Loading...
Agenda 04/15/2003 S COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING April 15, 2003 8:45 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BOARD TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO SUPPORT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S DEFENSE OF ITS STAGE 2 JET BANK THROUGH THE FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ("FAA") AND/OR ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a special meeting on TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2003, at 8:45 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers, 3ra Floor, W. Harmon Turner (Administration/F) Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The Board's agenda will include: THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A REQUEST BY TI-IE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO SUPPORT THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S DEFENSE OF ITS STAGE 2 JET BAN THROUGH THE FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ("FAA") AND/OR ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT, [PLEASE NOTE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP WILL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THIS SPECIAL MEETING.] In Regards to the Special Meeting and Workshop: All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the special meeting. All registered public speakers will be limited to.five (5) minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the Chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to. ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimon3; and-evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 99~22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 34112, (239) 774-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COl J.I'F.R COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk (SEAL) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A MOTION TO INTERVENE AND AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND/OR THE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN ITS DEFENSE OF THE STAGE 2 JET BAN BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ("FAA"). OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners consider directing the County Attorney to file a Motion to Intervene and an amicus curiae brief and/or the approval of a Resolution in Support of the City of Naples Airport Authority in its defense of the Stage 2 Jet Ban before the FAA. CONSIDERATIONS: On April 3, 2003, the County received a request from the City of Naples Airport Authority to present for discussion under the Public Petition portion of the April 8, 2003 Board of County Commissioners Meeting the subject of the Stage 2 Jet Ban and the County filing of an amicus curiae brief in support of the City of Naples Airport Authority in its defense of the Stage 2 Jet Ban before the FAA. After hearing from the petitioner under the add-on Item No. 6A at the April 8, 2003 Board of County Commissioners Meeting, the Board determined to hold a special meeting to take place immediately prior to the Board Workshop that is scheduled for 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 15, 2003 to consider a request by the City of Naples Airport Authority for Collier County to support the Airport Authority's defense of its Stage 2 jet Ban through the filing of an amicus curiae brief with the FAA and/or adoption of a Resolution of Support. ' ~ FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of a Resolution creates no direct fiscal impact; alternatively, Board direction to the County Attorney to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the City of Naples Airport Authority in this matter will require significant allocations of attomey time. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board consider the City of Naples Airport Authority's request for the County (through the County Attorney) to file a Motion to Intervene and subsequently an amicus curiae brief in support of the Stage 2 Jet Ban at the City of Naples Airport and/or the adoption of a Resolution of Support of the City of Naples Airport Authority in its defense of the Stage 2 Jet Ban before the FAA. PREPARED BY: David C. Weigel, County Atto~ey h:/Public/David/Exec Sum/reso re naples airport auth.stage 2 ban.faa.IM0803 DATE: RESOLUTION NO. 2003 - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD DRAFT OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN ITS DEFENSE OF THE STAGE 2 JET BAN BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ("FAA"). WHEREAS, on April 3, 2003, Collier County received a request from the City of Naples Airport Authority to present for discussion under the Public Pedtion portion of the April 8, 2003 Board of County Commissioners Meeting the subject of thc City of Naples Airport Authority's Stage 2 Jet Ban and request of Collier County to file an amicus curiae brief supporting thc City of Naples Airport Authority with the FAA; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard from the petitioner under the add-on Item No. (iA at the April 8, 2003 Board of County Commissioners Meeting; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners determined to hold a special meeting to occur immediately prior to the Board Workshop that is scheduled for 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, April 15, 2003 to consider a request by thc City of Naples Airport Authority for Collier County to support the Airport Authority's defense of its Stage 2 Jet Ban through the filing of an amicus curiae brief with the FAA and/or adoption of a Resolution of Support; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners after having heard discussion considering supporting the City of Naples Airport Authority in its defense of the Stage 2 Jet Ban has determined that it agrees with the position of the City of Naples Airport Authority, that this matter is of great importance, and a Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners in support of the Stage 2 Jet Ban and the premises for such ban as stated by the City of Naples Airport Authority is appropriate. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board agrees with the position of the City of Naples Airport Authority, that this matter is of great importance, and that the County supports the City of Naples Airport Authority in its defense of the Stage 2 jet Ban and that it strongly urges the FAA to respect the 6oncems of this community. This Resolution approved and duly executed this day of ,2003. ATYEST: Dwight E. Brock, CLERK By: DEPUTY CLERK Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLt .I'~R C0~~R~A : APR 15 2003 BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, P.A. Attorneys at Law 4001T~i~mi Tra] Norm Su~ 250 Na~h% FL 341034555 Phon~: 239-262-8000 Fax: 239-262-6~8 l~.d, Schoe~ & IC~ PLLC A/bnny, NY Buffs!n, NY Oswego. NY Utica. NY Syracuse, NY Overland Park, KS IIII VIA TELEFAX: 774-0225 April 3, 2003 David Weigel, Esq. County Attorney Collier County Attorney's Office 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Re: Assistance in Defense of the Stage 2 Ban at Naples Municipal Airport Dear David: The City of Naples Airport Authority has been challenged by the FAA to rescind its ban on Stage 2 jets at the Naples Airportl We are seeking the support of Collier County in our defense of the ban and ask that the County Commission consider filing an amicus curiae brief with the FAA. This brief must be filed on or prior to April 21, 2003. Pursuant to your suggestion, the Airport Executive Director, Ted Soliday, is contacting the County Manager, James Mudd, to see if this matter could be an "add on item" to the County Commission agenda for Tuesday, April 8th. I include with this letter a briefing paper prepared by our co-counsel, which should supply the Commission with sufficient background to consider this request. Thank you for your guidance in this matter, I am Sincerely yours, BOND,~>I~OE~CK & KING, P.A. F. Joseph McMackin II1 Telephone: 239.262.8000 Ext. 161 E-mail: jmcmackin~bsk.com FJM:jch cc: Mr. Theodore D. Soliday Hon. Peter G. Eschauzier Hon. Alice Carlson Hon. Peter L. Manion Hon. Erie West Hon. Richard Cobb Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. Enclosure 162262.1 413/2003 COLLIER COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE April 4, 2003 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA 34112 (941) 774-8383 FAX (941) 774-4010 Mr. Theodore D. Soliday, Airport Director Naples Airport Authority 160 Aviation Ddve North Naples, FL 34104 Re: Public Petition Request to Discuss Support of the Stage 2 Ban Dear Mr. $oliday: Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of Commissioners at the meeting of April 8, 2003, regarding the above referenced subject. Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes. Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting. However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the Board's discretion. Therefoi'e, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting. The meeting Will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members. If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, James V. Mudd County Manager JVM/jb cc: David Weigel, County A'~tomey NO f'l I APR 1 :~ ~u03 ~ Briefing Paper Page 1 of 1 mudd..j From: Ted Soliday [tsoliday@flynaples.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:05 PM To: Karen Tullo; Subject: FVV: Bdefing Paper Col. James Mudd, As per our telephone conversation, we would appreciate being added to the Public Petition section of the Tuesday, April 8, 2003 County Commission Agenda. The interest of the City of Naples Airport Authority is to request that the County Commission consider supporting our defense of the Stage 2 ban by filing an amicus curiae bdef with the FAA (FAA Docket No. 16-01-15)i Attached is a Briefing Paper that will assist you and the Commissioners in understanding some of our challenges and we are prepared to work with County Counsel in preparing your submittal. Thank you for your assistance. Ted Soliday Executive Director Peter& Kirsch Akin Gump - Denver Office The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 4/4/2003 BRIEFING PAPER Naples Municipal Airport Ban on Stage 2 Jet Operations Procedural Background In November 2000, the City of Naples Airport Authority adopted a ban on operations at the Naples Municipal Airport by Stage 2 jets. The ban went into effect on January 1, 2001. The ban was adopted upon completion of a study pursuant to Part 161 of the FAA regulations (known as a Part 161 Study). The Airport Authority previously had prepared several Part 150 studies and implemented numerous noise abatement and mitigation measures, including a ban on operations by Stage 1 jets. After the Part 161 Study was completed and immediately before the Stage 2 Ban was to go into effect, the FAA initiated an administrative enforcement action against the Airport Authority, claiming that there were defects in the Part 161 Study. In response, the Airport Authority revised its study to include additional information specifically requested by the FAA. In October 2001, the FAA found that the study complied fully with the requirements of Part 161. Enforcement of the ban on Stage 2 jets was suspended during the time that the Airport Authority was preparing and circulating its supplemental study. The ban has been fully enforced since March 2002. The Airport Authority also issued temporary waivers for operators who showed that they were attempting to come into compliance with the ban; the waiver program ended on December 31, 2002. The Stage 2 ban has been the subject of several legal challenges. As mentioned, the FAA initiated an administrative enforcement Page 1 action but subsequently concluded that the Part 161 Study fully complied with FAA regulations. The National Bus/ness Aviation Association, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association and an airport user all sued the Airport Authority in federal court alleging that that Stage 2 ban violated the U.S. Constitution. In September 2001, the federal district court upheld the ban and concluded that it is constitutional. Another owner of a Stage 2 aircraft challenged the ban in state court in 2002, claiming that the ban was illegal under Florida state law. The state court also upheld the Stage 2 ban under state law. An appeal of that decision is pending. Despite its own decision on the adequacy of the Part'16L Study and the federal court decision on the constitutionality of the Stage 2 ban, in October 2001 the FAA initiated an administrative proceeding to terminate the Airport Authority's eligibility for federal grants. At the time, the FAA said that its prior decision on the adequacy of the Part 161 Study was immaterial, that it was not bound by the federal court decision, and that it had the right, pursuant to the Airport Authority's grant agreements, to decide whether the role violated federal law. Federal regulations set a deadline of April 2002 for the FAA to complete its investigation and issue a preliminary decision on whether the Airport Authority was violating the terms of its grant agreements. The FAA issued its decision .on March 10, 2003. The FAA decision only addresses the question of the Airport Authority's eligibility to receive federal grants and only addresses the FAA's interpretation of the Airport ,4uthority 's obligations under its grant agreements. (The decision does not affect PFC eligibility.) If the FAA's preliminary decision is upheld through agency appeals and in court, the Airport Authority will no longer be able to receive federal grants. The decision does not affect the legality of the Stage 2 ban under federal or state law or the U.S. Constitution. The FAA's Preliminary Decision (Director's Determination) The FAA issued a Director's Determination on March 10 which found that the Stage 2 ban (a) violates the Airport Authority's grant obligation to make the airport available to the public on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination and (b) is preempted by federal law. The FAA used its 94-page opinion to enunciate numerous, new statements of policy that attacked the Stage 2 Ban from all angles and that will have implications far beyond the Naples Municipal Airport. Should the decision be upheld through the appellate process, it would fundamentally change the way in which airports in the Unimd States address noise problems. In some instances, these policy statements provide interpretations of federal law and regulation that directly contradict court decisions and in other instances are the first-ever interpretation of federal law and policy on noise issues. · Effect of Part 161. At least with respect to proposed resthctions on Stage 2 aircraft, compliance with Part 161 and the Airport Noise and Capacity Act is merely procedural; the statute and regulation do not provide any independent authority for adoption of a noise restriction. Compliance with those requirements does not assure compliance with other federal laws. (pp. 21, 25) * National Implications of Noise Rules When evaluating the legality .of a noise restriction, the FAA is "required to consider" Page 2 the precedential effect of the restriction on the entire national air transportation system, not only the effect of the restriction on the particular airport. The national implications that the FAA will consider include the possibility that other airports would adopt similar restrictions and the cumulative effect of such future restrictions at other airports. (p. 4) · Grant Assurances are Different from Federal Law The standards for compliance with grant assurances are merely "similar" but not identical to the standards under the U.S. c<Jnstitufion for what constitutes a valid noise restriction. (p. 34) · ,4n ~lirport Proprietor Must be Liable The legal basis for any local noise rule is the proprietors exception to federal preemption. That exception is based exclusively on an airport proprietor's liability for excessive noise. (p. 42) · Liability is Presumed Within the 65 dB CNL Contour It is reasonable to presume that an airport proprietor is liable for noise in excess of 65 dB DNL. There is not the same presumption outside that contour. (pp. 45- 46) · There must be Credible and Identifiable Threats of Liabili~. In order for a noise restriction that .benefits areas with noise less than 65 dB DNL to be reasonable, an airport proprietor must present "credible and identifiable threats of liability from property owners." The FAA will evaluate any assertions of potential liability to determine whether they are "credible and identifiable'" (p. 59) · Noise Rules are Measures of Last Resort Airport use restrictions should be "considered only as a last resort when other mitigation measures are inadequate to satisfactorily address the noise problem and a restriction is the only remaining option that could provide noise relief." (p. 55) · Noise Rules Must be Based Upon Land Use Compatibility Standards The requirement in the grant assurances that airports be "available for public use on reasonable conditions" means that any noise restriction must be (a) justified by an existing noncompatible land use problem (def'med by the FAA to be residential property within the 65 dB DNL contour); (b) effective in addressing the problem; (c) reflect a "balanced approach" to addressing the problem that considers both local and federal interests. (p. 56) · ~1 Balanced Approach is Required The requirement that any noise restriction reflect a "balanced approach" is "inherently reasonable" and is based upon national and intematioual standards. (p. 75) · Only DNL Data can be Used Data on noise complaints and data on noise impacts using metrics other than the DNL metric are not valid indicators of noncompatible land use, which is a requirement for a valid noise restriction. (p. 64) Data on single noise events "has never been shown to be of any use in predicting commullity reactions to aircraft noise or in developing compatible land use plans." (p. 68) · ' ~tmbient Noise Levels are Irrelevant An airport cannot consider ambient noise levels when evaluating noise impacts. (p. 71) · There is no Liability or Incompatibility if ~t vigation Easements Exist The sale of an avigation easement means that the property owner has "consented to such noise levels." Any property burdened by an avigation easement is not noise- affected, (p. 77) · Stage Designation is not a Valid Basis for Distinguishing Aircraft It is not appropriate for an airport proprietor to restrict aircraft operations based upon stage designation (e.g., stage 1, 2 or 3). (p. 91) P~e3 Implications of FA,4 Decision in Naples The FAA's decision, if upheld through appeal, would both undermine the value and viability of ANCA and Part 161 and threaten the legal validity of virtually all airport noise roles in effect in the United States today. · Although ANCA and Part 161 plainly distinguish between restrictions on Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft, the FAA suggests this such distinction is essentially and legally meaningless. Following the process outlined in Part 161 for Stage 2 restrictions provides no safe harbor and has no bearing on the reasonableness of a restriction. 'Although FAA has no direct approval authority over Stage 2 restrictions, the FAA can and will use its authority under the grant assurances to challenge Stage 2 restrictions. The FAA is the arbiter of whether any restriction is reasonable. · The FAA will substitute its judgment for the airport proprietor's on the wisdom of particular noise restrictions. While local governments may make evaluations of potential liability, may establish local land use compatibility standards, may make judgments about the costs and benefits of a local noise rule, and the relative value of quiet in the community, the FAA rernain,q the ultimate arbiter of whether any of these decisions was correct. The FAA wil~ consider .the national implications of any local decision and will balance the local needs and policies against national policies in determining the validity of any local noise role. · The standards for reasonableness are so exceedingly, demanding that no noise rule currently proposed or being considered or any noise rule currently in effect can satisfy the tesl: In particular, the requirement that noise rules can be adopted only 'as measures Page 4 of last resort after the airport proprietor has considered and exhausted all other alternatives or combinations of alternatives is' virtually impossible to satisfy. Airports with long-standing noise rules such as John Wayne (SNA), Washington National (DCA); Burbank (BUR); San Diego (SAN), Denver (DEN) and many others are highly vulnerable to legal attack under the standards established in this decision. · For the last 25 years, courts throughout the nation have reviewed airport noise rules - and frequently upheld their validity - based upon a four-part test of constitutionality. An airport noise rule is constitutional if it (a) is designed to address an identified noise problem; (b) is supported by a basic factual examination rather than based on mere speculation; (c) is targeted to carry out a legitimate local goal and (d) is not unduly restrictive of interstate commerce. Dozens of court decisions have explained what each of these terms means. · The FAA's new approach ignores a generation of case law and purports, to establish new and .unprecedented standards that a local noise rule must meet to pass constitutional muster. According to the FAA, in order for a local noise rule to be constitutional, it must pass at least seven tests: (a) it must be based upon the DNL metric, not single-event noise metrics; the airport proprietor must demonstrate "credible and identifiable" threats of liability if it intends to'claim any benefits outside 65 dB DNL (written threats of litigation are insufficient); (c) the proprietor must demonstrate that the applicable local government has not only established standards for significant noise impacts but has also prohibited incompatible land uses within the designated areas; (d) the proprietor must demonstrate that it cannot purchase avigation easements or sound insulate homes, not merely that such actions are inconsistent with local conditions; (e) the airport proprietor must have implemented and exhausted all combinations of noise mitigation measures before it can consider a use restriction; (O the proprietor must demonstrate that the national implications of the rule (and the potential that other airports will adopt similar rules) are not outweighed by the local benefits; (g) the airport proprietor may not rely upon aircraft stage designations as a basis for the rule.- · The FAA may have stripped airport proprietors who have prepared Noise Exposure Maps of any power to impose noise rules. Under federal law, airports with Noise Exposure Maps are effectively insulated from liability, except in limited circumstances. If liability is the sole basis for imposing noise rules, then any airport proprietor with such a valid defense to liability would be ,without authority to impose a noise rule. By asserting that it is presumed that airport proprietors axe liable for noise in excess of 65 dB DNL, the FAA may have opened the door to a massive increase in lawsuits for airport noise damages. For further information on the Naples case, contact: Theodore D. Soliday, Airport Director Naples Airport Authority (239) 643 0733 tsoliday(~flynaples.com Peter J. Kirsch, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS H~UE~ &'FELD, LLP Special Counsel (303) 825 7000 pkirsch~.~kingump, eom For a copy of the FAA decision, go to: www.airportlawyers.com and click on News link AKIN' GUMP STRAUSS HAUER Attorneys at Law & F E L Dt.].v NAPLES NRPORT AUTHORITY Page 5