"Minneapolis airport noise deal irks Senator"

Thursday, July 31, 2003

Airport noise deal irks Dayton
By Dan Wascoe Jr. and Greg Gordon
The Minneapolis (MN) Star Tribune


Minnesota officials reacted with anger and caution Wednesday to a proposed
restriction on federal funds that could limit additional jet-noise
insulation in houses near Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

The anger came from U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who said his chief of
staff, Sarah Dahlin, had been told by a government-affairs employee of
Northwest Airlines (NWA) that Northwest helped put the proposed restrictions
before a House-Senate conference committee. Dahlin confirmed that account.

Northwest declined to comment.

The caution came from officials of the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
They said that the proposed restriction might not have much effect on the
agency's future noise-insulation program but that they would like Congress
to clarify which funds can and can't be used.

The conference committee was working on a bill providing funds for the
Federal Aviation Administration. Part of the debate centered on whether
air-traffic control should be turned over to private companies. The new
language restricting federal funds for expanded noise mitigation was added
without having been debated in the House or the Senate.

The new language would forbid agencies such as the Airports Commission from
using federal airport grants to insulate homes exposed to noise less than an
average of 65 decibels. The commission has been insulating houses exposed to
65 or more decibels since the early 1990s. In 1996 it also agreed to
eventually provide some degree of noise mitigation to houses exposed to an
average of 60 to 64 decibels.

Dayton said he was "enraged" at what he called a "back-door attempt" by
Northwest to keep the commission from expanding its $208 million
noise-insulation program to additional neighborhoods. He said the amendment
appeared directed at Minnesota because few if any other airport agencies are
planning to insulate houses below the 65-decibel threshold.

He alleged that Northwest persuaded someone -- "reportedly Sen. Trent Lott,"
a Mississippi Republican -- to insert the mitigation limits in the
conference committee report. Lott's office did not return several calls
Wednesday.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., a member of the conference
committee, "was never consulted" on the noise-mitigation amendment, said his
press secretary, Mary Kerr. She said he regarded the amendment as "an
out-of-scope item," one not acted on previously by either house. She also
said he considered the addition "not conducive to good lawmaking."

Dayton said that Democratic senators on the conference committee declined to
endorse the revised bill and that he hoped to enlist other senators,
including Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., to return the measure to the
committee.

Dayton said Northwest lobbyists used "the most devious means I've
encountered since I have arrived in Washington" in January 2001.

He called the episode "exhibit A for a unicameral Congress and the
elimination of conference committees."

The conference committee report appears unlikely to get final consideration
from either the House or Senate until after their August recess.

While Dayton was fuming, however, Vicki Grunseth, chairwoman of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission, was more temperate.

"I don't view this as a crisis" for the noise-insulation program, she said.

Under the amendment, the proposed prohibition on federal funds for expanded
noise mitigation would apply only from 2004 to 2007, she said. Meanwhile,
the commission has delayed revising its noise-insulation plan, which will
redefine areas that are eligible for insulation. Proposed noise contours --
map lines that illustrate different noise-exposure levels -- are not
expected until late summer or early fall, and commission approval might not
come until early next year.

After that, Grunseth said, the FAA is unlikely to act on the commission's
updated plan until late 2004 or early 2005. At that point, she said, the
commission might be able to use its own resources -- passenger ticket
surcharges and concessions revenue, for example -- to begin insulating the
houses subject to the loudest noise.

Tom Anderson, the commission's attorney, said his "narrow reading" of the
federal restriction suggests that the agency could use funds other than
federal airport grants for noise insulation. Even so, he said, he would like
to see a discussion by Congress or statements by the bill's managers to make
their intent clear.

"With [the amendment] coming in so quickly, we didn't have a chance to ask
questions," he said.

Grunseth said that if the limit applies only to federal grants, its effect
on the commission's insulation plans "would be fairly minimal."

She also said that at a time when federal funds are much in demand for
airport security projects, extending noise insulation to less noisy areas
might "fall pretty low on the priority list."

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************