-04552 13936-13938 15528-15530 21313-21315 26724-26726 9/23/1985 SMO Director to SMOAirport Commission re: Report on Test of Displaced Threshold for Runway 21 at Santa Monica Airport. Statement: "This report request that the Airport Commission accept a report by the City's noise consultant which recommends that the City not institute a displaced threshold on Runway 21

.II; Statement: IIRecommendation. Staff respectfully recommends that the Airport Commission 1) 

### Accept the displace threshold test; 2) Direct the Airport Director to communicate these findings to the Federal Aviation Administration along with the recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced.1I and "Computer noise models generated by the City' noise consultant in 1982 and 1983 predicted that a threshold displacement would have minimal impact on noise east of the runway and could have a detrimental impact west of the runway." Note Compliance with 1984 Airport Agreement as to Section 12 Displaced Landing Threshold of the 1984 Airport Agreement paragraph three on page 1 1 is sited. Statement: II 'A preliminary test will be conducted to determine if threshold displacement is likely to increase or decrease community noise impact. If it is determined that Noise impact is likely to increase, no further testing will be performed and the landing threshold will not be displaced. It is not determined that noise impact is likely to increase, the landing threshold will be displaced for a period of up to one years, and the various effects of the threshold displacement will be examined.' To meet this requirement, the City retained Mestre Greve Associates to conduct a test to measure the maximum theoretical benefit that might be obtained from a displaced threshold under ideal conditions. II; and liThe test results showed that under ideal conditions the difference in noise level is insignificant (less than 1 decibel SENEL). Under even the most ideal circumstances, then, the noise benefit of

### the displaced threshold is less than the 3 decibel difference needed to be even noticeable to the human ear. Furthermore, the noise study concluded that a displaced threshold might generate more noise on the west end of the runway as pilots executing touch and go operations would be further down the runway before they could take off."; and Recommendation "2) Direct the Airport Director to communicate these findings to the Federal Aviation Administration along with the recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced." Touch-and-Go 13939-13943 15523-15527 26727-26730 0435-0439 04553-04557 9/23/1985 Santa Monica Airport Commission Minutes re: Discussion of Plans for Extension of Clover Park, Report on Test of Displaced Threshold for Runway by Mestre-Greve Associates. Minutes state: "The test was called for in the City's agreement with the FAA to determine if displacing the landing threshold by 500 feet would cause airplanes to generate less noise on approach. Test result showed the decrease in noise levels east of the airport from a displaced threshold was imperceptible to the human ear. The test also indicated the displaced threshold would generate increased noise for residents west of the Airport. Commissioner Badt moved to accept the displaced threshold test and to direct the Airport Director to communicate the findings to the FAA with the recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced. Note Statement: "The test also indicated the displaced threshold would generate increased noise for residents west of the Airport. Commissioner Badt moved to accept the displaced threshold test and direct the Airport Director to communicate the findings to the FAA with the recommendation that the landing threshold for Runway 21 not be displaced." 14713-14715 9/25/1986 SMOStaff job meeting with Calfon Minutes of Job Meeting re: Runway Threshold Displacement 500 feet.U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Associate Administrator forAirports 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, DC 20591

(\
" The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you foryour letter ofJanuary 2onbehalf ofMr. Ofer Grossman regarding the implementation ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) at Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO). As youmay know, the city ofSanta Monica (the city) assumed various Federal obligations including grant assurances stemming from Federal funds provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), authorized by the Airport andAirway Improvement Act of 1982. In addition, in 1984, the city entered into a settlement agreement (1984 Settlement Agreement) with the FAA and other parties to resolve litigation related to the operation ofSMO. Consequently, the city isrequired to maintain and operate its airport facilities safely, efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions which include keeping SMO open and available to and forpublic use on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust discrimination, and without granting any exclusive rights prohibited by law. Furthermore, before the city can implement ACP or any other restriction impacting Stage 2or Stage 3 aircraft, the city must comply with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) and 14CFR Part 161,which the cityhas not done. Thus, any actions taken bythe airport sponsor that conflict with these obligations and ANCA are ofserious concern to the FAA. OnJuly 22, 2002, the Santa Monica Airport Commission passed amotion recommending that the Santa Monica City Council implement, by ordinance, the ACP atSMO. The ACP would restrict aircraft operations at SMO to only those aircraft that meet the standards for an airport with Airport Reference Code (ARC) designations of A-I, B-1,and B-II, Inotwithstanding the factthat aircraft with other than these designations have along history ofoperating safely atSMO. Onthe same date, the FAA's Western-Pacific Region Airports Division notified the city that "restricting aircraft operations based onthe design category ofSMO would not be consistent with the city's Federal obligations toprovide airport access to the public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination orwith the city's 1984 Settlement Agreement with the FAA and other parties." In addition, the FAA notified the city of the ANCA implications resulting from animplementation ofthe ACP. The FAA also

IThe Airport Reference Code isanFAA coding system used torelate airport design criteria tothe "Operationaland physical characteristics ofthe aircraft forwhich the airport was designed.2

recommended that "the airport defer anyfurther action regarding the ACP pending further review and comment bythe FAA." Despite the FAA's recommendations, the motion was passed. On October 1,2002, the FAA met with representatives ofSMa and reiterated its concerns regarding the ACP. SMa representatives continued tomaintain that the ACP is consistent with the city's grant obligations and the 1984 Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the SMa representatives continued to maintain that the city need not comply with the requirements ofANCA since the restrictions were needed for safety reasons. Given Santa Monica's position, the FAA saw no reason to await the acceptance ofthe ACP bythe citybefore initiating aninvestigation, since once implemented, the ACP could impact the operations ofseveral thousand aircraft inthe already congested Southern California area. As aconsequence, the FAA issued the Notice ofInvestigation on October 8,2002, and once again, recommended that the city defer further action regarding the ACP. Unfortunately, despite this, the city approved the ACP onDecember 10,2002. Foryour convenience, Ihave enclosed acopy ofthe FAA's Notice ofInvestigation. This Notice sets forth the FAA's reasons forthe investigation and invites the city to resolve thematter informally. We believe the issuance ofthe Notice during the city's consideration ofthe ACP proposal isboth fair and efficient andpermits resolution of those issues before the city commits substantial resources to the plan. The city has requested, and the FAA has agreed, tomeet to further discuss the issue. Weare inthe process ofarranging for such ameeting. Ifyou oryour staffneed further assistance, please contact Mr. David Balloff, Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at(202) 267-3277. Sincerely, 

### Origtnal Signed by:

"'t"""lr,":~'··\ "'!.·'''

..... -,,h:; 

### .ard .U,,,,'.~.i.·,~ ~-- .': ~"':"l Woodie Woodward Associate Administrator forAirports Enclosures Transmitted Correspondence File: 20030038-01 A20030109000 WP: G:AAS400N asconcelos/FinalAirportIssues/SMO Feinstein.doc AAS400:Mvasconcelos:mv:78730:sb:0 1/16/03:RT:O1/21103 AAS400/1/ ARPIAWP-600N asconcelosSanta Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405
City of Santa Monica'"

December 23, 2002 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett, As the enclosed Staff Report indicates, on December 10, 2002, as part of the Santa Monica City Council's approval in-concept of the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, the City Council also directed staff to continue its discussions with the FAA on this issue. As you are aware, the City accepted the proposal set forth In the Notice of Investigation to continue our discussions regarding the Aircraft Conformance Program. Itherefore would like to invite you and members of the FAA staff to meet with City staff to continue our meaningful discussions regarding this matter. The City's three prior briefings to the staff of the FAA's Western-Pacific Region have helped sharpen the focus of the discussion relating to the Aircraft Conformance Program. Continuing the dialogue that has been occurring since May 3rd of this year will only bring the City and the FAA closer to its mutual goal of providing the safest

. possible operatin environment for the flying and non-flying ublic by ensuring that the Airport is utilized by on y aircra that are compatible with the Airport's design an physical limitations. Please contact my office atthe earliest possible date to arrange a mutually agreeable meeting date and time. Ifyou have any questions or desire additional clarification regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772. Sincerely, 

# ~~.-~ Bob Trimborn Airport Manager

enclosure tel: 310 458-8591

# til Santa Monica Airport Office of the Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405
City of Santa Monica'"

December 23, 2002 David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Bennett, As the enclosed Staff Report indicates, on December 10,2002, as part of the Santa Monica City Council's approval in-concept of the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, the City Council also directed staff to continue its discussions with the FAA on this issue. As you are aware, the City accepted the proposal set forth In the Notice of Investigation to continue our discussions regarding the Aircraft Conformance Program. Itherefore would like to invite you and members of the FAA staff to meet with City staff to continue our meaningful discussions regarding this matter. The City's three prior briefings to the staff of the FAA's Western-Pacific Region have helped sharpen the focus of the discussion relating to the Aircraft Conformance Program. Continuing the dialogue that has been occurring since May 3rd of this year will only bring the City and the FAA closer to its mutual goal of providing the safest

. possible operatin environment for the flying and non-flying ublic by ensuring that the Airport is utilized by only aircra tt at are compatible with the Airport's esign and physical limitations. Please contact my office at the earliest possible date to arrange a mutually agreeable meeting date and time. Ifyou have any questions or desire additional clarification regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772. Sincerely, 

# ~Aj~- Bob Trimborn Airport Manager

enclosure tel: 310 458-859111/04/03 TUE 09:09 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION

~-,'-.,~

f)

'.... ' ..' 

### -

## -

Mr. Martin T. Tachiki City of Santa Monica Office of the City Attorney
- City Hall 1685 Main Street P.O. Box 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 Dear Mr. Tachiki: Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIAl Request # 2003-o00893WP This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated October 29. 2002, concerning document or documents regarding the written detennination of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regional Airports Manager regarding Runway Safety Area for the Santa Monica Airport. You also requested all documents relating to the determination by the FAA on Category C and 

### 0aircraft. Your letter has also been forwarded to our Airports Division. They will furnish a separate response. A search for records responsive to your request was conducted at the Los Angeles Flight Standards District Office. This office did not find any documents in their files specific to your request and we are unaware of any other office likely to possess the records you seek. There are no fees associated with this request Larry G. Kephart, Manager, Flight Standards Division, and the undersigned are responsible for this no records determination. Should you consider this no records response a denial of your request, you may request reconsideration ofthis determination by writing to the Assistant Administrator for Regions and Center Operations, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W

.. Washington, D.C., 20591 Your request must be made inwriting within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter and must include all information and arguments relied upon. Your letter must state that it is an appeal from the above-described denial of a request made under the FOIA. The envelope containing the appeal should be marked "FOIA." Sincerely, 

### Original Signed

## By \NllUA.MC.WITHYCOMBE

cc: AWP-4 

# RECEIVED DEC 19 2D02 EXECUTIVE RESOURCE STAFF:

## AWP·4 William C. Withycombe Regional Administrator11/04/03 rUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION ~UU(

Westem-Padfito Region ElteclJtive Resoul'l:e Staff P. O. Box9~07 Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007


### u.s. Deportme~t of TronsportC1'i~n F8derol AV1aiIOl"l Admlnlslrati0ll"

November ~, 2002

I Mr. Martin Ifacbiki City of

### San~ Monica Office of the City Attorney

- City Hall 1685 Main Street P. O. Box 2200

. Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Re: Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) Request #2003-000893WP

I Dear Mr. Tachilti: 'Thiswill acknowledge receipt ofyour FOIA request dated October 29,2002, concerning document or documents regarding the written determination oftbe FAA Regional Airports Manager regarding Runway Safety Area forthe Santa Monica Airport andlall documents relating to the determination bythe FAA on Category C and Daircraft. 

### !

. I Your request has been assigned to our Airports Division to search forresponsive records. You will receive aresponse from thatoffice. Because ofour backlog ofFOIA requests andourpolicy ofhan.dling such requests on a "first in

- firstout" basis, you will receive aresponse within 30 days from the dare of this letter.

. Should youlwish to inquire as to the status ofyour request, please contact Lajuana Thompson at (310) 725-3600. I Sincerely, I 

## ~.4-_i •. O.~ 

## --L:'" Sarlette Young 

# 7J~

-Regional FOIA Coordinator11/04/03 TUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION

Office ofthe CityAttorney City Hall , 1685 Main Street PO BOle 2200 Santa Monica, California 90407-2200 City of S:ant.:a MODiea

### October 29,2002


### U.s Mail, Return Receipt Requested Ms. Carlette Young, FOIA Coordinator FAA Western-Pacific Region, AWP-4 P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

# RECEIVED NOV-.42002 EXECUTIVE RESOURCE

## STAff,AWp·4

Re: Freedom ofInfonnation Act Request Dear Ms. Young: Pursuant tothe Freedom ofInformation Act ("'FOIA"), the City ofSantaMonica ('"City") hereby requests acomplete copy ofthe'following documents with all attachments inpaper format: 1. The document ordocuments regarding thewritten determination ofthe FAA Regional Airports Division Manager regarding theRunway Safety Area forthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport ("Airport") required by Section 305c ofChapter 3 (Runway Design) ofAC 150/5300-13 CHG-7 (dated October 1,2002). 2- On orabout October 8,2002, the FAA issued aNotice ofInvestigation ('~OI") inthe administrative proceeding entitled IntheMatter ofCompliance With Federal Obligations 

## ByThe City of Santa Monica, Califomi~ FAA Docket No. 16-02-08, which stated onpage 8that"

... instrument approach charts published by the FAA for SMO provide instrument approach procedures forthe airport up to Category D aircraft. Thus. FAA has already determined that atleast some operations byCategory C andD aircraft, which are larger and faster than B-II, canbe safety operated at SMO," The City hereby requests acopy ofall documents with attachments inpaper form that

a. Document the determination bytheFAA that "some operations by Category C and D aircraft canbe safety operated atthe SantaMonica Municipal Airport",

b. ',Document which Category CandD aircraft can be safety operated at the SantaMonica Municipal Airport,

.

c. Document which Category C andD aircraft cannot be safely 

# FREEDOM OFINFORMATION ACT tel: 310458-8336 • fax: 310 395-6727 

# (FOIA,REQUEST#i2BP2.~3~r:' 

# '.11/04/03 TUE 09:10 FAX 310 725 6847 FAA AIRPORTS DIVISION 141009

I 

### Ms. Carlette Yeung, FOlA Coordinator October 29,2002 

### Page 2 i


### operated atthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport. The cityiof Santa Monica iswilling to pay 

### forthe reasonable cost ofobtaining this information; however, 

### ifthe costwill exceed $25.00 we request that 

### you inform us ofthe charge orgrant

# us afee waiver pursuant to the FAA Freedom ofInformation Act Program, Chapter 4, Sections 45(c) and 46. Release ofthe above requested information does not involve the commercial interests ofthe 

### City ofSantaMonica. Sincerely,



## MARTIN T. TACHIKI Deputy CityAttorney mtt:hsU.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591



### OCT 8 2002

Mr. Robert Trimbom Airport Manager Santa Monica Municipal Airport 3223 Donald Douglas Loop S. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Dear Mr. Trimbom: FAA Docket No. 16-02-08 Enclosed please find aNotice ofInvestigation inthe matter ofcompliance bythe City ofSanta Monica regarding the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO), Docket No. 16- 02-08. This investigation isbeing conducted under FAR Part 16,Rules ofPractice for Federally Assisted Airport Proceedings. In the interim, we askthat you suspend any consideration forimplementing the Aircraft Conformance Program until this matter can beresolved. Sincerely,

David L. Bennett Director, Airport Safety and Standards

EnclosureSanta MonicaAirport Office of thC!' Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405

•ity of Sant,a Monica" S~ptember 10, 2002 Mr. John Milligan Supervisor Standards Section AWP-621 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Airports Division P.o. Box 92007 WWPC LosAngeles, California 90009 Dear John, As we have discussed, the City of Sarita Monica would liKeto invite members 0 the FAA staff to the Santa Monica Airport fora full briefing regarding the findings ofthe recently onducted dp-~ignstandards analysis of the Airport. The analysis reviewed theAirport's p sicel timitatlons and its compatibility with the emerging fleet mix of aircraft using the facility. Ad itionally, staff will give an overview ofa proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) desig ed to ensure that aircraft using the facility are oompatible with the Airport's design and physic I limitations in order to provide the safest possible operating environment forthe flying and no -flying public. We are proposing that the meeting take place on October 1 st2002 at 11 :30.A.M at the oonference room within the Airport Administration Building located at 3223 Don Id Douglas Loop South. A modest lunch will be provided. The briefrny will be conducted by Airport staff and staff from the aviation consulting firm ofCoffman Associates. Following the bri mg, staff will conduct a tour of the Santa Monica Airport to give the attendees a better unde tanding ofthe Airport's physical plant and its proximity to the residential neighborhoods. Ifthis invitation is acceptable, please RSVP Withthe number of individuals wllo ill be attending. Additionally, Ifyou or other members ofthe FAA staff, have specific questions r concerns rcg::uding the airport design/fleet mix analysis or thp. proposed ACP. please fo ard them to me atthe earliest possible date so they can be more fully addressed during the bri fing. Ifyou have any questions or desire additional information regarding this matter, please don t he'~itat~ to give me a call at (310) 458-8772.

tel: 310 458-8591 

# .""RE-CEiVED

.. r--" "" SEP I 3 '2002
, L

. . -, ._---J AIRPORTS ~)iVIS10N AWP ··511

# HOGAN 

# &HARTsON L.L.p.

E. TAZEWELL ELLETT

PARTNER (202) 637-c'l644 ETELLEIT® HHLAW•COM COLUMBIA SQUARE 555 THIRTEENTH STREET. NW WASHINGTON. DC 20004-1109 TEL (202) 6117-5600 FAX (202) 6117-5910 

### August 6,2002

David L.Bennett, Esq. Director OfficeofAirport Safety & 

### Standards, AAS-1 Federal Aviation Administration 800Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

### BYHANDDELIVERY

Re: Santa Monica Airport Dear Mr. Bennett:

The history ofthe Santa MonicaAirport is the story ofa small, Southern California airfield that grewtobecomeavital component in the airspace system ofwhat is nowknown as the Greater LosAngeles Area. It also is the story ofan airport that has been almost constantly beset in recent years bylocalpolitical efforts to chase awayjet aircraft operations and even to closethe Airport altogether. Asthe Federal Aviation Administration is well aware, someofthese anti-jet and anti-airport initiatives have conflictedwith the obligations ofthe City ofSanta Monicaunder its federal Instrument ofTransfer ofthe Airport property, its agreements with the U.S. Government, and its general responsibility to abide by relevant federal statutes and regulations.

The latest proposal being advanced bythe Airport Director

- a complete ban onevery aircraft that has awingspan greater than 79feet or a minimum approach speed of121knots ormore- shows that the anti-jet, anti

# - airport political efforts in Santa Monicacontinue unabated.

It is imperative that the FAAstep in now, as it had to doin the early 1980s,to ensure that the City ofSanta Monicadoesnot violate its legal obligations with respect tothe Airport, and toensure that aircraft willbe able to continue using the Airport onreasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Ifthe FAAdoes not intervene, the City ofSanta Monicavery likely willtake actions at its Airport that

BlI.USSEl.'l BUDAI'EST* WNDON MOSCOW PARIS" PRAGUE" WARSAW BALTIMORE,MD COWRADO SPRINGS.CO DENVER,CO WSANGELES.CA McLEAN.VA NEWYORK,NY ROCKVILLE,MD \\\DC· 65111/0015· 1573865v2 "Affillami OffictHOGAN &HARTSON L.L.P.



### David L. Bennett, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration August 6, 2002 Page 2 ultimately willresult in significant harm, not onlytothe airspace in the Greater LosAngeles Area, but also to the National Airspace System. 1. Santa MonicaAirport's Proposed Aircraft Ban.

Asweunderstand it, the Airport isproposing that the Santa Monica City Council enact an ordinance that would establish anAircraft Conformance Program that prohibits any aircraft with awingspan ofmore than 79feet or a minimum approach speed of121knots ormore fromoperating at the Airport. 

### II To enforce this program, the Airport has recommended that the ordinance include both civiland criminal penalties. After a six-month graceperiod during which the Airport would attempt to notify the aviation community ofthe newAircraft Conformance Program, the ordinance wouldimpose onthe pilot or aircraft operator civilpenalties ofup to $10,000. 

### 'lJ TheAirport's memoranda onthis subject donot describe what sort ofprison sentence might beimposed onpilots or aircraft operators whoviolate the Aircraft Conformance Program. 'QI

TheAirport appears tobe asserting twojustifications forthe Santa Monica City Councilto enact such an ordinance. First, the Airport suggests that restricting the operations ofthe larger and faster aircraft would be consistent with the Airport's layout and airport reference code("ARC")ofB-II and would "create the appropriate and safe operating conditions forthe Airport." 

### 1/ However, as Herman Bliss, the Manager ofthe Airports Divisionin the FAA'sWestern-Pacific Region, noted recently in aletter to the Director ofthe Santa MonicaAirport, an airport's ARC"cannot beused and is not intended tolimit airport operations." fl.1 

### Furthermore, contrary towhat the Airport seems to suggest, it is "not inherently unsafe foran aircraft ofalarger design category to utilize an airport that has been designed to accommodate alesser design category ofaircraft." 

### fil Second, the Airport suggests that the creation ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program will create
1/ Memorandum from the Airport Staffto the Airport Commission, dated May 20, 2002, at 5 (Attachment 1);Memorandum from the Airport Staffto the Airport Commission, dated July 22, 2002, at 2-3 & 5-6 (Attachment 2). 

### 2/ Attachment 2 at 3-5. 'J/ Cf.id. 

### :1/ Attachment 1at 3 (seethe last sentence ofthe third unnumbered paragraph). fl./ Letter from Herman Bliss toJeff Mathieu, dated July 22, 2002 (Attachment 3). !i/ rd.

\\\DC

-6511110015

- 1573865 v2HOGAN &HARTsON L.L.P.



### David 1. Bennett, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration August 6, 2002 Page 3 "the optimum compatibility with the area surrounding [the] Airport." 

### 1/ This appears tobelittle more than athinly disguised acknowledgement that the community surrounding the Airport wouldjust like to getrid ofas many aircraft operations at the Airport as possible, and that the Airport intends to accommodate that desire. 2. The Proposed Aircraft Ban Is Inconsistent with the City's Legal Obligations. AsMr. Bliss indicated in his recent letter, ~/the City ofSanta Monica is subject to several legal requirements that limit its authority with respect to the Airport and that wouldbeviolated ifthe Citypersists in establishing the Aircraft Conformance Program.

First, the Instrument ofTransfer that conveyedto the City ofSanta Monicatitle to the Airport property requires the City to use the Airport "forpublic airport purposes forthe use and benefit ofthe public, onreasonable terms and without unjust discrimination and without grant orexercise ofany exclusive right foruse ofthe airport." f)j 

### Ifthe CityofSanta Monicaenacts the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program in an attempt to exclude larger and faster categories of aircraft fromits Airport, the City wouldviolate this requirement ofthe Instrument ofTransfer. It wouldbeunjustly discriminating against aclass ofaeronautical operations because its Aircraft Conformance Program is designed to arbitrarily single out a specificclass ofaircraft forexclusion fromthe Airport, while allowing others to continue using the public airport facilities.

Second, as acondition toreceiving certain federal grant monies forits Airport, the City ofSanta Monicahas agreed to abide byfederal airport sponsor grant assurances. In relevant part, these assurances parallel the City's obligations under the Instrument ofTransfer and impose onit an obligation to make the airport available forpublic use onfair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. 10/ Thus, enactment ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program would 11 Attachment 1at 3 (seethe last sentence ofthe third unnumbered paragraph). f11 Attachment 3. fl.1 SeeInstrument ofTransfer, dated August 10, 1948,at 4. Acopyofthis instrument is included in apackage ofland record documents pertaining tothe Santa MonicaAirport, which are being provided asAttachment 4. 101 SeeAirport Sponsor Grant Assurance No.22 ("EconomicNondiscrimination").

"\DC

-6511110015

- 1573865 v2HOGAN &HARTsON L.L.P.



### David L. Bennett, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration August 6, 2002 Page 4 violate these grant assurances, just as it wouldviolate the terms ofthe Instrument ofTransfer. Third, the City ofSanta Monicaentered into an agreement with the FAAin 1984(the "1984Agreement") to settle anumber ofdisputes relating to the City's attempt in the early 1980stobanjet-powered aircraft from the Airport. 

### ill The material terms ofthe 1984Agreement include the City's obligation to "operate and maintain the Airport as aviable functioning facility without derogation ofits role as a general aviation reliever airport

... until July 1,2015." 121 The City wouldviolate this material term ofthe 1984Agreement ifit enacts the Aircraft Conformance Program, because that action would severely impair the Airport's usefulness as a general aviation reliever airport forthe Greater LosAngeles Area. The enactment ofthe Aircraft Conformance Program would force aircraft operators to use other neighboring airports instead ofSanta Monica and would impose significant new burdens onthose other facilities.

Fourth, any restrictions that the City ofSanta Monica would seek to impose onthe operation ofStage 3aircraft are subject to the requirements ofPart 161 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations. 131 Under Subpart D ofthese regulations, any airport that proposes anew access restriction on Stage 3 aircraft must, among other things:

a. Givepublic notice ofthe proposed restriction; b. Giveinterested parties an opportunity to comment;

c. Prepare and make available forpublic comment an analysis that shows that the proposed restriction complies with relevant statutory conditions; and d. Submit the proposed restriction tothe FAAforits review and approval. Sofar as wecan tell, the City ofSanta Monicahas not even begun this process, let alone received FAAapproval toban any Stage 3 aircraft from the Airport, as the Aircraft Conformance Program would do. III Santa MonicaAirport Agreement, executed onJanuary 31, 1984(Attachment 5). 121 rd. § 8 ("Commitment to Operate Airport"); id. § 7(a) (identifying section 8 as amaterial term of the 1984Agreement). 131 14C.F.R. Part 161.

\\\DC· 65111/0015·1573865 v2HOGAN &HARTSON L.L.P.



### David L. Bennett, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration August 6, 2002 Page 5 3. The FAAMust Take Immediate Action To Prevent the City ofSanta Monica from Banning Aircraft from the Airport. Last year alone, approximately 147,869 aircraft operations (including landings and takeoffs) were performed at Santa MonicaAirport. 14/ About 13,252, or8.97%,ofthese operations were byjet-powered aircraft. 15/ Webelieve that a majority ofthejet operations involved aircraft that wouldbe excluded fromthe Airport under the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, including several types ofCessna Citation, Dassault Falcon, Gulfstream, and Raytheon Hawker business jet aircraft. Ifthe FAAdoesnot intervene toprevent the City ofSanta Monica from enacting and implementing the proposed Aircraft Conformance Program, operations involving the prohibited types ofaircraft will have tobemovedto other airports in the Greater LosAngeles Area, including the already crowded LosAngeles International, LongBeach, Burbank, and Van Nuys airports. This would have several undesirable results:

a. It would impose a significant inconvenience onindividuals desiring to travel to orfrom Santa Monicaoradjacent communities because they may beforcedtoland at more remote airports and travel further by ground toreach their ultimate destinations. b. It would generate considerable newburdens forthe neighboring airports, resulting in additional airspace congestion, increased overall noise levels, and heavier utilization ofthe ground transportation facilities at the airports.

c. It would create a dangerous precedent, which ifleft unchecked could lead hundreds ofother reliever airports across the United States to impose similar restrictions onaircraft operations based onthe supposed incompatibility ofthe operations with each airport's ARC. If these airports were to followSanta Monica's lead, an enormous number ofaircraft operations couldbeforcedto movefromreliever airports to larger commercial airports, causing more airspace

14/ Santa Monica Airport Noise Abatement Program

- Calendar Year 2001 Annual Report at 5 (Attachment 6). 15/ Id.

\\\DC· 65111/0015· 1573865v2HOGAN &HARTsON L.L.P.



### David L. Bennett, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration August 6, 2002 Page 6 congestion problems in many cities and significantly harming the

National Airspace System.

Onbehalf ofour client, NetJets, Inc., we strongly urge the FAAto immediately take whatever enforcement orremedial actions are necessary to prevent the City ofSanta Monicafromimposing the Aircraft Conformance Program onthe aviation community. Because the Airport's proposed actions would have such a detrimental impact onboth the Greater LosAngeles Area and the National Airspace System, the FAAcannot affordto take await-and-see approach in this matter. Indeed, ifthe City ofSanta Monicaproves unwilling to reconsider its plans toban aircraft fromits Airport, this is the type ofcase where the FAAshould assert the U.S. Government's reversionary interest in the Airport property 16/and make it absolutely clear that the City willnotbepermitted to carry out its proposed Aircraft Conformance Program.

Thank youforyour consideration ofthis letter. Please call us ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,



# ~'P~ E. Tazewell Ellett Ronald P. Brower Counsel forNetJets, Inc. Attachments

16/ See Attachment 4 at 6.

\\\DC

. 6511 !IDOlS· 1573865 v2~AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTSASSOCIATION 

# lOlA 421 Aviation Way • Frederick, MD21701-4798 Telephone (301) 695-2000 • FAX(301) 695-2375 www.oopo.orq
August 2, 2002

The Honorable Michael Feinstein Mayor City of Santa Monica City Council Office #2QO P. O. Office 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Dear Mayor, The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is anonprofit membership association consisting ofover 385,000 pilots and aircraft owners nationwide, over 48,143 whom reside inthe state ofCalifornia. Anumber ofour members regularly make use of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). AOPA is committed to ensuring the continued viability, Iglfo:wth;lant!l

de?cl.opment'of·aviation and airports in California and the United Ststes; ItiSIii'ur'1lIlUerstanding(thaUh.ecity coaacil.wilhsoon considenthe.implementation of measures that.will-effectively restrict 

### aooess.te the.airport 

### p~ on.~ip~d~sign criteria issuedby the:Federal-Avia'tionA<:lnJ#1i.s4'ati.on{I(.4\A1 an4;airg~ft, approach speeds, .,: AOPA is strongly.opposed.to.seca aqti~Bi~eit4elimpl~fUionof!any,airpo!t restriction lissolely;~ithin tl!repurvjewroft~ 

### EM @dr~tJthl{«?i~y,/The~ut,h9rity ofthe FAA'in this area!iS1welli documented 

### ine.number 'Offederal CQ~ntJcasesu( On July 22,2002, the Santa Monica Airport Commission discussed an airport staffreport (agenda item 7b) that outlined implementation ofanAirport Conformance Program ' (ACP) based on 3.1"1 FAA airport classification ofB-II. The program discussed included certain enforcement measures that include assessment ofcivil fines as well as criminal prosecution forrepeat violations ofthe ACP. Itwould appear that SMO's~affhave baaed.theirrecoarmendatioas.on the patently false assumption that the FAA,:AiirportDesi~4\d:vis9ry 

### €irowaJi~AC)tA.C 150/15300-13 Change 6is areguiatory clo~unn~~;,~t

### 1Si

### ootr: A~tv:isoti}1,em,qlll~~ are.just that; advisory. The design criteria and. airport classifications-defined 

### w;jthin.53BQ .• ~3,are,q~m~ficial in airport planning as well asproject funding requirements,' However, th~ACis not ',Wi ,. designed arc should net be used as ameans torestrict access to any airport. Aircraft operations at an airport by aircraft outside a specific airport design grouping are not inherently unsafe. In fact, many ofthe aircraft that would be impacted by the ACP have been operating safely at SMa formany years.

Member ofIntemational Council ofAircraft Owner and PilotAssociationsThe Honorable Michael Feinstein

Page 2 August 2, 2002

No doubt atleast aportion ofthe effort torestrict aircraft operations atthe airport is driven by noise concerns inthe community surrounding the airport. However, the aircraft impacted by these restrictions are some ofthe quietest aircraft in today's fleet. We also believe that moving forward with the ACP and associated restrictions would not be consistent with existing federal law as codified in 14Code ofFederal Aviation Regulations Part 161

- better known as the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). The law provides avery specific process that must be followed before any access restrictions to apublicly funded airport may be put inplace. Santa Monica Airport has not yetmet the requirements ofPart 161

.



## . ' Additionally, we believe that restricting operations atthe airport based on the design category ofthe airport would not be consistent with the City's federal obligations to provide airport access to the public onreasonable terms without unjust discrimination. Approving and implementing the ACP program would place the city innon-compliance with these federal obligations and could have significant legal and financial ramifications on the city.

'" AOPA appreciates your taking into consideration our comments. We hope that we have provided information useful inyour decision-making and that you will abandon this illconceived attempt torestrict public access to Santa Monica Airport.

Cc: all council members City Manager, Susan McCarthy FAA~Director ofAirports Safety and Standards07/23102 TUE 14:35 FAX 202 331 8364 NBAA l4J002
1200 EIGHTEENTH STREET NW. SlJITE 400

WASHINGTON. DC 20036-2527 TEL: (202) 783-9000 • FAX: (202) 331-8364 E-MAIL: info@nbaa.org • Wr::B: 

### www.nbaa.org
July 22, 2002 Todd Cleary Chairman, Airport Commission Santa Monica Airport 

### 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405 Re: Proposed Enforcement of 8-11Aircraft Conformance Program Dear Chairman Cleary: The National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA) 1 has just learned that tonight the Commission will consider recommending to the City Council that all aircraft exceeding the FAA's "8-11"design criterion be banned from operating at the Airport. NBAA strongly opposes such a recommendation, which would be both unwise and unlawful. NBAA objects to the lack of notice in this process. This issue first came up in a staff memorandum dated May 20,2002. In that memorandum, the staff urged "that the Airport Commission thoughtfully consider" the issue before making a recommendation to the City Council. If there has been such consideration, it has not been in a public forum. As for the substance, the proposed ban on the operation of Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft would violate the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. 

### § §47521 et seq. and 

### 14 C.F.R. Part 

### 161. Moreover, it also would violate the terms of the 

### 1984 Settlement Agreement, terms that "shall not be altered without the mutual consent of the parties," Id. 

### §7. Although the staff memorandum dances around the subject, it is clear that the operation of larger aircraft at the airport does not raise a safety issue
- and has not raised a safety issue for the more than a decade that such aircraft have been operated to and from the Airport. Since all aircraft are required to meet the 95 dB SENEL standard. the operation of such aircraft does not raise a noise

I NBAA represents approximately 7,200 member companies which own and operate approximately 9,300 general aviation aircraft to facilitate the conduct of their businesses or which are otherwise involved with business aviation. NBAA members comprise a substantial segment of the general aviation community. NBAA acts as a spokesperson for business aviation before government agencies and the U.S. Congress.

meorbe< of ~ lUetrotlonal b.••ln<> ss aviation ,-OU'lClI, Ird.Oi/23/02 TVE 14:35 FAX 202 331 8364 NBAA I4J003

issue. The proposed action is no more than an attempt to ban larger aircraft, and probably alljets, from the Airport, more on grounds of perception than reality. Santa Monica is an important airport for our members, and an important part of our national air transportation system. We all have to work together to assure that access to the system is not unreasonably curtailed. At the same time, the users of an airport have to be good neighbors. NBAA has taken a lead role in both preserving access and creating an aviation community that is a good neighbor. We want to continue to do so at Santa Monica. but proposals such as the one before you tonight are contrary to that spirit. We urge you and the other members of the Commission to reject the staff recommendation
- Respectfully,U.S Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Airports Division Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box92007 Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007

July 22, 2002
Mr. Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director Airport Administration Building 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405
Dear Mr. Mathieu:

Santa Monica Airport Commission Agenda Item 7(b), Proposed Enforcementof a B-II Aircraft Conformance Program
It has recently corne to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) staff will be recommending that the Santa Monica City Council implement, by ordinance, an Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) at SMO. We understand that the ACP to be recommended to the City Council would restrict operations at SMO to aircraft that meet the standards for an airport with an Airport Reference Code (ARC) designation of B-II. Before making such a determination, you should be aware that the ARC design category of an airport cannot be used and is not intended to limit airport operations. While the design category and geometry of an airport are useful in airport planning, the FAA does not consider it inherently unsafe for an aircraft of a larger design category to utilize an airport that has been designed to accommodate a lesser design category of aircraft.
Instrument approach charts published by the FAA for SMO indicate that there are instrument approach procedures for the airport up to Category D aircraft. For operatio~ under visual flight rules, the safety of an aircraft operation is determined by the pilot. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the FAA to determine the safety of a category of flight operations or an individual flight. In addition, SMO staff should consider the requirements that apply to new restrictions on airport noise and access under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 47521, et. seq., as implemented by 14 CFR Part 161. Accordingly, restricting aircraft operations based on the design category of SMO would not be consistent with the City's Federal obligations to provide airport access to the public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination, or with the City's 1984 settlement agreement with the FAA and other parties. The FAA strongly recommends that the airport defer any further action regarding the ACP pending further review and comment by the FAA.Mr. Ellsworth Chan will be contacting you shortly to further discuss this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Chan at (310) 725-3620.
Sincerely, 

## ORIGINAL SIGNED-BY HERMAN C. BLISS Herman C. Bl iss Manager, Airports Division

cc: Mr. Robert D. Trimborn, Airport Manager Mr. Todd Cleary, Chairman, Airport Commission Mr. John Joyce, Vice-Chairman, Airport Commission Mr. David Kaplan, Airport Commissioner Mr. Jean Gebman, Airport Commissioner Mr. John A. Smith, Airport CommissionerReport ofMeeting: Santa Monica Airport Commission Santa Monica City Council Chamber 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Date and Time: July 22, 2002 7:30 PM Subject: Proposed enforcement ofaB-II Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) in response to the results ofthe Santa Monica Airport Design Standards Analysis and Recommended Remedies Discussion: Robert Trimborn, Airport Manager, served as the presenter of and advocate forthe ACP to the Commissioners. Mr. Trimborn stated that ACP did not represent achange to the terms ofthe 1984 Agreement. He claimed that ACP isbased on safety and, therefore, isjustified tomake the airport safe. He stated that the airport is designed forB-II aircraft and the airport cannot be redesigned for larger category aircraft because the airport cannot be enlarged. Mr. Trimborn stated that he has communicated with Herman Bliss, AWP-600 and Bill Withycombe, AWP-1, about this matter. The following is asampling ofcomments by the commissioners: -Conditions today are different from the conditions that existed in 1984 so ACP may be justified to address our concerns today.

-The city of Santa Monica has aduty to take action to ensure safety andpromote the common good ofits residents even ifitmeans taking arisk.

-The FAA is areactive agency and only responds to airport demands when provoked to react.

-There is arisk that the 1984 agreement might be terminated ifthe dispute over ACP somehow undermines the agreement. The city might lose the protections that the agreement provides to the city. -Paralysis by analysis might cause the city to do nothing instead ofaggressively seeking to resolve the noise and safety problems.

-The letter dated 7/22/02 from AWP-600 to the Santa Monica Airport Director was read into the record. Nine speakers addressed the Commissioners regarding ACP: -Four were in favor, including Trimborn. It appears that three were local residents. -Four were against ACP. -One advised more study to make sure that ACP would not result in adverse consequences forthe city. The motion passed with all 4 Commissioners present voting in favor ofACP: John Smith, John Joyce, David Kaplan, Jean Gebman (Todd Cleary-absent)

Prepared by: Tony Garcia, AW Date: July 23,2002JULY 23,2002 AWP-620/-621 RECORD OF PHONE DISCUSSION WITH CAPTAIN JOHN JOYCE (RETIRED), VICE CHAIRMAN SANTA MONICA AIRPORT (SMO) COMMISSION 10:35 PDT SUBJECT: SMO AIRPORT COMMISSION ADOPTION OF 

### THEPROPOSED AIRCRAFT CONFORMANCE PROGRAM (ACP)(AGENDA ITEM 7b) PRESENTED BY THE AIRPORT STAFF AT THE JULY 22,2002 COMMISSION MEETING.

• Mr. John Joyce is aretired B-747 United Airlines Captain, who chaired the subject meeting, due to the absence ofthe chairman.

• Captain Joyce:

• Confirmed the commission's receipt ofthe FAA's July 22,2002, letter. [AWP620.1 stated that during the meeting, the letter was read into the record by one of the commissioners.]

• Indicated the four commissioners present voted unanimously to adopt the ACP Airport Staffrecommendation to send itto the city council for consideration. Captain Joyce indicated that he had reservation about voting in favor ofthe recommendation, but decided itwould facilitate moving itto the city council for consideration. Mentioned that further airport staffwork would be initiated to prepare for the city council meeting:

• Did not know when the APC would beplaced on the city council agenda.

• Desired acopy ofthe complete copy ofthe airport staffACP report.

• Stated that the Airport Manager, {Robert Trimborn} and the airport consultant (Coffman and Associates) had prior discussions with the FAA, on this subject.

• Requested acopy ofAC 150/5300-13, and the FAA Order ofRunway Safety Area Determinations. Captain Joyce was given the FAA Internet address for obtaining the circulars andAWP-621 will mail acopy ofeach document.

• Stated that he did not know where the $500.00 noise violation fines were deposited. He hoped such funds were deposited inthe airport enterprise fund.

• Did not know whether SMO had ever collected the civil fine that have been issued today, nor does heknow how the proposed ACP fines would be imposed and collected.

• Intimated that the commission did not appear to have athorough understanding of the ACP provisions.

• Spoke about the 1984 agreement provision that permits a l-year test period for a displaced threshold to determine aircraft noise impact. [AWP-62 1 stated that the test period, based on a-1985 airport staffdocument indicated that the displaced threshold test caused aunfavorable shift in airport noise, and was no longer pursued.]

• Stated that SMO FBOs spoke atthe meeting about the potential economic impact the ACP would have ontheir business volume and income.• Stated that the number ofbased and transient aircraft that would be subject to ACP fines was not fully disclosed to the commissioners, but the Gulfstream-4s would be subject to violations.

• Asked what pending actions FAA take concerning the ACP. [AWP-620 indicated that FAA headquarters, with general counsel's involvement, would most likely initiate aLetter ofInvestigation.]

• [AWP-621 .andAWP-620 were not aware ofany discussions between Mr. Trimborn and FAA addressing the ACP. AWP-621 was not aware ofany prior meeting between SMO and Airports Division staffto discuss the ACP proposal. The discussions pertained torunway safety area, runway length, and displaced threshold issues.]

• [Information from the city website indicated that the council meets onthe 2nd and 4th Tuesdays, starting at 17:45 local forthe consent calendar and 16:45 local for the public portion ofthe meeting (Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA).]

• [The July 23,2002 council agenda (attached) did not include the ACP issue.

• The next council meeting will beheld onAugust 13and subsequently August 27, 2002.]

• [AWP-620/-621 emphasized the content ofthe July 22, 2002 letter pertaining to FAA's safety determination onthe safety ofthe types and classes ofaircraft operations at SMO, as well asthe Santa Monica's federal obligation to preclude non-discriminatory exclusion ofaircraft. We stated thatjust discrimination could be based on aviation safety, ifthe flight standards district office can determine that specific aircraft operations atSMO are unsafe.]

• [Captain Joyce appeared to understand the FAA's position, concerning the aircraft safety and discrimination issues setforth bythe July 22, 2002 letter and our elaboration ofthe subject during this discussion.]

• AWP-620.1 was not available during this period tojoin inthe discussion with Captain Joyce.

• The discussion with Captain John Joyce ended at 10:57 PDT on July 23, 2002.

Ellsworth L. Chan, AWP-620 John Milligan, AWP-621

Smojoyce723

2Cc f-lfL.IA.<J'

## os: F ,

## as I SHp

. S.WT/\. U~~ 1(.



## u.s Department ofTransportation Western-PacificRegion RegionalAdministrator P.O. Box 92007 Worldwaypost:~;;~= LosAngeles, C~ Federal Aviation Administration 

### /J1 

# I v 

## DEC 18

~s. JoniJacobson 13136 Dewey Street Los Angeles, CA 90066 Dear ~s. Jacobson: Administrator Garvey has asked me torespond toyour letter, dated August 7, 2000, concerning safety issues atthe Santa Monica Airport. In your letter, you inquire as to the criteria that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses to consider Santa Monica Airport tobe asafe airport. CES FlOliTlNG SYMBOL

__ 621

INmAlS'SIGNATURE JPM

DATE 12/8/00

ROUTING SYMBOL 620A

INmALStSIGNA TU~E MM\J DA'f2/8/00

ROUTING SYMBOL 620

INfTlALSlSIGNATUAE ELC DATf-2/8/00

ROliTlNG SYMBOL 610 Santa Monica Airport serves to accommodate general aviation aircraft. It supports law enforcement, business aviation, and air ambulance, among other roles. Designated as a reliever airport, itis intended toreduce congestion atlarge commercial service airports by 1-----,--....- providing general aviation pilots with alternative landing areas. You cite that conditions have changed dramatically atthe airport since 1984, the year the city ofSanta Monica and the FAA entered into the airport agreement. First, you indicate that there has been an "enormous increase in airtraffic since 1984." In fact, ourrecords indicate that there were atotal of204,032 airport operations counted in 1984 and atotal of213,222 operations in 1998 (the latest year forwhich totals have been confirmed by the FAA). This is atotal increase in operations of9,190 operations per year. We also note that the 1998 figure is down from apeak ofover 240,000 operations in 1992. Second, you state that smaller aircraft arebeing replaced byjet aircraft. While FAA does I---'"""-=--- not collect data onjet/piston power fleet mix operations, one can observe ageneral trend at general aviation airports toward business andprivatejet traffic. Jet operators use general aviation airports to avoid congested commercial service airports and to operate from an airport close to their home base. The 1984 Airport Agreement (Agreement) isthe result oflitigation regarding aseries of disputes atthe airport. The Agreement was reached only after extensive involvement of the airport users, neighbors, andthe Airport Working Group, and strikes abalance between the recognition of legal rights andthe interests ofthose parties. Runway safety area dimensional standards have increased over the years, subsequent to the construction ofSanta Monica Airport. Ithas been difficult formany existing airports to expand to conform to the revised standards, due tophysical and economic constraints. The FAA has no authority torequire achange inrunway length to achieve current runway safety area standards atairports. Likewise, the FAA has no authority torequire the acquisition ofadditional real property to achieve current runway safety area and

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COpy • uS.GPO 1990-0- 768-012/20101 ROUTING SYMBOL 600

ROUTiNG SYMBOL 600A

INlnAlS'SIGNATUAE DATErunway protection zone standards. The FAA certainly recommends attainment of

standard runway safety areas andprotection zones, and inmany cases responds to federal funding requests to achieve this objective where feasible. The airport operator is responsible for determining the feasibility ofsuch safety enhancements. The runway safety area is considered a safety enhancement that isbeneficial ifsomething abnormal occurs during the takeoff orlanding. However, an airport with safety areas which do not meet current FAA design standards isnot inherently unsafe. Prior to conducting an aircraft operation on arunway, apilot isresponsible for determining that the runway length and width is sufficient for safe aircraft operations. The presence or absence ofarunway safety area isnotpart ofthis determination. We trust the above information isresponsive to your inquiry. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Herman Bliss, Manager, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3600. Sincerely, 

## Original Signed by William C.Withycombe William C. Withycombe Regional Administrator

cc: Robert Trimbom, Santa Monica Airport Manager AWP-I, AWP-600A, AWP-620A, ARP-I, AAS-I, AAS-400

File: AWP-600 Congressional File A: John's Disk 1,AWPISM02 AWP-62 1:JPMilligan:X3621 :mmw: 12/8/00U.S.Department of Tronsportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards 800 Independence Ave .• SW. Washington, DC 20591


## DEC I I 

# zm The Honorable Henry A. Waxman House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Waxman: Several weeks ago representatives of my staff and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Office of Chief Counsel met with your staff to discuss noise and safety concerns at the Santa Monica Airport (SMA). While no consensus ofthe issues was reached, Iwas pleased to hear that our offices agreed to work cooperatively in determining the specific issues of concern and any potential solutions. During the meeting, your staff requested that the FAA provide answers to several questions. Our responses tothose questions are provided below. 1. Could the City of Santa Monica reduce the 1984 Settlement Agreement noise levels from 95 to 80 through a streamlined ANCNPart 161 process? The 1984 Settlement Agreement, which includes a 95 db maximum SENEL noise limit, does not appear to be currently subject to the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA), 49 U.S.C. 47524, et seq., 14 C.F.R. Part 161, because it became effective on or before October 1, 1990. However, ifthe Agreement were amended and the amendment had the effect of reducing or limiting aircraft operations oraffecting aircraft safety, then the Settlement Agreement would become subject to ANCA. The amended Settlement Agreement would constitute a new restriction under ANCA and Part 161. There are no formal streamlined ANCA procedures, however, voluntary agreements between the airport operator and airport users are outside the scope bfANCA. Thus, these non-mandatory agreements would require no ANCA process or documentation. In addition, under Subpart B of 14 C.F.R. Part 161, there is an expedited ANCA process that applies to agreements .' between the airport operator and all aircraft operators affected bythe proposed restriction that are serving orwill serve the airport within 180 days of the date of the proposed restriction. After notice and comment, the restriction would2 become mandatory and would have the same effect as ifit had been implemented in accordance with Part 161's Subpart 0, "Notice, Review, and Approval Requirements for Stage 3 Restrictions." 2. What minimal submissions would be required to be prepared? Forvoluntary agreements, no submissions to the FAA would be required. For agreements pursuant to Subpart B, certain limited information would have to be placed inthe notice such as aclear and concise description of the proposed restriction, and information concerning the specific need for the restriction. 3. Would such an amendment to the Settlement Agreement likely trigger ANCNPart 161? Any alteration or amendment to the 1984 Settlement Agreement not constituting avoluntary agreement or agreement under Subpart Bthat would have the effect of reducing or limiting aircraft operations or affect aircraft safety would subject the Settlement Agreement to the requirements ofANCA and Part 161. 4. Would the fact that the Settlement Agreement may be grandfathered under ANCNPart 161 reduce the amount of paperwork and process necessary for reducing the noise level atSanta Monica Airport by amending the Settlement .6.greement? Assuming the Settlement Agreement was grandfathered under ANCA, any amendment to the Settlement Agreement that would have the effect of reducing or limiting aircraft operations oraffect aircraft safety would subject the Settlement Agreement to the requirements ofANCA and Part 161, including the analysis requirements of Subpart D. As indicated above, only in the case of

# a voluntary agreement or an agreement under Subpart Bwould reduce or eliminate paperwork and process under ANCA and Part 161. 5. What kind of data could the City of Santa Monica or homeowners residing close to SMA provide to FAAto demonstrate a safety problem? Information showing Accidents/Incidents where the Santa Monica Airport or an elementof the airport infrastructure was a cause or contributing factor. 6. When was the last FAA safety inspection of SMA completed?

~.

.. Since SMA is not a Part 139 "certificated" airport, the FAA does not conduct routine safety inspections of SMA. However, California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Aeronautics Program conducted an aviation3

facilities inventory and state permit compliance inspection on November 3D, 1999. Please contact Mr. Austin Wiswell, CALTRANS, at (916) 653-9603 for additional information regarding this inspection. 7. How often are such safety inspections completed? CALTRANS inspections are typically, but not always, completed annually

. 

### ....-8. Why is itthat the Runway Safety Areas and Runway Protection Zones are nonstandard? Runway Safety Area and Runway Protection Zone dimensional standards have increased over the years, subsequent to the establishment of Santa Monica Airport in 1926. It has been difficult for many existing airports to expand to conform to the revised standards, due to physical and economic constraints. The FAA has no authority to require a change in runway length to achieve current Runway Safety Area standards at airports. Likewise, the FAA has no authority to require the acquisition of additional real property to achieve current runway safety area and runway protection zone standards. The FAA certainly recommends attainment of standard runway safety areas and protection zones, and responds tofederal funding requests to achieve this objective where f~~sibleo The Runway Safety Area is considered a safety enhancement that is beneficial if something abnormal occurs to an aircraft during the takeoff or landing. However, an airport having runway safety areas that are not consistent with current FAA design standards does not make it inherently unsafe. Prior to conducting an aircraft operation on a runway, the pilot is responsible for determining whether the runway length and width are sufficient for safe aircraft operations. The presence or absence of a runway safety area is not part of this determination.

..


### v9.' Why doesn't the FAA require the reduction of the runway's length to accommodate safer buffer areas? See response to question 8 above. Additionally, the 1984 Settlement Agreement, which resolved litigation between the city and airport users, specifically states that runway length will remain and the city will not take any action to derogate the airport's role as a reliever airport. A reduction of runway length would be considered a derogation of the airport's role as a reliever airport and would impact its current utilization.

.4

1O.lf SMA would be safer with a shorter runway, why doesn't the FAA require that? See response to question 8 above. 11.Does FAA maintain measurements of aircraft emissions, soot, or pollution at SMA? The FAA does not monitor airborne emissions, generated and dispersed by an individual airport. Itrust that this information is helpful. Enclosed is a copy of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300.13A, "Airport Design," as requested by your staff. Ifyou oryour staff need further assistance orwish to meet to further discuss this matter, please contact Ms. Suzanne Sullivan, Assistant Administrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277. Sincerely.

David L. Bennett Director, Office ofAirport Safety and Standards

Enclosure

-: 

# RECEIVEO-'--' CEel 5 2000
AIRPORTS DIVISiON"" AWP·610 

## ---'-"'-""~

".HWI-'l 7 RGI-l NO. 553

i 

# 0

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration \'Ve:ltem-PacifIC Region Regional Administrator P.O. Box 92Q07 Worldloltay Pastal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009

OPTIONAL FOAM 99 (HO) 

# .u I·9

# am To FAX TRANSMITTAL

Phone • 

### The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Member, United States House of Representatives 2204 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515·0529 NSN7540-ll1-317-7:l66 5099-101' GtN5RAL SERViCES ADMINISTRAT

ON



### Dear Mr. Waxman: Thank you foryour letter ofMay 26,2000, onbehalf ofyourconstituents whoreside near the Santa Monica Airport, SantaMonica, California. You expressed concerns regarding environmental and safetyissues atthe 

### SantaMonica Airport. The city ofSanta Monica (city)isprimarily responsible fortheplanning and implementation ofactions designed toreducethe affectofnoise andotherenvironmental factors onthe communities surrounding the SantaMonicaAirport. TheFederal Aviation Administration's (FAA) primary mission istoensure thesafe andefficient use of navigable airspace. On

### January 31, 1984,the cityandthe

### FAA executed 

### anagreement that addressed 

### a number ofdisputes andlitigation concerning aircraft noise impacts onthe community and access restrictions atSantaMonicaAirport. The FAA

### negotiated the specific terms of the 1984Agreement to

### assistthecityinresponding to airportnoise issues. 

### The 1984 Agreement describes the specificpoints ofagreement between thecity andtheFAA and provides aformat within whichissues arising inthe futurecanbe addressed andresolved. The 1984Agreement remains ineffectuntilJuly 1,2015. Within the context oftbe FAA's mission andthe 1984Agreement, theFAA willcontinue towork withthe city to address aviation environmental andsafety issues. TheFAA considers the SantaMonicaAirporttobeasafeairport facility. Theexisting facilities cansafely accommodate alargepercentage ofcorporatejet aircraft inthe civil aviation fleet. 

### Some aircraft) however, maynotbe abletooperate attheir maximum takeoff weight. The

### pilot-ln-comrnand of

### eachaircraft isresponsible forensuring that the airport facilities are adequate toaccommodate the operation.12:55 RWP1 ~ RGI-1 NO. 553

You. requested the FAA evaluate two specific recommendations. l. The FAA should designate 1,000 feet ofthe existing runway as arunway safety area, similar to the runway safety areas required for new runways. 

### By reducing the length ofthe runway to only 4,000 feet for flight planning and purposes, this would effectively set stricter safety guidelines for the types ofaircraft that can be 

### used at 

### the airport. The FAA has no authority to require the extension ofthe runway safety area at Santa Monica Airport. The 1984 Agreement states that "the city will operate and maintain the airport as aviable functioning facility without derogation ofits role as a general aviation reliever airport

...or its capacity interms ofrunway length and width, taxiway system, and runway weight bearing strength until July 1,2015." A reduction of the runway length to 4,000 feet would restrict the ability ofcertain types ofaircraft 

### to operate atthe airport and would be contrary to the city's commitment under the Agreement. 2. With respect to nighttime noise problems, the FAA should institute an 80 dB maximum noise limit on all arriving aircraft during the established departure curfew hours from 11:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. onweekdays, and from 11:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. onweekends. The 

### FAA has no authority to establish such anoise limit. The establishment ofnighttime arrival noise level restrictions by the city isnotpermitted by the material terms ofthe 1984 Agreement. The Agreement 

### specifically prohibits the takeoff of

### aircraft between the hours of 11:00p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and between 11;00 p.m, and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The Agreement specifically states "This regulation is included as amaterial term ofthis Agreement and is expected to remain in effect. Itis agreed that 

### itwill not be amended ormodified without prior agreement oftb.e parties." 

### Any new orrevised noise and access restrictions, applicable to operations by Stage 2 and 3 

### aircraft, must be established in accordance with the requirements ofthe Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANeA), as implemented by 14 Code ofFederal Regulations, Part 161s

### Airport Noise andAccessRestrictions. We trust that this response will 

### clarify the role and 

### authority ofthe FAA regarding these issues. Ifyou oryour staff need further assistance, please contact Mr. 

### Herman C. Bliss, Manager, Airports Division, at (310) 725-3600. Sincerely, 

## r.J",fI.~Q. 

# W~~
William C. 

### Withycombe Regional Administrator Enclosure Transmitted CorrespondenceSanta Monica Airport Office of Airport Manager 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Suite 3 Santa Monica, California 90405-3295 <'-0 Ml'l.ltAN C~ F'I.-l SAJ<.l,A jV..I:, rI.j :..:.v"\ City of San ta III 0 11ica"
July 10, 2000

Mr. John Milligan Supervisor Standards Section AWP-621 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region Airports Division P.O. Box 92007 WWPC Los Ar.geles, California 90009

Dear John,

I again apologize for not being able to attend the June Jlh meeting regarding the proposed Airport Park and the pending issuance of a Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report. I understand that the meeting went very well and was pleased to hear that you and Herman were generally supportive of the proposed project. I have been debriefed by Marty, Jeff & Karen and I am writing this letter to confirm my understanding of your discussions regarding the City's compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1984 Agreement in relationship the proposed Airport Park project.

It is my understanding that Herman would like us to further clarify the issue of the Airport's ability to park the 550 based and 40 transient aircraft required under the 1984 Agreement and that you felt we could obtain the FAA's sign off on this issue through the preparation of a combined EIR/EIS for Airport Park. The EIS would only cover the issue of aircraft parking spaces to show that the development of the proposed Airport Park project on the designated residual land will not impact the required number of aircraft parking spaces. Through this process we will produce a map depicting the required aircraft parking spaces for both versions of the park plan (i.e. locating vehicle parking in portion of mid-level tie down area, or locating itto the west of the fields next to Donald Douglas Loop South). I further understand that the wing-span, or the size of the aircraft, is not a critical issue so iong as the layout is representative of the 1983 fleet mix based at the Airport. I am happy to say that the third FBO issue is now behind us with the City Council approval of a long term lease with American Flyers.

The City is on the verge of embarking on the EIR for the Airport Park in accordance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon your request, we plan to include a limited EIS to verify the aircraft parking count as part ofthe environmental analysis. Ifthis is not your recollection of the comments made during the meeting, please let me know as soon as possible so I can advise the rest of the staff. If I don't hear from you within the next ten days, we will proceed with the Notice of Preparation for the EIR/EIS.



## JULI 2200l
tel: 310458-8591 • fax: 310 572-4495I will forward to you for review and comment all pertinent documents generated during the environmental

analysis and will keep you apprised of significant events as they occur. The Airport Park, and its recreation facilities and jogging paths, will enhance public acceptance of the Airport in the communities in the immediate area of the Airport. Airport revenue will not be used to support either the capital or operating costs of Airport Park. Ifyou have any questions or desire additional information regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to give me a call at (310) 458-8772.
Sincerely,

cc: Herman Bliss, Airport Division Manager AWP-600 AHWf-Jl -7 Hl:i1-1

22fU'lAw ••••••

~ ~ !llnU:ulG ·,yAaHl"Ki"rOo<. DC2Illil~ ,.C2021 zzs-esre _.ho~·OlN""''''''''''" i
~ICT ornce:~ e.c:l6W€aT T_c ST."'"

SUITE lIOO 1.0:5A~en£s. CA. 9004.8-418a 132111 651-'0.0 

# QCongrt55 of tbt

# Wniteb ~tatts

j!)ousrof~eprtSentatilies .s'bington. iDE: 20S1S-{)S29 HENRY A. WAXMAN 2!frH DISTRICT, CAUFDRNIA MEMllER CDMMmEE ON CDMMalCf DEuOOtATIC S1'EERlI'/(j CCilMMIT1ff



### May26,2000 Adm.ini.strator Jane

### F.Garvey Federal 

### Aviation Administration 800Independence Ave. SW 

### Washington, D.C. 20591 DearAdministrator Garvey: I am.

### writing onbehalf of

### my constituents who

### residenearthe SantaMonica 

### Airport. For the

### past several years, there has been

### growingconcerninthe community overpollution and 

### safety conditions atthe airport. Iamwritingtoaskforyourassistance inaddressing these problems. 

### The SantaMonica Airport hasaunique layoutwithapproximately 75% oftheAirport surrounded by

### residences. Somehomesarelocatedascloseas300feetfromthe eastendofthe runway. Ihave enclosed foryourreviewanaerialphotograph which depicts the closeproximity 

### ofthese homes. I

### havereceived numerous complaints aboutnoise, vibrations, fumes, andblack sootfrom airporttraffic, andtheseproblems havebeenfurtherexacerbated by

### thedramatic rise injet traffic overthelastfewyears. In

### addition, an

### emerging andpotentiallymoreprofound concern 

### isthegrowing use of SantaMonica Airportforbusinessjets, which aresteadilyincreasing innumber, size, andspeed. The use oftbese airerafts isnotonlydisruptivetothesurrounding neighborhoods but inconsistent withthe size andscaleofthefacilityitself. The5,000footrunway, built decades ago, doesDotmeet

### the safety needs ofnewaircraftwithgreatermomentum ontakeoffs 

### and landings. Furthermore, there isnoroom tolengthentherunwayto accomrnodate the 1,000foot safety areanecessary forthelarger, fasterjets emerginginthemarketplace. Both ends ofthe runway arelinedwithhouses andthereisonlyanabruptslope, astreet, andthenhomes. Itherefore request thattheFAAtake amoreactiveroleinaddressing thepollution and safetyproblems experienced byneighbors oftheSantaMonicaAirport, sothat wecanestablish additional safeguards as soonaspossible. Tobeginthisprocess, Iwould liketorecommend 

### two feasible solutions fortheFAAtoevaluate:

OPIIONAL FORM99 (HID) 

# ..

From FAX TRANSMITTAL

FllJ( 11
NSN 7540....o1-!l17 -7369 5099-101 GENEFlAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATHWt-'l 7 RGI-l NO. 654

( 

### Administrator Jane F. Garvey May 26,2000 Page 2



### 1. The FAA should designate 1,000

### feetofthe existing

### runway asaronway safety area, similar totherunway safety areas required fornewrunways, Byreducing the length of the runway to only 4,000

### usable feetforflight planning 

### andpurposes, thiswould effectively setstrieter safety guidelines forthetypes ofaircraft that canbeused atthe airport. 2. With respect tonighttime noise problems, theFAA should institute an80dBmaximum noise limit onall arriving aircraft during theestablished departure curfewhours from 11:00p.m, until 7:00 am ..on

### weekdays, andfrom 11~OO 

### p.m. until 8:00

### a.m. on weekends. 

### The current conditions atSantaMonica Airport andits surrounding neighborhoods will only continue to deteriorate until pragmatic solutions areputinto effect. Ihopeyouwill seriously consider these recommendations fortheallport. Iappreciate your attention tothis important matter and look forward toyourresponse. With kind regards, Iam Sincerely,



# ~C-.WPl-- HENRY A. WAXMAN 

### Member ofCongress HAWJle Enclosure